Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / April 2010

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

CNN:  Woman goes raw, loses more than half herself

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Linda - 27 Sep 2008 15:19 GMT
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/weightloss.angela.stokes/
index.html?iref=mpstoryview (pictures and video on web site)

Woman goes raw, loses more than half herself

Story Highlights

* Angela Stokes, 30, was miserable, unhealthy, weighed 300 pounds
* She began a raw vegan diet after reading a book about its health benefits
* Stokes lost 160 pounds in two years, improving her emotional, physical
health
* She now weighs 138 pounds and has written several books on "raw foodism"

By Jackie Adams
CNN

(CNN) -- Angela Stokes had never been overweight as a child.

But she steadily started gaining weight as a teenager because of an
under-active thyroid gland. By the time she graduated from college her
weight had ballooned and she wore a U.K. dress size 26-28.

"I was 300 pounds, very unwell, very miserable," recalls Stokes. "I ate
junk food all the time. I was very closed down emotionally. I had no
interest in dieting; I just wanted to eat all the time ... that was like my
comfort in life."

At the time, she says she was so "emotionally shut down" she refused to
talk to anyone about what was happening. The weight was also taking a
physical toll on her health and she frequently battled infections and
illness.

Stokes says living her everyday life became a challenge.

"My mobility was quite restricted ... I was unwilling to participate in
things from cutting my toenails to going on a walk with my friends,"
remembered Stokes. "I tried to give this impression that I felt fine about
everything, but inside I was in a lot of pain a lot of the time."

Two summers after she reached her heaviest weight, Stokes was working at a
greenhouse in Iceland, when a friend lent her a copy of a book about the
health benefits of eating raw foods. Stokes, who had never been interested
in diets, says she was completely "absorbed" by the approach.

She started eating raw the very next day.

"Everything in my life completely shifted. It was like a light bulb moment
to be like ... 'this is what I was waiting for to reclaim my health,' "
said Stokes.

She went cold turkey or "cold cucumber," as Stokes often jokes. She stopped
eating meat, animal products and processed foods and instead switched to a
diet that consisted of uncooked and unprocessed vegetables, fruits, nuts
and seeds.

"To me, the thing with raw food is that it just makes sense. It's simple
and natural, eating food straight from the earth. There's no rocket
science, no mystery," said Stokes. "Once you understand the simple
principal that no other animal in the wild eats cooked or processed foods.
That's it."

The raw food diet completely transformed her life, she says. Within the
first month of going raw, she had her first boyfriend in more than five
years. In just two years, she had lost 160 pounds and has experienced
dramatic improvements emotionally, physically and socially and is "happier
than I've ever been."

Andrea Giancoli, a registered dietitian and spokeswoman for the American
Dietetic Association, says everyone could stand to eat more fruits and
vegetables.

"We all need to be moving towards a more plant-based diet," Giancoli said.
"There are more pitfalls to a typical American diet with all of the
processed foods and focus on meat than there are to a plant-based diet."

Is it healthier to eat uncooked vegetables? Not necessarily.

"The raw diet, specifically, the philosophy behind it is scientifically
incorrect," Giancoli said. "Raw foodists believe that cooking food destroys
enzymes that are essential for the body. While that's true, so does the
gastric acid or juice in your stomach.

"So those enzymes are broken down anyway in your gastro-intestinal tract."

Giancoli believes there's a nutritional downside to a vegetarian diet.
People who eat no animal foods run the risk of nutritional deficiencies
such as a lack of vitamin B-12, iron and zinc and the powerful Omega-3
fatty acids found in fish, she said.

Giancoli recommends people meet with a dietitian to develop a balanced
eating plan before they embark on a raw food diet.

Stokes, who now weighs 138 pounds, has kept the weight off for four years
and authored several books on "raw foodism" lifestyle.

What tips does she have for people considering a raw vegan lifestyle?
First, start slowly.

"I recommend people start out being at least 50 percent raw and go from
there," advises Stokes. "Maybe it ends up at some point you are completely
raw, maybe not. As long as the majority of the stuff or at least 50 percent
is fresh raw food ... then you're tipping the balance in your favor."

Stokes also advises people to start eating things they like such as
peaches, plums or spinach and then slowly incorporate more fresh raw foods.
She admits the lifestyle can be socially challenging and she encourages
people to connect with other "raw foodists."

"It's great to get support. If you look on the Internet and around you, you
may find pot lucks," said Stokes. "Read books to inspire you to keep going
on this journey."
DB - 27 Sep 2008 16:20 GMT
"Linda" <linda@not4eamil.com> wrote in

> Stokes also advises people to start eating things they like such as
> peaches, plums or spinach and then slowly incorporate more fresh raw
> foods.
> She admits the lifestyle can be socially challenging and she encourages
> people to connect with other "raw foodists."

Why do people think they have to go to such extremes, just eat real food and
stay away from the packaged garbage!!!!!
Rudy Canoza - 27 Sep 2008 17:28 GMT
> "Linda" <linda@not4eamil.com> wrote in
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Why do people think they have to go to such extremes, just eat real food and
> stay away from the packaged garbage!!!!!

Exactly.  There is no great mystery to weight loss:  consume fewer
calories than you expend.  You can do that by some combination of
reduction of caloric intake and increase in exercise.  It just isn't
that hard.  People who weigh twice what they should, as this woman
apparently did, do *not* get to that state due to some "hormone" issue
or having the "wrong body type".  They get there because they eat TOO
MUCH f.cking FOOD, and they don't get off their lard a.ses enough.  My
wife packed on a bunch of weight /after/ the baby was born, and
eventually she got disgusted with herself.  She joined Curves, started
watching her portions - continued to eat everything she ate before, just
less of it - and she lost 50 pounds (circa 23kg) in about 18 months, and
she has kept it off.

The blowpig in this story didn't lose weight because of eating a "raw"
diet; that claim is bullshit.
DB - 28 Sep 2008 21:42 GMT
>> "Linda" <linda@not4eamil.com> wrote in
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> did, do *not* get to that state due to some "hormone" issue or having the
> "wrong body type".

I agree, people tend to pass on the blame other than themselves!
Getting of the couch is just too hard for them.

> The blowpig in this story didn't lose weight because of eating a "raw"
> diet; that claim is bullshit.

She was starving herself, there's no need for that!!!!!!!!!1
Seth - 29 Sep 2008 21:23 GMT
>The blowpig in this story didn't lose weight because of eating a "raw"
>diet; that claim is bullshit.

It's true.

Raw food is relatively low-calorie (can you imagine eating 200
calories of celery)?  And since it doesn't taste good, you're less
likely to overeat.

Seth
Signature

"There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate" -- Will Brink
Except sushi rice, seaweed, and wasabi.

pearl - 29 Sep 2008 21:35 GMT
> Raw food is relatively low-calorie (can you imagine eating 200
> calories of celery)?  And since it doesn't taste good, you're less
> likely to overeat.

This sounds delicious...

'Celery Slaw & Dressing

by Dr. Douglas Graham

Ingredients

1 large bunch of celery
2 red bell peppers
3 or 4 tomatoes
4 oz fresh walnuts

Instructions

1. Grate the celery and peppers and place in bowl.

2. Blend the tomatoes and walnuts and use as dressing.

*** http://www.living-foods.com/recipes/ ***
The Master - 29 Sep 2008 21:41 GMT
> Raw food is relatively low-calorie (can you imagine eating 200
> calories of celery)?  And since it doesn't taste good, you're less
> likely to overeat.

And that's why I can't imagine anyone WANTING to eat 200 calories of
celery...
pearl - 29 Sep 2008 21:49 GMT
> > Raw food is relatively low-calorie (can you imagine eating 200
> > calories of celery)?  And since it doesn't taste good, you're less
> > likely to overeat.
>
> And that's why I can't imagine anyone WANTING to eat 200 calories of
> celery...

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is
leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the
greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known
and unknown nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
animal-based food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/6.28.01/China_Study_II.html
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 06:30 GMT
>> The blowpig in this story didn't lose weight because of eating a "raw"
>> diet; that claim is bullshit.
>
> It's true.

It's bullshit.
dh@. - 29 Sep 2008 12:04 GMT
>"Linda" <linda@not4eamil.com> wrote in
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Why do people think they have to go to such extremes,

   There are several different reasons and ideas going on here.

1. The objective - to lose weight. But. As the person loses weight,
supposedly, other things become significant aspects and
considerations.

2. The method - Raw or not, you and Goobernicus have a good
point that the main thing is to burn more than you consume. To
what extent is what matters. How exactly, determines the extent.
Why to choose different methods becomes less significant to the
outcome but still can be significant to the person. Maybe people
like the raw thing as an adventure or something. Grazing and
foraging satisfies some of their instincts. I feel confident that
women like shopping because it satisfies their gathering instincts,
and men like sports...

3. The ethics - is this person suggesting raw fish? It seems
like "vegan" got thrown in there somewhere along the way.
People don't become vegan for health reasons at all. That
involves not using animal products of any kind when possible,
which isn't something a person would do to lose weight. But.
 · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules,  Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

   The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
   From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

>just eat real food and stay away from the packaged garbage!!!!!

   I wouldn't even matter about that if a person pays attention.
Rudy Canoza - 29 Sep 2008 16:40 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>> "Linda" <linda@not4eamil.com> wrote in
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>     There are several different reasons and ideas going on here.

We don't take analysis from a stupid pig-f.cking cracker like you, Goo.
dh@. - 30 Sep 2008 13:13 GMT
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 Goo wrote:

>>>"Linda" <linda@not4eamil.com> wrote in
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
>
>We don't take analysis

   You just can't think things through, Goo. Any time something
suggests that the elimination objective might not be the most
ethical possible approach Goob, your cognitive dissonance kicks
in and tries to refute or deny the information preventing you from
thinking it through.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 16:16 GMT
Wrong, Goo.  You tried this before, Goo, and I kicked it up your cracker
a.s.  I don't think that "pre-existence prevents" anything, Goo.  Goo,
you stupid cracker.  Try something new.

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 Rudy f. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>     You just can't think things through

I can and do, Goo.  I show that you cannot.  Goo.
Hoots - 01 Oct 2008 12:02 GMT
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 Goo wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
> in and tries to refute or deny the information preventing you from
> thinking it through.

Wait, wait wait...

I'm trying to get this straight.

Rudy is Goo or Goob and he has dissonance, right?

And you are the Cork person, right?

I need a scorecard here or something.
dh@. - 01 Oct 2008 17:07 GMT
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 Goo wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
>>>> (and death) for farm animals
. . .

>>> We don't take analysis
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Rudy is Goo or Goob

   Correct. Keep in mind that there really is no "Rudy", or "Ted",
or "Lief", or "Dieter", or "Abner", or "Roger", or "Jay", etc... They
are all the same individual best referred to as Goobernicus, or any
variation on the name.

>and he has dissonance, right?

   Goo feels very strongly that:

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first
place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo

Whenever something conflicts with his beliefs it causes
cognitive dissonance. It's common for everyone who advocates
the elimination objective which hides beneath the gross misnomer
"animal rights", to experience cognitive dissonance whenever
someone suggests considering lives of positive value for livestock,
and with Goo in particular that branches out to include the lives of
everything that ever lived. The Goober insists that something to do
with our pre-existent "selves" prevents us from benefitting from our
own existence, but he has never been able to say exactly how he
thinks they prevent it.

>And you are the Cork person, right?

   I point out things that Goo and eliminationists in general don't
want to see pointed out. I point out that many livestock benefit
from lives of positive value, which conflicts with what eliminationists
want people to believe because it suggests that providing decent
animal welfare could be ethically equivalent or superior to eliminating
domestic animals, livestock included. AW and the misnomer are
completely different and opposing ideas, though misnomer advocates
do exploit AW situations in order to obtain funding for their attempts
to eliminate the very animals they pretend to be interested in trying
to provide decent lives for. Their end goal is to eliminate them, not
provide them with rights or anything else.

>I need a scorecard here or something.

   Any time you challenge Goo to try explaining why he thinks he
doesn't benefit from life without referring to "Him" (his pre-existent
"self"), he will fail completely. You can rack up the points with that
one, and several others btw.
Rudy Canoza - 27 Sep 2008 17:32 GMT
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/weightloss.angela.stokes/
> index.html?iref=mpstoryview (pictures and video on web site)
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> But she steadily started gaining weight as a teenager because of an
> under-active thyroid gland.

BULLSHIT.  It seems almost every hugely obese fat slob claims to have
some "gland" problem, or the "wrong body type", or some other BULLSHIT
excuse.

The *fact* is, they're just lazy goddamned f.cking gluttons.  Their
defect is a *character* defect, not a physical one.  A secondary defect,
and the one that means they usually can't sustain a weight loss, is that
they're childish excuse makers - it's the glands, or the body type, or
the food manufacturers, or some other thing other than their own
gluttony and lack of willpower.  The fact is, most of them just don't
care if they're corpulent slobs or not.
The Master - 29 Sep 2008 15:14 GMT
> The *fact* is, they're just lazy goddamned f.cking gluttons.

How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?  Ever been fat yourself, only to then
take on a "typical" active lifestyle, and watch the pounds melt off so
simply it was insane?  No?  Then why do you feel the need to talk out of
your a.s on this?  Oh, I know...  Never mind...
Rudy Canoza - 29 Sep 2008 16:51 GMT
>> The *fact* is, they're just lazy goddamned f.cking gluttons.
>
> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?

Because I've been around enough of them, and I've observed them.

> Ever been fat yourself,

No, of course not, stupid.  I have always taken pride in my appearance,
always wanted to be healthy, and so I never adopted - because that's
what it is - a "lifestyle" that would cause me to become obese.  In
fact, I weigh about seven pounds more today than I did when I graduated
high school nearly 40 years ago, and it's almost all muscle, from going
to the gym three days a week.

Why do you make excuses for bad character and bad choices, shitbag?
The Master - 29 Sep 2008 18:10 GMT
>> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?
>
> Because I've been around enough of them, and I've observed them.

Fantastic...  I've been around electrical engineers, and observed them.  I
must now know all there is to know about designing fancy electrical
crap...

>> Ever been fat yourself,
>
> No, of course not, stupid.

Then how the f.ck would you know, a.shole?  Fact is, you don't...  You
are, however, so self centered and egotistical, that you think you know
best, that you know what is wrong with everyone and it's so simple to fix
themself so they are just like you...

Arrogant puke...
Rudy Canoza - 29 Sep 2008 20:02 GMT
On Sep 29, 10:10 am, The Master
<tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:
> >> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> must now know all there is to know about designing fancy electrical
> crap...

Invalid comparison, fattie.  Of course, you knew that even before you
wrote it.

> >> Ever been fat yourself,
>
> > No, of course not, stupid.
>
> Then how the f.ck would you know, a.shole?  Fact is, you don't...  

The fact is, fatso, I *DO* know.  We *all* know that the vast majority
of blowpigs are not that way because of some medical "problem".
They're the way they are because of a character problem.
The Master - 29 Sep 2008 20:35 GMT
>>>> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Invalid comparison, fattie.

Yes valid, dipshit...

You: "I saw a fat person eat something while sitting down, it must mean
that all fat people are lazy pigs"

>>>> Ever been fat yourself,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> The fact is, fatso, I *DO* know.

Sure you do...  *rolling eyes*

"All fat people have to do is eat less, it's so simple"

So...  The fact that only 10% of all dieters can keep off a 5% weight loss
for 5 years has nothing to do with the "eating less" part being a
drasticly over simplification to a much more complex situation.  Never
crossed your mind, did it?
dh@. - 29 Sep 2008 18:53 GMT
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Goo claimed:
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>drasticly over simplification to a much more complex situation.  Never
>crossed your mind, did it?

   The Goober is extremely shallow, and the simplest of details
leave him ranting in bewildered frustration. Come to think of it
pretty much everything reduces Goo to a howling idiot. Goo is
best known for his dishonesty, followed by his tendency to
make absurd claims he can't even begin to back up. For
example the Goober insists that something to do with his
pre-existent self which we refer to as "Him" or "He" is somehow
preventing Goob from benefitting from his own existence. Goo
has yet to explain exactly *how* he thinks "He" is doing it, but
he feels certain that "He" is. If you can get the Goober to try
explaining what he thinks he thinks about this, you'll see what
I mean. It's getting more and more difficult to get him to make
the effort because he continues to fail every time he makes
the attempt, but he still makes the claim none the less. Here
are some examples:

"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was before." - Goo

"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
with never existing." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
"decent lives"" - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - Goo

"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo

No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
never existing." - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo

"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them:  it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way.  It can't be." - Goo

"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans " - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo

"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Goo

"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
to them" - Goo

""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo

"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Goo

Goo has a claim without a clue. He makes the claim
time after time, yet can never explain *how* he thinks
it can actually be the case without referring to "Him"
or to "Them". The Goober has no clue *how* he thinks
it works, and he will prove that every time he's challenged
to try doing so. It's fun and the outcome is dependable
when you challenge Goo on this.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 06:26 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>>>>>> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?
>>>>> Because I've been around enough of them, and I've observed them.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>> Invalid comparison, fattie.
>> Yes valid,

Invalid.

>>>>>> Ever been fat yourself,
>>>>> No, of course not, stupid.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
>> "All fat people have to do is eat less, it's so simple"

Not what anyone said.

>     Rudy is extremely

Coming into existence is not a "benefit", Fuckwit, you stupid
pig-f.cking cracker.
Hoots - 30 Sep 2008 10:23 GMT
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Goo claimed:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 105 lines]
> to try doing so. It's fun and the outcome is dependable
> when you challenge Goo on this.

Who's Goo?
dh@. - 30 Sep 2008 14:58 GMT
>dh@. explained:
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>> benefits from coming into existence." - Goo
. . .

>> ""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Who's Goo?

   He is the most dishonest person I've ever encountered
for one thing. Goo has dishonestly posted as and pretended
to be all of the following "different people" and more:

Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
silvia@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de"
<prickerbush2004@yahoo.com>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notgenx32@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.steakhouse@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza
Trappist
sb292sb@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
Eden
Sylvia Stevens
chico chupacabra

Recently the Goober has been posting as "Rudy Canoza"
most of the time, it appears. Since Goo was dishonestly
pretending to be so many different people--praising and
congratulating himselves frequently--there needed to be
one name to identify that same Goober regardless of who
all he was pretending to be. Being a moron who considers
himself a genius he was dubbed Goobernicus years ago
...Goobernicus Gonad in full out of recognition for the first
person Goo pretended to be: Jonathan Ball. Instead of
rewarding his dishonesty by calling him Wilson in one
thread, Dieter in another, Ted in another, Jay in another,
Rudy in another, Leif in another, etc...and quite frequently
as more than one of himselves in the same thread, it has
become much more efficient and also realistic to refer
to him as one individual instead of as many. Hence
Goobernicus, Goo, the Goober, Goob, etc. Gonad
identifies Goo as well.

   Now that you know who Goo is, I invite you to
challenge the Goober to try explaining what he thinks
prevents him from benefitting from his own life without
referring to "Him" (his pre-existent "self"). It's fun, and
the outcome is guaranteed:

The challenge will defeat him.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 19:50 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>
>>> Rudy is a genious
>> Who's Rudy?
>
>     He is

A genius.

>     Now that you know who Rudy is, I invite you to
> challenge him to try explaining what he thinks
> prevents him from benefitting from his own life

No one "benefits" from coming into existence, Goo.  The explanation has
been made many times.  "Getting to experience life" is not a "benefit"
compared with never existing, Goo.  In fact, the comparison is
impossible and absurd, as has been shown.
Hoots - 01 Oct 2008 12:28 GMT
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> compared with never existing, Goo.  In fact, the comparison is
> impossible and absurd, as has been shown.

I'm gonna have to trust you guys on this one...

But, hey, what about that woman who wants to give you a foot massage?
That seems awful tempting, right?
dh@. - 01 Oct 2008 16:13 GMT
>Goo lied:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>I'm gonna have to trust you guys on this one...

   Goo just makes the claim, but he can't back it up. Challenge him to
explain without referring to "Him" and you'll find out first hand.
Hoots - 02 Oct 2008 11:32 GMT
>> Goo lied:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>     Goo just makes the claim, but he can't back it up. Challenge him to
> explain without referring to "Him" and you'll find out first hand.

Who's "Him"?
dh@. - 05 Oct 2008 18:43 GMT
>>> Goo lied:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>>> compared with never existing, Goo.  In fact, the comparison is
>>>> impossible and absurd, as has been shown.

>>> I'm gonna have to trust you guys on this one...
>>
>>     Goo just makes the claim, but he can't back it up. Challenge him to
>> explain without referring to "Him" and you'll find out first hand.
>
>Who's "Him"?

   Here's the whole thing: A number of years ago I started pointing
out in some of the animal related groups that since animals are not
simply "killed" because humans raise them for food, we should give
their lives as much or more consideration than their deaths. Some
of them have decent lives of positive value and some don't, and
we can't think realistically about whether or not it's cruel *for them*
to be raised for food unless we take it all into consideration. Of
course advocates for the gross misnomer "animal rights"--more
accurately and honestly referred to as "eliminationists" in regards to
domestic animals--are extremely opposed to that idea. They oppose
it because it suggests that some alternative(s) could be ethically
equivalent or superior to their objective to eliminate domestic animals.
In particular it suggests that decent animal welfare could be ethically
superior to the misnomer.

   In his maniacal obsession to oppose the suggestion that people
actually consider the animals when considering whether or not it's
cruel to raise them for food, Goob has gone to the extreme of insisting
that no being has ever benefitted from its life. The Goober claims that
he himself doesn't benefit from his own life. Goo can never explain
exactly *how* he thinks we are prevented from benefitting, but he
makes it clear he believes it has something to do with our pre-existent
"selves":

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare" - Goo

"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide:  they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was" - Goo

"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

"Life is not a gain because there *was* no person to
experience the gain" - Goo

"Before being alive, an animal has no well-being to promote.  
THEREFORE, Fuckwit, existence is not benefit to farm animals."
- Goo

"Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them:  it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo

Notice that all of Goo's supposed "arguments" are completely
dependant on assigning some huge significance to the concept
of pre-existence. Out of convenience, and because it's fun, we
can refer to "Him" or "He" when referring to a male's pre-existence,
and "Them" or "They" when referring to a group of individuals'
pre-existences, etc. The Goober makes the claim repeatedly,
and might actually believe it, even though he can never explain
exactly *why* he thinks he doesn't benefit from living because of
some supposed influence by "Him".
Rudy Canoza - 05 Oct 2008 22:10 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> [bullshit]

A figment of your fevered cracker imagination, that's who.
Hoots - 06 Oct 2008 13:30 GMT
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> A figment of your fevered cracker imagination, that's who.

He does like to go on...

Well, I think it's nice he cares about people so much. In this world of
rush, rush, rush, it's refreshing to find someone who will stop and
visit for awhile.
dh@. - 06 Oct 2008 15:10 GMT
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
>> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>He does like to go on...

   It's good typing practice, and good for practicing presenting
information. Also, the only "good" thing about an interaction like
this with a person like Goo, is getting to point out what he's lying
about, etc. If a person is stupid enough to believe the Goober's
lies, that shows something too. By now I have a fairly large
collection of Goo's lies and unsupported absurd claims, which
of course are just a small sample of the deluge of bullshit that
Goo has shared with us over the years.

>Well, I think it's nice he cares about people so much. In this world of
>rush, rush, rush, it's refreshing to find someone who will stop and
>visit for awhile.

   I've been trying to get Goo to explain what he thinks prevents
us from benefitting without referring to our pre-existent "selves" for
years and he can't even make the attempt. He's made the claim
countless times but never tried to back it up. Since we're having
this little visit, why not see if you can get Goo to try explaining any
of a number of claims without referring to "Him" or "Them" (his own
pre-existent self, or the pre-existent selves of all other beings that
have ever lived). Choose any of the following from this sampling of
absurd seeming claims and see if you can get the Goober to explain
what he thinks he's trying to talk about without referring to "Them":

"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
with never existing." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
"decent lives"" - Goo

"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo

No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
never existing." - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing,
for very well documented and tightly logical reasons that
have been explained THOUSANDS of times here, and
that you, of course, cannot refute." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - Goo

"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo

"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them:  it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way.  It can't be." - Goo

"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans " - Goo

"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo

"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Goo

"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
to them" - Goo

""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo

"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Goo

"An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
that entity." - Goo
Rudy Canoza - 06 Oct 2008 17:58 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
>>> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>     It's good typing practice

It's bullshit.

>> Well, I think it's nice he cares about people so much. In this world of
>> rush, rush, rush, it's refreshing to find someone who will stop and
>> visit for awhile.
>
>     I've been trying to get Rudy to explain what he thinks prevents
> us from benefitting without referring to our pre-existent "selves"

No, you haven't.

There's no "Him", Goo.  That's your fabrication - a lie.
dh@. - 07 Oct 2008 16:34 GMT
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 the Goober lied:

>>>Goo lied:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>It's bullshit.

   LOL. I'm *pointing out* bullshit, Goo. I point out the misnomer's
bullshit in general, and your bullshit in particular, Goob. It's what
I do, and lying about it is what you do. Try to keep up at least
with your own self, you lame Goober.

>>If a person is stupid enough to believe the Goober's
>>lies, that shows something too. By now I have a fairly large
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>No, you haven't.

   Yes Goo, I've been challenging you and you've been failing
the challenge for years by now.

>There's no "Him", Goo.  That's your fabrication - a lie.

   Then try explaining what you think prevents you from benefitting
from your life without referring to "Him" Goo. GO!:
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 19:06 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>     LOL. I'm *pointing out* bullshit

No, Goo.  You do *not*, ever, "point out".  You are spouting bullshit,
as always.

>>>    I've been trying to get Rudy to explain what he thinks prevents
>>> us from benefitting without referring to our pre-existent "selves" for
>>> years and he can't even make the attempt.
>> No, you haven't.
>
>     Yes Rudy,

No, Goo.

> I've been challenging you

No, Goo.  You have not, ever, "challenged" me.  You're a stupid,
illiterate, pig-f.cking cracker, Goo.  I'm a highly educated, degreed
"knowledge worker", Goo.  You, Goo, do not challenge me - you could not,
Goo.

>> There's no "Him", Goo.  That's your fabrication - a lie.
>
>     Then try explaining what you think prevents you from benefitting
> from your life without referring to "Him"

No reference, ever, to "Him", Goo.  It's your fabrication, Goo - a lie.
Rudy Canoza - 06 Oct 2008 18:27 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> [cracker bullshit]

No "Him" or "He", Goo.  You made that up.  It's more cracker bullshit.
Hoots - 07 Oct 2008 11:26 GMT
>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
>>> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
[quoted text clipped - 91 lines]
> "An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
> that entity." - Goo

You seem to be pretty focused on one topic there. Any reason why?
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 15:48 GMT
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>> [snip Goo Fuckwit's mangled pseudo-'quotes']
>
> You seem to be pretty focused on one topic there. Any reason why?

Yes, there is.  Goo - that's Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker in the backwoods of Georgia - has been trying to rationalize his
meat-eating to "vegans" and "animal rights activists" for 10 years now.
   For the first six months of those 10 years, he thought he had found
the neatest "trick" to do it.  He wanted to make it out that meat eaters
are "giving life" to livestock - doing them a big favor - and that it
isn't too much sacrifice to ask the animals to die to return the favor.
 There are two big blunders in this.  First, that line of uh, er,
'reasoning' was discredited well over a century ago.  Farmers are not
"doing something nice" for farm animals by breeding them into existence;
it is not a "benefit" to exist rather than never exist.

But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
Animals do not have "rights", and just as the lion does not violate any
"rights" of a gazelle or zebra in killing it, so we do not violate any
in killing the livestock animals we consume.  GooFuckwit has been
approaching this from a nonsense perspective, as you would expect from a
pig-f.cking illiterate cracker in backwoods Georgia.
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 16:37 GMT
> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
> Animals do not have "rights", and just as the lion does not violate any
> "rights" of a gazelle or zebra in killing it, so we do not violate any
> in killing the livestock animals we consume.

The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life
since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores.
Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life...
Humans aren't a naturally carnivorous species, and no amount
of rant and bluster, ball, will change known biological realities.
You're not a lion in any way, shape or form, and you certainly
don't need to feed on animal flesh, in fact it should be avoided.
What's ironic here, is that you're constantly denying non-human
animals even basic minimal conscious awareness, yet if it suits
you try to excuse your (lack of) ethics by appealing to nature.
dh@. - 07 Oct 2008 16:38 GMT
>Goo wrote in message news:Cf-dnbKd2MNT63bVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores.
>Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life...

   You wouldn't exist if humans didn't eat meat. Neither would
the rest of us.

>Humans aren't a naturally carnivorous species, and no amount
>of rant and bluster, ball, will change known biological realities.

    We wouldn't exist if humans didn't eat meat and none of
your ranting can change that reality.

>You're not a lion in any way, shape or form, and you certainly
>don't need to feed on animal flesh, in fact it should be avoided.
>What's ironic here, is that you're constantly denying non-human
>animals even basic minimal conscious awareness,

   That's because by posing as such an idiot he's hoping
to make true misnomer opponents appear to be idiots by
his dishonest supposed association with them.

>yet if it suits you try to excuse your (lack of) ethics by appealing
>to nature.

   No nonhuman predators deliberately provide life for the
animals they eat, nor do they deliberately maintain efficient
population sizes for the area, or try to kill humanely, or avoid
killing young, baby and pregnant animals, etc... They don't
observe hunting seasons, and they don't give their prey a
break by not hunting at night...
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 19:17 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>> Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>     You wouldn't exist if humans didn't eat meat.

False.

>> Humans aren't a naturally carnivorous species, and no amount
>> of rant and bluster will change known biological realities.
>
>      We wouldn't exist if humans didn't eat meat

False.

>> You're not a lion in any way, shape or form, and you certainly
>> don't need to feed on animal flesh, in fact it should be avoided.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>     That's because by posing as such an idiot he's hoping
> to make true misnomer opponents

No, Goo.  I am the "true" opponent of animal "rights".  You're an
irrational, illogical, (il)Logic of the Larder fraud - a total fruitcake.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 16:43 GMT
>> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
>> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores.
> Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life...

Utter bullshit analysis.  First of all, "need" can't justify anything.
Secondly, prey animals don't flee or attempt to flee based on any notion
of "rights".

It is completely incoherent to say that an animal has a "right" to its
life against one species but not another.
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 17:08 GMT
> >> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
> >> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Utter bullshit analysis.  First of all, "need" can't justify anything.

'In English criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for
the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise
unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
or others ..
..
If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person
attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought
was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only
reasonable defensive action had been taken."

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates into English law Article 2
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms which defines the right to life as follows:

"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.
..'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

> Secondly, prey animals don't flee or attempt to flee based on any notion
> of "rights".

Will to live, liberty and happiness, plus self-preserving instinct.

> It is completely incoherent to say that an animal has a "right" to its
> life against one species but not another.

In nature, animals can and do act to defend their lives against
natural threats - it's a fair, healthy system which works well.
What humans have done is remove any possible chance of
evading the 'predator' who from day one used unnatural force,
there's no escaping the metal fences or bars, and the knife.....
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 17:45 GMT
>>>> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
>>>> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
> or others ..

Eating is not self-defense.

You don't know the English criminal law - you're not a lawyer, and
you've never studied law in any capacity.  It's not relevant here.
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 17:53 GMT
> >>>> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
> >>>> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Eating is not self-defense.

Lions must eat other animals in order to preserve the physical
integrity of themselves and others, so have the right to act in a
manner that would be otherwise unlawful - as it is in your case.

> You don't know the English criminal law -

I just posted it.  Now you really should JSTFU, you know.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 18:17 GMT
>>>>>> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
>>>>>> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Lions must eat other animals in order to preserve the physical
> integrity of themselves and others

There is no ethical imperative for them to do that.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 22:58 GMT
>> You don't know the English criminal law -
>
> I just posted it.

You do not know the law at all, and this isn't a legal argument anyway.
 There is no provision of English or any other criminal law that would
allow you to kill another human being in order to eat him, on the
grounds that if you didn't do it you would starve.

You do not know the law.  You know how to massage feet; that's all.
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 23:14 GMT
> >> You don't know the English criminal law -
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> allow you to kill another human being in order to eat him, on the
> grounds that if you didn't do it you would starve.

Eating dead humans is normally considered wrong and gross, but
it's regarded as justifiable when done as a last resort -- to survive.
People kill each other all the time though as an act of 'self-defence'.
Isn't military spending the highest of all?  How much on Iraq now?
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 23:18 GMT
>>>> You don't know the English criminal law -
>>> I just posted it.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Eating dead humans is normally considered wrong and gross, but
> it's regarded as justifiable when done as a last resort -- to survive.

No, bitch.  We're not talking about the *eating*, you dirty lying slut -
we're talking about killing.

It is *NOWHERE* to be found in English law, or the law of any other
western civilized country, that you may kill someone else in order to
eat him, claiming that your "survival" depends on it.

You do not know the law, and you do not know ethics - not a thing about
either one.
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 23:49 GMT
> >>>> You don't know the English criminal law -
> >>> I just posted it.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> No,     We're not talking about the *eating*,  [filth snipped]
> we're talking about killing.

People kill each other all the time though as an act of 'self-defence'.
Isn't military spending the highest of all?  How much on Iraq now?

> It is *NOWHERE* to be found in English law, or the law of any other
> western civilized country, that you may kill someone else in order to
> eat him, claiming that your "survival" depends on it.

Has it EVER happened, that there should exist such a provision?

> You do not know the law, and you do not know ethics - not a thing about
> either one.

You don't know what I do or don't know, you silly clown.
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 00:14 GMT
>>>>>> You don't know the English criminal law -
>>>>> I just posted it.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> People kill each other all the time though as an act of 'self-defence'.

People do not kill each other *to eat one another* and claim that it was
"self defense".

>> It is *NOWHERE* to be found in English law, or the law of any other
>> western civilized country, that you may kill someone else in order to
>> eat him, claiming that your "survival" depends on it.
>
> Has it EVER happened, that there should exist such a provision?

There is no provision for it, contrary to the bullshit you're claiming.
 Killing someone to eat him, in order to avoid starvation, is not self
defense.  Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
he will kill or seriously injure you.  It has to do with a *direct*
threat to your life, not merely your wish to eat.

You're completely full of sh.t on this.  There is *no* provision in
English or any other law code that can in any way be seen as parallel to
a lion's "right" to kill some animal to eat it.

>> You do not know the law, and you do not know ethics - not a thing about
>> either one.
>
> You don't know what I do or don't know

I *KNOW* that you do not know the law, stupid extremist "vegan" twat.
pearl - 08 Oct 2008 01:00 GMT
{<< Note: "obligatory carnivores" should be "obligate carnivores". }

> >>>>>> You don't know the English criminal law -
> >>>>> I just posted it.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> People do not kill each other *to eat one another* and claim that it was
> "self defense".

I didn't say that they did.  You're agreeing that it doesn't happen.

> >> It is *NOWHERE* to be found in English law, or the law of any other
> >> western civilized country, that you may kill someone else in order to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> There is no provision for it, contrary to the bullshit you're claiming.

Why would there be a provision for something that doesn't happen?

>   Killing someone to eat him, in order to avoid starvation, is not self
> defense.

People kill each other all the time though as an act of 'self-defence'.
Isn't military spending the highest of all?  How much on Iraq now?

> Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
> he will kill or seriously injure you.  It has to do with a *direct*
> threat to your life, not merely your wish to eat.

In the lion's case it's a matter of do or die.  Not merely a wish..

<ooze snipped>
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 01:33 GMT
> {<< Note: "obligatory carnivores" should be "obligate carnivores". }

Note:  You're a science-illiterate fuckwit.

>>>>>>>> You don't know the English criminal law -
>>>>>>> I just posted it.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> I didn't say that they did.

Yes, that's exactly what you were trying to suggest the law allowed, in
your futile effort to come up with some "rights"-based analog to a lion
killing its prey in order to eat.

>>>> It is *NOWHERE* to be found in English law, or the law of any other
>>>> western civilized country, that you may kill someone else in order to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Why would there be a provision for something that doesn't happen?

You're the one who suggested it would be legal, based on some imaginary
belief you had about the law.

>>   Killing someone to eat him, in order to avoid starvation, is not self
>> defense.
>
> People kill each other all the time though as an act of 'self-defence'.

Not for food, you stupid c.nt.  You were trying to suggest some analog
with lions killing prey, and you cooked up some steaming load about
self-defense homicide.

>> Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
>> he will kill or seriously injure you.  It has to do with a *direct*
>> threat to your life, not merely your wish to eat.
>
> In the lion's case it's a matter of do or die.

It isn't self defense.  It's just what it does, with no concept of
"rights", either its right to hunt or the prey's right not to be killed.

"Necessity", as you wrongly imagine it, does not create a right.
pearl - 08 Oct 2008 01:47 GMT
..
> >> People do not kill each other *to eat one another* and claim that it was
> >> "self defense".
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> your futile effort to come up with some "rights"-based analog to a lion
> killing its prey in order to eat.

No, no mention by me of humans killing to eat other humans.
That was your mutant deformed monstrous brain-child, ball.

You blabbered: "First of all, "need" can't justify anything."

Now you've admitted  that it can:

"Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
he will kill or seriously injure you.  It has to do with a *direct*
threat to your life, not merely your wish to eat."

See?  As in the lion's case, it's a matter of do or die.

But arguing that lions have no justification for killing..?

Somehow I very much doubt anyone agrees with you..
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 02:52 GMT
> ..
>>>> People do not kill each other *to eat one another* and claim that it was
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> No, no mention by me of humans killing to eat other humans.

You suggested lions killing their prey is analogous to humans killing in
self defense.  You said the law allows for killing in self defense.  I
told you that a lion does not kill its prey as a matter of self defense,
and there is no analogue.

> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
> he will kill or seriously injure you.  It has to do with a *direct*
> threat to your life, not merely your wish to eat."
>
> See?  As in the lion's case, it's a matter of do or die.

*NOT* self defense.

The analogy collapses in a steaming sh.t pile, just as it started.
pearl - 08 Oct 2008 11:50 GMT
> > ..
> >>>> People do not kill each other *to eat one another* and claim that it was
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> told you that a lion does not kill its prey as a matter of self defense,
> and there is no analogue.

Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
or others.  As in the case of self-defence.  Both are justifiable actions.

> > "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> > killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> *NOT* self defense.

It's likewise preservation of physical integrity.  Needs justifies it.
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 15:18 GMT
>>> ..
>>>>>> People do not kill each other *to eat one another* and claim that it was
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
> or others.

*NOT* self defense.

You'll never get it done, bitch.  You'll *never* find some legal
analogue for predators killing prey.

>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> It's likewise preservation of physical integrity.

*NOT* self defense.

You just can't do it.  You can't do it because it's not there.

You cannot coherently explain why a prey animal could have a "right" not
to be killed by humans, but not have such a right relative to non-human
predators.  You'll note, you stupid c.nt, that humans do not lose their
rights with respect to other humans if some humans are moral patients,
so that dodge won't work, either.
pearl - 08 Oct 2008 15:43 GMT
..
> > Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
> > or others.
>
> *NOT* self defense.

Likewise, preservation of physical integrity.  Need justifies both.

> >>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> >>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> *NOT* self defense.

Likewise, preservation of physical integrity.  Need justifies both.

> You just can't do it.  You can't do it because it's not there.

It was done right from the beginning.  Your denial is hilarious.

> You cannot coherently explain why a prey animal could have a "right" not
> to be killed by humans, but not have such a right relative to non-human
> predators.

Already coherently explained that a prey animal in nature has
the right and a fair chance to guard his life against non-human
predators by fighting, fleeing, and other avoidance strategies.
Throw away unnatural weapons, and see how well you fare.
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 15:51 GMT
> ..
>>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Likewise, preservation of physical integrity.  Need justifies both.

"Need" justifies nothing.

You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
relative to non-human predators, but do relative to humans.  "Need"
means nothing.

>> You just can't do it.  You can't do it because it's not there.
>
> It was done right from the beginning.

It's not there.  It never was there.  You bullshitted some garbage about
"self defense", and it was worthless.

>> You cannot coherently explain why a prey animal could have a "right" not
>> to be killed by humans, but not have such a right relative to non-human
>> predators.
>
> Already coherently explained

*NOT* explained at all, not even incoherently.  You can't do it.
pearl - 09 Oct 2008 13:28 GMT
> > ..
> >>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >
> > Likewise, preservation of physical integrity.  Need justifies both.

Now that it's been established that lions have a justifiable right to
kill by virtue of necessity, explain why you believe that you have
the right to take life, as it has to *nothing* do with threat to your
life, merely your wish to eat 'meat'.  How could you justify that?

> >>>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> >>>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> "Need" justifies nothing.

You:

"Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
he will kill or seriously injure you.  It has to do with a *direct*
threat to your life, not merely your wish to eat."

Need to preserve physical integrity (life) justifies even lethal force.

> You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
> explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
> relative to non-human predators, but do relative to humans.  "Need"
> means nothing.

For the same reason humans don't hold "rights" against non-human
predators.  You've the same 'rights to your life' against non-human
predators as (other) prey animals - you can fight, flee, and do your
best to avoid them.  Humans however, who institute laws designed
to protect rights, can recognise that non-human lives are also due
consideration and therefore protection under the banner of "rights".
Rudy Canoza - 09 Oct 2008 15:37 GMT
>>> ..
>>>>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Now that it's been established that lions have a justifiable right to
> kill by virtue of necessity,

Ha ha ha ha ha!  No, it hasn't been established, you lying slut.

*NO* one who has seriously examined this - you are a lunatic and by
definition not serious - concludes that lions have a "right" to kill
their prey.

Settled:  humans don't condone non-human predation on prey animals out
of a belief the predators have "rights".

>>>>>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
>>>>>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Need to preserve physical integrity (life) justifies even lethal force.

No, that's not what is at issue here.  It has *NOTHING* to with "need".
 You simply don't know what you're talking about, and now you're just
fabricating bullshit.

Settled:  there is no analogy between a lion killing its prey and a
human legal right to self defense.  Humans may not legally kill other
humans in order to eat them, and lions do not kill their prey out of any
moral or legal right to do so.

Your position is lunatic bullshit.

>> You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
>> explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> For the same reason humans don't hold "rights" against non-human
> predators.

No - *not* for the same reason, and having nothing to do with "need".
Need does not enter, in any way, into rights theory.

> You've the same 'rights to your life' against non-human
> predators as (other) prey animals - you can fight, flee, and do your
> best to avoid them.  Humans however, who institute laws designed
> to protect rights, can recognise that non-human lives are also due
> consideration and therefore protection under the banner of "rights".

Nope - not due to rights.  That's just nonsense.

You have wasted everyone's time, once again.  You don't understand one
word of rights theory.  We can well understand why in close to 10 years
of participation here, you have so seldom even attempted to discuss the
ethics of human use of animals, and instead have usually focused your
meager talent on trying to "prove" something about the healthfulness of
meat consumption, all of your "proof" being pseudo-scientific bullshit.
 Slopping together some pseudoscience (some bullshit) about anatomy and
anthropology and epidemiology is actually much easier for you than
trying to do the same with respect to ethics, because you can just do
the c.nt-brained copypasta routine with science-talk that you haven't
read, and *CANNOT* read.  There's very little pseudo-ethical stuff for
you to do your c.nt-brained copypasta routine with, so you've stayed
away from it mostly.
pearl - 09 Oct 2008 20:51 GMT
> >>> ..
> >>>>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha!

No one who writes "Ha ha ha ha ha!" is really laughing, isn't it?

> No, it hasn't been established,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Settled:  humans don't condone non-human predation on prey animals out
> of a belief the predators have "rights".

Everyone does.  *No one* questions non-human predators right
to do what they have to to survive.  To suggest that is ludicrous.

> >>>>>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> >>>>>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> No, that's not what is at issue here.  It has *NOTHING* to with "need".

Yes, it is, and does.  It has **EVERYTHING** to do with NEED.

> Settled:  there is no analogy between a lion killing its prey and a
> human legal right to self defense.

It's likewise preservation of physical integrity.  Need justifies both.

> Humans may not legally kill other
> humans in order to eat them,

That's would be murder, first and foremost.

> and lions do not kill their prey out of any
> moral or legal right to do so.

False.  They also have a right to live.  But that does apply to you.

> Your position is lunatic bullshit.

Not at all.  Find -anyone- claiming that non-human predators have no
right to kill other animals to survive.  You're way out on a limb, ball.

> >> You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
> >> explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> No - *not* for the same reason,

For exactly the same reason.  Try telling the lion about your "rights".

> and having nothing to do with "need".
> Need does not enter, in any way, into rights theory.

Of course it does.  No moral or ethical consideration would weigh
against an absolute requirement to eat 'meat' to survive, as the lion.

> > You've the same 'rights to your life' against non-human
> > predators as (other) prey animals - you can fight, flee, and do your
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Nope - not due to rights.  That's just nonsense.

What?  That's just nonsense, ball.  You need diapers, btw.
Rudy Canoza - 09 Oct 2008 20:58 GMT
>>>>> ..
>>>>>>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> No one who writes "Ha ha ha ha ha!" is really laughing

Sometimes, he is.

>> No, it hasn't been established,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Everyone does.

No one does.

> *No one* questions non-human predators right

False.  Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.

>>>>>>>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
>>>>>>>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Yes, it is, and does.

No.  Nothing to do with "need" at all.

>> Settled:  there is no analogy between a lion killing its prey and a
>> human legal right to self defense.
>
> It's likewise preservation of physical integrity.

No analogue.

>> Humans may not legally kill other
>> humans in order to eat them,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> False.

No, true.  Lions do not have rights.  No animal does.

>> Your position is lunatic bullshit.
>
> Not at all.

Fully bullshit.

>>>> You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
>>>> explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Of course it does.

No, not in any way at all.  Rights do not depend theoretically or in any
other way on the rightsholders' "needs".

>>> You've the same 'rights to your life' against non-human
>>> predators as (other) prey animals - you can fight, flee, and do your
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> What?

N-o-n-s-e-n-s-e.  Non-human animals do not, and *cannot* have rights.
Your position that animals have or ought to have rights is completely
nonsense.
pearl - 09 Oct 2008 21:43 GMT
> >>>>> ..
> >>>>>>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Sometimes, he is.

Who's "he"?  Smartypants.  Rupert.  Always.  Not you.

> >> No, it hasn't been established,
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> No one does.

Nonsense.

> > *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
they have to to survive.  To suggest that is ludicrous.

> False.

*No one*.

> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.

The right to do what they do - in accordance with natural law.

"Hunters" are always claiming that what they do is ecological.

> >>>>>>>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> >>>>>>>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> No.  Nothing to do with "need" at all.

It has everything to do with need.

> >> Settled:  there is no analogy between a lion killing its prey and a
> >> human legal right to self defense.
> >
> > It's likewise preservation of physical integrity.
>
> No analogue.

You've no argument.  Need justifies both.

> >> Humans may not legally kill other
> >> humans in order to eat them,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> No, true.  Lions do not have rights.  No animal does.

They have a right to do what they have to to live.  Why do you
have the right to take life, if there's no direct threat to your life?

> >> Your position is lunatic bullshit.
> >
> > Not at all.
>
> Fully bullshit.

Find -anyone- claiming that non-human predators have no right
to kill other animals to survive.  You're falling off that limb, ball.

> >>>> You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
> >>>> explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >>> predators.
> >> No - *not* for the same reason,

For exactly the same reason.  Try telling the lion about your "rights".

> >> and having nothing to do with "need".
> >> Need does not enter, in any way, into rights theory.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> No, not in any way at all.  Rights do not depend theoretically or in any
> other way on the rightsholders' "needs".

No moral or ethical consideration would weigh against an
absolute requirement to eat 'meat' to survive, as the lion.

> >>> You've the same 'rights to your life' against non-human
> >>> predators as (other) prey animals - you can fight, flee, and do your
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Your position that animals have or ought to have rights is completely
> nonsense.

That's just nonsense, ball.  There's no valid reason to not consider
non-humans interests, and many valid reasons for their protection.
Rudy Canoza - 09 Oct 2008 21:59 GMT
>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Who's "he"?

You already know.

>>>> No, it hasn't been established,
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Nonsense.

No.

>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
> they have to to survive.  To suggest that is ludicrous.
>> False.
>
> *No one*.

No.  *EVERYONE*.  Non-human predators don't have rights.  No one thinks
they kill their prey based on a "right" to do so.  It's just what they
do.  Rights don't enter into it.

>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
>
> The right to do what they do

No, not a "right".  They just do what they do without any thought to
rights.  They do it *irrespective* of how we feel about it.

>>>>>>>>>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
>>>>>>>>>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> It has everything to do with need.

*NOTHING* to do with need.

>>>> Settled:  there is no analogy between a lion killing its prey and a
>>>> human legal right to self defense.
>>> It's likewise preservation of physical integrity.
>> No analogue.
>
> You've no argument.

I do.  There is no analogy whatever between a lion killing its prey and
a human killing another human in self defense.  None whatever.  "Need"
has nothing to do with either.

>>>> Humans may not legally kill other
>>>> humans in order to eat them,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> They have a right to do what they have to to live.

False.  No right - period.

>>>> Your position is lunatic bullshit.
>>> Not at all.
>> Fully bullshit.
>
> Find -anyone- claiming that non-human predators have no right

Right here.  Animals do not - *cannot* - have rights.

>>>>>> You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
>>>>>> explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> No moral or ethical consideration would weigh against an
> absolute requirement to eat 'meat' to survive, as the lion.

Has nothing to do with survival.

>>>>> You've the same 'rights to your life' against non-human
>>>>> predators as (other) prey animals - you can fight, flee, and do your
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> That's just nonsense

No, it isn't.
pearl - 09 Oct 2008 23:36 GMT
> >>>>>>> ..
> >>>>>>>>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> You already know.

Yes..  Smartypants.  Rupert.  Always.  Not you.

> >>>> No, it hasn't been established,
> >>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> No.

Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?

<..snow drifting..>

> >>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
> > they have to to survive.  To suggest that is ludicrous.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> they kill their prey based on a "right" to do so.  It's just what they
> do.  Rights don't enter into it.

They have the right in accordance with natural law.  They do what
they do in accordance with natural law.  No one thinks otherwise.

> >> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
> >> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> No, not a "right".  They just do what they do without any thought to
> rights.  They do it *irrespective* of how we feel about it.

They do it respective of how *they* feel about it -- hungry.

> >>>>>>>>>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> >>>>>>>>>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> *NOTHING* to do with need.

Do or die, ball.  Survival justifies both self-defence and natural predation.

> >>>> Settled:  there is no analogy between a lion killing its prey and a
> >>>> human legal right to self defense.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> a human killing another human in self defense.  None whatever.  "Need"
> has nothing to do with either.

Survival justifies both.  You keep on denying the obvious.

> >>>> Humans may not legally kill other
> >>>> humans in order to eat them,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> False.  No right - period.

Every right by virtue of birth and being to do what they must to live.

Why do you think you have the right to take life, if there's no direct
threat to your life?  How can your mere wish to eat 'meat' justify it?

> >>>> Your position is lunatic bullshit.
> >>> Not at all.
> >> Fully bullshit.
> >
> > Find -anyone- claiming that non-human predators have no right
to kill other animals to survive.  You're falling off that limb, ball.

> Right here.

Funny.

> Animals do not - *cannot* - have rights.

You're repeating that like some sort of worn-out mantra.  At least
/try/ to accompany your ipse dixit with /some/ kind of reasoning.

> >>>>>> You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
> >>>>>> explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >>>>> predators.
> >>>> No - *not* for the same reason,

For exactly the same reason.  Try telling the lion about your "rights".

> >>>> and having nothing to do with "need".
> >>>> Need does not enter, in any way, into rights theory.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Has nothing to do with survival.

Interests.  A biggie, and quite fundamentally - staying alive.

> >>>>> You've the same 'rights to your life' against non-human
> >>>>> predators as (other) prey animals - you can fight, flee, and do your
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.  There's no valid reason to not consider non-humans interests,
and many valid reasons for their protection.  Now snip it all again, loser.
Rudy Canoza - 09 Oct 2008 23:57 GMT
>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Yes..

Yes.

>>>>>> No, it hasn't been established,
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Yes.

No.  No one does.

>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
>>> they have to to survive.  To suggest that is ludicrous.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> They have the right in accordance with natural law.

They do not have any rights at all.  "Natural law", you twat, is a term
of art that applies to humans only.

>>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
>>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> They do it respective of how *they* feel about it

No.  They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Do or die

Nothing to do with need.

>>>>>> Settled:  there is no analogy between a lion killing its prey and a
>>>>>> human legal right to self defense.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Survival justifies both.

No, they are not comparable in any way.  One involves an aggressive,
offensive action that that has no moral dimension to it whatever.  The
other is a defensive RE-action that is only moral and legal in an
extremely tight, narrow context.

You don't know what you're talking about.

>>>>>> Humans may not legally kill other
>>>>>> humans in order to eat them,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Every right

No right - period.  Animals do not have rights, and nothing they do is
"justified" by an appeal to rights.  They just do what they do.

>>>>>> Your position is lunatic bullshit.
>>>>> Not at all.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> You're repeating that like

the truth.

>>>>>>>> You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
>>>>>>>> explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Interests.

Not rights.

>>>>>>> You've the same 'rights to your life' against non-human
>>>>>>> predators as (other) prey animals - you can fight, flee, and do your
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Yes,

No, it isn't.
pearl - 11 Oct 2008 13:30 GMT
..
> >>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
> >>> they have to to survive.  To suggest that is ludicrous.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> They do not have any rights at all.  "Natural law",    is a term
> of art that applies to humans only.

"Predation also assures "survival of the fittest", nature's basic law."
.. "Natural predation has a definite place in the balance of nature."
- Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/nonpwdpubs/young_naturalist/animals/pre
dator_prey_relationship/index.phtml


'The arms race between predator and prey is a major selective force
in evolutionary change in organisms. Operating through decent with
modification, nature abounds with examples of the evolutionary arms
races: faster predator begets faster prey, stealthier prey begets better
scent and sight in the predator, that begets, in turn, better scent and
sight in the prey. Bigger, sharper predator teeth begets harder thicker
shell in prey; stronger predator poison begets genetic resistance to
the poison in the prey -- the  list is endless, and examples extend
throughout the tree of life. Or, as Richard Dawkins put it: "arms races
probably account for the spectacularly advanced engineering of eyes,
ears, brains, bat "radar" and all the other high-tech weaponry that
animals display."

The life forms that feed upon an organism are just as much a part of
the environment to which the organism's population must adapt to
survive as are geological conditions, ice ages or meteor strikes, etc.
The prey population that fails to adapt to new weapons of the predator,
risks its survival. Similarly, the predator population that fails to adapt
to new defenses of the prey, risks its survival. In short: "he/she that
hesitates (to adapt) is lunch".
..'
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/TrilobiteArmsRace.htm

> >>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
> >>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> No.  They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it.

Still persisting with your erroneous imaginings that non-humans
animals are unfeeling, unthinking, unconscious, unaware, amoral
living machines, animated purely by hard-wire instinctual reflex.

"We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of
animals. Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice,
man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge
and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion.
We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having
taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err.
For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more
complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with
extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices
we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they
are other nations caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow
prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth." - Henry Beston

'The Law of the Jungle  -  Rudyard Kipling
(From The Jungle Book)

Now this is the Law of the Jungle -- as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk the Law runneth forward and back --
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.

Wash daily from nose-tip to tail-tip; drink deeply, but never too deep;
And remember the night is for hunting, and forget not the day is for sleep.
The Jackal may follow the Tiger, but, Cub, when thy whiskers are grown,
Remember the Wolf is a Hunter -- go forth and get food of thine own.
Keep peace withe Lords of the Jungle -- the Tiger, the Panther, and Bear.
And trouble not Hathi the Silent, and mock not the Boar in his lair.
When Pack meets with Pack in the Jungle, and neither will go from the trail,
Lie down till the leaders have spoken -- it may be fair words shall prevail.
When ye fight with a Wolf of the Pack, ye must fight him alone and afar,
Lest others take part in the quarrel, and the Pack be diminished by war.
The Lair of the Wolf is his refuge, and where he has made him his home,
Not even the Head Wolf may enter, not even the Council may come.
The Lair of the Wolf is his refuge, but where he has digged it too plain,
The Council shall send him a message, and so he shall change it again.
If ye kill before midnight, be silent, and wake not the woods with your bay,
Lest ye frighten the deer from the crop, and your brothers go empty away.
Ye may kill for yourselves, and your mates, and your cubs as they need,
and ye can;
But kill not for pleasure of killing, and seven times never kill Man!
If ye plunder his Kill from a weaker, devour not all in thy pride;
Pack-Right is the right of the meanest; so leave him the head and the hide.
The Kill of the Pack is the meat of the Pack. Ye must eat where it lies;
And no one may carry away of that meat to his lair, or he dies.
The Kill of the Wolf is the meat of the Wolf. He may do what he will;
But, till he has given permission, the Pack may not eat of that Kill.
Cub-Right is the right of the Yearling. From all of his Pack he may claim
Full-gorge when the killer has eaten; and none may refuse him the same.
Lair-Right is the right of the Mother. From all of her year she may claim
One haunch of each kill for her litter, and none may deny her the same.
Cave-Right is the right of the Father -- to hunt by himself for his own:
He is freed of all calls to the Pack; he is judged by the Council alone.
Because of his age and his cunning, because of his gripe and his paw,
In all that the Law leaveth open, the word of your Head Wolf is Law.
Now these are the Laws of the Jungle, and many and mighty are they;
But the head and the hoof of the Law and the haunch and the hump is
-- Obey!

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/law_of_jungle.html
pearl - 11 Oct 2008 16:31 GMT
a.

"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:dMednVEVHcL1EXPVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@earthlink.com...
> pearl wrote:
..
> >>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
> >>> they have to to survive.  To suggest that is ludicrous.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> They do not have any rights at all.  "Natural law",    is a term
> of art that applies to humans only.

"Predation also assures "survival of the fittest", nature's basic law."
.. "Natural predation has a definite place in the balance of nature."
- Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/nonpwdpubs/young_naturalist/animals/pre
dator_prey_relationship/index.phtml


'The arms race between predator and prey is a major selective force
in evolutionary change in organisms. Operating through decent with
modification, nature abounds with examples of the evolutionary arms
races: faster predator begets faster prey, stealthier prey begets better
scent and sight in the predator, that begets, in turn, better scent and
sight in the prey. Bigger, sharper predator teeth begets harder thicker
shell in prey; stronger predator poison begets genetic resistance to
the poison in the prey -- the  list is endless, and examples extend
throughout the tree of life. Or, as Richard Dawkins put it: "arms races
probably account for the spectacularly advanced engineering of eyes,
ears, brains, bat "radar" and all the other high-tech weaponry that
animals display."

The life forms that feed upon an organism are just as much a part of
the environment to which the organism's population must adapt to
survive as are geological conditions, ice ages or meteor strikes, etc.
The prey population that fails to adapt to new weapons of the predator,
risks its survival. Similarly, the predator population that fails to adapt
to new defenses of the prey, risks its survival. In short: "he/she that
hesitates (to adapt) is lunch".
..'
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/TrilobiteArmsRace.htm

> >>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
> >>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> No.  They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it.

Still persisting with your erroneous imaginings that non-humans
animals are unfeeling, unthinking, unconscious, unaware, amoral
living machines, animated purely by hard-wire instinctual reflex.

"We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of
animals. Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice,
man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge
and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion.
We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having
taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err.
For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more
complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with
extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices
we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they
are other nations caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow
prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth." - Henry Beston

'The Law of the Jungle  -  Rudyard Kipling
(From The Jungle Book)

Now this is the Law of the Jungle -- as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk the Law runneth forward and back --
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.

Wash daily from nose-tip to tail-tip; drink deeply, but never too deep;
And remember the night is for hunting, and forget not the day is for sleep.
The Jackal may follow the Tiger, but, Cub, when thy whiskers are grown,
Remember the Wolf is a Hunter -- go forth and get food of thine own.
Keep peace withe Lords of the Jungle -- the Tiger, the Panther, and Bear.
And trouble not Hathi the Silent, and mock not the Boar in his lair.
When Pack meets with Pack in the Jungle, and neither will go from the trail,
Lie down till the leaders have spoken -- it may be fair words shall prevail.
When ye fight with a Wolf of the Pack, ye must fight him alone and afar,
Lest others take part in the quarrel, and the Pack be diminished by war.
The Lair of the Wolf is his refuge, and where he has made him his home,
Not even the Head Wolf may enter, not even the Council may come.
The Lair of the Wolf is his refuge, but where he has digged it too plain,
The Council shall send him a message, and so he shall change it again.
If ye kill before midnight, be silent, and wake not the woods with your bay,
Lest ye frighten the deer from the crop, and your brothers go empty away.
Ye may kill for yourselves, and your mates, and your cubs as they need, and ye can;
But kill not for pleasure of killing, and seven times never kill Man!
If ye plunder his Kill from a weaker, devour not all in thy pride;
Pack-Right is the right of the meanest; so leave him the head and the hide.
The Kill of the Pack is the meat of the Pack. Ye must eat where it lies;
And no one may carry away of that meat to his lair, or he dies.
The Kill of the Wolf is the meat of the Wolf. He may do what he will;
But, till he has given permission, the Pack may not eat of that Kill.
Cub-Right is the right of the Yearling. From all of his Pack he may claim
Full-gorge when the killer has eaten; and none may refuse him the same.
Lair-Right is the right of the Mother. From all of her year she may claim
One haunch of each kill for her litter, and none may deny her the same.
Cave-Right is the right of the Father -- to hunt by himself for his own:
He is freed of all calls to the Pack; he is judged by the Council alone.
Because of his age and his cunning, because of his gripe and his paw,
In all that the Law leaveth open, the word of your Head Wolf is Law.
Now these are the Laws of the Jungle, and many and mighty are they;
But the head and the hoof of the Law and the haunch and the hump is -- Obey!

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/law_of_jungle.html

*
Hoots - 11 Oct 2008 19:04 GMT
> a.
>
[quoted text clipped - 111 lines]
>
> *

Hi Sweetie, are you still arguing with those guys?
Rudy Canoza - 12 Oct 2008 03:51 GMT
> ..
>>>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> "Predation also assures "survival of the fittest",

Nothing to do with self defense.  Your analogy is f.cked.

>>>>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
>>>>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Still persisting with your erroneous imaginings that non-humans
> animals are unfeeling

Animals don't have any feelings about being predator or prey.
pearl - 12 Oct 2008 15:53 GMT
> > ..
> >>>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Nothing to do with self defense.  Your analogy is f.cked.

Everything to do with survival.  You're f*****.

> >>>>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
> >>>>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Animals don't have any feelings about being predator or prey.

And how exactly do you presume to 'know' this?  Explain...
Rudy Canoza - 12 Oct 2008 16:35 GMT
>>> ..
>>>>>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Everything to do with survival.

Nothing to do with self defense.  You tried to invoke the legal notion
of a human right to self defense to explain something that has nothing
to do with it.  You f.cked up - again.

>>>>>>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
>>>>>>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> And how exactly do you presume to 'know' this?

We all know it.
pearl - 13 Oct 2008 15:44 GMT
> >>> ..
> >>>>>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> of a human right to self defense to explain something that has nothing
> to do with it.

In response to your idiot claim that ""need" can't justify anything."

Survival is justification for actions that would otherwise be unlawful.

> >>>>>>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
> >>>>>>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> We all know it.

Really?  How interesting.  Well, aren't you going to 'enlighten' me?
Rudy Canoza - 14 Oct 2008 03:52 GMT
>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> In response to

You tried to say that lions' killing their prey is "justified" by some
kind of appeal to a human right to self defense.  You got slapped down.
 Lions' killing their prey is predation (duh).  Humans killing in self
defense is the opposite of predation.

You don't know what you're doing.

>>>>>>>>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
>>>>>>>>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Really?

Really.
pearl - 14 Oct 2008 13:48 GMT
> >>>>> ..
> >>>>>>>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>   Lions' killing their prey is predation (duh).  Humans killing in self
> defense is the opposite of predation.

Survival is justification for actions that would otherwise be unlawful.

> You don't know what you're doing.

You can't justify what you're doing.

> >>>>>>>>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
> >>>>>>>>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Really.

Waiting....
Rudy Canoza - 14 Oct 2008 15:56 GMT
>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Survival is justification for actions

That depends.  But the lion needs no justification.

You f.cked up.  You tried to use a purely defensive legalism for humans
to try to "justify" what lions do with no need for justification.  It
doesn't work.

>> You don't know what you're doing.
>
> You can't justify what you're doing.

I need no justification.  Animals have no rights.  I may ethically prey
on them as freely as does the lion.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
>>>>>>>>>>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Waiting....

Really.
pearl - 15 Oct 2008 15:23 GMT
> >>>>>>> ..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> That depends.

In the case of self-defense, for example, as we've seen.

> But the lion needs no justification.

The lion, no.  However humans view the lion's actions as justified.

> You     up.  You tried to use a purely defensive legalism for humans
> to try to "justify" what lions do with no need for justification.  It
> doesn't work.

I wrote that the lion is justified, since to survive she has no other
options.  You said that need can't justify anything, so I showed
you an example from human law saying that self-defense/survival
justifies (right to) lethal force against (even) another human being.

> >> You don't know what you're doing.
> >
> > You can't justify what you're doing.
>
> I need no justification.  Animals have no rights.  I may ethically prey
> on them as freely as does the lion.

Why do you think you have the right to take life since - unlike
in the lion's case - it has nothing to do with your survival, but
merely your wish to eat 'meat'?  How does your interest weigh
against your victim's interests, or are you going to simply deny
they have interests of their own, like living, liberty, contentment..

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
> >>>>>>>>>>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Really.

Can't, can you.
Rudy Canoza - 15 Oct 2008 15:58 GMT
>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> In the case of self-defense,

Claiming a need to "survive" *NEVER* justifies aggression by one human
against another.

>> But the lion needs no justification.
>
> The lion, no.

Humans don't need any "justification" for their predation on other
animals, either.

>> You   *f.cked*  up.  You tried to use a purely defensive legalism for humans
>> to try to "justify" what lions do with no need for justification.  It
>> doesn't work.
>
> I wrote that the lion is justified,

The lion requires no justification for his predation on other animals,
and neither do we, as long as the prey isn't human.

>>>> You don't know what you're doing.
>>> You can't justify what you're doing.
>> I need no justification.  Animals have no rights.  I may ethically prey
>> on them as freely as does the lion.
>
> Why do you think you have the right to take life since

It isn't a question of ethical or legal "right".  I just do it.  It's
presumed to be ethically permitted.  That's the default.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Can't, can you.

Have.
pearl - 15 Oct 2008 16:19 GMT
> >>>>>>>>> ..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Claiming a need to "survive" *NEVER* justifies aggression by one human
> against another.

To survive an attack by another human being..

'In English criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for
the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise
unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
or others ..
..
If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person
attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought
was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only
reasonable defensive action had been taken."

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates into English law Article 2
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms which defines the right to life as follows:

"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.
..'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

> >> But the lion needs no justification.
> >
> > The lion, no.  However humans view the lion's actions as justified.
>
> Humans don't need any "justification" for their predation on other
> animals, either.

After all your assertion that "rights" apply only to humans?

Defend your "right" if you can.  You do need justification.

> >> You   *f.cked*  up.  You tried to use a purely defensive legalism for humans
> >> to try to "justify" what lions do with no need for justification.  It
> >> doesn't work.
> >
> > I wrote that the lion is justified, since to survive she has no other
options.  You said that need can't justify anything, so I showed
you an example from human law saying that self-defense/survival
justifies (right to) lethal force against (even) another human being.

> The lion requires no justification for his predation on other animals,
> and neither do we, as long as the prey isn't human.

Why don't you need justification as a proclaimed moral agent?

> >>>> You don't know what you're doing.
> >>> You can't justify what you're doing.
> >> I need no justification.  Animals have no rights.  I may ethically prey
> >> on them as freely as does the lion.
> >
> > Why do you think you have the right to take life since - unlike
in the lion's case - it has nothing to do with your survival, but
merely your wish to eat 'meat'?  How does your interest weigh
against your victim's interests, or are you going to simply deny
they have interests of their own, like living, liberty, contentment..

> It isn't a question of ethical or legal "right".  I just do it.  It's
> presumed to be ethically permitted.  That's the default.

Presume shresume.  You need to answer my questions.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Have.

Not even an attempt.  As per usual.
Rudy Canoza - 15 Oct 2008 17:40 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> To survive an attack by another human being..

You may not *initiate* an attack on another human being to "survive".
If you're hungry and have no money, you may not attack another human
being to take his money for food, or to kill and eat him.

*ONLY* defensive violence may be legally justified against another human.

Your analogy is sh.t.

>>>> But the lion needs no justification.
>>> The lion, no.  However humans view the lion's actions as justified.
>> Humans don't need any "justification" for their predation on other
>> animals, either.
>
> After all your assertion that "rights" apply only to humans?

Yes, even after that.  Humans do not need any "justification" - need not
appeal to some "right" - to be able to prey ethically on other animals.
 It is presumed ethical.

>>>> You   *f.cked*  up.  You tried to use a purely defensive legalism for humans
>>>> to try to "justify" what lions do with no need for justification.  It
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Why don't you need justification as a proclaimed moral agent?

Why would I?  The prey do not have rights.

>>>>>> You don't know what you're doing.
>>>>> You can't justify what you're doing.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Presume shresume.  You need to answer my questions.

I have done.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Not even an attempt.

Have done much more than an attempt.
pearl - 26 Oct 2008 00:45 GMT
..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have to to survive.  To suggest that is ludicrous.
<..>
> >> Claiming a need to "survive" *NEVER* justifies aggression by one human
> >> against another.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> *ONLY* defensive violence may be legally justified against another human.

'There must be an urgent and immediate threat to life which creates a
situation in which the defendant reasonably believes that a proportionate
response to that threat is to break the law. [..] the fact that hunger does
not arise spontaneously, and there are other ways in which to seek relief
from poverty [..]
..
"If the defence of necessity is to form a valid and consistent part of
our criminal law it must, as has been universally recognised, be strictly
controlled and scrupulously limited to situations that correspond to its
underlying rationale."
..'
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Necessity-in-English-law

The lion has no other way to preserve her life except by predation.

> >>>> But the lion needs no justification.
> >>> The lion, no.  However humans view the lion's actions as justified.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> appeal to some "right" - to be able to prey ethically on other animals.
>   It is presumed ethical.

'In his article, "Bambi Lovers vs. Tree Huggers," Ned Hettinger joins
Holmes Rolston in arguing that, since predation plays such a critical role
in evolution, anything less than a thoroughgoing affirmation of it (either
by humans or by animals) constitutes a failure to take the appropriate
attitude toward the natural world.
..
On Hettinger's view, human hunting and meat-eating are justified if and
only if "some legitimate goal of meat eaters is not attainable by eating a
vegetarian diet and . . . hunters have some legitimate goals that are not
achievable through wildlife photography" or other less harmful means
(Hettinger 1994, 11). He claims that there is such a goal, namely,
"participating in the logic and biology of one's ecosystem" (Rolston
1988, cited in Hettinger 1994, 13). Hunters and meat eaters, unlike
vegetarian wildlife photographers "[affirm] human nature by participating
in a process that made us what we are."
..'
http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/ethics_and_the_environment/v006/6.1everett.html

Not natural predators.  "Fewer than 6% of Americans hunt today" ....

'The Case Against Sport Hunting
Published 06/15/02

API Wildlife Campaign Director, Camilla Fox, was invited by North
American Hunter magazine to submit a piece on the animal rights
perspective of sport hunting. This is what the editors received.

The Animal Protection Institute (API), a national nonprofit organization
with 85,000 members and supporters, is dedicated to protecting animals
from cruelty and exploitation. API opposes the killing of animals for
"sport" on the grounds that it is contrary to public sentiment,
ecologically destructive, unnecessary, and unethical.

Public opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Americans
oppose the killing of animals for "sport" or "recreation." Fewer than
6% of Americans hunt today - roughly half as many as in the early
1970s. On the other hand, participation in non-consumptive wildlife
activities has increased dramatically over the last decade. Today, more
than 31% of Americans enjoy some form of wildlife-watching recreation.
Still, wildlife agencies continue to "manage" wildlife and habitat to ensure
a healthy supply of "game" animals for hunters and a constant source
of revenue from license sales. Non-game and endangered species and
habitat protection programs, however, remain chronically underfunded.

Sport hunters argue, often vehemently, that they are true conservationists.
However, conservation in the hunter's mind seems to mean ensuring an
adequate supply of targets, often at the peril of non-hunted native species.
A recent study in the Wildlife Society Bulletin cites numerous examples
of hunter groups resisting and even impeding efforts to restore native
wildlife or to protect biodiversity. According to the World Conservation
Monitoring Centre, 29% of avian species and 54% of mammalian species
currently threatened or endangered are still jeopardized by hunting. The
U.S. Sportsman's Alliance - the largest sport hunting lobbying group
in America, representing more than 1,000 sportsmen organizations -
has attempted to dismantle the Endangered Species Act and actively
promotes polices that destroy wildlife habitat. How is this consistent
with conservation?

Perhaps most disturbing to Americans is the idea of killing for "sport."
Sport implies two players on an equal playing field. Where is the sport
in shooting captive-raised elk on game farms? Or in chasing down
coyotes and wolves with aircraft and snowmobiles? Or in baiting black
bears with jelly donuts to shoot them from the safety of a nearby tree?
Some hunters argue that bowhunting has brought back the fair chase
in hunting. But where is the fair play when one animal escapes wounded
for every animal killed? If sport hunters are truly interested in good
sportsmanship then why haven't more hunters challenged these practices?

Fortunately, sport hunting is declining as fewer and fewer Americans
find pleasure in killing animals for recreation. Many former hunters find
the spiritual connection with nature and thrill of stalking and shooting
an animal with a camera or binoculars. Indeed, the three fastest-growing
outdoor activities among persons 16 years or older in the United States
are birdwatching, hiking, and backpacking.

It is our hope that when hunters come to truly empathize with the animals
they wound or kill and see them as sentient beings - as many hunters
eventually do - they will stop hunting. The evolution toward a more
compassionate relationship with animals is evident and should be
commended. Hunters would do well for themselves - and the animals
they purport to conserve and revere - by also making this great leap
forward and calling off the hunt.

http://www.bancrueltraps.com/articles.php?p=395&more=1

> >>>> You   up.  You tried to use a purely defensive legalism for humans
> >>>> to try to "justify" what lions do with no need for justification.  It
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Why would I?  The prey do not have rights.

They have interests which merit moral consideration and protection
from moral agents.  How can you disregard non-humans interests?

> >>>>>> You don't know what you're doing.
> >>>>> You can't justify what you're doing.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> I have done.

You haven't.  All you've done is to state "it's presumed..".

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Have done much more than an attempt.

Where, ball?
dh@. - 26 Oct 2008 15:44 GMT
>'In his article, "Bambi Lovers vs. Tree Huggers," Ned Hettinger joins
>Holmes Rolston in arguing that, since predation plays such a critical role
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>vegetarian diet and . . . hunters have some legitimate goals that are not
>achievable through wildlife photography"

   Maybe that would be the answer to wildlife population management?
Take pictures of all the wildlife and then post in their public view who
may and may not mate, and there ya' go. Getting it to actually work might
not be worth the effort and the time wasted with failure though, so in the
mean time...

>or other less harmful means
>(Hettinger 1994, 11). He claims that there is such a goal, namely,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>..'
>http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/ethics_and_the_environment/v006/6.1everett.html

   In a local park area they used to never hunt them, the population
grew ridiculously to where you were seeing scrawny deer all the time,
and finally they had a mass slaughter so that now you almost never
see deer in the area. Something is going to keep their numbers in check
or they'll overpopulate. It's not that hard to figure out. What's the most
humane method of controlling their population? Maybe it's by starvation?
Maybe by disease? Maybe by nonhuman predators? Maybe by humans
with rifles? Maybe by humans with cameras???

>Not natural predators.  

   We are if you include this fact in the formula: None of us would
exist if humans didn't hunt and raise animals for food.
. . .
>How can you disregard non-humans interests?

   Let's look at some ways you do it:

By refusing to consider the fact that many livestock experience
decent lives of positive value.

By caring no more than/less than the average person about your
contributions to collateral deaths, which includes the things in your
life that contain animal by-products which is pretty much everything
except your food and a few select items. Even those contribute to
animal deaths though...so...

By refusing to even acknowledge much less actually *care* to some
slight degree about the fact that all the things you suggest for
controlling wildlife populations would produce MORE suffering than
human hunting, especially for the young and baby animals.

By refusing to even acknowledge much less actually *care* to some
slight degree about the countless ways that humans and other animals
benefit from the things people learn by doing research on animals.
Rudy Canoza - 26 Oct 2008 19:26 GMT
> ..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
[quoted text clipped - 172 lines]
>
> Where, Rudy?

Everywhere, stupid gash.

You f.cked up, stupid gash:  you tried to justify lions' predation - an
offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend themselves
against human predation.  You f.cked up.  You always f.ck up.  You're a
f.ck-up - a stupid, new-age, crackpot f.ck-up and dumb gash.
Rudy Canoza - 15 Oct 2008 17:56 GMT
lesley bullshitted:

>> Claiming a need to "survive" *NEVER* justifies aggression by one human
>> against another.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
> or others ..

*NOT* to initiate the violence in the first place.

You keep trying to "justify" a lion's predation - predation is an
*offensive* action - by appealing to a human's right to self *defense*.
 It just can't be done.  A lion that "needs" to eat just kills whatever
it can and eats it; no justification required.  A human who feels a
"need" to eat may *NEVER* legally and ethically initiate violence
against another human being in order to obtain something to eat.

Your analogy is sh.t.  Your [ahem] "thinking" on ethical matters is
always sh.t, as we would expect from a new-age foot-masseuse.  You're
just far out of your depth.
Dutch - 10 Oct 2008 10:25 GMT
> Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
> predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?

You're not talking about the same concept. In that sense of the word
"right", every living organism has a right to do whatever it wants to do. A
male bear has the right to kill cubs that it thinks may grow up to be
competitors, a young lion has the right to kill small prey just for
exercise. He's talking about rights in a complete different sense, as
components of a human-created social structure.
pearl - 11 Oct 2008 13:46 GMT
> > Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
> > predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
>
> You're not talking about the same concept. In that sense of the word
> "right", every living organism has a right to do whatever it wants to do.

No, and ball doesn't believe non-humans have "wants".

The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.

> A
> male bear has the right to kill cubs that it thinks may grow up to be
> competitors, a young lion has the right to kill small prey just for
> exercise.

Not taking your word for anything either.

> He's talking about rights in a complete different sense, as
> components of a human-created social structure.

Humans think that predators killing prey is justifiable.

Do you disagree with that?  A yes or no, will suffice.
Dutch - 11 Oct 2008 22:05 GMT
>> > Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
>> > predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> No,

No? What moral principle limits the actions of a lion, eagle or mouse?

> and ball doesn't believe non-humans have "wants".

Animals don't conceptualize wants abstractly as humans do, but when they are
hungry it can be said that they want to eat and they act on that want.

> The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.

It is self-evident, you may as well ask if they have a right to breathe.
This is not the same use of the word "right".

>> A
>> male bear has the right to kill cubs that it thinks may grow up to be
>> competitors, a young lion has the right to kill small prey just for
>> exercise.
>
> Not taking your word for anything either.

That's nothing new, so what is your opinion of it? Are lion cubs violating
the rights of mice when they hunt and kill them for practice?

>> He's talking about rights in a complete different sense, as
>> components of a human-created social structure.
>
> Humans think that predators killing prey is justifiable.
>
> Do you disagree with that?  A yes or no, will suffice.

Humans do not think that any justification is necessary for lions to kill
gazelle, the question is anthropomorphic.
pearl - 12 Oct 2008 15:47 GMT
> >> > Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
> >> > predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> No? What moral principle limits the actions of a lion, eagle or mouse?

Rightness, in accordance with natural law.  Kill indiscriminately,
destroying the food base, disrupting natural balance, and starve.

> > and ball doesn't believe non-humans have "wants".
>
> Animals don't conceptualize wants abstractly as humans do, but when they are
> hungry it can be said that they want to eat and they act on that want.

You can read animals' minds now?  How do you know that?

> > The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.
>
> It is self-evident, you may as well ask if they have a right to breathe.

Thank you.

> This is not the same use of the word "right".

'A right is a legal or moral entitlement or permission.
..
Rights may be considered to be either of a purely moral or ethical
character, as in the idea of natural rights, which holds that we obtain
certain rights from nature that cannot be legitimately modified by
any legislative authority; or they may be considered to be of an
artificial, man-made character, as in the idea of legal rights, which
are arbitrary human constructs, created by legislative authority and
always subject to change.
..'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right

> >> A
> >> male bear has the right to kill cubs that it thinks may grow up to be
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> That's nothing new, so what is your opinion of it? Are lion cubs violating
> the rights of mice when they hunt and kill them for practice?

The 'mice' have the right to do what they may to evade capture /survive,
and the lion cub the right to learn essential life skills, likewise to survive.

> >> He's talking about rights in a complete different sense, as
> >> components of a human-created social structure.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Humans do not think that any justification is necessary for lions to kill
> gazelle, the question is anthropomorphic.

No it isn't.  Humans regard it as justifiable through necessity.
Dutch - 13 Oct 2008 06:49 GMT
>> >> > Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
>> >> > predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Rightness, in accordance with natural law.

There's no such thing which limits the actions of any animal.

 Kill indiscriminately,
> destroying the food base, disrupting natural balance, and starve.

It's not wrong for animals to kill no matter what the reasons or
consequences. An animal can do no wrong, right and wrong are human concepts.
Animals may have their own codes of behavior but they have nothing to do
with us. When we scold an animal for defectating on the carpet we are not
telling him its wrong, he doesn't understand right and wrong, we're trying
to imprint a change in behaviour.

>> > and ball doesn't believe non-humans have "wants".
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> You can read animals' minds now?  How do you know that?

You don't have to be a mind reader to know when an animal is hungry.

>> > The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.
>>
>> It is self-evident, you may as well ask if they have a right to breathe.
>
> Thank you.

No problem.

>> This is not the same use of the word "right".
>
> 'A right is a legal or moral entitlement or permission.

Neither of which apply to animals.

> ..
> Rights may be considered to be either of a purely moral or ethical
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> and the lion cub the right to learn essential life skills, likewise to
> survive.

Agreed, it's a messy business, nature.

>> >> He's talking about rights in a complete different sense, as
>> >> components of a human-created social structure.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> No it isn't.  Humans regard it as justifiable through necessity.

Anthropomorphically. In reality something that requires no justification
cannot be "justifiable". Justification is another word like 'legal' and
'moral' that applies to humans, not animals. My pets occasionally kill
wildlife, bully other animals, act out aggressively towards humans to the
point of injury, piss where they shouldn't, none of it requires
justification or is any way wrong. It just *is*.
pearl - 13 Oct 2008 15:32 GMT
If you want to further limit the crosspost, dodge, then do so
on your next offering, rather than sneakily setting followups.

> >> >> > Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
> >> >> > predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> There's no such thing which limits the actions of any animal.

What does?  Self-harming behaviours can't last long in evolution.

Remember, moral principle refers to right or wrong behaviours.

>   Kill indiscriminately,
> > destroying the food base, disrupting natural balance, and starve.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> telling him its wrong, he doesn't understand right and wrong, we're trying
> to imprint a change in behaviour.

'Centre for Bioethics / IX Annual Symposium on Biomedicine,
Ethics and Society

Abstract of Keynote talk:

Marc Bekoff

PhD, Professor of Biology, University of Colorado, USA
(Printable version, pdf)

Wild justice, cooperation, and fair play: Can animals be moral beings?

Can nonhuman animals (hereafter animals) be moral beings? Yes
they can. Research in cognitive ethology, evolutionary biology,
and social neuroscience, along with common sense, clearly shows
that animals are emotional and empathic beings (including mice who
have been shown to display empathy) and that they display moral
sensibility. What we observe when animals interact with one another
tells us a lot about what's happening inside their heads and hearts.
Animals' lives are very public, not hidden, private, or secret, and
the privacy of mind argument that we can never know what
animals are thinking or feeling is over-used and goes against solid
arguments based on evolutionary continuity and ethological and
neurobiological data.

In my presentation I will stress the importance of interdisciplinary
research and collaboration for coming to terms with various
aspects of animal emotions and morality. I will also discuss
anthropomorphism and why it is a very useful and inevitable way
to describe and explain animal behavior. To make my case about
animal morality I will focus on the details of social play behavior -
the many ways in which animals play fairly and honestly signal
their intentions - and also discuss research on inequity aversion
in animals. When animals play they carefully signal their intentions
to cooperate and to play, they trust that playmates will obey the
rules of fair play, and they forgive and apologize to one another
so that play can continue as play and not escalate to aggression.
Individuals fine-tune their interactions "on the run" by paying
attention to what is happening from moment to moment.

I will also argue that cognitive ethology is the unifying science
for understanding the subjective, emotional, empathic, and moral
lives of animals because it's essential to know what animals do,
think, and feel as they go about their daily routines in the company
of their friends and when they are alone. Research on mirror
neurons is also important to factor into discussions of fair play
and moral behavior. It is essential to learn why both the similarities
and differences between humans and other animals have evolved.
The more we come to understand other animals the more we will
appreciate them as the amazing beings they are and the more we
will come to understand ourselves. If humans are moral beings
then so are other animals. We are not alone in the moral arena.

Finally, I will argue not only that individual animals matter, but so
does what they feel, and what they feel is very much related to
how they behave. Surely, a whimpering dog, a playing wolf having
fun on the run and doing "what's right", and a grieving chimpanzee
or elephant feel something. They are not unfeeling objects. And
what animals feel matters very much as they try to negotiate their
lives in a human-dominated and often abusive world in which we
attempt to manage their lives for our and not their benefit. I am
incredulous that some skeptics actually question whether animals
feel anything (and even if they think).

We owe it to all individual animals to make every attempt to come
to a greater understanding and appreciation for who they are -
emotional, empathic, and often moral beings - in their own worlds.
And, when we're not sure about what they're feeling, we should
leave them alone. Quite often good welfare isn't good enough -
offering animals food, a bed, and health insurance just isn't enough.
They deserve more and we can always do better. This sort of respect
will go a long way toward ending, once and for all, the unnecessarily
cruel treatment to which far too many non-consenting individuals
are subjected each and every second of each and every day.

Some references:

Bekoff, M. 1994. Wild justice and fair play: cooperation, forgiveness,
and morality in animals. Biology & Philosophy 19: 489-520.

Allen, C., and M. Bekoff. 2005. Animal play and the evolution of
social morality: An ethological approach. Topoi 24, 125-135.

Bekoff, M. 2006. Animal passions and beastly virtues: Cognitive
ethology as the unifying science for understanding the subjective,
emotional, empathic, and moral lives of animals. Zygon (Journal of
Religion and Science) 41, 71-104.

Bekoff, M. 2007. The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading
Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy - and why
They Matter . New World Library, Novato, California .
_______

Marc Bekoff is Professor of Biology at the University of Colorado ,
Boulder , and co-founder with Jane Goodall of Ethologists for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals. He has won many awards for his
scientific research including a Guggenheim Fellowship, and is a
prolific writer with more than 200 articles as well two encyclopedias
to his credit. The author or editor of numerous books, including the
Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, The Ten Trusts:
What We Must Do to Care for the Animals We Love (with Jane
Goodall), and The Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, his most
recent books include The Smile of a Dolphin, Minding Animals,
Animal Passions and Beastly Virtues: Reflections on Redecorating
Nature, The Emotional Lives of Animals, and Animals Matter. In
2005 Marc was presented with The Bank One Faculty Community
Service Award for the work he has done with children, senior
citizens, and prisoners.
Marc Bekoff's website: http://literati.net/Bekoff.

More (EETA): www.ethologicalethics.org

Books:
New: The Emotional Lives of Animals, [..]

Animals Matter

Centre for Bioethics at Karolinska Institutet & Uppsala University
With support from:

[..]

http://www.bioethics.uu.se/symposium/2007/abstracts/bekoff.html

> >> > and ball doesn't believe non-humans have "wants".
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> You don't have to be a mind reader to know when an animal is hungry.

How, if the animal can't conceptualize hunger-> request feeder-> food?

By your account the animal should paw frantically at .. uh.. tin cans..?

> >> > The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> No problem.

:).

> >> This is not the same use of the word "right".
> >
> > 'A right is a legal or moral entitlement or permission.
>
> Neither of which apply to animals.

Both do.

> > ..
> > Rights may be considered to be either of a purely moral or ethical
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Agreed, it's a messy business, nature.

Fair.  What chance do the billions of chickens, pigs, sheep, cows have?

> >> >> He's talking about rights in a complete different sense, as
> >> >> components of a human-created social structure.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Anthropomorphically.

Without any judgement, but in cold hard rational logical thought.

> In reality something that requires no justification
> cannot be "justifiable". Justification is another word like 'legal' and
> 'moral' that applies to humans, not animals. My pets occasionally kill
> wildlife, bully other animals, act out aggressively towards humans to the
> point of injury, piss where they shouldn't, none of it requires
> justification or is any way wrong. It just *is*.

Is non-humans living in your artificial setup.  But as you say that
legal and moral applies to humans, can you justify what you do?
Rudy Canoza - 12 Oct 2008 03:55 GMT
>>> Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
>>> predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
>> You're not talking about the same concept. In that sense of the word
>> "right", every living organism has a right to do whatever it wants to do.
>
> No, and Rudy doesn't believe non-humans have "wants".

No, I never said that.  But they don't have *conscious* wants, that's
for sure.

> The subject is a predator's right

No such right.

>> A male bear has the right to kill cubs that it thinks may grow up to be
>> competitors, a young lion has the right to kill small prey just for
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Humans think that predators killing prey is justifiable.

Does not mean humans think the predators have a "right" to do it.
"Rights" don't apply to animals, period.
pearl - 12 Oct 2008 15:01 GMT
> >>> Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
> >>> predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> No, I never said that.  But they don't have *conscious* wants, that's
> for sure.

Unconscious wants.  I see. :)  How does that work exactly, ball?

> > The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.
>
> No such right.

'Natural rights (or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent
upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society or polity. In
contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights) are rights
conveyed by a particular legal or political entity, rights as enshrined in
law, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.
Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are
culturally and politically relative.
..'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

"Predation also assures "survival of the fittest", nature's basic law."
.. "Natural predation has a definite place in the balance of nature."
- Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Rudy Canoza - 12 Oct 2008 16:34 GMT
>>>>> Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
>>>>> predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Unconscious wants.

Right.

>>> The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.
>> No such right.
>
> 'Natural rights (or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent
> upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society or polity

Yes.  Natural rights pertain to humans - only.

You lose.  Lions' predation on other animals is not in self defense.
That's what it's called "predation", you stupid c.nt.  It has no
relationship, theoretical or otherwise, to a human's legal right to kill
another human in self defense.

You're too stupid for this.
pearl - 13 Oct 2008 15:36 GMT
> >>>>> Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
> >>>>> predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Right.

Not an answer.

> >>> The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.
> >> No such right.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Yes.  Natural rights pertain to humans - only.

Read it again.

> You lose.  Lions' predation on other animals is not in self defense.
> That's what it's called "predation", It has no
> relationship, theoretical or otherwise, to a human's legal right to kill
> another human in self defense.

Survival.

"Predation also assures "survival of the fittest", nature's basic law."
.. "Natural predation has a definite place in the balance of nature."
- Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Rudy Canoza - 14 Oct 2008 03:51 GMT
>>>>>>> Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
>>>>>>> predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Not an answer.

A fine answer.

>>>>> The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.
>>>> No such right.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Read it again.

YOU read it again.  Natural rights pertain only to humans.

>> You lose.  Lions' predation on other animals is not in self defense.
>> That's what it's called "predation", It has no
>> relationship, theoretical or otherwise, to a human's legal right to kill
>> another human in self defense.
>
> Survival.

No relation to self defense.

You lose.
pearl - 14 Oct 2008 14:00 GMT
> >>>>>>> Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
> >>>>>>> predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> A fine answer.

Not an answer.  Aren't you even going to try, ball?

> >>>>> The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.
> >>>> No such right.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> YOU read it again.  Natural rights pertain only to humans.

Says who?

> >> You lose.  Lions' predation on other animals is not in self defense.
> >> That's what it's called "predation", It has no
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> No relation to self defense.

Classic!!

> You lose.

You're a wilfully self-deluded pathetic clown.
Rudy Canoza - 14 Oct 2008 16:27 GMT
>>>>>>>>> Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
>>>>>>>>> predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>  Not an answer.

A fine answer.

>>>>>>> The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.
>>>>>> No such right.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Says who?

Says everyone who ever wrote on the topic.

>>>> You lose.  Lions' predation on other animals is not in self defense.
>>>> That's what it's called "predation", It has no
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Classic!!

Yes, classically correct.

>> You lose.
>
> You're

I'm right.
pearl - 15 Oct 2008 15:31 GMT
> >>>>>>>>> Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
> >>>>>>>>> predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> A fine answer.

Can't answer, apparently, of course.  Thanks for the laughs though.

> >>>>>>> The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.
> >>>>>> No such right.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Says everyone who ever wrote on the topic.

Wow.. you've read everything ever written on the topic.  How impressive.
In that case you should be able to give us a good few names to look up..?

> >>>> You lose.  Lions' predation on other animals is not in self defense.
> >>>> That's what it's called "predation", It has no
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Yes, classically correct.

Classic ballism.  Blustering wormholes-of-insanity buffoonery.

> >> You lose.
> >
> > You're a wilfully self-deluded pathetic clown.
>
> I'm right.

A wrong right wilfully self-deluded pathetic clown...
Rudy Canoza - 15 Oct 2008 15:59 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
>>>>>>>>>>> predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Can't answer

Already did, and it was a fine answer.

>>>>>>>>> The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.
>>>>>>>> No such right.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Wow.. you've read everything ever written on the topic.

I'm aware of the consensus.  You've read nothing.

>>>>>> You lose.  Lions' predation on other animals is not in self defense.
>>>>>> That's what it's called "predation", It has no
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Classic

Classically correct.  Predation for food has nothing to do with self
defense - nothing.

>>>> You lose.
>>> You're a wilfully self-deluded pathetic clown.
>> I'm right.
>
> A wrong

I'm right.
pearl - 15 Oct 2008 16:24 GMT
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
> >>>>>>>>>>> predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Already did, and it was a fine answer.

So that's why you keep snipping the question...  You're a joke.

> >>>>>>>>> The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.
> >>>>>>>> No such right.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> >
> > Wow.. you've read everything ever written on the topic.  How impressive.
In that case you should be able to give us a good few names to look up..?

> I'm aware of the consensus.  You've read nothing.

nU...?

> >>>>>> You lose.  Lions' predation on other animals is not in self defense.
> >>>>>> That's what it's called "predation", It has no
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Classically correct.  Predation for food has nothing to do with self
> defense - nothing.

Self-preservation.  Life.  You're a nitwit.

> >>>> You lose.
> >>> You're a wilfully self-deluded pathetic clown.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I'm right.

Right wrong..
Rudy Canoza - 15 Oct 2008 17:42 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.  Is there anyone here who agrees with ball that non-human
>>>>>>>>>>>>> predators have no compelling justification (right) to kill to live?
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> So that's why you keep

Why I keep repeating that it was a fine answer.  Yes.

>>>>>>>>>>> The subject is a predator's right to kill prey to survive.
>>>>>>>>>> No such right.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> nU...?

You've read nothing on natural rights.  You couldn't - that incompetence
"thing" again.

>>>>>>>> You lose.  Lions' predation on other animals is not in self defense.
>>>>>>>> That's what it's called "predation", It has no
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Self-preservation.

You may not initiate violence against another human being in order to
survive.  *ONLY* defensive violence is legally and ethically justified.
 If you're hungry, you may not legally rob someone in order to eat.

>>>>>> You lose.
>>>>> You're a wilfully self-deluded pathetic clown.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Right

Right:  I'm right.
Doug Freyburger - 07 Oct 2008 17:20 GMT
> The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life
> since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores.

This means for example that anyone who feeds a cat a
vegitarian diet should be reported for animal cruelty.

> Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life...

When it comes to moral issues this is the interesting part.  What
is to be done about domesticated animals?  There they all to be
neutered and taken extinct, or are they to be released into the
wild and let evolution decide if they go extinct?

> Humans aren't a naturally carnivorous species, and no amount
> of rant and bluster, ball, will change known biological realities.

In fact humans are omnivores and no amount of rant and bluster,
ball, will change known biological realities.  That means humans
are evolved to eat meat.  In spite of being an omnivore not a
carnivore humans are now the peak preditor on our planet.

> You're not a lion in any way, shape or form, and you certainly
> don't need to feed on animal flesh,

Any one human is free to decide that for whatever reason they
chose.  Good reasons religious, political, environmental.  All
as the list of groups (I trimmed out fat acceptance and weight
lifting as irrelevant) imply are the ethical reasons.  Bad reasons
are health related.  Since humans are omnivores declining to
eat either meat or vegitables is sub optimal.  Any health reason
against mean must perforce compare against an unhealthy junk
food eating not plans that focus on meat and veggies.

But it remains true - Being an omnivore any one human is free
to chose to never eat meat or for that matter to never eat
anything but meat.

> in fact it should be avoided.

That rather depends on your reasons.  I certainly favor the good
reasons I listed above as long as folks aren't pressured into it.
This is why I am so opposed to the liars at PCRM.  It's not a
topic that benefits from pressure and lies.  That strategy depicts
the ethical vegitarians as lunatics who will stoop to anything to
stop folks from eating meat.  Isn't it a better strategy to live a
better example and encourage those religions that encourage
vegitarian eating?  Just like there are good and bad reasons
for deciding about eating meat, there are good and bad
strategies for encouraging others to do so.

> What's ironic here, is that you're constantly denying non-human
> animals even basic minimal conscious awareness, yet if it suits
> you try to excuse your (lack of) ethics by appealing to nature.

I think animals have an immortal soul just like I do.  Yet I eat
them.  Why should I take such a stance that's the opposite of
the Hindu or Buddhist vegitarian stance that comes from the
same notion of souls?  It's my nature as an omnivore to eat
both plants and animals so I do so and give thanks.  Heck, I
think plants have immortal souls, too.  No one declines to eat
both animals and plants except to starve themselves to death.
dh@. - 07 Oct 2008 16:39 GMT
>I certainly favor the good
>reasons I listed above as long as folks aren't pressured into it.
>This is why I am so opposed to the liars at PCRM.  It's not a
>topic that benefits from pressure and lies.  That strategy depicts
>the ethical vegitarians as lunatics who will stoop to anything to
>stop folks from eating meat.  

 · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules,  Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

   The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
   From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

>Isn't it a better strategy to live a
>better example and encourage those religions that encourage
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>I think animals have an immortal soul just like I do.  Yet I eat
>them.  

   By doing that you contribute to life for more of them in
the future. Veg*ns do not.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 19:18 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>> I certainly favor the good
>> reasons I listed above as long as folks aren't pressured into it.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>     The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters,

No.
dh@. - 08 Oct 2008 14:32 GMT
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 Goo told another horribly blatant lie:

>>Path: bigbe2.bellsouth.net!bigmid1.bellsouth.net!bigfeed.bellsouth.net!bignumber.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!bignews2.bellsouth.net.POSTED!6f2e25e0!not-for-mail
>>From: dh@.
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>
>No.

   In contrast to that horribly blatant lie, it's the ONLY way
they can do it.

>>because they can not do it by being vegan.
>>    From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>>    By doing that you contribute to life for more of them in
>>the future. Veg*ns do not.
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 16:53 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 Rudy J. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>     In contrast to

No.
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 17:40 GMT
> > The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life
> > since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores.
>
> This means for example that anyone who feeds a cat a
> vegitarian diet should be reported for animal cruelty.

There are vegan cat foods formulated specifically for cats.

> > Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life...
>
> When it comes to moral issues this is the interesting part.  What
> is to be done about domesticated animals?  There they all to be
> neutered and taken extinct, or are they to be released into the
> wild and let evolution decide if they go extinct?

Which domesticated animals - cows, chickens, pigs, sheep...?
Stop breeding.  Their natural original counterparts can recover.

> > Humans aren't a naturally carnivorous species, and no amount
> > of rant and bluster, ball, will change known biological realities.
>
> In fact humans are omnivores

No.  Humans are frugivores.  See:
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm , etc.

> and no amount of rant and bluster,
> ball, will change known biological realities.  That means humans
> are evolved to eat meat.

Show us evidence.  You'll find nothing to hang your hat on.

> In spite of being an omnivore not a
> carnivore humans are now the peak preditor on our planet.

Without weapons, you'd be nothing.  Likely still prey.

> > You're not a lion in any way, shape or form, and you certainly
> > don't need to feed on animal flesh,
>
> Any one human is free to decide that for whatever reason they
> chose.  Good reasons religious, political, environmental.

Health.  I've snipped the rest.  The slur ruined it for me.

Anyway, check out that link, if you're really interested.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 17:52 GMT
>>> The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life
>>> since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores.
>> This means for example that anyone who feeds a cat a
>> vegitarian diet should be reported for animal cruelty.
>
> There are vegan cat foods formulated specifically for cats.

No, there are not.  There are pseudo-"vegan" cat foods that contain
taurine extracted from meat.

>>> Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life...
>> When it comes to moral issues this is the interesting part.  What
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> No.  Humans are frugivores.

Bullshit.  Humans are omnivores.  Humans have always eaten meat, at all
times and places, as did our predecessor species going back to *at
least* 2.5 million years ago.
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 18:00 GMT
> >>> The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life
> >>> since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> No, there are not.  There are pseudo-"vegan" cat foods that contain
> taurine extracted from meat.

I don't believe a word you say.

> >>> Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life...
> >> When it comes to moral issues this is the interesting part.  What
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> times and places, as did our predecessor species going back to *at
> least* 2.5 million years ago.

Always?  All humans?  Females, youngsters and elderly.... or just
a few backward males who got off on "competitive male displays"
around a scavenged carcass?  Researchers find that it's the latter.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 18:21 GMT
>>>>> The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life
>>>>> since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I don't believe a word you say.

Cats must consume taurine, you stupid twat.  That's the meaning of being
an obligate carnivore.  It's obvious you don't know what the f.ck you're
talking about.  Taurine cannot be synthesized.  It comes from meat -
full stop.

>>>>> Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life...
>>>> When it comes to moral issues this is the interesting part.  What
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Always?  All humans?

Yes:  always, all places, all human groups.
SystemX - 07 Oct 2008 18:09 GMT
>>>> The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking
>>>> life
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> No, there are not.  There are pseudo-"vegan" cat foods that contain
> taurine extracted from meat.

I've been reading this thread, mainly for entertainment, as it's been
genuinely funny! - But I have to ask for evidence of this claim.

"Synthetic taurine is obtained from isethionic acid
2-hydroxyethanesulfonic acid), which in turn is obtained from the
reaction of ethylene oxide with aqueous sodium bisulfite. Another
approach is the reaction of aziridine with sulfurous acid. This leads
directly to taurine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurine#Synthesis_and_production

>>>> Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life...
>>> When it comes to moral issues this is the interesting part.  What
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> times and places, as did our predecessor species going back to *at
> least* 2.5 million years ago.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 18:29 GMT
>>>>> The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking
>>>>> life
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurine#Synthesis_and_production

It isn't really taurine; it's some kind of analog.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110446269/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

There's evidence linking so-called synthetic taurine to heart damage:
http://www.squidoo.com/RedBullLeadsToHeartDamage
SystemX - 07 Oct 2008 20:18 GMT
>>>>>> The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by
>>>>>> taking life
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110446269/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Interesting.

> There's evidence linking so-called synthetic taurine to heart damage:
> http://www.squidoo.com/RedBullLeadsToHeartDamage

Interesting, but nothing about taurine extracted from meat being in
vegan cat food.

You could state that vegan cat food has a synthetic taurine of inferior
nutritional value, that news channels are reporting a question over
synthetic taurine and heart damage.
Doug Freyburger - 07 Oct 2008 19:09 GMT
> > This means for example that anyone who feeds a cat a
> > vegitarian diet should be reported for animal cruelty.
>
> There are vegan cat foods formulated specifically for cats.

Anyone forcing a vegan diet on a cat should be reported
whether they find a way to prevent the cat from going
blind or not.

> > When it comes to moral issues this is the interesting part.  What
> > is to be done about domesticated animals?  There they all to be
> > neutered and taken extinct, or are they to be released into the
> > wild and let evolution decide if they go extinct?
>
> Which domesticated animals - cows, chickens, pigs, sheep...?

Certainly not restricted to that list.  Water buffalo, reindeer,
indian
elephants, goats, llamas, alpacas, ducks, geese, turkeys and on
and on.  The one that would go extinct the quicket without humans
at this point would be maize corn.  The crucial bit is the
domesticated part not the animal part.

> Stop breeding.  Their natural original counterparts can recover.

Okay.  Consistant stance on this bit.  Respectable if you hadn't
mentioned the abusive cat fod.

> > In fact humans are omnivores
>
> No.  Humans are frugivores.  See:
>
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm, etc.

Ah the Natural Hygene folks.  They have an assortment of good
points that also point to low carb eating - Like avoiding grain
and sugar.  But generally they take strange stances.

> > and no amount of rant and bluster,
> > ball, will change known biological realities.  That means humans
> > are evolved to eat meat.
>
> Show us evidence.  You'll find nothing to hang your hat on.

You're careful to stress the professors who discuss our ancestors
eating roots and to avoid the ones who discuss scavenging and
hunting.  Okay, I get that you'll ignore anything you disagree with.

The switch from apes eating mostly fruit with as much meat as
they could get especially bugs to walkers eating mostly roots
with as much meat as the could get especially carcasses is a
change that happened about 5 million years ago for our ancestors.
At this point I eat more fresh veggies than roots but that's because
I can.  Somehow I don't think you're going to argue that brocolli
is worse for us than turnips.

The 5 million year number has an important evolutionary meaning -
When a species has been eating a diet for that long it becomes
optimal.  It's the basis of the Natural Hygene claim that obiglate
carnivores like cats must eat meat so they are careful to not
discuss less extremely carnivorous dogs or outright omnivorous
bears.  It has been 5 million years since humans eat majority
fruit so we aren't fruit-ivores.  In the last 5 million years we have
not eaten a single diet consistantly enough to have optimized
into it - There is no single native human diet.

The Natural Hygene folks also incorrectly suggest that
omnivores thrive on any one food.  For a human to thrive on
only meat it's necessary to eat a wide variety of fresh, raw,
rotted and so on types of meat.  The Inuits who eat like that
eat stuff even I won't touch.  Generally the way for an omnivore
to thrive easily is to feed it an assorted diet like most humans
eat not a specific class like Inuits or vegans eat.  Get too
specific and it takes considerable extra effort to thrive.

> > In spite of being an omnivore not a
> > carnivore humans are now the peak preditor on our planet.
>
> Without weapons, you'd be nothing.  Likely still prey.

Relevancy? None.  Humans have used weapons the entire
time we've walked.  And when it comes down to it I support
the right of wild animals to use weapons and tools.  The
corny expression is "Support the right to arm bears".  A
grizzly smart enough to carry a rifle, not something I want to
encounter anywhere but the cinema.  But chimps use tools
to eat the meat of bugs and I've seen a video of a crow making
a tool to get at food.  Weaapons are certainly not unique to
humans and have been in use for pereiods long on an
evolutionary scale.

> > Any one human is free to decide that for whatever reason they
> > chose.  Good reasons religious, political, environmental.
>
> Health.  I've snipped the rest.  The slur ruined it for me.

Ah.  Not willing to address the fact that it is closer to optimal
for health to eat a mixture of meat and veggies, fruit and nuts,
than it is to reduce the number of categories.  So much so that
you call it a slur.

It is quite interesting that you post to lots of vegan groups and
ethical oriented groups yet you claim to do it for the objectively
false health reason.  It's very telling on how you work with
sources to drop any you disagree with.  It's a step toward the
tactics used by the PCRM.

> Anyway, check out that link, if you're really interested.

It shows your bias.  Got it.

I posted asking how folks felt about the lies used by the PRCM
and how that impacted public opinion of truthfull vegans.  Thanks
for the response.  Very instructive.

I look forward to cultured meat.  None of the ethical issues
once the culture has been started.  In the meantime I eat
farmed meat because there are too many humans for all of us
to hunt.  I see the ethical issues differently than the folks who
are vegans for religious, political, environmental reasons but
I get why they would chose that stance.  I'll try to remember
to drop alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian from my groups list from
here out.  Thanks for the instruction.
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 19:28 GMT
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
,,
> > and no amount of rant and bluster,
> > ball, will change known biological realities. That means humans
> > are evolved to eat meat.
>
> Show us evidence. You'll find nothing to hang your hat on.

You're careful to stress the professors who discuss our ancestors
eating roots and to avoid the ones who discuss scavenging and
hunting.  Okay, I get that you'll ignore anything you disagree with.

------------

'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating and Studies of
Primate Intestinal Tracts
Patrick Pasquet
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France
Claude-Marcel Hladik
Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, France
..
Theories of hominid evolution have postulated that switching to meat eating
permitted an increase in brain size and hence the emergence of modern man.
However, comparative studies of primate intestinal tracts do not support this
hypothesis and it is likely that, while meat assumed a more important role in
hominid diet, it was not responsible for any major evolutionary shift.
...
The adaptive biological significance of meat eating was summarized by Milton
(1999),who came to the conclusion that "the incorporation of animal matter
into the diet played an absolutely essential role in human evolution", otherwise
the arid and seasonal environment likely to have been the cradle of hominids
would not have provided enough protein. The link between a high quality
diet (including animal matter) and the enlargement of the brain (characterizing
hominization) has been highlighted by several authors (Martin, 1983; Foley
and Lee, 1991; Leonard and Robertson, 1997).

In their most quoted paper, the argument of Aiello and Wheeler (1995)
supports this view, proposing the "expensive-tissue hypothesis", related to
the evolutionary forces implied in the increase of hominid brain size. They
focus on the shift to a high-quality diet and corresponding gut adaptation.
A reduced intestinal mass would considerably lower the relative energy cost
and permit disposal of sufficient energy to cover the extra-expenditure of a
larger brain. The main point of Aiello and Wheeler is based on the
relationship between body mass and Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR): the
Kleiber line characterizing the relationship between BMR and body size is
identical for all mammals, including humans. Since maintenance of gut tissue
is as expensive as that of brain tissue, Aiello and Wheeler proposed that gut
reduction compensated for brain increase.

Henneberg et al. (1998), following this point of view, developed further
arguments on the role of meat eating in human evolution. For these authors,
the "quantitative similarity of human gut morphology to guts of carnivorous
mammals" is a strong argument for a human status of "well evolved meat
eater". In fact, one should ask if there is actual evidence of human gut
adaptation to meat eating in the past that would have permitted a
characteristic swing towards carnivorousness.
...
Thus, in humans, a clear-cut adaptation to meat eating would imply that
the gut allometric relationship coincides with that of the "faunivores", with
the lowest absorptive area. This is not supported by the measurements of
human gut size that are plotted in Fig 1, all these measurements being
grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999).  ..

Returning to the issue of relating increase in brain size to dietary adaptation,
there is obviously no direct relationship. Similarly, Martin (1983) in his
allometric analysis of the evolution of the mammal brain identified four
separate "grades" of relative brain size (Fig. 2) characterized by the slope
of the major axis of the relationship between cranial capacity and body
weight.

Fig.2 Allometric relationships between cranial capacity and body
weight in different categories of primates and insectivorous mammals
SOURCE: R. D. Martin, 1983.

Since each of these "grades" includes species with different diets
(folivorous, frugivorous, carnivorous), there is no clear-cut relationship
between brain size and dietary adaptation. It is thus likely that a
compensatory energetic reduction that allows the functioning of the large
brain of Homo (with respect to Kleiber's law) may affect all body parts,
rather than being exclusively focused on gut tissue.

DISCUSSION: DIET AND HOMINIZATION

Most forest primates have a frugivorous diet, with a supplement of protein
provided either by young vegetable shoots and leaves, or by animal matter
(mostly invertebrates). This is a most flexible dietary adaptation that allows
them to switch between the various categories of food items available in
different habitats throughout the seasons of the year (Hladik, 1988). The
ambiguous term omnivore is used either to describe such flexibility or to
emphasize a supplement of meat included from time to time in a mainly
frugivorous diet. However, it is noticeable that the largest primate species,
especially anthropoids, consume mainly vegetable matter to provide their
protein requirements. Chimpanzees, that occasionally eat the meat of small
mammals, do not receive all their protein requirements from this source,
which is anyway rarely available to females and never exploited by the
youngest animals (Hladik, 1981).

Considering the unspecialised frugivorous-type human gut anatomy, the
dietary history of the genus Homo is likely to display a wide range of
variation. During various historical periods, depending on availability and
the nutrient content of food resources, our human ancestors would mostly
have consumed either vegetable or animal matter (Isaac et al., 1981; Gordon,
1987; Couplan, 1997). The present consensual picture of our past feeding
behaviour includes three major phases: (1) After the late Miocene climate
shift, hominid feeding behaviour in changing environments progressively
shifted from a mainly vegetarian diet to a diet including more and more
animal matter, either from hunting and/or from scavenging; (2) the hunter-
gatherer way of life and the resulting diet characterized the mid-Pleistocene
period, but in the late Pleistocene, during the ice-ages, hominids had to
specialize in large game; (3) these successive phases, as described by
Gordon (1987), were followed by progressive control of animal and
vegetable resources through domestication and cultivation, allowing some
human groups to eat more vegetable matter than during previous periods.

['... archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene, coincident with
the emergence of Homo can be read to reflect low-yield scavenging, *not*
hunting. Our review of the archaeology yields results consistent with these
critiques: .. (2) meat was consumed at or near the point of acquisition,
not at home bases, as the hunting hypothesis requires; (3) carcasses were
taken at highly variable rates and in varying degrees of completeness, making
meat from big game an even less reliable food source than it is among
modern foragers. Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage
composition are consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses were
taken *not* for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of competitive
male displays. Even if meat were acquired more reliably than the archaeology
indicates, its consumption cannot account for the significant changes in life
history now seen to distinguish early humans from ancestral australopiths.
..'
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604 ]

Meat was consumed, but it is unlikely that animal flesh (especially lean meat)
was a staple for long periods. As highlighted by Speth (1989, 1991), fat and
fatty meat provide energy for meat eaters, and lean meat can rapidly
become unhealthy if used as an only food. During "lean periods", meat
must be complemented with vegetable matter as an energy source, especially
to provide the necessary energy for reproduction.

The high quality foods needed to provide enough energy for the incipient
hominids could have been drawn from alternative sources rather than the fat
meat of large game. Wrangham et al. (1999) have provided a new and very
exciting hypothesis on the possible process of hominization, made possible
by the early use of fire for cooking. As far back as 1.9 My (Plio-Pleistocene),
the first Homo Erectus tended towards a large body (and brain size), for
both sexes, with a reduction of teeth. This was possible by (and likely to
be selected for) a shift to a high caloric diet that did not require much
mastication. Either a cooked fatty meat or a cooked wild tuber may have
provided this type of diet.  Cooking in embers considerably improves the
taste and texture of both kinds of food and may explain why it could have
been rapidly adopted by hominids able to master the technique of fire (with
brain increase obviously related to technical skills). However, the best
efficiency for obtaining calories would be with cooked starchy tubers (50%
more energy from starch after cooking). Furthermore, most wild yam species
are non-toxic and available in large quantities throughout African forests and
savannas (A. Hladik and Dounias, 1993). Although clearly identified long-
lasting hearth locations have never been found by archaeologists before the
mid-Pleistocene, the evidence of early utilisation of fire based on charcoal
residue fragments mentioned by Wrangham et al. would be quite a convincing
argument for anyone who has recently visited an abandoned Pygmy forest
settlement, and searched for tiny pieces of charcoal. After a few months, no
obvious trace of a hearth is visible, although meat and tubers,wrapped in
large leaves, have been cooked in the embers by the Pygmies.

Consequently, meat eating certainly played an essential part in hominid history,
but the hominid flexible gut anatomy permitted adaptation to various diets.
Taking into account the allometric factors in the comparative study of primate
gut anatomy, there is no evidence to support theories such as a change in gut
anatomy that allowed carnivorousness and a simultaneous increase in brain
size. Alternatively, the early cooking of gathered foods - and the nutritional,
behavioural and social consequences of this pattern - could have been a major
milestone in the hominization process.

http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

'Multiple lines of evidence now indicate that the ability to digest large
quantities of starch may have been a crucial adaptation in human evolution
-- providing the calories needed to grow large, cognitively-sophisticated
brains capable of complex language and social cooperation. This idea is a
serious departure from the leading hypothesis that carnivory (via hunting)
was the dietary shift needed to support large brains in early humans.

The breakthrough study, lead by George Perry of Arizona State University
and Nathaniel Dominy of UC Santa Cruz
(http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n10/abs/ng2123.html), first
demonstrates that individuals with more copies of the AMY1 gene tend to
have higher levels of amylase in their saliva. The researchers then sampled
a suite of high- and low-starch populations spanning cultures world-wide--
Hadza hunter-gathers who survive primarily on roots and tubers, and two
agricultural populations (Japanese and European Americans) comprised the
high-starch sample. Low-starch populations, of which there are considerably
few, included rainforest hunter-gatherers (Biaka and Mbuti) and pastoralists
(Datog and Yakut). In line with expectations, mean AMY1 copy number
was greater in the high-starch compared to low-starch populations.

Notably, there was no geographic pattern in AMY1 copy number to suggest
that populations closer to one another have more similar AMY1 copy numbers
than populations that are further apart-- this pattern would be expected if
variation in AMY1 is driven largely by neutral genetic changes (genetic drift).
Instead, the results suggest that variation in AMY1 is related to ecological
adaptations in diet. Perry and Dominy hypothesize that natural selection is
driving differences in AMY1 copy number. Their results do provide some
compelling evidence for natural selection at the AMY1 locus, but the authors
cautiously note that the jury is still out on this question-- pending additional
data of course.

Shedding some light on the evolutionary history of AMY1, Perry and Dominy
also looked at AMY1 variation in chimps and bonobos, our close genetic
relatives. Their primary diet-- ripe fruit-- contains very little starch, leading the
researchers to predict low numbers of AMY1 in these apes. Indeed, the data
indicate that chimps and bonobos have, at most, 2 functional copies of AMY1.
The researchers report that humans have 3 times more AMY1 copies
compared to chimps, on average-- and bonobos may not have any functional
AMY1 copies at all. These findings support the conclusion that elevated
AMY1 copy numbers arose in the human lineage, not before it.

If this doesn't convince you, Dominy and colleagues have also found evidence
that Homo erectus, an early human progenitor, specialized on eating high-starch
corms and tubers. In this sister study, Dominy used stable isotope analysis, a
common method to assess diet composition. In a nutshell, the stable isotope
signatures of consumers will resemble the stable isotope signatures of their food
sources-- after some corrections for fractionation. As it turns out, Homo erectus
has a stable isotope signature that is consistent with a high-starch diet, and
decidedly not consistent with a carnivorous one.

All of these lines of evidence suggest that having many copies of AMY1 is likely
to have evolved early in the human lineage-- indeed it may have been critical to
launching humans on our own immensely successful, starch-filled, evolutionary
path.

http://thexvials.blogspot.com/

['A corm is a short, vertical, swollen underground plant stem that serves as
a storage organ used by some plants to survive winter or other adverse
conditions such as summer drought and heat (estivation).
..'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corm ]
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 22:20 GMT
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> ,,
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> [snip massive copypasta sh.t HEMORRHAGE of material lesley has not read,
and *CANNOT* read]

You haven't read any of that in the original.  Reason:  you *cannot*
read it.  You're *INCOMPETENT* to read it.  You have no background in
anthropology, anatomy of physiology.

Not *ONE* word of that massive sh.t hemorrhage supports your silly claim
that humans did not evolve as meat eaters.  Humans *did* evolve as meat
eaters, and that is the overwhelming consensus of professionals - not
partisan "vegan" extremist liars like you - who study these things.

Humans are adapted to eating meat - end of story.
dh@. - 08 Oct 2008 14:50 GMT
>> > The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life
>> > since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>Which domesticated animals - cows, chickens, pigs, sheep...?
>Stop breeding.  Their natural original counterparts can recover.

   Are you dreaming that if we stop raising livestock there will
be aurochs and jungle fowl all over the place?

>> > Humans aren't a naturally carnivorous species, and no amount
>> > of rant and bluster, ball, will change known biological realities.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Show us evidence.  

   You wouldn't exist if humans never began to eat meat.

>You'll find nothing to hang your hat on.

   There's your head.

>> In spite of being an omnivore not a
>> carnivore humans are now the peak preditor on our planet.
>
>Without weapons, you'd be nothing.  Likely still prey.

   You owe your very existence to that which you're
trying to oppose.
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 16:57 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>>>> The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life
>>>> since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>     Are you dreaming that if we stop raising livestock there will
> be aurochs and jungle fowl all over the place?

No.

>>>> Humans aren't a naturally carnivorous species, and no amount
>>>> of rant and bluster will change known biological realities.
>>> In fact humans are omnivores
>> No.  Humans are frugivores.

Humans are omnivores.

>>> and no amount of rant and bluster,
>>> ball, will change known biological realities.  That means humans
>>> are evolved to eat meat.
>> Show us evidence.  
>
>     You wouldn't exist if humans never began to eat meat.

False.

>> You'll find nothing to hang your hat on.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>     You owe your very existence to that which you're
> trying to oppose.

False.
dh@. - 14 Oct 2008 13:39 GMT
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 Goo lied extremely blatantly:

>dh pointed out:
>
>>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> pointed out:
>>>
>>>> In spite of being an omnivore not a
>>>> carnivore humans are now the peak preditor on our planet.

>>> Without weapons, you'd be nothing.  Likely still prey.
>>
>>     You owe your very existence to that which you're
>> trying to oppose.
>
>False.

   Goober, do you really want people to believe you're stupid
enough to think you would still exist if humans had never begun
to eat meat? If so, why would you want anyone to believe you're
that stupid, Goo?
Rudy Canoza - 14 Oct 2008 16:31 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "pointing out".

>>>> "Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> pointed out:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>     Rudy, do you really want people to believe

It is false that without meat eating, humans wouldn't exist.  That's
blatantly false.
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 18:59 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> [snip stupid cracker Gooshit]

It's a lie you cooked up.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 17:50 GMT
>> The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life
>> since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores.
>
> This means for example that anyone who feeds a cat a
> vegitarian diet should be reported for animal cruelty.

Actually, yes - unless you're giving the cat some kind of taurine
supplement.

>> Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life...
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> In fact humans are omnivores and no amount of rant and bluster,
> will change known biological realities.

Exactly.

> That means humans
> are evolved to eat meat.

Exactly.

But now you've really f.cked up.  lesley, the foot masseuse criminally
misusing the posting name "pearl", will now *SPEW* post after post of
willfully misinterpreted comparative anatomy stuff that she HAS NOT READ
and is, in fact, *INCOMPETENT* to read because she's a lying
agenda-driven dogmatist rather than a scientist, attempting to "prove"
that humans are not adapted to eating meat.

You can ignore it if you want - she really *is* incompetent in the
field, and she blatantly cherry-picks the material.  The *FACT* is that
physical anthropologists and biologists are overwhelmingly persuaded
that humans *are* biologically (anatomically and physiologically)
adapted to meat eating.  Humans - homo sapiens sapiens - have eaten meat
for *all* of the 250,000 years the species has existed, and the
predecessor hominid species going back *at least* another 2.25 million
years *also* ate meat:  at all times and places.  This is not in dispute
among those academic professionals who study these matters; it is only
disputed by crackpot new-age goofs like lesley and her
high-blood-pressure crazed ally, larry forti.
dh@. - 08 Oct 2008 14:49 GMT
>What
>is to be done about domesticated animals?  There they all to be
>neutered and taken extinct, or are they to be released into the
>wild and let evolution decide if they go extinct?

   They would be killed off the way PeTA does it. These links
may or may not work anymore, but the stories tell us how things
would go:
_________________________________________________________
[...]
WAVY-TV's coverage in Norfolk included heartbreaking details from the
manager of the supermarket whose dumpster became an impromptu pet
cemetery. "They just slung the doors [open] and started throwing dogs
... beautiful cats. I saw a [dead] beagle last week that was pregnant ... last
week it was 23 or 24 dogs ... it's happened to us nine times ... they drove
straight from there, straight here, and disposed of the dogs in 30 seconds."

Authorities told WNCT-TV in Greenville, NC that they've discovered more
than 70 dead animals in the last month that may be connected to PETA.
[...]
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm?headline=2833
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
no sign of changing.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
[...]
According to the Associated Press (AP) PETA killed 1325 dogs and cats
in Norfolk last year. That was more than half the number of animals is
took in during that period. According to Virginian-Pilot Reporter, Kerry
Dougherty, the execution rate at PETA's "shelter" far exceeds that of the
local Norfolk SPCA shelter where only a third of animals taken in are
"put down."
[...]
http://www.iwmc.org/newsletter/2000/2000-08g.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

When I first started posting, misnomer advocates were insisting the
animals would be released to begin thriving wild popuations who
would happily co-exist with man, but it seems they finally figured out
that isn't going to work...at least I haven't seen anyone suggesting
the absurdity in a few years. "pearl" may still have dreams of it
happening, but it looks like most people are over the crazy idea.
That brings us to one of the most basic aspects of all of it: the
difference between the misnomer and decent AW. The main
difference between them is: The animals.
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 16:56 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>> What
>> is to be done about domesticated animals?  There they all to be
>> neutered and taken extinct, or are they to be released into the
>> wild and let evolution decide if they go extinct?
>
>     They would be killed off the way PeTA does it.

So?

> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
> When I first started posting

When you first started lying in this and other groups, Bill Clinton was
president, and the Dow-Jones Industrial Average was about where it is today.
dh@. - 14 Oct 2008 13:39 GMT
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 the Goober wrote:

>>>What
>>>is to be done about domesticated animals?  There they all to be
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
>So?

   So it shows that the misnomer wouldn't provide rights or anything at
all for domestic animals, Goo.

>>When I first started posting, misnomer advocates were insisting the
>>animals would be released to begin thriving wild popuations who
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>When you first started lying

   LOL!!! The truth is what you hate Goo so if I lied, chances are you
would like it a lot better. LOL...

>>That brings us to one of the most basic aspects of all of it: the
>>difference between the misnomer and decent AW. The main
>>difference between them is: The animals.
Rudy Canoza - 14 Oct 2008 16:30 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 the Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>     So it shows that the misnomer wouldn't provide rights or anything at
> all for domestic animals

No, it does not.

>>> When I first started posting, misnomer advocates were insisting the
>>> animals would be released to begin thriving wild popuations who
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>     LOL!!! The truth is

The truth is that you started lying about animals in 1999, and you've
never stopped.
dh@. - 07 Oct 2008 16:43 GMT
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:

>> You seem to be pretty focused on one topic there. Any reason why?
>
>Yes, there is.  Goo - that's Fuckwit David Harrison

   Note that Goo is extremely disturbed that he has been referred
to as Goobernicus, Goo, etc... all these years, and he's also
obviously very impressed by it. After a number of years and not
having the ability to come up with anything himself, the Goober
finally began mimicking me and referring to me in the same way
he has been referred to for quite a while.

>, stupid pig-f.cking
>cracker in the backwoods of Georgia - has been trying to rationalize his
>meat-eating to "vegans" and "animal rights activists" for 10 years now.

   I point out that in order to consider whether or not it's cruel
to the animals a person must take their lives into consideration,
and you have been terrified that people might start to do it.

>    For the first six months of those 10 years, he thought he had found
>the neatest "trick" to do it.  He wanted to make it out that meat eaters
>are "giving life" to livestock - doing them a big favor - and that it
>isn't too much sacrifice to ask the animals to die to return the favor.

   Everything dies Goober, not just livestock. Everything that
lives will be killed by something.

 · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·

>  There are two big blunders in this.  First, that line of uh, er,
>'reasoning' was discredited well over a century ago.  

   LOL!!! By that the Goober is referring to a fantasy written
by one of the founding fathers of the misnomer Henry "AR"
Salt. The fantasy is about a philosopher having a chat with
a talking pig, and the pig's main complaint is something that
doesn't even apply to the way pigs are raised in most cases
today.

>Farmers are not
>"doing something nice" for farm animals by breeding them into existence;
>it is not a "benefit" to exist rather than never exist.

   Try explaining why you think that's the case Goo. Go:

>But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
>justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.

   That's a rare flicker of truth from you Goo, but it still doesn't
reduce the fact that in order to consider whether or not it's
cruel *to the animals* to be raised for food we necessarily
MUST take their lives into consideration.

>Animals do not have "rights"

   Duh Goo, duh.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 19:22 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 Rudy B. Canoza wrote:
>
>>> You seem to be pretty focused on one topic there. Any reason why?
>> Yes, there is.  Goo - that's Fuckwit David Harrison
>
>     Note that Rudy is extremely disturbed

No.

>> , stupid pig-f.cking
>> cracker in the backwoods of Georgia - has been trying to rationalize his
>> meat-eating to "vegans" and "animal rights activists" for 10 years now.
>
>     I point out

No.  No "pointing out", Goo - not once in 10 years.

> that in order to consider whether or not it's cruel
> to the animals a person must take their lives into consideration,

That's false.

>>    For the first six months of those 10 years, he thought he had found
>> the neatest "trick" to do it.  He wanted to make it out that meat eaters
>> are "giving life" to livestock - doing them a big favor - and that it
>> isn't too much sacrifice to ask the animals to die to return the favor.
>
>     Everything dies Rudy,

Right.  Dies, not "is killed"/

> not just livestock. Everything that
> lives will be killed by something.

False, Goo.

>   [snip stale canned discredited bullshit]
>
>>  There are two big blunders in this.  First, that line of uh, er,
>> 'reasoning' was discredited well over a century ago.  
>
>     LOL!!!

You don't find it funny, Goo.

>> Farmers are not
>> "doing something nice" for farm animals by breeding them into existence;
>> it is not a "benefit" to exist rather than never exist.
>
>     Try explaining why you think that's the case Goo.

Done, hundreds of times, Goo.

>> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
>> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
>
>     That's a rare flicker of truth from you Rudy,

No, Goo, and you know you're lying.  It's what I've been saying for the
nine and a half years I've been kicking the sh.t out of you.

> but it still doesn't
> reduce the fact that in order to consider whether or not it's
> cruel *to the animals* to be raised for food we necessarily
> MUST take their lives into consideration.

No, Goo, that's false.  And even if it were true, Goo - but it isn't
true, Goo - you don't *do* it.  You lie and say you do it, but you
don't.  You *ONLY* want the products, Goo.
Hoots - 08 Oct 2008 12:22 GMT
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
>
>     Duh Goo, duh.

Do wop, do wop.

dee dee dee dah...
dh@. - 08 Oct 2008 14:48 GMT
>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>dee dee dee

Duh Goober, duh Goo.

dah dah dah
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 16:54 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> dah dah dah

The most intelligent thing you ever said, Goo - babytalk.
Hoots - 08 Oct 2008 12:12 GMT
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
>> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> approaching this from a nonsense perspective, as you would expect from a
> pig-f.cking illiterate cracker in backwoods Georgia.

That old Goo is a rascal, eh?
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 15:19 GMT
>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
>>> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> That old Goo is a rascal, eh?

He's a stupid pig-f.cking cracker.
Hoots - 09 Oct 2008 11:32 GMT
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
>>>> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> He's a stupid pig-f.cking cracker.

Yeah, but a great dancer, though, right?
Rudy Canoza - 09 Oct 2008 15:37 GMT
>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
>>>>> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> Yeah, but a great dancer, though, right?

No, he's not good at anything.
Hoots - 10 Oct 2008 10:51 GMT
>>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid
>>>>>> pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> No, he's not good at anything.

Awww...

I try to look for good in everyone and everything..

I figure if I don't, what's the point?
Rudy Canoza - 10 Oct 2008 15:20 GMT
>>>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid
>>>>>>> pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> I try to look for good in everyone and everything..

So do I, but sometimes, there just isn't any to be found.  I tried with
Fuckwit for a long time back about nine years ago, and after exhaustive
examination concluded there just wasn't any.

> I figure if I don't, what's the point?
dh@. - 02 Nov 2008 16:59 GMT
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 Goo lied:

>> I try to look for good in everyone and everything..
>
>So do I,

   Try presenting some examples of you trying Goober. GO:

(correct prediction: Goo can't present any examples, in large part
because he's lying.)

>but sometimes, there just isn't any to be found.  I tried with
>Fuckwit for a long time back about nine years ago,

   No Goober, that's another lie. You have lied about what I
believe, and that's ALL you've done. In nine stupid years or
however long you have always been afraid to even
acknowledge what I believe, but instead have spent all your
time lying about what it is. You can't even oppose Hinduism
Goo, and they DO believe what you dishonestly lie about me
believing. I even admit that I consider the possibility Goob,
but all you do is repeat the same stupid, meaningless lie over
and over and over for no apparent reason at all. The reason
is there though Goo, and the reason as we know is that any
way you can prevent people from considering the lives of the
animals you misnomer advocates want to eliminate, is a good
thing to you. Any way you can support the misnomer over
decent AW, however dishonestly or whatever, is good to you.

>and after exhaustive
>examination concluded there just wasn't any.

   Just because you can't appreciate the value in lives of
positive value for domestic animals doesn't mean there isn't
any value to it at all Goo, you pathetic fool.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Nov 2008 21:39 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>     No Rudy , that's another lie.

No, it isn't.

> You have lied about what I believe,

No, I have not - not ever.  You believe "vegans" are doing something
"cruel" to non-existent farm animals by agitating to prevent any more of
them from being born.  That's exactly what you believe, Fuckwit - Goo -
and I have proved it.

>> and after exhaustive
>> examination concluded there just wasn't any.
>
>     Just because you can't appreciate the value in lives of
> positive value

That's a meaningless bullshit expression, and a really shitty
smokescreen.  What you mean when you bullshit "lives of positive value"
is existence.  That's what you mean.  I've proved that, too.
dh@. - 26 Oct 2008 15:56 GMT
>Goo wrote:
>>> Goo wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
>I try to look for good in everyone and everything..

   Goo doesn't allow it to be seen, if there's any good
in him at all.

>I figure if I don't, what's the point?

   So can you appreciate the fact that some livestock
benefit from lives of positive value, don't you care enough
to even think about it, or do you disbelieve the fact is
actually a fact?
Hoots - 27 Oct 2008 12:10 GMT
>> Goo wrote:
>>>> Goo wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> to even think about it, or do you disbelieve the fact is
> actually a fact?

Boy that participle just barely made a landing there...
dh@. - 27 Oct 2008 13:21 GMT
>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>> Goo wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
>Boy that participle just barely made a landing there...

   So you don't care enough to even think about it. Lame
as that is, it's still better than lying about it imo, like the Goos
and other misnomer advocates do. Goo himself says he's
been lying about it for over nine years now.
Rudy Canoza - 28 Oct 2008 06:31 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> [stupid illiterate "Bumper" bullshit]

Not "who", "Bumper", you stupid f.cking cracker - what.  "Him" is your
fabrication, "Bumper", that's what.
dh@. - 28 Oct 2008 15:15 GMT
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 without ever being able to back it up, the Goober again claimed:

>Not "who", "Bumper", you stupid f.cking cracker - what.

   Okay Goober, try explaining what you think prevents all living creatures from
benefitting from their lives, and/or their existence. Go:

(correct prediction: the Goober can't even make an attempt.)
Rudy Canoza - 28 Oct 2008 17:40 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Not "who", "Bumper", you stupid f.cking cracker - what.
>
>     Okay Rudy, try explaining what you think prevents all living creatures from
> benefitting from their lives,

No animal "benefits" from existing, Goo.  That has been demonstrated
conclusively.
Hoots - 28 Oct 2008 12:10 GMT
>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>>> Goo wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> and other misnomer advocates do. Goo himself says he's
> been lying about it for over nine years now.

Um, ok.

?
dh@. - 28 Oct 2008 15:21 GMT
>>>>> I try to look for good in everyone and everything..

>>>>     Goo doesn't allow it to be seen, if there's any good
>>>> in him at all.
>>>>
>>>>> I figure if I don't, what's the point?

>>>>     So can you appreciate the fact that some livestock
>>>> benefit from lives of positive value, don't you care enough
>>>> to even think about it, or do you disbelieve the fact is
>>>> actually a fact?

>>> Boy that participle just barely made a landing there...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>?

   There are people who refer to themselves as "animal rights"
advocates. That's a gross misnomer in regards to domestic animals
and afawk also in regards to wildlife. A better term for misnomer
advocates in regards to domestic animals is "eliminationists"
since they want to *eliminate* domestic animals, not provide them
with better lives, or rights, or anything at all.

   Animal Welfare is a completely different objective wanting to
provided decent lives of positive value for domestic animals,
instead of no life at all as the misnomer advocates are going for.
Whether you care about it at all or not, that's how it is. The main
difference between "ar" and AW is: The animals.

   Misnomer advocates don't want that to be pointed out or
widely understood because they're aware that the majority of
contributions to eliminationist organizations (like PeTA) most likely
come from people who want to contribute to decent lives for
domestic animals, *not* cause their elimination:

"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
of animal use." - Dutch

They very much don't want people to think things all the way
through to the point of understanding all that. The truth is their
enemy so all they have to fight it with is lies. I've been pointing
out that truth (among others) for a while now and in his attempts
to oppose it Goo has been lying against it in a number of different
ways for over nine years.

   Look how disturbed and upset one of the eliminationists
became simply because I pointed out the obvious difference
between AW and the misnomer:
_________________________________________________________
dh pointed out:  

> AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
> farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
> the same thing, they are completely different objectives.

"Dutch" insanely and desperately responded:

Shut the f.ck up you stupid f.cking moron. Do the world a favour and go blow
your stupid f.cking head off with the biggest f.cking gun you can find.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Rudy Canoza - 28 Oct 2008 17:48 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> [stupid cracker bullshit]

Coming into existence - "getting to experience life", in your sh.t 
writing - is not a benefit for farm animals, Goo.  "vegans" are not
being "cruel" to non-existent farm animals, you stupid f.cking cracker,
no matter how fervently you believe that they are:

       People who encourage vegetarianism are the
       worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
       have IMO.
       Goo "Bumper" Fuckwit Harrison - 09/13/1999

       You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
       future farm animals [of] living,
       Goo "Bumper" Fuckwit Harrison - 01/08/2002

       That approach is illogical, since if it
       is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
       *far worse* to keep those same animals from
       getting to have any life at all.
       Goo "Bumper" Fuckwit Harrison - 07/30/1999

       What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
       *could* get to live, is for people not to
       consider the fact that they are only keeping
       these animals from being killed, by keeping
       them from getting to live at all.
       Goo "Bumper" Fuckwit Harrison - 10/19/1999

       If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
       even more wrong to discourage them from ever
       getting to experience life at all IMO.
       Goo "Bumper" Fuckwit Harrison - 9 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v

       What gives you the right to want to deprive
       them [unborn animals] of having what life they
       could have?
       Goo "Bumper" Fuckwit Harrison - 10/12/2001

       Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
       born if nothing prevents that from happening,
       that would experience the loss if their lives
       are prevented.
       Goo "Bumper" Fuckwit Harrison - 08/01/2000

You *ABSOLUTELY* believe that "vegans" are committing some kind of
"cruelty" to non-existent farm animals.  You can't deny it.  You'll lie
and /try/ to deny it, but it's exactly what you believe.  You've said so
too many times, even though you are too stupid to realize you were
waying it.
dh@. - 29 Oct 2008 18:27 GMT
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:

>You *ABSOLUTELY* believe that "vegans" are committing some kind of
>"cruelty" to non-existent farm animals.  You can't deny it.  

   LOL!!! I do deny it Goober. Any such implication in those very
old quotes were mistakes in terminology as I've explained countless
times over the years.

>You've said so too many times, even though you are too stupid to realize
>you were waying it.

   Being honest I've admitted they were mistakes countless times,
but you never have tried to explain how you think you disagree
with yourself about whether or not their lives should be considered:
_________________________________________________________
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever" - Goo

"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
of consideration." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
moral consideration, and is given none" - Goo

"I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
consideration" - Goo

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
whether or not life is ever a benefit for animals, and even whether
or not we ever discuss existing animals:
_________________________________________________________
"Life is not a benefit for farm animals." - Goo

"Their lives may be pleasant for them." - Goo

""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
a benefit at all" - Goo

"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo

"Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
*IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo

"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo

"IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
aspects of their lives." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and a few other ways you think you disagree with yourself in
general:
_________________________________________________________
"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo

"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know" - Goo

"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo

"we don't know if that move improves its welfare" - Goo

"the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo

"Intent doesn't matter" - Goo

"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Rudy Canoza - 29 Oct 2008 21:30 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and
said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?",
and so he lied:

> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>
> >You *ABSOLUTELY* believe that "vegans" are committing some kind of
> >"cruelty" to non-existent farm animals.  You can't deny it.  
>
>     LOL!!! I do deny it Rudy.

Sorry, Goo - you can't.  The proof that you believe it is overwhelming.
Dutch - 29 Oct 2008 22:14 GMT
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> old quotes were mistakes in terminology as I've explained countless
> times over the years.

Those quotes reveal the essence of your argument, the Logic of the Larder,
which has not changed.

>>You've said so too many times, even though you are too stupid to realize
>>you were saying it.
>
>    Being honest I've admitted they were mistakes countless times,
> but you never have tried to explain how you think you disagree
> with yourself about whether or not their lives should be considered:

Over time you have clumsily employed various means to disguise the essence
of your position, however for those of us who have watched you from the
beginning nothing has changed, you promote the Logic of the Larder. The
Logic of the Larder is a shabby and discredited bit of sophism which
attempts to use the very lives of livestock animals as a justification for
raising them for food. The Logic of the Larder is an affront to logic and a
disgrace to decent people everywhere.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Oct 2008 06:27 GMT
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Those quotes reveal the essence of your argument, the Logic of the
> Larder, which has not changed.

GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison actually takes the (il)Logic of the Larder,
as absurd as it already is, to new depths of absurdity.  The typical
slovenly jerk who invokes the (il)Logic of the Larder merely uses it to
try, futilely, to justify his own meat consumption.  But GooFuckwit goes
further into absurdity with it.  He tries to use it as a club to beat on
"vegans" for not providing livestock animals with "the gift of life".
GooFuckwit doesn't merely say that he's doing something morally good for
animals by eating them; he actually wants to try to "prove" that
"vegans" are doing something evil to *non-existent* animals by not
causing more livestock animals - who don't now exist - to come into
existence.

It's alllllllllll about existence for GooFuckwit.  His blabber about
"decent lives" is just comical bullshit.  He doesn't give a sh.t about
the quality of life experienced by livestock.  He just wants them to
exist, period.

>>> You've said so too many times, even though you are too stupid to realize
>>> you were saying it.
>>
>>    Being honest I've admitted they were mistakes countless times,

Being utterly *dishonest*, GooFuckwit has tried to get himself off the
hook by lying and saying they were "mistakes".  They were not mistakes.
 Everyone knows they were not mistakes, including GooFuckwit.
dh@. - 02 Nov 2008 17:11 GMT
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>Over time you have clumsily employed various means to disguise the essence
>of your position,

   LOL! It's fun the way people have different ways of referring to
telling the truth.

>however for those of us who have watched you from the
>beginning nothing has changed, you promote the Logic of the Larder. The
>Logic of the Larder is a shabby and discredited bit of sophism which
>attempts to use the very lives of livestock animals as a justification for
>raising them for food.

   It includes the animals' lives in the calculation of whether or
not things are cruel to the animals, which is necessary in order
to get a realistic interpretation.

>The Logic of the Larder is an affront to logic and a
>disgrace to decent people everywhere.

   No it's not, but refusing to consider the animals while
pretending to consider the animals certainly is that and
worse.
Rudy Canoza - 29 Oct 2008 23:35 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and
said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?",
and so he lied:

> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 Rudy B. Canoza wrote:
>
> >You *ABSOLUTELY* believe that "vegans" are committing some kind of
> >"cruelty" to non-existent farm animals.  You can't deny it.  
>
>     LOL!!! I do deny it Rudy.

You can't, Goo.  The evidence is overwhelming.  Sure, you can try, but
you can't actually do it.  It's undeniable.

> Any such implication in those very
> old quotes

Regardless of the age of them, Goo, your thinking has not changed.

> were mistakes in terminology

Bullshit.  No, we've been over that countless times, Goo.  They were
not "mistakes in terminology".  They *perfectly* express your
thinking, Goo.  You *believe* that non-existent farm animals can
suffer "loss", "deprivation", "denial", "unfairness", and much more.
You believe that they are not "just nothing":

       The animals that will be raised for us to eat
       are more than just "nothing", because they
       *will* be born unless something stops their
       lives from happening. Since that is the case,
       if something stops their lives from happening,
       whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
       them of the life they otherwise would have had.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 12/09/1999

Non-existent farm animals are *real* to you, Goo.  In some weird,
irrational GooCracker universe, non-existent animals *exist* to you,
Goo.
Rudy Canoza - 28 Oct 2008 16:41 GMT
>>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> Goo wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> Um, ok.

I hope you've learned a valuable lesson here.
Hoots - 29 Oct 2008 12:10 GMT
>>>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>> Goo wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>
> I hope you've learned a valuable lesson here.

I think he was a little drunk when he posted that.

Or maybe I was drunk when I read it - I forget now.

I know SOMEBODY needs a drink and I think it's me.
Rudy Canoza - 29 Oct 2008 15:32 GMT
>>>>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Goo wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> I think he was a little drunk when he posted that.

Actually, he wasn't.  That's GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison's usual way of
expressing himself.  Here, read this; it's something he wrote almost
nine years ago in this newsgroup:

       I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
       presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
       post my spew as everyone else does.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 11/30/1999

You can read the original here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/3cc0202bafa28fc2

> Or maybe I was drunk when I read it - I forget now.

I know you sure probably wanted to sock back a few /after/ reading it.

> I know SOMEBODY needs a drink and I think it's me.

Prost!
Hoots - 30 Oct 2008 12:34 GMT
>>>>>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Goo wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
>
> Prost!

Slainte!
dh@. - 29 Oct 2008 18:41 GMT
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 Goo maundered uselessly:

>> dh@. pointed out:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>I hope you've learned a valuable lesson here.

   LOL!!!
Rudy Canoza - 29 Oct 2008 22:37 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and
said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?",
and so he lied:

> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 Rudy B. Canoza tried to throw 'Hoots' a lifeline:
>
> >> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid
> >> pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be
> >> even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "pointing out".

> >>>     So you don't care enough to even think about it. Lame as that is,
> >>> it's still better than lying about it imo, like the Goos
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>     LOL!!!

Yeah, I doubt he learned it either, Fuckwit.  It usually takes people
a few rounds to figure out what a stupid cracker fuckwit you are.
dh@. - 02 Nov 2008 16:59 GMT
>dh laughed at the Goober:
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>Yeah, I doubt he learned it either, Fuckwit.  It usually takes people
>a few rounds to figure out what a stupid cracker fuckwit you are.

   If I am, you haven't figured out what I'm stupid about in all
these years Goo. In fact you haven't even acknowledged
my beliefs, much less pointed out any stupidity in them, Goob.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Nov 2008 21:36 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 Rudy J. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "pointing out".

>>>>>>     So you don't care enough to even think about it. Lame as that is,
>>>>>> it's still better than lying about it imo, like the Goos
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>     If I am,

Not "if".  You are.  You have admitted to being a stupid, badly educated
cracker.
Rudy Canoza - 28 Oct 2008 16:44 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
>     So you don't care enough to even think about it.

Nothing to think about, Goo, you stupid pig-f.cking cracker.

You just can't let it go, can you, "Bumper"?  After all these years of
failure and futility, you *still* think you can fool someone into
believing that you show "consideration" for the lives of animals, when
all you really want is to eat them.

No one is fooled, Goo.  No one ever /will/ be fooled, as long as I am
around to show what a liar and shitbag you are.
dh@. - 29 Oct 2008 18:40 GMT
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 the Goober lied:

>dh pointed out:
>
>>     So you don't care enough to even think about it.
>
>Nothing to think about

"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
of consideration.  I also give the not-yet-begun lives
of animals that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a
lot of consideration" - Goo
Rudy Canoza - 29 Oct 2008 21:32 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and
said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?",
and so he lied:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 the Goober lied:
>
> >Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "pointing out", cracker.

> >>     So you don't care enough to even think about it.
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> of animals that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a
> lot of consideration" - Rudy

You give them *ZERO* consideration, Goo.  You only consider the
products, Goo - proved beyond a shadow of doubt.
dh@. - 02 Nov 2008 16:59 GMT
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 the Goober absurdly and dishonestly
tried to criticise dh for something Goo himself is quite obviously
guilty of, and amusingly he also appears to be proud of as his
own quotes reveal:

>You give them *ZERO* consideration

   Explain why YOU are opposed to seeing them given consideration
Goober. We must believe you agree with yourself about all of your
following quotes, unless you want to explain exactly how you think
you disagree with yourself about one or two of them IF you think
you know how you think you disagree about any:
_________________________________________________________
"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"Shut the f.ck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo

"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
with never existing." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
"decent lives"" - Goo

"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo

No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
never existing." - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - Goo

"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place
is the ethically superior choice." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - Goo

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo

"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo

"We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On to a harder task for you to fail completely Goob: Try explaining
exactly WHY you think it's ethically superior to refuse to take the
animals' lives into consideration, than it is to consider them. Go:

(correct prediction: even though Goo so very obvious and
maniacally doesn't want them to be considered, he can't give
any reason(s) why a person should consider it ethically superior to
refuse to.)
Rudy Canoza - 02 Nov 2008 21:40 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> Rudy J. Canoza wrote:
>
>> You give them *ZERO* consideration, you f.cking lying cracker.
>
>     Explain why YOU are opposed to seeing them given consideration
> Rudy.

Their lives, before they occur, have no moral meaning.  There is nothing
to consider.  It is not "good", for them, if they come into existence.
Hoots - 03 Nov 2008 12:11 GMT
> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
> stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Their lives, before they occur, have no moral meaning.  There is nothing
> to consider.  It is not "good", for them, if they come into existence.

This is now the longest "who cares anymore" thread I have ever seen.

Congratulations guys!!!

WOOHOO!!!!
dh@. - 03 Nov 2008 12:18 GMT
>dh challenged the Goober AGAIN:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>WOOHOO!!!!

   Nine years, according to Goo. It's not that it's insignificant whether
or not we raise animals though, it's just that as you say and as you
show no one much gives a sh.t enough to even think about it. That
of course is exactly what eliminationists want since consideration of
the animals favors decent Animal Welfare, and that idea works directly
against their elimination objective. It seems like nothing to you, but
these people are having a strong influence. I've heard people say
they were a veg*n and then someone else say they admire that
but could never do it because they like meat too much, as if being
a veg*n is somehow superior to contributing to decent lives for
livestock. Eliminationists lie deliberately to children telling them
they can help and save livestock by being veg*n. They lie and
get away with it, they deny the truth and get away with it, and
their influence can be easily seen by the fact that there are plenty
of veg*n things available but you NEVER see any sort of reduced
cruely items even though eliminationist organizations take in millions
of dollars each year. Don't forget these are the same people who
raid mink farms releasing mink to suffer and die as they themselves
cause much suffering and death to the native wildlife. They're also
the same people who destroy medical research, and have a great
influence on the always super high cost of anything medical as a
result of their terrorism against it. Then there's the suffering they
cause with it too...not only the extra suffering to more animals who
will have to be used when experiments need to be repeated, but
also the humans and other animals who will suffer when improved
treatments are delayed because of terrorist influences. This
particular example sticks in my mind:
_________________________________________________________
. . .
The Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which advocates illegal, nonviolent
activism, was responsible for dozens of attacks in North America last
year. It took credit for $750,000 in damage to offices and equipment at
the University of Minnesota, where researchers study Alzheimer's disease
and work on a vaccine against brain cancer. Other targets were the
University of California at San Francisco, where many data, including
work aimed at developing alternatives to animal research, were lost,
and Western Washington University, where three dozen research rats and
rabbits were stolen. ALF proudly stated that it destroyed one
scientist's lifetime of work there.
. . .
http://www.sciam.com/2000/0200issue/0200techbus1.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
It is significant, whether you care anything about it or not.
Rudy Canoza - 03 Nov 2008 15:28 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "challenge".

>>>> Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You give them *ZERO* consideration, you f.cking lying cracker.
>>>>     Explain why YOU are opposed to seeing them given consideration Goo.

You give them *ZERO* consideration, cracker.

>>> Their lives, before they occur, have no moral meaning.  There is nothing
>>> to consider.  It is not "good", for them, if they come into existence.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>     Nine years, according to Rudy.

Nine years of your non-stop lying.
dh@. - 04 Nov 2008 11:59 GMT
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 Goo lied:

>>>dh challenged the Goober AGAIN:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
>
>Nine years of your non-stop lying.

   I have nothing to lie about Goo. The truth that some livestock
have decent lives of positive value is all a person needs to
oppose the elimination objective. The truth works AGAINST
the misnomer in a number of ways Goob, and you hate it terribly
when I point them out. You hate it when I point out that many
livestock have decent lives, and you hate it when I point out
that starvation, disease and nonhuman predators cause more
suffering than human hunting does. You also hate it when I
point out that terrorist acts carried out by misnomer advocates
against fur farms and research facilities, cause MORE suffering
for humans and other animals, not less. You hate the truth Goo,
and of course you can only attempt to "oppose" it by dishonestly
insisting it's not true...you can only "oppose" the truth by lying, Goo.
Rudy Canoza - 04 Nov 2008 15:36 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 Rudy N. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>
>>>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "challenge", cracker - not from the likes of you.

>>>>>> Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>     I have nothing to lie about Rudy.

Ha ha ha ha ha!  *All* you've done is lie, you stupid cracker, so
evidently you feel you have *lots* to lie about.  You lie when you call
these "mistakes", Goo, you *STUPID* lying cracker:

       The animals that will be raised for us to eat
       are more than just "nothing", because they
       *will* be born unless something stops their
       lives from happening. Since that is the case,
       if something stops their lives from happening,
       whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
       them of the life they otherwise would have had.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 12/09/1999

       Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
       born if nothing prevents that from happening,
       that would experience the loss if their lives
       are prevented.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 08/01/2000

       What gives you the right to want to deprive
       them [unborn animals] of having what life they
       could have?
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 10/12/2001

       What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
       *could* get to live, is for people not to
       consider the fact that they are only keeping
       these animals from being killed, by keeping
       them from getting to live at all.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 10/19/1999

       If you keep an animal from being born which
       would have been born without your interference,
       you have denied life to it, whether it actually
       exists or not.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 28 Sept 1999
http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu

       If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
       even more wrong to discourage them from ever
       getting to experience life at all IMO.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 9 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v

       I am talking about non-existing entities as if
       they will be alive some day. You are encouraging
       the idea that they should never be alive.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 10 Nov 1999
http://tinyurl.com/2nypox

You *LIE* and call them "mistakes", despite the fact you kept saying the
*SAME* type of things for seven of the nine years, because those full,
unedited quotes make your stupidity manifest (look up "manifest", you
stupid sh.t-sucking cracker - I know you don't know what it means.)

You have *EVERY* reason to lie, Goo.  Your beliefs are absurd, and the
only way you could possible try to sell them to anyone else is to lie
about them and try to make them seem something other than what they are.

You're a LIAR, Goo - a lifelong liar and cheat.
Rudy Canoza - 03 Nov 2008 19:24 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> [illiterate "Bumper" Goo cracker bullshit]

Not "who", "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper", that's
what.
dh@. - 04 Nov 2008 11:58 GMT
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 Goo declaired:

>Not "who", "Bumper" - what.

   I've asked you what Goo, but you have no clue. If you think you
do, try explaining what Goo.

(correct prediction: Goo no can do.)
Rudy Canoza - 04 Nov 2008 15:29 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 Rudy Y. Canoza declaired:

DECLARED, you goddamned f.cking child-molesting dirty illiterate
cracker; not "declaired".

>> Not "who", "Bumper" - what.
>
>     I've asked you what Rudy,

No, I *told* you "what", Goo, you shitfaced cracker failure:  your
fabrication.  "Him" is entirely your stupid cracker fabrication, stupid
cracker - I never wrote it or implied it.
Rudy Canoza - 28 Oct 2008 20:06 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
>     So you don't care enough to even think about it.

He knows your "consideration" is bullshit, "Bumper".

> Rudy himself says he's
> been lying about it for over nine years now.

No, I said *YOU* have been lying about it for over nine years now, Goo,
and you have been.
Rudy Canoza - 28 Oct 2008 16:46 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

>> Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>>>> Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>     So can you appreciate the fact that some livestock
> benefit from lives of positive value

Meaningless cracker bullshit.  We only care about the lives that
livestock lead *if* they exist, you stupid cracker.

What you really mean, "Bumper", is that coming into existence - "getting
to experience life", in your shitty writing - is a benefit to farm
animals, and that "vegans" are somehow "denying" this to non-existent
farm animals by trying to prevent more of them from being bred.

You are wrong.  I have demonstrated conclusively that you're wrong.
dh@. - 29 Oct 2008 18:41 GMT
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 Goo presented the obvious fact:

>dh asked Hoots:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Meaningless cracker bullshit.  We only care about the lives that
>livestock lead *if* they exist

   LOL. Duh Goo, duh. Those are of course the lives you want
to see prevented, NOT taken into consideration and promoted,
Goo.
Rudy Canoza - 29 Oct 2008 22:38 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and
said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?",
and so he lied:

> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 Rudy B. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>     LOL. Duh Goo, duh.

No, not "duh" to you, Goo.  You care about them even if they never
happen.  You're f.cked up.
dh@. - 02 Nov 2008 16:59 GMT
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 Goo lied:

>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 Goo presented the obvious fact:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>No, not "duh" to you, Goo.  You care about them even if they never
>happen.

   I can't even imagine how you could imagine that, Goo.
Neither can you, which shows that you're lying when you
pretend to believe your lie. Duh again, Goo, duh again.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Nov 2008 21:42 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>     I can't even imagine how you could imagine that, Rudy.

You have told us, Goo:

       The animals that will be raised for us to eat
       are more than just "nothing", because they
       *will* be born unless something stops their
       lives from happening. Since that is the case,
       if something stops their lives from happening,
       whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
       them of the life they otherwise would have had.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 12/09/1999

       Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
       born if nothing prevents that from happening,
       that would experience the loss if their lives
       are prevented.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 08/01/2000

       What gives you the right to want to deprive
       them [unborn animals] of having what life they
       could have?
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 10/12/2001

       What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
       *could* get to live, is for people not to
       consider the fact that they are only keeping
       these animals from being killed, by keeping
       them from getting to live at all.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 10/19/1999

       If you keep an animal from being born which
       would have been born without your interference,
       you have denied life to it, whether it actually
       exists or not.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 28 Sept 1999
http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu

       If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
       even more wrong to discourage them from ever
       getting to experience life at all IMO.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 9 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v

       I am talking about non-existing entities as if
       they will be alive some day. You are encouraging
       the idea that they should never be alive.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 10 Nov 1999
http://tinyurl.com/2nypox

*ALL* of those, you stupid sh.t-4-braincell child-molesting cracker,
tell us care about non-existent animals, and think they "ought" to exist.
dh@. - 14 Oct 2008 13:40 GMT
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:

>he's not good at anything.

   I am excellent at presenting you with challenges you're afraid to even
attempt Goober. To prove it I'll do it now:

Goo, try explaining what you think prevents you from benefitting from
your life without referring to "Him". GO:
Rudy Canoza - 14 Oct 2008 16:31 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
>
>> he's not good at anything.
>
>     I am excellent at

You're not good at anything, Goo.  Despite lying continually since 1999,
you're not even good at that.  "Practice makes perfect" has been disproved.
dh@. - 15 Oct 2008 13:57 GMT
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 Goo proved dh correct AGAIN:

>>On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>You're

   LOL!!! I knew you would prove me correct again, and of course
you sure did.
Rudy Canoza - 15 Oct 2008 16:10 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 Rudy Z. Canoza kicked the pig-f.cker Goo Fuckwit Harrison's a.s AGAIN:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "pointing out".

>>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 Rudy B. Canoza wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>     LOL!!! I knew you would

You knew I would tell the truth about you again, Goo.

You stink at *everything*, Goo.  You're sh.t, "Bumper".

What a stupid catfish-f.cking nickname you gave yourself on that hick
forum, Goo!  "Bumper" - jumping f.cking jesus!
dh@. - 19 Oct 2008 15:06 GMT
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 Goo agreed:

>>On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 Goo proved dh correct AGAIN:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>You knew I would

   LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Every time Goo.
Rudy Canoza - 19 Oct 2008 18:02 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>>
>>>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "pointing out".

>>>>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 Rudy F. Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>     Every time Rudy.

Yep:  every time, "Bumper", I tell the truth about you.  You're stupid.
 That's the truth.
Hoots - 16 Oct 2008 11:54 GMT
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 Goo proved dh correct AGAIN:
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>     LOL!!! I knew you would prove me correct again, and of course
> you sure did.

Yay!
Hoots - 15 Oct 2008 11:49 GMT
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Goo, try explaining what you think prevents you from benefitting from
> your life without referring to "Him". GO:

Oh, this is easy.

Boobie pics!

Yay
dh@. - 15 Oct 2008 13:56 GMT
>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Oh, this is easy.

   It's easy to defeat Goo. The hard part is trying to get him to
support his own stupid claims.

>Boobie pics!
>
>Yay
Hoots - 16 Oct 2008 11:54 GMT
>>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>>
>> Yay

Goo claims boobie pics are nice, right?

I can't imagine why folks wouldn't like them.
Rudy Canoza - 16 Oct 2008 19:21 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> he's not good at anything.
>>>     I am excellent at

You are shitty at everything, Goo.  I guess you're excellent at being
shitty.

>> Oh, this is easy.
>
>     It's easy to defeat Rudy.

No, "Bumper" - certainly not that you'd know, as you have lost every
time to me.  You lost over eight years ago when you wrote these bullshit
nuggets:

       The animals that will be raised for us to eat
       are more than just "nothing", because they
       *will* be born unless something stops their
       lives from happening. Since that is the case,
       if something stops their lives from happening,
       whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
       them of the life they otherwise would have had.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" David Harrison - 12/09/1999

       Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
       born if nothing prevents that from happening,
       that would experience the loss if their lives
       are prevented.
       "Bumper" - 08/01/2000

       What gives you the right to want to deprive
       them [unborn animals] of having what life they
       could have?
       "Bumper" - 10/12/2001

       What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
       *could* get to live, is for people not to
       consider the fact that they are only keeping
       these animals from being killed, by keeping
       them from getting to live at all.
       "Bumper" - 10/19/1999

       If you keep an animal from being born which
       would have been born without your interference,
       you have denied life to it, whether it actually
       exists or not.
       "Bumper" - 28 Sept 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu

       If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
       even more wrong to discourage them from ever
       getting to experience life at all IMO.
       Fuckwit - 9 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v

       I am talking about non-existing entities as if
       they will be alive some day. You are encouraging
       the idea that they should never be alive.
       Fuckwit - 10 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2nypox

You lost *LONG* before you ever stupidly - *admittedly* stupidly - began
posting here, "Bumper":

       I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
       presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
       post my spew as everyone else does.
       "Bumper" - 11/30/1999

You're a fuckwitted, lifelong loser, Goo - "Bumper".  You stupid f.cking 
hick clown.
dh@. - 19 Oct 2008 15:07 GMT
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:

>You lost over eight years ago when you wrote these bullshit
>nuggets:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>        *will* be born unless something stops their
>        lives from happening.

"I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals that are
"in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of consideration"
- Goo
Rudy Canoza - 19 Oct 2008 18:03 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> [snip fabricated pseudo-quote]

You lost, "Bumper" - nine years ago.  The animals that *might* be raised
for us to eat are *NOT* "more than just 'nothing'."  They are exactly
nothing.  You're an idiot.
dh@. - 20 Oct 2008 13:22 GMT
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:

>>On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> [snip fabricated pseudo-quote]

    [i put your cowardly snipped quote back goo]

   Which part(s) of your above quote are you now trying to
claim you disagree with Goo?

   Try explaining how you think you disagree with yourself
about the following, Goob:

"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
of consideration." - Goo

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
Rudy Canoza - 20 Oct 2008 15:59 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>     Which part(s) of your above quote are you now trying to
> claim you disagree with Rudy?

You fabricate a pseudo-quote, "Bumper".

Why are you so fearfully running away from acknowledging that you're
"Bumper", Goo?
Rudy Canoza - 20 Oct 2008 16:03 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> [snip Goo/"Bumper" bullshit]

Not "who, "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper".
dh@. - 21 Oct 2008 00:18 GMT
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:

>>On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
>Not "who, "Bumper" - what.  

   What then Goo, do you have any clue?
Rudy Canoza - 21 Oct 2008 04:16 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> [snip Goo/"Bumper" bullshit]

Not "who, "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper", that's
what.
dh@. - 07 Oct 2008 16:37 GMT
>>> Goo cowardly lied rather than attempt to explain his idiocity:

>>>> dh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [bullshit]
>>>> A figment of your fevered cracker imagination, that's who.

>>> He does like to go on...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>>
>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
. . .
>> ""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>You seem to be pretty focused on one topic there.

   Which one? The fact that Goo makes absurd claims he
can't back up? Or the fact that we should give the animals'
lives as much or more consideration that their deaths when
considering whether or not it's cruel to raise them for food?

>Any reason why?

   I point out Goo's absurdity for several reasons, one of
them being that I find it impressively stupid myself and
enjoy it when I run into someone else who finds it stupid
as well. It sux for Goo but it's fun for me when someone
else challenges him to try explaining himself.

   There's more than one reason for encouraging people
to think about the animals. One of them is the fact that
advocates of the misnomer hate to see anyone do it. One
of the advocates fiercely suggested that I blow my f.cking
head off rather than point out the difference between the
misnomer "animal rights" and decent animal welfare.
   The main reason is to encourage people who have
some consideration for the animals they eat to be conscientious
consumers of animal products instead of veg*ns if they want to
contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle. It may
not seem like much to you, but we hear veg*ns suggest that
by not eating meat they're helping some animals, which is a
complete lie but they have successfully created the impression
that it's true. That dishonest belief is a HUUUUUUGE gain for
them, and one which they certainly don't deserve. Apparently
once a person puts faith in veg*nism, they don't want to consider
anything else. That's why veg*ns target children. If they can get
them while they're young and haven't thought it through, they've
got them. Here PeTA lies to children directly:
_________________________________________________________
Here you come to save the day!
[...]
And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
make milk for their babies, not for people!
[...]
Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
your life cheese-free!

http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The dairy farms I've been on have provided decent lives of positive
value for their animals. So have the chicken farms. I can't say the
same for all the individual yards I've seen people have, but the real
farms appeared to  provide lives of positive value for the animals.

   We hear about people going vegan supposedly to help animals,
because that would be the only reason to do it. But! It does nothing
to help animals. Maybe if the people who are changing their lifestyle
in an attempt to help animals would do something that actually *would*
help animals, it would help more animals? I believe the answer to that
is yes. Cage free eggs are the only good example I know of so far.
I wish you would buy some and everyone else would too, and quit
buying battery eggs. Eventually it would be better for the farmers
to provide better lives for the birds in the cage free houses.

   The main difference between the misnomer and decent animal
welfare is: The animals. People should get that much straight at
least. It disgusts me every time I see millions of people lied to that
PeTA is an animal welfare organization and I wish it disgusted the
millions of people too, but unfortunately I believe only a very small
percentage of them know or even care what the difference is
between the completely different objectives.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 19:15 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>     Which one?

Your bullshit belief that "getting to experience life" is a benefit for
livestock.  It isn't, of course - no matter the quality of life.

>> Any reason why?
>
>     I point out

No.  You do not, ever, "point out", Goo.  You spew ignorant cracker
bullshit; that's all.
dh@. - 08 Oct 2008 14:48 GMT
>>>You seem to be pretty focused on one topic there.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Your bullshit belief that "getting to experience life" is a benefit for
>livestock.  It isn't, of course - no matter the quality of life.

   Try explaining why you think that is Goober. Go:

(Prediction: Goo can not explain.)

>>>Any reason why?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>No.  You do not, ever, "point out"

   I point out your absurdity for the reasons I explained,
Goober. I point out the dishonesty associated with the
misnomer for different reasons Goo. And I point out that
many livestock benefit from lives of positive value for
different though similar reasons Goob...

>>It sux for Goo but it's fun for me when someone
>>else challenges him to try explaining himself.
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 16:53 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>     Try explaining

Already done.

>>>> Any reason why?
>>>    I point out
>> No.  You do not, ever, "point out"
>
>     I point

You do not, ever, "point out", Goo.  Stop lying.
Hoots - 08 Oct 2008 12:21 GMT
>>>> Goo cowardly lied rather than attempt to explain his idiocity:
>
[quoted text clipped - 107 lines]
> percentage of them know or even care what the difference is
> between the completely different objectives.

That is a lot to digest there, but thanks, I'll read it a bit later.

You guys seem to focus on the same stuff over and over--any reason why?
dh@. - 08 Oct 2008 14:51 GMT
>> It may
>> not seem like much to you, but we hear veg*ns suggest that
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
>That is a lot to digest there, but thanks, I'll read it a bit later.

    Sorry. I trimmed it down to what's really significant. Please read
as much of what's left as you're willing to.

>You guys seem to focus on the same stuff over and over--any reason why?

   It's why we're here. I'm here to suggest that people actually take
the animals into consideration when considering whether or not it's
cruel to raise them for food, and Goo's here to insist that they don't.
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 16:58 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>>
>>>     We hear about people going vegan supposedly to help animals,

No, we don't.
dh@. - 14 Oct 2008 13:37 GMT
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 the Goober lied blatantly:

>>    We hear about people going vegan supposedly to help animals,
>>because that would be the only reason to do it.
>
>No, we don't.

   In contrast to that most blatant of lies Goo: Attempting to help
animals is the only reason to go vegan. But Goober, it doesn't
really do anything to help them.

>>But! It does nothing
>>to help animals. Maybe if the people who are changing their lifestyle
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>>percentage of them know or even care what the difference is
>>between the completely different objectives.
Rudy Canoza - 14 Oct 2008 16:29 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "pointing out".

>>>    We hear about people going vegan supposedly to help animals,
>>> because that would be the only reason to do it.
>> No, we don't.
>
>     In contrast to that most blatant of lies

Not a lie.

We do not hear about people going "vegan" supposedly to help animals.

>>> But! It does nothing
>>> to help animals. Maybe if the people who are changing their lifestyle
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>>> percentage of them know or even care what the difference is
>>> between the completely different objectives.
pingTani@tanizone.net - 15 Oct 2008 13:48 GMT
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 Goo continued to lie:

>>On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 the Goober lied blatantly:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>We do not hear about people going "vegan" supposedly to help animals.

   Why do you think they do it, Goob?

>But Goober, it doesn't
>>really do anything to help them.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>>>>percentage of them know or even care what the difference is
>>>>between the completely different objectives.
Rudy Canoza - 15 Oct 2008 16:04 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 Rudy Y. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>>
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "pointing out".

>>>>>    We hear about people going vegan supposedly to help animals,
>>>>> because that would be the only reason to do it.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>     Why do you think they do it

We do not hear about people going "vegan" supposedly to help animals,
Goo, you pig-f.cker.  You lied when you said that.

> But Rudy, it doesn't
> really do anything to help them.

No one ever claimed it would.
dh@. - 19 Oct 2008 15:07 GMT
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 Goo, still lying, lied:

>>On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 Goo continued to lie:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>We do not hear about people going "vegan" supposedly to help animals,
>Goo, you pig-f.cker.  You lied when you said that.

   Why do you think they do it, Goob?
Rudy Canoza - 19 Oct 2008 18:05 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 Rudy J. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>     Why do you think they do it,

They don't, Goo.  Pig-f.cker.
dh@. - 20 Oct 2008 13:23 GMT
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 Goo continued with his absurd lying:

>>On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 Goo, still lying, lied:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>They don't

   People do become vegan Goo, so why do you think they do it?
If you want to pretend it's for "health"reasons, then try to explain
how you think trying to avoid all animal products is a "health"
related objective. Go:

(Correct prediction: Goo again can't do it.)
Rudy Canoza - 20 Oct 2008 16:03 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 Rudy B. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "pointing out", "Bumper".

>>>>>>>>>    We hear about people going vegan supposedly to help animals,
>>>>>>>>> because that would be the only reason to do it.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>     People do become vegan Rudy, so why do you think they do it?

Not to "help" animals, "Bumper".  You lied when you said that.  You're
the most dishonest person in this group, "Bumper".  You lie in every post.
dh@. - 21 Oct 2008 00:22 GMT
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 Goo uselessly trudged on trying to support another unsupportable lie:

>>On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 Goo continued with his absurd lying:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
>Not to "help" animals, "Bumper".

   If you want to pretend it's for "health"reasons, then try to explain
how you think trying to avoid all animal products is a "health" related
objective. Go:

(Correct prediction: Goo still can't do it, and never will be able to.)
Rudy Canoza - 21 Oct 2008 04:16 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "pointing out", "Bumper".

>>>>>>>>>>>    We hear about people going vegan supposedly to help animals,
>>>>>>>>>>> because that would be the only reason to do it.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>     If you want to pretend it's for

It's not claimed to be done to help animals, "Bumper".  You lied about that.
dh@. - 21 Oct 2008 17:15 GMT
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 Goo's dishonesty again proved dh's predictions to be correct:

>>On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 Goo uselessly trudged on trying to support another unsupportable lie:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
>It's not claimed to be done to help animals

   Try explaining why you think they do it Goob, if you have any
clue at all what you think you think. Go:

(Correct prediction: Goo still can't do it, and never will be able to.)
Rudy Canoza - 21 Oct 2008 19:32 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 Goo's dishonesty again proved dh's predictions to be correct:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "pointing out", "Bumper".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>    We hear about people going vegan supposedly to help animals,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because that would be the only reason to do it.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>     Try explaining why you think they do it Rudy,

You lied, "Bumper".  You said they did it to help animals.  You lied.

That's all, "Bumper" - you lied, and you're a liar.
Rudy Canoza - 21 Oct 2008 19:36 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

>  [stupid "Bumper" bullshit]

Not "who, "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper", that's
what.
Rudy Canoza - 20 Oct 2008 16:03 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> [snip Goo/"Bumper" bullshit]

Not "who, "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper".
David - 20 Oct 2008 22:26 GMT
is there anything wrong with you fellas? I mean 'upstairs'?

> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid
> pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Not "who, "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper".
dh@. - 21 Oct 2008 00:23 GMT
>Goo wrote in message
>
>> Not "who, "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper".
>
>is there anything wrong with you fellas? I mean 'upstairs'?

   For about 9 years I've been pointing out the fact that many
livestock have decent lives of positive value, and in order to
consider whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to the
animals* a person must take that aspect into consideration
as well as the fact that some of them have lives of negative
value due to being kept in overly restrictive conditions.
Advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights" are
extremely opposed to seeing the animals' lives taken into
consideration when they are of positive value, because it
works against their objective to make the elimination of
domestic animals appear to be the most ethical path humans
could take. Goo is so maniacally opposed to seeing their
lives taken into consideration that he insists life have never
been a benefit for any living thing because that's the best
way he can think of to try to oppose a fact that he hates to
see pointed out. He insists that something to do with our
pre-existent "selves" which for fun and clarification we can
refer to as "Us", "Him", "Her", "Them", ect... prevents us
from benefitting from our own existence now.

   It's all just more idiotics designed to support the misnomer
against the suggestion that providing decent AW could be
ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of domestic
animals. In other words: "It's an "animal rights" thing."
Rudy Canoza - 21 Oct 2008 04:16 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> [snip Goo/"Bumper" bullshit]

Not "who, "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper", that's
what.
Rudy Canoza - 21 Oct 2008 06:40 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>     For about 9 years I've been pointing out the fact that many
> livestock have decent lives of positive value,

No.  For over nine years, "Bumper", you've been lying and trying,
without any success, to play a stupid pig-f.cking cracker trick.

You have *NEVER* had any interest in the quality of animals' lives,
"Bumper".  You only want them to exist.  You stupidly thought you could
trick "vegans" into wanting that, too, but you failed.  You were bound
to fail, "Bumper".

Your drooling little boy "Autism" is a retard, "Bumper".
dh@. - 21 Oct 2008 17:16 GMT
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:

>>>Goo wrote in message
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>You only want them to exist.  You stupidly thought you could
>trick "vegans" into wanting that, too, but you failed.

   The idea isn't so much to get you people who are disturbed
by the fact that humans eat meat to get over your problem with
the fact Goob, as it is to make sure people are aware that
veg*nism does *nothing* to help any livestock. That of course
is so they'll realise that in order to contribute to decent lives
for livestock with their lifestyle, people need to be conscientious
consumers of animal products NOT veg*ns, Goo.
Rudy Canoza - 21 Oct 2008 19:35 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 Rudy Y. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>>> is there anything wrong with you fellas? I mean 'upstairs'?
>>>    For about 9 years I've been pointing out

No.  No "pointing out", "Bumper".  For over nine years, "Bumper", you've
been lying and trying, without any success, to play a stupid pig-f.cking
cracker trick.

You have *NEVER* had any interest in the quality of animals' lives,
"Bumper".  You only want them to exist.  You stupidly thought you could
trick "vegans" into wanting that, too, but you failed.  You were bound
to fail, "Bumper".

>     The idea isn't so much to get you people who are disturbed
> by the fact that humans eat meat

No "pointing out", "Bumper".  And *NO* "consideration" for the lives of
animals, either.  None.
Rudy Canoza - 21 Oct 2008 19:36 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> [stupid "Bumper" bullshit]

Not "who, "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper", that's
what.
dh@. - 22 Oct 2008 14:28 GMT
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:

>>On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
>Not "who, "Bumper" - what.  

   Conscientious consumers of animal products NOT veg*ns,
Goo.
Rudy Canoza - 22 Oct 2008 16:43 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>>>>> is there anything wrong with you fellas? I mean 'upstairs'?
>>>>>    For about 9 years I've been

lying.  For nine years, you've been lying non-stop.

You have *NEVER* had any interest in the quality of animals' lives,
"Bumper".  You only want them to exist.  You stupidly thought you could
trick "vegans" into wanting that, too, but you failed.  You were bound
to fail, "Bumper".

>>>> You only want them to exist.  You stupidly thought you could
>>>> trick "vegans" into wanting that, too, but you failed.
>>>    The idea isn't so much to get you people

No "pointing out", "Bumper".  And *NO* "consideration" for the lives of
animals, either.  None.  You don't care about animal welfare.  You just
want livestock animals to exist so you can eat them.
dh@. - 26 Oct 2008 15:55 GMT
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:

>>On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>lying.  For nine years, you've been lying non-stop.

   LOL. Then why do you think they're opposed to it, Goo?

>>>>>>Goo is so maniacally opposed to seeing their
>>>>>>lives taken into consideration that he insists life have never
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
>You just want livestock animals to exist so you can eat them.

   Why do you want people to think you're so maniacally opposed
to seeing their lives taken into consideration, Goo?
Rudy Canoza - 26 Oct 2008 19:32 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>     LOL. Then why do you think they're opposed to it, Rudy?

You lied, Goo.  You lied and said that they think they're helping
animals.  It is not.  You lied.  That's all, Goo - you lied.

>>>> Not "who, "Bumper" - what.  
>>>    Conscientious consumers of
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>     Why do you want people to think you're so maniacally opposed
> to seeing their lives taken into consideration, Rudy?

You do not take their lives into consideration, Goo.  We have
demonstrated that conclusively.
Rudy Canoza - 26 Oct 2008 23:39 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> [illiterate "Bumper" Goo cracker bullshit]

Not "who", "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper", that's
what.
Rudy Canoza - 22 Oct 2008 16:44 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> [stupid "Bumper" bullshit]

Not "who", "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper", that's
what.
Rudy Canoza - 22 Oct 2008 16:53 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> [stupid "Bumper" bullshit]

Not "who", "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper", that's
what.
Rudy Canoza - 23 Oct 2008 15:44 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> [stupid cracker spew]

Not "who", "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper", that's
what.
Rudy Canoza - 24 Oct 2008 18:35 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> [stupid illiterate "Bumper" cracker bullshit]

Not "who", "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper", that's
what.
Rudy Canoza - 21 Oct 2008 06:54 GMT
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER,
stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said,
"How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he
lied:

> [stupid "Bumper" bullshit]

Not "who, "Bumper" - what.  "Him" is your fabrication, "Bumper", that's
what.
Rudy Canoza - 21 Oct 2008 04:23 GMT
> is there anything wrong with you fellas? I mean 'upstairs'?

There's something badly wrong with "Bumper".
Hoots - 16 Oct 2008 11:53 GMT
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 Goo continued to lie:
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>>>>> percentage of them know or even care what the difference is
>>>>> between the completely different objectives.

Hi Goo!!

I see you have been posting somewhere. Folks appreciate how you stop by
and visit - they mention that a lot.

Nice to meet you!
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 20:04 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, aka "Bumper", Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid
pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How
can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>> It may not seem like much to you,

It was all bullshit.

>> That is a lot to digest there, but thanks, I'll read it a bit later.
>
>      Sorry. I trimmed it down to what's really significant.

You spewed your usual pig-f.cking cracker bullshit.

>> You guys seem to focus on the same stuff over and over--any reason why?
>
>     It's why we're here.

You're here to lie and attempt a fuckwitted, sophomoric,
doomed-to-failure trick.

> I'm here to suggest that people actually take
> the animals into consideration when considering whether or not it's
> cruel to raise them for food,

No, you're here to try a stupid fuckwitted trick.  The trick failed nine
years ago, thanks to me, but you're too stupid to have noticed.

Coming into existence - "getting to experience life", in your *SHITTY*
manner of expression - is not a "benefit" to livestock, Goo.  You do not
get any moral credit for "causing" livestock to exist as a result of
your dietary choices, and "vegans" do not incur any moral blame for
*not* causing any livestock to exist as a result of their dietary
choices.  You are *WRONG* when you write,

       People who encourage vegetarianism are the
       worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
       have IMO.
       GooFuckwit "Bumper" Harrison - 09/13/1999

What the f.ck is up with "Bumper", Goo?  And what did you do to that
little kid in the picture with you?  Did you f.ck that poor little boy
up the a.s, "Bumper"?
Rudy Canoza - 10 Oct 2008 22:26 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> [snip illiterate cracker bullshit]

I'm not sure, Goo, but I'm guessing "Him" must be the latest guy you've
buttfucked on your shabby houseboat at Holiday Marina on Lake Lanier.
Fred C. Dobbs - 20 Apr 2010 17:41 GMT
On 10/5/2008 10:43 AM, Goo - dh - lied:

>>>> Rudy Canoza explained:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>>>
>>>      Rudy makes the claim, but he can't back it up.

Rudy backs it up.

>>> Challenge him to
>>> explain without referring to "Him"

You present no challenge - ever.  You're in a persistent vegetative state.

>> Who's "Him"?
>
>      Here's the whole thing: A number of years ago I started pointing
> out in some of the animal related groups that since animals are not
> simply "killed" because humans raise them for food,

They *are* simply killed because humans raise them for food.  They don't
"get" anything out of any "deal".  They don't "benefit" from coming into
existence.
dh@. - 01 Oct 2008 16:08 GMT
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 Goo maundered:

>>>Who's Goo?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>
>A genius.

   LOL!!!

>>he was dubbed Goobernicus years ago
>>...Goobernicus Gonad in full out of recognition for the first
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>No one "benefits" from coming into existence, Goo.  

   Note: Years after he started being referred to as Goo,
the Goober was very intrigued with the handle and could
obviously come up with nothing better himself, so he began
to mimic and refer to me as Goo as he had already been
for years. A Gooble search for Goobernicus Gonad confirms
the truth and provides much info about Goo.

>The explanation has been made many times.

   In contrast to that particular lie there is no evidence
of an explanation Goober and there never has been, nor
will there ever be. All there ever has been and ever will be
is your lame claim, and challenges for you to back it up which
always have and always will completely defeat you, Goo.

>>It's fun, and
>>the outcome is guaranteed:
>>
>>The challenge will defeat him.

   As it obviously defeated him this time it will defeat him
next time and every time. Goo has a claim without a clue,
and that's all he "has".
Rudy Canoza - 01 Oct 2008 18:37 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "explanation" - just shabby lying cockfight-advocacy bullshit.

>>>> Who's Rudy?
>>>    He is a genius.
>> A genius.
>
>     LOL!!!

No, it's true.

>>> he was dubbed a genius years ago
>>>
>> No one "benefits" from coming into existence, Goo.  
>
>     Note: Years

No one "benefits" from coming into existence, Goo.

>> The explanation has been made many times.
>
>     In contrast to that particular lie

Not a lie, you pig-f.cking spamming cockfighting-advocating shitbag.

>>> It's fun, and
>>> the outcome is guaranteed:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>     As it obviously

No challenge - ever.
DB - 01 Oct 2008 19:37 GMT
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in

> Not a lie, you pig-f.cking spamming cockfighting-advocating shitbag.

Bill, Your Brother Jim said you were off your meds.

Haven't seen you on the rec.runners group for some time, did you get tired
of trying troll them?
Hoots - 02 Oct 2008 12:34 GMT
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Haven't seen you on the rec.runners group for some time, did you get tired
> of trying troll them?

Who's Bill?
DB - 02 Oct 2008 16:07 GMT
>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Who's Bill?

That would be Bill Davidson from CT. He trolled a number of USENET NG's for
quite  a few years.
Claimed he was a real fitness buff, until we found out he's only 5'2" and
couldn't get a job and was on permanent disability.    He spent a lot of
time trolling, what a waste of time! LOL
Hoots - 03 Oct 2008 12:20 GMT
>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> couldn't get a job and was on permanent disability.    He spent a lot of
> time trolling, what a waste of time! LOL

As opposed to what we are doing that is absolutely critical.

I got it!

Thanks for the info. It's hard to keep all the players identified when
you don't have a scorecard.
dh@. - 05 Oct 2008 18:17 GMT
>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>That would be Bill Davidson from CT.

   Goo who is pretending to be "Rudy Canoza" claims to live in
CA. I don't recall him mentioning a brother.

>He trolled a number of USENET NG's for
>quite  a few years.

   Goo certainly has been doing that. I didn't know about the "Bill
Davidson" character, but that may be one I missed and they might
be the same Goober. Goo has pretended to be all of the following,
in case any of them seem familiar:

Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
silvia@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de"
<prickerbush2004@yahoo.com>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notgenx32@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.steakhouse@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza
Trappist
sb292sb@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
Eden
Sylvia Stevens
chico chupacabra

>Claimed he was a real fitness buff, until we found out he's only 5'2"

   Goo is a puny little sh.t, we have seen that from a couple of photos.

>and
>couldn't get a job and was on permanent disability.    He spent a lot of
>time trolling,

   It sounds like the same Goober. He admitted a boss didn't like
him to come in to work, which tells us a great deal in itself. Also
the amount of posting Goo does explains quite a lot as well.

>what a waste of time! LOL

   Goo is good for getting experience with the most blatant
of liars, and incompetent of fools who make claims they can't
even begin trying to back up. Pointing out the stupidity of Goo's
lies is good fun, and it's also good fun and quite amusing to
challenge the Goober to try explaining absurd claims he has
made, even though it's not really a challenge for the challenger
knowing Goo will be defeated in advance.
Hoots - 06 Oct 2008 13:28 GMT
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
> made, even though it's not really a challenge for the challenger
> knowing Goo will be defeated in advance.

You sure like Goo, I'll give you credit for that.

This is what usenet is all about - sharing and caring!
dh@. - 06 Oct 2008 15:12 GMT
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
>
>You sure like Goo, I'll give you credit for that.

   I don't like Goo himself, but the opportunity to point out
things about and related to Goo. Like the gross misnomer
"animal rights". That's realy what this is about, for 9 damn
years or whatever, you can probably guess from which ng.
I point out that "ar" is a gross misnomer in regards to
domestic animals since it would *eliminate* them not provide
them with rights or anything else, and the misnomer advocates
hate that. The Goober is the most dedicated and not surprisingly
the most dishonest of the bunch.

>This is what usenet is all about - sharing and caring!

   It's also about insulting each other. Then there's the lying
part: There are those who lie, and those who point the lies out.
I'm pointing out a lie in the misnomer, and dishonest people like
Goo try to oppose that. I also point out that if people want to
contribute to lives of positive value for livestock with their lifestyle
they need to be more conscientious consumers of animals products,
*not!* veg*ns. The Goober doesn't like that either.
Hoots - 07 Oct 2008 11:27 GMT
>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 91 lines]
> they need to be more conscientious consumers of animals products,
> *not!* veg*ns. The Goober doesn't like that either.

Does the Gooster ever write back?
dh@. - 07 Oct 2008 16:44 GMT
>>>>> Claimed he was a real fitness buff, until we found out he's only 5'2"
>>>>     Goo is a puny little sh.t, we have seen that from a couple of photos.
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
>Does the Gooster ever write back?

   All the time. He's been afraid to in your group so far though. As
you can see I correctly predicted that Goo can't explain about
"Him". His claim is completely dependant on assigning some great
significance to the idea, but the Goober can't explain exactly *why*
he thinks we should try to apply it.
Hoots - 08 Oct 2008 12:23 GMT
>>>>>> Claimed he was a real fitness buff, until we found out he's only 5'2"
>>>>>     Goo is a puny little sh.t, we have seen that from a couple of photos.
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> significance to the idea, but the Goober can't explain exactly *why*
> he thinks we should try to apply it.

OK, let's go at this another way, does "Him" ever write back?
dh@. - 08 Oct 2008 14:53 GMT
>>>> I also point out that if people want to
>>>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock with their lifestyle
>>>> they need to be more conscientious consumers of animals products,
>>>> *not!* veg*ns. The Goober doesn't like that either.

>>> Does the Gooster ever write back?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>OK, let's go at this another way, does "Him" ever write back?

   "He" is Goo's pre-existent "self" and "They" are all other beings'
pre-existent "selves". Goo feels that something to do with our
pre-existent "selves" prevents us from benefitting from our lives now:

"Life is not a gain because there *was* no person to
experience the gain" - Goo

How does the Goober think anything to do with our pre-existent
selves prevents us from benefitting now? No one knows. Not
even Goo. He thinks we should take his word for it that "They"
do, even though he can't explain *how* he thinks "They" do it.
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 17:00 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>     "He" is

Your fabrication - your lie.  I never said "He" or "Him", nor did I
imply it.  You made it up.  You're a lying pig-f.cking cracker, "Bumper".

"Bumper" - you would use such a cracker nickname.
Hoots - 02 Oct 2008 11:32 GMT
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> No, it's true.

Yay!

>>>> he was dubbed a genius years ago
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> No challenge - ever.
Hoots - 02 Oct 2008 11:31 GMT
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 Goo maundered:
>
[quoted text clipped - 91 lines]
> next time and every time. Goo has a claim without a clue,
> and that's all he "has".

Guys, I am missing some of the responses here, so I assume that my news
providers 5 group limit or something like that has kicked in, but I also
don't think it matters too much.

So, let me get this straight - Goo responded and didn't or did claim to
be Ball who is Rudy and the big question is now "Who is 'him'?"

All right then.
dh@. - 05 Oct 2008 18:24 GMT
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 Goo maundered:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 98 lines]
>So, let me get this straight - Goo responded and didn't or did claim to
>be Ball who is Rudy

   Whether he admits it or lies about it all of the supposedly
different people listed above are the same Goober: Goo.
Goo is without question the most dishonest person I've
ever encountered so he's more likely to lie than tell the truth.

>and the big question is now "Who is 'him'?"

   That's Goo's pre-existent "self". Goo believes he's being
prevented from benefitting from his life by something to do
with "Him", though he can't explain exactly how or what
he thinks it is. Try getting the Goober to explain what he
thinks is preventing him from benefitting without referring
to "Him", and you'll see what I mean...Goo can't do it.
Hoots - 01 Oct 2008 12:23 GMT
>> dh@. explained:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 108 lines]
>
> The challenge will defeat him.

Whew, that was a lot to read... Not sure if I picked up on all the
nuances there.

So, you're saying Ball is Goo, right?

I think Rudy and pearl make a cute couple, don't you?
dh@. - 01 Oct 2008 15:47 GMT
>>> dh@. explained:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 111 lines]
>Whew, that was a lot to read... Not sure if I picked up on all the
>nuances there.

   One of the main things to keep in mind is that Goo
insists life has never been a benefit for anything, but
he can't explain exactly what he thinks prevents it
from being. His dishonesty is also something to keep
in mind, and something you're more than likely to get
plenty of examples of if you have anything much to
do with him. On the plus side Goo's dishonesty is very
often amusing. Many times just the extreme blatancy
of Goo's lies is so stupid that it's hilarious.

>So, you're saying Ball is Goo, right?

   Yes, "Ball", "Woods", "Hale", "Whitaker", "Santos",
"Canoza", "Erikson", "Stevens"... "Everybody" on that
list is one and the same Goober.

>I think Rudy and pearl make a cute couple, don't you?

   Very much so. They're both opposed to considering the
lives of livestock as well. They are opposed to taking the
animals themselves into consideration, when considering
whether or not it's cruel to those animals to be raised for
food. Pathetic, but true.
Hoots - 02 Oct 2008 12:33 GMT
>>>> dh@. explained:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 133 lines]
> whether or not it's cruel to those animals to be raised for
> food. Pathetic, but true.

Usenet is great--all these people sharing and caring about each other.
With our busy schedules, I think it's nice that everyone takes time out
to be so concerned for folks here.

It's kind of a warm, fuzzy feeling, don't you think?
dh@. - 05 Oct 2008 18:33 GMT
>>>>> dh@. explained:
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 139 lines]
>
>It's kind of a warm, fuzzy feeling, don't you think?

   In some cases it has a good feel, but certainly not with
Goo or any other misnomer advocates. They want to
*prevent* consideration, not encourage it. They don't want
people to take the lives of livestock into consideration when
considering whether or not it's cruel to raise them for food,
and they will tell lies about and make up things trying to destroy
credibility of those who encourage it. When you think about
the whole thing realistically it has more of a sick nasty feel than
a warm fuzzy one especially when you consider that these
supposedly ethically superior liars, dishonestly claim to have a
great interest in the very animals they're opposing the suggestion
that people give more consideration to.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 16:05 GMT
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Goo claimed:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 105 lines]
>
> Who's Goo?

He's referring to himself:  GooFuckwit David Harrison, the dumbest
cracker anywhere in Georgia.
Hoots - 01 Oct 2008 12:14 GMT
>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Goo claimed:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 108 lines]
> He's referring to himself:  GooFuckwit David Harrison, the dumbest
> cracker anywhere in Georgia.

You guys crack me up...
Seth - 02 Oct 2008 20:07 GMT
>Who's Goo?

Nothing much.  Who's Goo with you?

Seth
Signature

I can't tell you how irritating it is to hear a yankee say "y'all" to a single
person.  I've had to kill several of them because of that. --  Watson Davis

Hoots - 03 Oct 2008 12:44 GMT
>> Who's Goo?
>
> Nothing much.  Who's Goo with you?
>
> Seth

Goo are you?

Goo Goo...
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 06:28 GMT
>>>>> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Yes valid,

Invalid, you fat f.ck.  Completely invalid, and you *know* it.

>>>>> Ever been fat yourself,
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Sure you do...

Yes, I do.

> "All fat people have to do is eat less, it's so simple"

No, they have to get off their FAT f.cking LARD a.ses and get more
exercise, too.

There is no great mystery to it:  consumer fewer calories, expend more,
and you lose weight.

> So...  The fact that only 10% of all dieters can keep off a 5% weight
> loss for 5 years

Is because they can't change their rotten character:  they're gluttons,
plain and simple.  Fat, lazy, bad-character gluttons.
pearl - 30 Sep 2008 14:29 GMT
> >>>>> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> Is because they can't change their rotten character:  they're gluttons,
> plain and simple.  Fat, lazy, bad-character gluttons.

'Study Confirms Vegetarian Diet Takes Pounds Off

A scientific review in April's Nutrition Reviews finds that, as
expected, a vegetarian diet is highly effective for weight loss.

Vegetarian populations tend to be slimmer than meat-eaters,
and they experience lower rates of heart disease, diabetes,
high blood pressure, and other life-threatening conditions
linked to overweight and obesity. The new review, compiling
data from 87 previous studies, shows the weight-loss effect
does not depend on exercise or calorie-counting, and it
occurs at a rate of approximately 1 pound per week.

Rates of obesity in the general population are skyrocketing,
while in vegetarians, obesity prevalence ranges from 0 percent
to 6 percent, note study authors Susan E. Berkow, Ph.D.,
C.N.S., and Neal D. Barnard, M.D., of the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).

The authors found that the body weight of both male and
female vegetarians is, on average, 3 percent to 20 percent
lower than that of meat-eaters. Vegetarian and vegan diets
have also been put to the test in clinical studies, as the
review notes.

The best of these clinical studies isolated the effects of diet
by keeping exercise constant. The researchers found that a
low-fat vegan diet leads to weight loss of about 1 pound per
week, even without additional exercise or limits on portion
sizes, calories, or carbohydrates.

"Our research reveals that people can enjoy unlimited
portions of high-fiber foods such as fruits, vegetables, and
whole grains to achieve or maintain a healthy body weight
without feeling hungry," said Dr. Berkow, the lead author.

"There is evidence that a vegan diet causes an increased
calorie burn after meals, meaning plant-based foods are
being used more efficiently as fuel for the body, as
opposed to being stored as fat," said Dr. Barnard. Insulin
sensitivity is increased by a vegan diet, allowing nutrients
to more rapidly enter the cells of the body to be converted
to heat rather than to fat.

A team of researchers led by Tim Key of Oxford University
has found that meat-eaters who switched to a plant-based
diet gained less weight over a period of five years. Papers
reviewed by Drs. Berkow and Barnard include several
published by Dr. Key and his colleagues, as well as a recent
study of more than 55,000 Swedish women showing that
meat-eaters are more likely to be overweight than vegetarians
and vegans.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/04/vegetarian_weight_loss.html

'Obesity and Weight Loss
Maintaining a Healthy Weight
by Dr. Deborah Wilson

Obesity is one of the most pressing health problems in the
United States, and it will soon become the country’s leading
cause of preventable death. Despite the growing number of
“diets” that are touted throughout the country, Americans just
keep getting fatter. A government review of all the studies on
weight loss found that two-thirds of dieters gain all the weight
back within a year, and a whopping 97 percent gain it all back
within five years. This yo-yo weight fluctuation is worse than
being overweight; 97 percent of dieters would have been
better off if they hadn’t even bothered.

There has not been a single study indicating that high-protein
diets such as Atkins work for more than a year. In fact, two
studies showed that weight loss on the Atkins Diet reversed
or stalled after just six months, and Atkins himself died at 258
pounds. The only weight-loss plan that has been scientifically
proved to take weight off and keep it off for more than a year
is a vegetarian diet. Many delicious vegan foods are naturally
low in fat, so quantity and calorie restrictions are unnecessary.
My colleague Dr. Dean Ornish calls it the “eat more, weigh
less” diet (and even wrote a wonderful book with that title).

Researchers have found that overweight people consume
about the same number of calories as slim people — but they
don’t consume the same kinds of food. Animal products
contain much more fat than plant-based foods — animal flesh,
after all, is designed to store calories, which makes it one of
the worst things that a dieter can eat. Because vegetarian diets
are the only diets that work for long-term weight loss, it’s no
surprise that population studies show that meat-eaters have
three times the obesity rate of vegetarians and nine times the
obesity rate of vegans. It’s possible to be an overweight or
obese vegan, of course, just as it’s possible to be a thin
meat-eater, but adult vegans are, on average, 10 to 20 pounds
lighter than adult meat-eaters.

Adopting a vegan diet won’t just help you slim down, it will
also help you fight an array of ailments, including heart disease,
diabetes, arthritis, and cancer. Dr. T. Colin Campbell of Cornell
University, arguably the foremost epidemiologist in the world,
states, “Quite simply, the more you substitute plant foods for
animal foods, the healthier you are likely to be. I now consider
veganism to be the ideal diet. A vegan diet — particularly one
that is low in fat — will substantially reduce disease risks. Plus,
we’ve seen no disadvantages from veganism. In every respect,
vegans appear to enjoy equal or better health in comparison to
both vegetarians and non-vegetarians.”

It’s never too late to turn over a new leaf — you can lose weight
and take control of your health today by going vegetarian.
Check out these weight loss success stories
http://www.goveg.com/f-veganweightloss.asp and request a free
vegetarian starter kit today! http://www.goveg.com/order.asp

http://www.goveg.com/obesity.asp
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 14:59 GMT
>>>>>>> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?
>>>>>> Because I've been around enough of them, and I've observed them.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> 'Study Confirms Vegetarian Diet Takes Pounds Off
> [snip bullshit copypasta]

No, it didn't.  Neal Barnard is an extremist liar, not a scientist.
pearl - 30 Sep 2008 15:10 GMT
> >>>>>>> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?
> >>>>>> Because I've been around enough of them, and I've observed them.
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> No, it didn't.  Neal Barnard is an extremist liar, not a scientist.

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.
..'
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 16:03 GMT
>>>>>>>>> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?
>>>>>>>> Because I've been around enough of them, and I've observed them.
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> 'Bullies project blah blah blah retch gag hurl spew...

Shut the f.ck up, you goddamned f.cking windbag.
Doug Freyburger - 30 Sep 2008 16:17 GMT
> > > 'Study Confirms Vegetarian Diet Takes Pounds Off
> > > [snip bullshit copypasta]
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.
> ..'http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm

The bully assessment is extremely accurate with respect to
the PCRM.  They regularly lie to push their vegan stance.
There is nothing wrong with deciding to be a vegan.  There is
much wrong with lying to pressure others to become vegans.
The PCRM gives other vegans extremely bad press with their
lies.

Recall when Dr Atkins slipped on the ice, broke his skull,
was sent to the hospital, and while dying in the hospital on
an IV with major organ failure he retained dozens of pounds
of fluid?  He was arguably below his ideal weight when he
slipped on the ice, yet the liars at PCRM used his bloated
organ failed IV pumped weight at his death to call him
obese.  Lying vultures feeding on the flesh of the dead
out of one side of their mouths while spewing vegan
stances out of the other side of their mouths.  It was
revolting.  There was Neal Barnard as their mouth piece
being the vulture liar.  The bully tactics of the PCRM are
quite transparent.

Are there dietary problems with non-vegan vegitarian eating?
No.  It's definitely not any healthier than meat eating by the
book follow the actual directions low carb plans but there are
many reasons to decide to become a vegitarian other than
false notions of health.  But it's certainly more healthy than
cheeseburger with bun and fries dusted with flour before
being fried in low quality oil then dusted with salt that lacks
mineral balance.

On low carb support groups we occasionally get postings
by two equally extreme sides.  Vegans and all meat folks.
The Master - 30 Sep 2008 14:59 GMT
> A scientific review in April's Nutrition Reviews finds that, as
> expected, a vegetarian diet is highly effective for weight loss.

I bet anorexia would also be shown to be effective.
pearl - 30 Sep 2008 15:08 GMT
> > A scientific review in April's Nutrition Reviews finds that, as
> > expected, a vegetarian diet is highly effective for weight loss.
>
> I bet anorexia would also be shown to be effective.

What a silly comment.
The Master - 30 Sep 2008 15:24 GMT
>>> A scientific review in April's Nutrition Reviews finds that, as
>>> expected, a vegetarian diet is highly effective for weight loss.
>>
>> I bet anorexia would also be shown to be effective.
>
> What a silly comment.

Not as silly as the "discovery" that a vegitarian diet makes you lose
weight.  First off, are we talking pure vegan, or were the "subjects"
eating milk/cheese?  Some "veritarians" go so far as to eat fish, as if
somehow they don't count as an animal...
pearl - 30 Sep 2008 15:48 GMT
> >>> A scientific review in April's Nutrition Reviews finds that, as
> >>> expected, a vegetarian diet is highly effective for weight loss.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Not as silly as the "discovery" that a vegitarian diet makes you lose
> weight.

That the "weight-loss effect does not depend on
exercise or calorie-counting, .." ?

> First off, are we talking pure vegan, or were the "subjects"
> eating milk/cheese?

"population studies show that meat-eaters have three
times the obesity rate of vegetarians and nine times
the obesity rate of vegans. "

> Some "veritarians" go so far as to eat fish, as if
> somehow they don't count as an animal...

Bizarre.  The accepted appellation is "pescatarian".
The Master - 30 Sep 2008 16:05 GMT
>>>>> A scientific review in April's Nutrition Reviews finds that, as
>>>>> expected, a vegetarian diet is highly effective for weight loss.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> That the "weight-loss effect does not depend on
> exercise or calorie-counting, .." ?

Ah...  Sorry for being too vague in my comment.  My bad.

That eating nothing but veggies will make you lose weight.

.
.
.
.
Robin King - 01 Oct 2008 00:22 GMT
> >>> A scientific review in April's Nutrition Reviews finds that, as
> >>> expected, a vegetarian diet is highly effective for weight loss.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> eating milk/cheese?  Some "veritarians" go so far as to eat fish, as if
> somehow they don't count as an animal...

        I've known quite a few fat vegetarians and fat vegans.  Even
some who've never had a piece of meat or fish in their lives.

        Even anorexia isn't always effective - there are more fat
people who have it than you'd think.  They just don't get thin from
it.

Robin
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 16:02 GMT
>>> A scientific review in April's Nutrition Reviews finds that, as
>>> expected, a vegetarian diet is highly effective for weight loss.
>> I bet anorexia would also be shown to be effective.
>
> What a silly comment.

Not any sillier than any of yours, c.nt, but it at least had the virtue
of being short.
Hoots - 01 Oct 2008 12:04 GMT
>>> A scientific review in April's Nutrition Reviews finds that, as
>>> expected, a vegetarian diet is highly effective for weight loss.
>> I bet anorexia would also be shown to be effective.
>
> What a silly comment.

Yay!
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 16:02 GMT
>> A scientific review in April's Nutrition Reviews finds that, as
>> expected, a vegetarian diet is highly effective for weight loss.
>
> I bet anorexia would also be shown to be effective.

The most effective thing is to eat less and exercise more.  You should
try it.  Oh, wait - we already know you don't /want/ to do that.  You
prefer gluttony.
Robin King - 01 Oct 2008 01:05 GMT
> >> A scientific review in April's Nutrition Reviews finds that, as
> >> expected, a vegetarian diet is highly effective for weight loss.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> The most effective thing is to eat less and exercise more.  You should
> try it.

       Well, that explains why you're posting in fat acceptance.  You
sneaky boy.  This is a great method for many people to temporarily
lose and permanently gain a great deal of weight.  And I can see
you've checked out my recent post on a great way to help young people
be fatter, and are doing your best to live up to it.  Maybe you'll be
rewarded with a sexy fat woman of your very own some day.

Oh, wait - we already know you don't /want/ to do that.  You
> prefer gluttony.

       And it's plain that you prefer extremism.  It's deprivation
that gives one the urge to binge;  if you can have what you want, then
you can take it or leave it.

Robin

PS - Awaiting the usual inflammatory reply.  Don't forget the cuss
words and personal insults.
Rudy Canoza - 01 Oct 2008 01:20 GMT
>>>> A scientific review in April's Nutrition Reviews finds that, as
>>>> expected, a vegetarian diet is highly effective for weight loss.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>         Well, that explains why you're posting in fat acceptance.

No, it doesn't explain any such thing.  I'm posting in "fat acceptance"
<scoff> because the jackball who started the thread included that in the
groups.

> You sneaky boy.  This is a great method for many people to temporarily
> lose and permanently gain a great deal of weight.

What - eating less and exercising more?  No, just the opposite:  making
habits of those is the *only* way to lasting, healthful weight loss for
fatties.

> And I can see
> you've checked out my recent post on a great way to help young people
> be fatter, and are doing your best to live up to it.

Nope.  You can't see your own toes.  I've only seen two posts from you,
both in this thread, neither of which said what you bullshitted above.

> Maybe you'll be
> rewarded with a sexy fat woman of your very own some day.

I've been rewarded already by my wife, without me nagging her at all,
deciding to join Curves, start watching her portions (of all the same
things she always ate; no new diet), lose 50 pounds, and keep it off for
over three and a half years now.

>> Oh, wait - we already know you don't /want/ to do that.  You
>> prefer gluttony.
>
>         And it's plain that you prefer extremism.

Nope.

> It's deprivation
> that gives one the urge to binge;

I never said anything about deprivation.

> if you can have what you want, then
> you can take it or leave it.

That's what my wife does; she just takes less of it than she used to do.

Anyway, you didn't argue my main point:  that there is no "medical
problem" afflicting the vast majority of fatties that causes their
obesity.  It's a character problem.

Y'know, if fatties /really/ "accepted" themselves as fat hulking
blowpigs, there would not be any need for a "fat acceptance" movement.
That "movement" is really all about them trying, but failing, to pretend
there's nothing wrong with them.  They know there's something major
wrong with them, and it ain't any "medical" problem.
Robin King - 01 Oct 2008 23:08 GMT
> No, it doesn't explain any such thing.  I'm posting in "fat acceptance"
> <scoff> because the jackball who started the thread included that in the
> groups.

       So what? You could remove it from the headers.

> What - eating less and exercising more?  No, just the opposite:  making
> habits of those is the *only* way to lasting, healthful weight loss for
> fatties.

       <Shrug>  Works for some, not for everybody.  Fortunately,
exercise and healthy eating will help you be healthier, even if you
don't lose much weight.

> I've been rewarded already by my wife, without me nagging her at all,
> deciding to join Curves, start watching her portions (of all the same
> things she always ate; no new diet), lose 50 pounds, and keep it off for
> over three and a half years now.

       So you married a woman who was 50 pounds over your preferred
weight?

> >> Oh, wait - we already know you don't /want/ to do that.  You
> >> prefer gluttony.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> I never said anything about deprivation.

       That is what some people need to do to lose weight.

> Anyway, you didn't argue my main point:  that there is no "medical
> problem" afflicting the vast majority of fatties that causes their
> obesity.  It's a character problem.

       That's what they used to say about impotence and depression.

> Y'know, if fatties /really/ "accepted" themselves as fat hulking
> blowpigs, there would not be any need for a "fat acceptance" movement.

       Blowpigs?  I'm not interested in your sex life.  You also have
a common misconception.  There is need for a fat acceptance movement,
if only because fat people suffer discrimination and intolerance.  You
don't even have to be particularly fat for that to happen.  When even
Britney Spears can get razzed for being fat, or Marilyn Monroe be
called a moocow, it's getting ridiculous.
       People of all weights can be fat acceptors, and most fat
people are not.

> That "movement" is really all about them trying, but failing, to pretend
> there's nothing wrong with them.  They know there's something major
> wrong with them, and it ain't any "medical" problem.

       The "problem" is frequently more social than physical.  A lot
of trolls in ssf-a associate fat acceptance with extremely high
weights, and that just ain't so.  In my opinion, fat acceptance could
do a world of good even for an underweight anorexic who thinks she's
too fat.

Robin
The Master - 01 Oct 2008 23:16 GMT
>> What - eating less and exercising more?  No, just the opposite:
> making
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> exercise and healthy eating will help you be healthier, even if you
> don't lose much weight.

In my case, it does work, but it's torture.  Eating crap, working my a.s 
off at the gym, it's not worth it.  Making a habbit of torture is still
torture, and actually LOWERS the quality of life.

Calling it a "lifestyle change" doesn't take away from the fact that it's
a glorified diet and exercise plan that you MUST endure for the rest of
your life.  That's not truely living.
Dutch - 02 Oct 2008 00:31 GMT
>>> What - eating less and exercising more?  No, just the opposite:
>> making
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> it's a glorified diet and exercise plan that you MUST endure for the
> rest of your life.  That's not truely living.

Never mind exercise, what's wrong with simply restricting caloric intake
until your body weight adjusts? If you burn 2000 cal/day just doing your
daily activities and you consume 1600 you will lose weight. If one were
to stick with that kind of plan for a year almost everyone would acheive
their desired weight.
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 00:50 GMT
>> Calling it a "lifestyle change" doesn't take away from the fact that it's a
>> glorified diet and exercise plan that you MUST endure for the rest of your
>> life.  That's not truely living.
>>
> Never mind exercise, what's wrong with simply restricting caloric intake
> until your body weight adjusts?

You mean a glorified diet?  As I said, calling it a "lifestyle change"
doesn't take away from the fact of what it really is.

> If you burn 2000 cal/day just doing your
> daily activities and you consume 1600 you will lose weight. If one were to
> stick with that kind of plan for a year almost everyone would acheive their
> desired weight.

And that year(s) would be hell.  So then after that year?  Counting
calories for the rest of my life?  Because if I "go back to normal", I'll
just gain the weight back.  It needs to be a constant struggle for it to
work.  Like I said, glorified diet plan.

That's not living, that surviving.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 05:41 GMT
>>> Calling it a "lifestyle change" doesn't take away from the fact that
>>> it's a glorified diet and exercise plan that you MUST endure for the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> You mean a glorified diet?  As I said, calling it a "lifestyle change"
> doesn't take away from the fact of what it really is.

What "it" is is self-respect and self-discipline.  Those have always
been seen as virtues.

>> If you burn 2000 cal/day just doing your
>> daily activities and you consume 1600 you will lose weight. If one
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> And that year(s) would be hell.  So then after that year?  Counting
> calories for the rest of my life?  Because if I "go back to normal",

The problem is your sense that 4,000 calories a day is "normal".  It
isn't; it's a f.cked-up addiction to excess.

> I'll just gain the weight back.  It needs to be a constant struggle for
> it to work.

Not for people with a proper sense of perspective, it isn't.  But that's
exactly what fat f.cks like you are lacking.

>  Like I said, glorified diet plan.
>
> That's not living, that surviving.

God damn, you are such a pathetic loathsome whiner!
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 15:07 GMT
>> You mean a glorified diet?  As I said, calling it a "lifestyle change"
>> doesn't take away from the fact of what it really is.
>
> What "it" is is self-respect and self-discipline.

Blah blah blah blah...
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 15:33 GMT
>>> You mean a glorified diet?  As I said, calling it a "lifestyle
>>> change" doesn't take away from the fact of what it really is.
>>
>> What "it" is is self-respect and self-discipline.
>
> Blah blah blah blah...

You have *ZERO* self-respect and self-discipline.  As I said:  your
massive ponderous ugly bulk is due to bad character.  I suppose you
might even blame your bad character development on your parents, and you
might even be right, but now it's up to you to fix it, and your
character is so bad, you don't even want to try.

Why do you look at getting yourself into decent physical shape as some
kind of "deprivation"?  It's not "deprivation" to limit yourself to two
or three cookies rather than scarfing down the WHOLE f.cking BOX of them.
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 15:57 GMT
>>>> You mean a glorified diet?  As I said, calling it a "lifestyle change"
>>>> doesn't take away from the fact of what it really is.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> You have *ZERO* self-respect and self-discipline.

Because I don't look like you?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

What an ego you must have...
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 16:44 GMT
>>>>> You mean a glorified diet?  As I said, calling it a "lifestyle
>>>>> change" doesn't take away from the fact of what it really is.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Because I don't look like you?

No, I'm not sure why you have *ZERO* self-respect and self-discipline.
I just know that you don't.

Why are you ashamed to say what multiple of 100 lb. overweight you are?
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 17:58 GMT
>>> You have *ZERO* self-respect and self-discipline.
>>
>> Because I don't look like you?
>
> No, I'm not sure why you have *ZERO* self-respect and self-discipline. I just
> know that you don't.

*laugh*  So, you are psychic now too?  I'm thinking of a number between 1
and 100, what is it?

.
.
.
.
.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 18:38 GMT
>>>> You have *ZERO* self-respect and self-discipline.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> *laugh*  So, you are psychic now too?

No, nor did I claim to be.  But we *both* know that that's what this is
all about.  Big slovenly chuckwagons like you don't have any
self-respect or self-discipline, and it shows up in areas beside diet, too.
Hoots - 03 Oct 2008 12:37 GMT
>>>> You have *ZERO* self-respect and self-discipline.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> .
> .

220?
dh@. - 05 Oct 2008 18:37 GMT
The Goober wrote:

>> I'll just gain the weight back.  It needs to be a constant struggle for
>> it to work.
>
>Not for people with a proper sense of perspective

   Goo you have no room to be critical of someone else's
perspective considering the fact that you can't explain how
you think you disagree with yourself on a number of things,
like whether or not you think livestock lives should be taken
into consideration:
_________________________________________________________
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever" - Goo

"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
of consideration." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
moral consideration, and is given none" - Goo

"I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
consideration" - Goo

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
whether or not life is ever a benefit for animals, and even whether
or not we ever discuss existing animals:
_________________________________________________________
"Life is not a benefit for farm animals." - Goo

"Their lives may be pleasant for them." - Goo

""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
a benefit at all" - Goo

"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo

"Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
*IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo

"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo

"IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
aspects of their lives." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and a few other ways you think you disagree with yourself in
general:
_________________________________________________________
"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo

"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know" - Goo

"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo

"we don't know if that move improves its welfare" - Goo

"the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo

"Intent doesn't matter" - Goo

"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Rudy Canoza - 05 Oct 2008 22:09 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> The Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>     Rudy you have no room to be critical of someone else's
> perspective

Yes, I do.
Hoots - 06 Oct 2008 13:30 GMT
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Yes, I do.

Works for me!
dh@. - 06 Oct 2008 15:16 GMT
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
>> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Works for me!

   It's more fun when you can get him to try to explain. Try to
get him to explain why he dishonesty tries to make it look like
I'm stupid enough to call his dishonest a.s "Rudy", for example.
That should be a fun, easy one. Why does Goo feel he should
be able to freely misquote people time after time after time and
we should all just accept it?
dh@. - 06 Oct 2008 15:14 GMT
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 the Goober boasted:

>>The Goober wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>perspective considering the fact that you can't explain how
>>you think you disagree with yourself
. . .
>>_________________________________________________________
>>"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
>Yes, I do.

   Try explaining how you think you disagree with yourself
above Goob, and we'll see how you do from there. Go:

(Prediction: Goo can't even attempt the challenge.)
Rudy Canoza - 06 Oct 2008 17:59 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "pointing out".

>>> Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>     Try explaining how you think you disagree with yourself

That's fuckwitted GooSpeak.  Try to speak English, maybe you'll get a
reasonable response.
Dutch - 02 Oct 2008 06:51 GMT
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Dutch wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> You mean a glorified diet?  As I said, calling it a "lifestyle change"
> doesn't take away from the fact of what it really is.

I don't care what you call it, it's good old counting calories. Call it
taking control of your life if you like.

>> If you burn 2000 cal/day just doing your
>> daily activities and you consume 1600 you will lose weight. If one were
>> to stick with that kind of plan for a year almost everyone would acheive
>> their desired weight.
>
> And that year(s) would be hell.

For a while, until you extinguish the gluttony habit. One key is
consistency, try to consume exactly the same number of calories each day.
Your body will respond. I went from 214-173 in nine months and now two years
later I don't think about what I eat at all and I'm 180.

> So then after that year?

After a while you no longer want to eat as much as you used to. They call it
your "stomach shrinking", but in reality your appetite adjusts. Its as if
you are in an environment where there is not such a surplus of food. After a
year, or less, you can stop counting calories but just try to stick to the
same general principles and eating style. If you don't return to gluttony
you won't gain the weight back. You will be able to go back up in the
2000-2300 range and keep the new weight. Make pigging out an occasional
treat instead of a way of life.

Counting
> calories for the rest of my life?  Because if I "go back to normal", I'll
> just gain the weight back.  It needs to be a constant struggle for it to
> work.  Like I said, glorified diet plan.

It's not glorified, the idea is to establish a new "normal" food intake
level more in line with maintenance of a healthy weight.

> That's not living, that surviving.

Surviving is better than falling victim to obesity related conditions like
heart disease, asthma, high blood pressure, acid reflux, diabetes, etc..

Being your right weight is a big payoff.
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 15:46 GMT
>> That's not living, that surviving.
>
> Surviving is better than falling victim to obesity related conditions like
> heart disease, asthma, high blood pressure, acid reflux, diabetes, etc..

Longer quantity of life does NOT mean the same as higher quality of life.

> Being your right weight is a big payoff.

24 hours in a day.

- 8 hours sleep
- 8 hours work
- 1 hour lunch
- 1 hour commute to work (30 minutes each way)

That comes to only 6 hours left.

- 1 hour breakfast and dinner time
- 1 hour "getting ready in the morning" time

Now you only have 4 hours left each weekday.  On the weekend, you get 9
hours more, since there is no work or commute.

In total, that gives the average person only 38 hours of "me time" a week.

But you also have things like having to go to the store, driving around
town, and household chores.  Lets say that is another 8 hours a week, for
only 30 hours a week for yourself.

Lets say you do 30 minutes of cardio 5 days a week, with an hour of
weights 3 days a week.  That is 5.5 hours in the gym.  Now lets say you
only live 15 minutes away from the gym, so you spend 30 minutes in the car
5 days a week getting to and from the gym.  That's an extra 2.5 hours.

That's a total of 8 hours per week of "gym time" that needs to be taken
out of your 30 hours of "me" time, so 27% of your "free time" each week is
taken up by the gym!

So...  By my calculations, all I have to do is live 73% as long as you do,
to have the same amount of "me time".  I'll also NOT have to watch my food
intake like you do, or be sore after my workouts.

Sorry, but I REALLY DO think that being fat is the beter deal.
Robin King - 02 Oct 2008 02:37 GMT
> Never mind exercise, what's wrong with simply restricting caloric intake
> until your body weight adjusts? If you burn 2000 cal/day just doing your
> daily activities and you consume 1600 you will lose weight. If one were
> to stick with that kind of plan for a year almost everyone would acheive
> their desired weight.

       What's wrong with it for most people is that the body adjusts
its energy expenditure to compensate for the lower caloric intake.
For example, you lose less body heat, you start getting obsessed with
the next meal, you become cranky and tired and irritable.  Your body
shows signs of starvation (as noted in an experiment by Dr. Jeff
Friedman at Rockefeller University).
       If you try to reduce your sleep by an hour or two a day (to
get more done, say), your body will react to that by making you sleepy
and less able to concentrate.  Some people are able to do it, and many
are able to do it temporarily.  There are even people who function
just fine on very little sleep, which doesn't mean you can be one of
them.
       Just as the body defends its need for a certain amount of
sleep, it also defends its need for a certain amount of fat.  There
will be a few people who can alter body weight easily, and a few where
the fat won't come off with anything short of WLS and blasting powder.
You can't tell who's who just by looking at them.

       Good question, by the way.

Robin
Dutch - 02 Oct 2008 06:55 GMT
>> Never mind exercise, what's wrong with simply restricting caloric
> intake
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> shows signs of starvation (as noted in an experiment by Dr. Jeff
> Friedman at Rockefeller University).

Not at the levels I stated. I've done it.

>        If you try to reduce your sleep by an hour or two a day (to
> get more done, say), your body will react to that by making you sleepy
> and less able to concentrate.  Some people are able to do it, and many
> are able to do it temporarily.  There are even people who function
> just fine on very little sleep, which doesn't mean you can be one of
> them.

I'm not talking about starvation, I'm talking about a moderate deficit below
the amount required to carry out nomral activity. If there is a genuine bad
reaction then one could adjust and proceed more slowly.

>        Just as the body defends its need for a certain amount of
> sleep, it also defends its need for a certain amount of fat.  There
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Robin

Sure, but I dodn't say it was always going to be easy, for every person, but
its a matter of physics, it has to work.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 15:58 GMT
>>>> What - eating less and exercising more?  No, just the opposite:
>>> making
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Never mind exercise, what's wrong with simply restricting caloric intake
> until your body weight adjusts?

No, that's not quite right.  It isn't just until the body weight
adjusts.  It has to be *permanent*.  Permanently, people who wish to
maintain a healthy and fit body need to restrict their caloric intake to
a level lower than what it was before.  They're hulking lard tankers
*because* the intake exceeded the expenditure.

I do get part of what you're saying.  In order for weight loss to occur,
the intake must be significantly less than the expenditure for some
period of time, and the smaller the deficit, the longer it will take to
lose the weight.  But the weight loss *will* occur.  It must - it's
basic, immutable physics.

> If you burn 2000 cal/day just doing your
> daily activities and you consume 1600 you will lose weight. If one were
> to stick with that kind of plan for a year almost everyone would acheive
> their desired weight.

It's going to depend on how much overweight a person is.  Having never
had to lose weight, I don't know what the actual numbers are.  But let's
take someone who's about 50 pounds overweight.  It is *absurdly* easy to
lose a pound a week - just simple child's play, really.  In one year's
time, the excess is gone - easily.  But this is just the problem:
people who are hugely overweight - say, 100 lb. or more - are very
obviously given to instant gratification, which goes hand-in-glove with
an underlying mentality of excess.  Being extremely childlike in their
approach to life, they want the weight loss to be nearly instantaneous.

As I've said in a few posts, my wife lost 50 pounds without changing the
components of her diet at all, and it took her 18 months, which is a
little slower than it might have been, but still reasonable.  And she
has kept it off, and it has now been about three years since she reached
her - not "my" - desired weight for herself.  I think more of her weight
loss was due to reduced portion size than increased exercise (Curves
isn't that strenuous), but both were involved.  To get the portions
under control, she simply began *reading* the nutrition information that
is mandatory on all packaged foods sold in the U.S. (I think it is in
Canada, too.)  So, instead of filling the cereal bowl close to the top,
she read that a serving was 3/4 cup, and that's what she ate.  And
unlike this huge whiny excess-loving FAT f.ck "the master" (what a
f.cking joke - he isn't the master of anything in his life at all), she
didn't consider it "deprivation".

Guys like this lard tanker whining in this thread have the *classic*
American dedication to excess.  I have long thought of it as the ugly
national credo:  If a little of something is good, a lot of it must be
great.  That's just *WRONG* thinking.  It's *BAD* thinking - morally
bad.  It's the very essence of gluttony, which has long been considered
a deadly sin, for good reason.
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 16:01 GMT
> No, that's not quite right.  It isn't just until the body weight adjusts.  It
> has to be *permanent*.  Permanently, people who wish to maintain a healthy
> and fit body need to restrict their caloric intake to a level lower than what
> it was before.  They're hulking lard tankers *because* the intake exceeded
> the expenditure.

In other words, glorified diet.  Thanks for pointing out the obvious...

> As I've said in a few posts, my wife lost 50 pounds without changing the
> components of her diet at all, and it took her 18 months, which is a little
> slower than it might have been, but still reasonable.

Did you get her to lose the weight by being as much of an a.shole to her
as you are here?  She must not have any sense of self worth to stay with a
prick like you.  Do you beat her too?
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 16:54 GMT
>> No, that's not quite right.  It isn't just until the body weight
>> adjusts.  It has to be *permanent*.  Permanently, people who wish to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> In other words, glorified diet.  Thanks for pointing out the obvious...

Call it whatever you like, fatso.  Why do you see it as some crushingly
"unfair" thing?  What the f.ck is it about your sense of caloric
entitlement, anyway?  It's pretty obvious from your posts that you've
wanted to lose weight, that you're unhappy with being a hulking lard
tanker, but that the steps needed to lose weight - fewer calories, more
physical activity - seem like some kind of unjust, parentally-imposed
restriction on your childlike sense of "freedom".  Why is that?

Understand, fatty:  portion control is not the same sense of "diet" that
most reasonable people have of the word, in which there are forbidden
foods.  My wife continued to eat during her weight loss, and still eats,
some ice cream, and it isn't some phony low/non-fat stuff; in fact, it's
usually the ultra-rich stuff.  But she has a little scoop of it.  YOU,
you fat hulking tanker, you want to eat an entire f.cking pint of the
stuff, and if someone suggests you eat less of it, you consider that
"unfair" and some kind of virtual torture.  You're f.cked up, and you
know it.

>> As I've said in a few posts, my wife lost 50 pounds without changing
>> the components of her diet at all, and it took her 18 months, which is
>> a little slower than it might have been, but still reasonable.
>
> Did you get her to lose the weight by being as much of an a.shole to her
> as you are here?

I never said a word to her about her weight, nor did I in any way
suggest or imply that she ought to lose weight.  It was all her idea.

But lots of people around you have suggested, or flat-out told you, that
you need to lose weight, haven't they?  And it just /BUGS/ you, doesn't
it?  Yep - it just pisses you off, much the same way it pissed you off
when you were younger that parents and teachers told you you had to
/work/ to achieve something.  You're a lazy,
instant-gratification-seeking CHILD, and that's obvious.
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 18:05 GMT
>>> No, that's not quite right.  It isn't just until the body weight adjusts.
>>> It has to be *permanent*.  Permanently, people who wish to maintain a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Call it whatever you like, fatso.

Already have been, dipshit.  It seems like simple ideas are too
complicated for you to grasp.

> YOU, you fat hulking
> tanker, you want to eat an entire f.cking pint of the stuff,

And there is jack sh.t YOU can do about it...  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

>>> As I've said in a few posts, my wife lost 50 pounds without changing the
>>> components of her diet at all, and it took her 18 months, which is a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I never said a word to her about her weight, nor did I in any way suggest or
> imply that she ought to lose weight.  It was all her idea.

Cool.  Then go away.  Your lack of commenting worked before, perhaps it
will work again...  LOL!  :D

> But lots of people around you have suggested, or flat-out told you, that you
> need to lose weight, haven't they?

And do you do things other people tell you to?  What a tool you must be
for the establishment.  Hang yourself.  Get a rope, and hang yourself
Rudy.  Not going to do it?  Why not, you were just flat out told to do
it...

> And it just /BUGS/ you, doesn't it?

You aren't man enough to but me, dipshit.  You are a game.

You see, when I have had my fill of playing with your sorry a.s, I'll add
you to my shitfile.  In the mean time, however, you are a hysterical
powerless maggot.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 18:59 GMT
>>>> No, that's not quite right.  It isn't just until the body weight
>>>> adjusts. It has to be *permanent*.  Permanently, people who wish to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Already have been, dipshit.

That's nice, chuckwagon.

>> YOU, you fat hulking tanker, you want to eat an entire f.cking pint of
>> the stuff,
>
> And there is jack sh.t YOU can do about it...  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Not as if I want to "do" something about it, lard tanker.

But you still can't give a coherent explanation for why you think it's
"deprivation" to refrain from doing it.  You *know*, just as sure as
there's sh.t in a goat, that it's *BAD*, in terms of character, to eat a
pint of ice cream in a sitting, as you have admitted to doing.

This is all sooooooooo funny - you're pretending to be angry with me for
my thoughts about you, but you really loath yourself.

>>>> As I've said in a few posts, my wife lost 50 pounds without changing
>>>> the components of her diet at all, and it took her 18 months, which
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Cool.  Then go away.  Your lack of commenting worked before, perhaps it
> will work again...

No, you'll be a multiple-hundred-pound overstuffed sofa your whole life.

>> But lots of people around you have suggested, or flat-out told you,
>> that you need to lose weight, haven't they?
>
> And do you do things other people tell you to?

It depends.  Sometimes, other people's advice is good advice.

So, now we're getting closer to the crux of the problem, aren't we?  You
*always*, reflexively, resent other people suggesting a course of action
to you.  You're immature and insecure, and when someone says "You ought
to do 'X'", you can't get out of your powerless kid mindset and think,
"Gee, 'X' does seem like a good course of action", or "No, I don't think
doing 'X' makes any sense at all".  No, you just reflexively react like
a powerless kid who doesn't have any control over his life.

>> And it just /BUGS/ you, doesn't it?
>
> You aren't man enough to but me,

Ha ha ha ha ha!  Now you're reduced to unethical editing and deliberate
mischaracterization of other people's statements!  Ha ha ha ha ha!  I
never wrote that /I/ bug you, fatso.  Here's what I wrote:

   But lots of people around you have suggested, or flat-out told you,
   that you need to lose weight, haven't they?  And it just /BUGS/ you,
   doesn't it?  Yep - it just pisses you off, much the same way it
   pissed you off when you were younger that parents and teachers told
   you you had to /work/ to achieve something.  You're a lazy,
   instant-gratification-seeking CHILD, and that's obvious.

I didn't say that I bug you, although clearly I do.  No, I was talking
about how it BUGS you when people tell you what you *CLEARLY* know to be
right, but in your childish wish-fulfillment way of thinking, you don't
want it to be right.  THAT'S what bugs you, fatty.
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 19:57 GMT
>>> YOU, you fat hulking tanker, you want to eat an entire f.cking pint of the
>>> stuff,
>>
>> And there is jack sh.t YOU can do about it...  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> Not as if I want to "do" something about it, lard tanker.

Bullshit.  If you didn't want to do anything about it, you wouldn't be
bitching about it...  The mear fact that my fatness bugs the living sh.t 
out of you means I have power over you.  You are my bitch.  Now dance for
me maggot, dance!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

> But you still can't give a coherent explanation for why you think it's
> "deprivation" to refrain from doing it.

Because if I want it, then I want it.  If I don't want it, then I don't
want it.  It's basic really.  When you spout off about monitoring calories
and portion control and bullshit bullshit bullshit, it's a behavior
modification that I don't want to do.  Tuff sh.t for you, happy happy joy
joy for me.

So, the REAL question is why does it piss you off that I don't?

> You *know*, just as sure as there's
> sh.t in a goat, that it's *BAD*, in terms of character, to eat a pint of ice
> cream in a sitting, as you have admitted to doing.

But I honestly don't care.  Doing things because someone else wants you to
do them is WORSE in terms of character, wouldn't you agree?

> This is all sooooooooo funny - you're pretending to be angry with me for my
> thoughts about you, but you really loath yourself.

Angry?  Not at all.  You are funny while you froth at the mouth though.

> So, now we're getting closer to the crux of the problem, aren't we?  You
> *always*, reflexively, resent other people suggesting a course of action to
> you.

I don't mind shitheads being shitheads, shithead.

> You're immature and insecure,

There you go trying to be psychic again.  Loooooooooooser...

> Ha ha ha ha ha!  Now you're reduced to unethical editing and deliberate
> mischaracterization of other people's statements!  Ha ha ha ha ha!  I never
> wrote that /I/ bug you, fatso.  Here's what I wrote:
>
>  I like to dress up in women's clothing and j.rk off while looking
>  at myself in the mirror

Now *THAT* is unethical editing and deliberate mischaracterization...  :)
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 20:13 GMT
>>>> YOU, you fat hulking tanker, you want to eat an entire f.cking pint
>>>> of the stuff,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Bullshit.

Nope.  Not bullshit, fatty.

>> But you still can't give a coherent explanation for why you think it's
>> "deprivation" to refrain from doing it.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> calories and portion control and bullshit bullshit bullshit, it's a
> behavior modification that I don't want to do.

You *never* want to do anything that involves work and sacrifice.
Normal people figure out that nothing in life is really satisfying if it
comes too easily.  You, f.cked up, can't figure that out.

But you *DO* wish you weren't fat.  We all know that.  And you also know
that it isn't any "medical" problem that causes you to be a lard tanker;
it's a mental problem.

> Tuff sh.t for you, happy
> happy joy joy for me.

No, it's obvious that you're miserable.  Mostly, you hate yourself.

> So, the REAL question is why does it piss you off that I don't?

It doesn't - as long as you're not asking for special consideration on
airplanes and other places where fatties start pissing and moaning about
their SELF-INFLICTED problems.

>> You *know*, just as sure as there's sh.t in a goat, that it's *BAD*,
>> in terms of character, to eat a pint of ice cream in a sitting, as you
>> have admitted to doing.
>
> But I honestly don't care.

Yes, you do.  You're a very poor liar, fatso.  You *are* a liar, but you
ought not to be, because you're terrible at it.

> Doing things because someone else wants you
> to do them is WORSE in terms of character, wouldn't you agree?

No one ever suggested you should do something *because* someone else
said you should, fatty.  You should do it because you *know* it's the
right thing to do.  The other people reminding you is just them trying
to be helpful - helping you to do what you already know to be the right
thing.

But because you're stuck in early adolescence mentally, you never
learned to look at it that way.  You hear any well-intended advice as if
it were a finger-wagging, scolding aunt getting on you.  You never
finished growing up.  You're damaged.

>> This is all sooooooooo funny - you're pretending to be angry with me
>> for my thoughts about you, but you really loath yourself.
>
> Angry?  Not at all.

Ha ha ha ha ha!  See above about your lousy "mastery" of the art of
lying, doughnut-breath.

>> So, now we're getting closer to the crux of the problem, aren't we?  
>> You *always*, reflexively, resent other people suggesting a course of
>> action to you.
>
> I don't mind shitheads being shitheads, shithead.

You just *hate* people telling you that you ought to do what *you*,
fatso, already know is the right thing to do, but don't have the
fortitude to do.

>> You're immature and insecure,
>
> There you go trying to be psychic again.

No, you have told us this repeatedly; you just are too immature to
realize you're doing it.

>> Ha ha ha ha ha!  Now you're reduced to unethical editing and
>> deliberate mischaracterization of other people's statements!  Ha ha ha
>> ha ha!  I never wrote that /I/ bug you, fatso.  Here's what I wrote:
>>
>>  [snip silly, juvenile, unimaginative fuckwittery from fatty]

Here's what I wrote, fatty:

   But lots of people around you have suggested, or flat-out told you,
   that you need to lose weight, haven't they?  And it just /BUGS/ you,
   doesn't it?  Yep - it just pisses you off, much the same way it
   pissed you off when you were younger that parents and teachers told
   you you had to /work/ to achieve something.  You're a lazy,
   instant-gratification-seeking CHILD, and that's obvious.

So, why did you lie and try to pretend that I wanted to bug you?  I
don't need to bug you, fatty - I can sit back and watch you just chew
(and chew and chew and chew and chew and...) yourself up.  It /BUGS/
you, fatty, that people are telling you what you already know to be
true, but upon which you don't have the discipline to act.

How much do you weigh, fatty?
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 20:50 GMT
>>>>> YOU, you fat hulking tanker, you want to eat an entire f.cking pint of
>>>>> the stuff,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Nope.  Not bullshit, fatty.

Yes bullshit, retard.

Now you say no, I'll say yes, you say no, I say yes...  Yadda yadda
yadda...

>> Because if I want it, then I want it.  If I don't want it, then I don't
>> want it.  It's basic really.  When you spout off about monitoring calories
>> and portion control and bullshit bullshit bullshit, it's a behavior
>> modification that I don't want to do.
>
> You *never* want to do anything that involves work and sacrifice.

Sacrafice for the sake of having to sacrafice you mean...  Want to chop
off your finger?  Why not, don't you want to sacrafice?  Want to plow a
field and not plant anything?  Why not, don't you want hard word for the
sake of having it?

For your argument to have ANY validity, I would WANT to lose weight, but
won't due to the hard work.  The reality of the matter is, I do NOT want
to lose weight, so why work hard for something I don't even care about?

Answer me that one...
Dutch - 02 Oct 2008 21:01 GMT
> For your argument to have ANY validity, I would WANT to lose weight, but
> won't due to the hard work.  The reality of the matter is, I do NOT want
> to lose weight, so why work hard for something I don't even care about?

You don't want to dramatically reduce your risk of a long list of health
problems?

You don't want to feel vastly better?

You don't want to look vastly better?

You don't want to perform vastly better?

> Answer me that one...

You're not being truthful.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 21:02 GMT
>> For your argument to have ANY validity, I would WANT to lose weight,
>> but won't due to the hard work.  The reality of the matter is, I do
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> You're not being truthful.

Of course he's not!  I suspect he's been lying to himself so long, he
has fooled himself into thinking no one will notice.  He's *obviously*
lying.
The Master - 03 Oct 2008 17:29 GMT
>> For your argument to have ANY validity, I would WANT to lose weight, but
>> won't due to the hard work.  The reality of the matter is, I do NOT want to
>> lose weight, so why work hard for something I don't even care about?
>
> You don't want to dramatically reduce your risk of a long list of health
> problems?

Already addressed the 27% reduction of "me" time per week associated with
going to the gym on a regular basis.  A lifespan only 73% as long will
result in the same time in personal enjoyment, WITHOUT the counting
calories, portion control, sweat, or sore muscles.

> You don't want to feel vastly better?

I feel fine as I do now, thanks...

> You don't want to look vastly better?

So says you.  Honestly, I think most skinny people are physically
revolting.  I HATE seeing bones under skin, nor do I want to see blood
veins.  I think the look is disgusting.

>> Answer me that one...
>
> You're not being truthful.

Yes I am.  You just don't like the answer, so you assume I'm not truthful.
Dutch - 03 Oct 2008 22:05 GMT
>>> For your argument to have ANY validity, I would WANT to lose weight, but
>>> won't due to the hard work.  The reality of the matter is, I do NOT want
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> result in the same time in personal enjoyment, WITHOUT the counting
> calories, portion control, sweat, or sore muscles.

I never suggested that you go near a gym. Watching what you eat takes very
little extra time. And you didn't answer the question about HEALTH problems.

>> You don't want to feel vastly better?
>
> I feel fine as I do now, thanks...

You're alive, but if you're obese now you could feel vastly better, that is
a fact. You can move around without putting a strain on your heart and
lungs, without getting out of breath.

>> You don't want to look vastly better?
>
> So says you.  Honestly, I think most skinny people are physically
> revolting.  I HATE seeing bones under skin, nor do I want to see blood
> veins.  I think the look is disgusting.

Normal weight is not skinny, not musclebound, just NORMAL. That looks better
than obese.

>>> Answer me that one...
>>
>> You're not being truthful.
>
> Yes I am.  You just don't like the answer, so you assume I'm not truthful.

If you could snap your fingers and be your ideal weight for your height
right now, not skinny, not musclebound, just normal average, like 6' tall
180lb, you wouldn't take it in a heartbeat?
The Master - 03 Oct 2008 22:40 GMT
>> Already addressed the 27% reduction of "me" time per week associated with
>> going to the gym on a regular basis.  A lifespan only 73% as long will
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I never suggested that you go near a gym. Watching what you eat takes very
> little extra time. And you didn't answer the question about HEALTH problems.

I don't have health problems as it is now.  So asking me about theoretical
complications that I don't even have is like telling my grandmother (who
is in her 70's) that smoking will kill her, even though she has been doing
it non-stop since she was a teen.  That's over 50 years...  When will she
get her cancer that was promised her?

>>> You don't want to feel vastly better?
>>
>> I feel fine as I do now, thanks...
>
> You're alive,

And that's better then the alternative...

> but if you're obese now you could feel vastly better, that is a
> fact. You can move around without putting a strain on your heart and lungs,
> without getting out of breath.

Strange...  I don't get out of breath.  See, it seems to me that you are
basing your entire argument on "assumptions" that simply aren't always
true.  As such, your argument fails to impress me in the slightest.

>>> You're not being truthful.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> now, not skinny, not musclebound, just normal average, like 6' tall 180lb,
> you wouldn't take it in a heartbeat?

ROTFLMAO!!!

First, the argument is that I'm too lazy and unwilling to put fourth the
effort.  I'm saying it's not worth the effort, so the cost in doing it far
out weighs the benefit of doing it.

Now, in your magic candy land hypothetical, you offer no cost what so
ever...  As such, it would take VERY LITTLE reward to make me consider a
simple snap of my fingers.  So, what reward would there be?

Feel better isn't an issue, nor would I base my self respect upon it.  So,
the only possible actual benefit would come from people like Rudy stop
being a.sholes.

*debating*

Ok, sure, I'll snap my fingers...  It'll take all of a second.
*snap*
There, did it.
*looking down*
Nope, no luck.  Oh well.
Not worth any more effort then what I already did, sorry.

Am I willing to walk/jog a mile a day?  Nope, sorry, cost in time not
worth the possible reward in health.

Am I willing to drink water and not coke?  Well, I already do that, since
coke was too expensive, and water is cheeper.  That's a financial reward,
not a "health" one.

Am I willing to get a gym membership?  Nope, costs money.  Financial as
well as time costs are larger then theoretical health rewards.

See the pattern?  I understand my own personal motivations, and you don't.
Dutch - 04 Oct 2008 08:44 GMT
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Dutch wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> I don't have health problems as it is now.

If you remain significantly overweight chances are you will.

>  So asking me about theoretical complications that I don't even have is
> like telling my grandmother (who is in her 70's) that smoking will kill
> her, even though she has been doing it non-stop since she was a teen.
> That's over 50 years...  When will she get her cancer that was promised
> her?

She may never get it, she may be one of the lucky ones.

>>>> You don't want to feel vastly better?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> And that's better then the alternative...

Nobody is suggesting that you die.

>> but if you're obese now you could feel vastly better, that is a fact. You
>> can move around without putting a strain on your heart and lungs, without
>> getting out of breath.
>
> Strange...  I don't get out of breath.

Probably because you limit your activities based on your abilities.

> See, it seems to me that you are basing your entire argument on
> "assumptions" that simply aren't always true.  As such, your argument
> fails to impress me in the slightest.

It's not an assumption that obesity increases your risk of a long list of
health problems, it's a fact.

>>>> You're not being truthful.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!

There's no reason to laugh at that question, it's a simple hypothetical. If
I offered you a million bucks, would you take it:? Why not simply answer the
question honestly? What are you hiding?

> First, the argument is that I'm too lazy and unwilling to put fourth the
> effort.

That's not my argument.

> I'm saying it's not worth the effort, so the cost in doing it far out
> weighs the benefit of doing it.

What effort are you referring to?

> Now, in your magic candy land hypothetical, you offer no cost what so
> ever...  As such, it would take VERY LITTLE reward to make me consider a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> the only possible actual benefit would come from people like Rudy stop
> being a.sholes.

Have you ever been a "normal" weight in your adult life?

> *debating*
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Nope, no luck.  Oh well.
> Not worth any more effort then what I already did, sorry.

Not the question, I asked *if* you could have a slim (not skinny) body,
without having to give anything, would you not prefer it?

> Am I willing to walk/jog a mile a day?  Nope, sorry, cost in time not
> worth the possible reward in health.

That wasn't my suggestion, you keep referring to exercise, I specifically
said I wasn't suggesting you exercise.

> Am I willing to drink water and not coke?  Well, I already do that, since
> coke was too expensive, and water is cheeper.  That's a financial reward,
> not a "health" one.

You don't want health rewards?

> Am I willing to get a gym membership?  Nope, costs money.  Financial as
> well as time costs are larger then theoretical health rewards.
>
> See the pattern?  I understand my own personal motivations, and you don't.

I see the pattern all right, you attributing arguments to me that I never
made.
Hoots - 04 Oct 2008 13:09 GMT
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Dutch wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 111 lines]
> I see the pattern all right, you attributing arguments to me that I
> never made.

You guys are making me hungry...

Who wants to order a sausage and mushroom pizza? (no anchovies)
The Master - 06 Oct 2008 17:03 GMT
>> See, it seems to me that you are basing your entire argument on
>> "assumptions" that simply aren't always true.  As such, your argument fails
>> to impress me in the slightest.
>
> It's not an assumption that obesity increases your risk of a long list of
> health problems, it's a fact.

Just like the increased risk of health problems for my smoking grand
mother?  Do you base your entire life on avoiding statistical increases of
risk?  Refuse to invest in the stock market due to the increased risk of
loss compared to a bank?  Most household "slip and fall" accidents occure
in the bathroom after a shower or bath, do you avoid that one also?
Ofcourse you don't.  But why do you think THIS stastical increase is bad
while the others you ignore?

>>> If you could snap your fingers and be your ideal weight for your height
>>> right now, not skinny, not musclebound, just normal average, like 6' tall
>>> 180lb, you wouldn't take it in a heartbeat?
<<snip>>
>> Ok, sure, I'll snap my fingers...  It'll take all of a second.
>> *snap*
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Not the question, I asked *if* you could have a slim (not skinny) body,
> without having to give anything, would you not prefer it?

"Prefer" is some rather strong words.  Would I like myself more?  No I
would not...  I would feel about myself the same as I do now.  I don't
care about my weight.  People like you, on the other hand, care about my
weight for some strange reason.  As I said, if my "magical snap of the
fingers" would make you shut up about my weight, while I not having to do
any work for it, ok sure.

But no matter how much you pester me and be an overall a.s (in the case of
Rudy), I'm still not willing to put in effort to please YOU.  That IS the
answer to your question.

>> Am I willing to drink water and not coke?  Well, I already do that, since
>> coke was too expensive, and water is cheeper.  That's a financial reward,
>> not a "health" one.
>
> You don't want health rewards?

I am not going to limit my life for a stastical gamble to avoid health
problems I don't have now and only have an increased chance of getting
anyhow.
Rudy Canoza - 06 Oct 2008 18:01 GMT
Fatty wrote:

>>> See, it seems to me that you are basing your entire argument on
>>> "assumptions" that simply aren't always true.  As such, your argument
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Just like the increased risk of health problems for my smoking grand
> mother?

Yep.  There not only is increased risk of health problems, it is a
certainty that your fat grandmother isn't as healthy as she would be if
she didn't smoke.

>>>> If you could snap your fingers and be your ideal weight for your
>>>> height right now, not skinny, not musclebound, just normal average,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> "Prefer" is some rather strong words.

Not anywhere near as strong as "If I want it, I want it; and if I don't
want it, I don't want it."  Maybe English is not your native tongue?

>  Would I like myself more?  No I
> would not...

Yes, you would.

> I would feel about myself the same as I do now.

Bullshit.

> I don't
> care about my weight.

Obviously bullshit.
Dutch - 06 Oct 2008 19:34 GMT
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Dutch wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Just like the increased risk of health problems for my smoking grand
> mother?

Yes, exactly like that. Rarely can a person can smoke for any length of time
without incurring serious negative health effects. Your argument is that
because a few people are lucky enough to be the exception that one should
follow the exception rather than the rule. That's a poor strategy.

> Do you base your entire life on avoiding statistical increases of risk?

Actually avoiding risks is an essential part of a successful life.  I don't
wander into traffic, drive excessively fast or gamble my money foolishly. I
don't overindulge in drugs and alcohol, I don't smoke and I don't make a
habit over overeating. None of that means I don't enjoy my life, quite the
contrary.

> Refuse to invest in the stock market due to the increased risk of loss
> compared to a bank?  Most household "slip and fall" accidents occure in
> the bathroom after a shower or bath, do you avoid that one also? Ofcourse
> you don't.  But why do you think THIS stastical increase is bad while the
> others you ignore?

The almost guaranteed damage to your health that results from smoking over
overeating are avoidable risks. Stumbling or slipping accidentally is not so
much, although one should learn to move consciously as well.

>>>> If you could snap your fingers and be your ideal weight for your height
>>>> right now, not skinny, not musclebound, just normal average, like 6'
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> "Prefer" is some rather strong words.

No it isn't, it's a simple question.

> Would I like myself more?  No I would not...  I would feel about myself
> the same as I do now.

If you consider *your body* as a component of that whole self, not just the
essence of you as a good person then I believe that you are wrong. Never
mind self-esteem for a moment, forget health risks for a moment, forget how
other perceive you, a slim body simply FEELS better. It is easier to manage,
easier on the joints, easier to get up, sit down, climb stairs, move around.

> I don't care about my weight.

You have chosen to make "not caring about your weight" a personal campaign,
a rights issue. That is not a particularly productive campaign, for you, it
is ultimately self-defeating.

> People like you, on the other hand, care about my weight for some strange
> reason.

I don't care about "your" weight per se, I don't know you at all, we will
probably never meet, however you seem like a nice person and I have an
opinion about weight as a personal issue, not a rights issue, so to that
extent I care. I don't think heavy people should be discriminated against
either, but that is a separate issue.

As I said, if my "magical snap of the
> fingers" would make you shut up about my weight, while I not having to do
> any work for it, ok sure.

There is some obvious self-deception in that response. If you wanted me or
anyone else to "shut up about your weight", you would not be volutarily
posting messages to a fat newsgroup. You obviously want to talk about it and
hear about it.

> But no matter how much you pester me and be an overall a.s (in the case of
> Rudy), I'm still not willing to put in effort to please YOU.  That IS the
> answer to your question.

Actually is not an answer to my question. I asked if YOU would prefer to be
light and slim *for yourself*, not to please critics of your weight. For
some reason you seem unwilling to answer the question honestly. It appears
you are afraid to have your bravado punctured.

>>> Am I willing to drink water and not coke?  Well, I already do that,
>>> since coke was too expensive, and water is cheeper.  That's a financial
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> problems I don't have now and only have an increased chance of getting
> anyhow.

You already limit your behaviour in many ways for various reasons. It's more
than merely a statistical gamble that one will incur health problems from
obesity, it is nearly a certainty. It is the equivalent of spending your
money unwisely in the assumption that it will result in only a statistical
probability of you ending up without a pot to piss in.  It's just bad
thinking.

Of course it is your right to over-eat, smoke, drink excessively, take
drugs, piss away your money. your lifestyle choices are your own. I would
prefer, given that we live in socialistic societies, that people would
manage their risks better so I don't end up paying for their mistakes,
however that's not the point I want to make. I'll use smoking as an analogy
A person who smokes does so because they smoke. It is entirely a circular
habit, if you don't smoke you don't want to smoke, NOT smoking is not a
sacrifice to a non-smoker. The very same principle applies to overeating.
Advertisers have conditioned us to over-eat, to super-size everything. We
over-eat because we over-eat. It is simple to replace that conditioning with
a more sensible conditioning that incorporates a sensible, healthy appetite
level. Like non-smoker, a non-over-eater is not sacrificing anything by not
indulging an addiction that they do not have. But, as you demonstrate,
people love their addictions and rarely give them up without a struggle.
Rudy Canoza - 06 Oct 2008 19:58 GMT
>> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Dutch wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> that because a few people are lucky enough to be the exception that one
> should follow the exception rather than the rule. That's a poor strategy.

The dumb fatty hasn't even said anything quite that strong.  He hasn't
said that his fat smoking grandmother's health hasn't been adversely
affected by smoking.  It undoubtedly has been.  He's merely crowing that
she hasn't, so far, suffered the worst-case effects of smoking.  If she
is a long-term habitual smoker - more than a few cigarettes a day, and
for a long period of time - then her health has certainly been adversely
affected.

>> Do you base your entire life on avoiding statistical increases of risk?
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> over overeating are avoidable risks. Stumbling or slipping accidentally
> is not so much, although one should learn to move consciously as well.

He asked you a stupid question, one that assumes something that isn't
true.  He assumes that you are so risk averse that you won't run *any*
risk for any amount of gain.  This is a big part of what gives him away
as a stupid troll.  He's creating a lot of phony all-or-nothing choices
that don't allow for some balancing of risk.

>>>>> If you could snap your fingers and be your ideal weight for your
>>>>> height right now, not skinny, not musclebound, just normal average,
[quoted text clipped - 89 lines]
> that they do not have. But, as you demonstrate, people love their
> addictions and rarely give them up without a struggle.
The Master - 06 Oct 2008 20:19 GMT
>> As I said, if my "magical snap of the
>> fingers" would make you shut up about my weight, while I not having to do
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> anyone else to "shut up about your weight", you would not be volutarily
> posting messages to a fat newsgroup.

AAAaaaaahhhhhhhhh.....  Ok, I see the problem.

I am posting in a "fat acceptance" group, not a diet group or physical
activity group.  I'm here for things like the following...

What brand of shoes can take the extra weight?
What restaurant chains have "fat friendly" seating?
What clothing stores carry the correct sizes?
What "compact" cars have enough room for large drivers?

I am here to discuss "the plus sized lifestyle" if you will, "living
large".  I am not posting in an attempt to get diet advice, those posts
are actually against this group's original usenet charter.  My desire for
interaction is with other plus sized people and their experiences.

> You obviously want to talk about it and
> hear about it.

In the above confines, yes.  But that's not what YOU are trying to
discuss now is it?  As such, you are going off group topic, at least this
group's topic.

> Actually is not an answer to my question. I asked if YOU would prefer to be
> light and slim *for yourself*

In that case no.  Have you seen the 1993 movie "Demolition Man"?  My hero,
Dennis Leary, gave what is now known as "the speech" by Libertarians.

"I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom
of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a
greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo
rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high
cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I
want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking
section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all
over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel
the need to. Okay, pal?"

I have the choice, and that is how I decided to live.  If you don't like
it, tuff sh.t for you.

> Of course it is your right to over-eat, smoke, drink excessively, take drugs,
> piss away your money.

Thank you, I will.
Dutch - 06 Oct 2008 20:32 GMT
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Dutch wrote:
>>> Of course it is your right to over-eat, smoke, drink excessively, take
>>> drugs,
>> piss away your money.
>
> Thank you, I will.

My point is that that was never the issue.
Rudy Canoza - 06 Oct 2008 20:47 GMT
>>> As I said, if my "magical snap of the
>>> fingers" would make you shut up about my weight, while I not having
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> What brand of shoes can take the extra weight?

Try buckets.

> What restaurant chains have "fat friendly" seating?

Thankfully, none - not even those that serve the vilest fatty-producing
food.

> What clothing stores carry the correct sizes?

Try Tarpaulins-"R"-Us

> What "compact" cars have enough room for large drivers?

White, Mack, Peterbuilt

> I am here to discuss "the plus sized lifestyle" if you will,

If you had a lick of sense, you'd be trying to lose weight.

>> You obviously want to talk about it and hear about it.
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> I have the choice, and that is how I decided to live.  If you don't like
> it, tuff sh.t for you.

You're not /really/ a libertarian, of course, because you want the
government to compel people to think well of you, and you want the
government to compel people to cater to your appetites.
The Master - 06 Oct 2008 21:27 GMT
>> I am here to discuss "the plus sized lifestyle" if you will,
>
> If you had a lick of sense, you'd be trying to lose weight.

If you had a lick of sense, you'd stop wasting your time.  But you don't
have any sense now do you?

>> I have the choice, and that is how I decided to live.  If you don't like
>> it, tuff sh.t for you.
>
> You're not /really/ a libertarian, of course, because you want the government
> to compel people to think well of you, and you want the government to compel
> people to cater to your appetites.

Oh?  I do?  Since when?  Remember Rudy, you have the right to be an
a.shole, and I have the right to bitch about you being an a.shole.  That's
not the same as making it illegal for you to be an a.shole.  You too seem
to be suffering from too much assuming.  Do you want government to protect
you from my bitching?
Rudy Canoza - 06 Oct 2008 22:00 GMT
>>> I am here to discuss "the plus sized lifestyle" if you will,
>>
>> If you had a lick of sense, you'd be trying to lose weight.
>
> If you had a lick of sense, you'd stop wasting your time.

I'm not wasting even one second of time here.

>>> I have the choice, and that is how I decided to live.  If you don't
>>> like it, tuff sh.t for you.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Oh?  I do?  Since when?

Since whenever you started posting in the fatties acceptance group.
That's what fatty acceptance is *all* about.

Your implied whine about compact cars that won't contain a lard tanker,
and restaurants that don't provide car hoists for you sit your
chuckwagon a.s on when you throw down 3,000 calorie meals is the giveaway.

> Remember Rudy, you have the right to be an
> a.shole, and I have the right to bitch about you being an a.shole.  
> That's not the same as making it illegal for you to be an a.shole.  You
> too seem to be suffering from too much assuming.

Nope.

> Do you want government
> to protect you from my bitching?

By no means - your bitching is my reason for being here.
Dutch - 06 Oct 2008 22:11 GMT
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Dutch wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> What clothing stores carry the correct sizes?
> What "compact" cars have enough room for large drivers?

Then why are you responding to comments about the negative effects of
obesity?

> I am here to discuss "the plus sized lifestyle" if you will, "living
> large".  I am not posting in an attempt to get diet advice, those posts
> are actually against this group's original usenet charter.  My desire for
> interaction is with other plus sized people and their experiences.

In case you missed it, this thread is not limited to ssfa.

>> You obviously want to talk about it and hear about it.
>
> In the above confines, yes.  But that's not what YOU are trying to discuss
> now is it?  As such, you are going off group topic, at least this group's
> topic.

I doubt that discussing the wisdom of embracing fat acceptance as a
philosphy would be consider off topic in a fat acceptance forum.

>> Actually is not an answer to my question. I asked if YOU would prefer to
>> be light and slim *for yourself*
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel
> the need to. Okay, pal?"

Dennis Leary is slim, and he's a COMEDIAN.

> I have the choice, and that is how I decided to live.  If you don't like
> it, tuff sh.t for you.

Not for me pal, not for me.

>> Of course it is your right to over-eat, smoke, drink excessively, take
>> drugs, piss away your money.
>
> Thank you, I will.
The Master - 06 Oct 2008 22:43 GMT
> Then why are you responding to comments about the negative effects of
> obesity?

Because someone posted them in my group.
Rudy Canoza - 06 Oct 2008 22:46 GMT
>> Then why are you responding to comments about the negative effects of
>> obesity?
>
> Because someone posted them in my group.

Golly!  That's the same reason /I'm/ posting in the thread, too!
Hoots - 07 Oct 2008 11:54 GMT
>>> Then why are you responding to comments about the negative effects of
>>> obesity?
>>
>> Because someone posted them in my group.
>
> Golly!  That's the same reason /I'm/ posting in the thread, too!

Me too!

Yay!
Ragnar - 07 Oct 2008 15:08 GMT
> >> Then why are you responding to comments about the negative effects of
> >> obesity?
>
> > Because someone posted them in my group.
>
> Golly!  That's the same reason /I'm/ posting in the thread, too!

You do know that you can pick and choose what groups you post to,
don't you?

Ragnar
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 15:50 GMT
>>>> Then why are you responding to comments about the negative effects of
>>>> obesity?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> You do know that you can pick and choose what groups you post to,
> don't you?

The original poster in the thread selected the set of groups for some
reason, and it would be arrogant of me to second-guess his or her choice.
Ragnar - 07 Oct 2008 19:59 GMT
> >>>> Then why are you responding to comments about the negative effects of
> >>>> obesity?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> The original poster in the thread selected the set of groups for some
> reason, and it would be arrogant of me to second-guess his or her choice.

Sling much bullshit lately?

Ragnar
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 21:28 GMT
>>>>>> Then why are you responding to comments about the negative effects of
>>>>>> obesity?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Sling much bullshit lately?

Haven't slung any.
Hoots - 08 Oct 2008 12:25 GMT
>>>>>> Then why are you responding to comments about the negative effects of
>>>>>> obesity?
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Ragnar

Whatever you do, don't bring up the "frog waterfall".

I don't think you'll like the results.
Dutch - 06 Oct 2008 23:51 GMT
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Dutch wrote:
>
>> Then why are you responding to comments about the negative effects of
>> obesity?
>
> Because someone posted them in my group.

If your position is that you have the right to abuse your body all you want
then you're correct, you do. The rest of the world also has the right to
think you're ugly and an idiot for thinking that way. We may have accept
your lardy-a.s presence in the world, but we don't have to respect you.
The Master - 07 Oct 2008 17:25 GMT
> If your position is that you have the right to abuse your body all you want
> then you're correct, you do. The rest of the world also has the right to
> think you're ugly and an idiot for thinking that way. We may have accept your
> lardy-a.s presence in the world, but we don't have to respect you.

And believe it or not, I never said otherwise...  I'm sure you have heard
the phrase "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right
to say it".  I can call you an a.shole all I want, you can call me a fat
pig all you want, and all is good in the world.  You don't have to like
me, but you don't have the right to change me.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 17:52 GMT
>> If your position is that you have the right to abuse your body all you
>> want then you're correct, you do. The rest of the world also has the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> call me a fat pig all you want, and all is good in the world.  You don't
> have to like me, but you don't have the right to change me.

The fatty acceptance movement is all about compelling people to "like"
and "respect" fatties.  It will fail.
Dutch - 08 Oct 2008 04:20 GMT
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Dutch wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> pig all you want, and all is good in the world.  You don't have to like
> me, but you don't have the right to change me.

My intent was simply to offer some constructive suggestions, from someone
who has struggled with weight in his own life, but you just got all huffy
and defensive.
dh@. - 08 Oct 2008 14:53 GMT
>> If your position is that you have the right to abuse your body all you want
>> then you're correct, you do. The rest of the world also has the right to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>pig all you want, and all is good in the world.  You don't have to like
>me, but you don't have the right to change me.

   If you don't buy cage free eggs instead of battery farmed you should
change that. It's not that much more expensive to contribute to decent
lives instead of more likely to a living hell.
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 17:02 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>>> If your position is that you have the right to abuse your body all you want
>>> then you're correct, you do. The rest of the world also has the right to
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>     If you don't buy cage free eggs instead of battery farmed you should
> change that.

YOU don't buy them, Goo.  You've already told us why you don't:

       I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
       that all of the animals I eat had terrible
       lives, I would still eat meat [and battery hen eggs] .
       That is not because I don't care about them at all,
       but I would just ignore their suffering.
       Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

You *DO* ignore the suffering of battery hens, Goo - that's why you buy
battery hen eggs.
Hoots - 07 Oct 2008 11:33 GMT
>>> As I said, if my "magical snap of the
>>> fingers" would make you shut up about my weight, while I not having
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>
> Thank you, I will.

I like red jello better than green.
Dutch - 06 Oct 2008 19:35 GMT
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Dutch wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Just like the increased risk of health problems for my smoking grand
> mother?

Yes, exactly like that. Rarely can a person can smoke for any length of time
without incurring serious negative health effects. Your argument is that
because a few people are lucky enough to be the exception that one should
follow the exception rather than the rule. That's a poor strategy.

> Do you base your entire life on avoiding statistical increases of risk?

Actually avoiding risks is an essential part of a successful life.  I don't
wander into traffic, drive excessively fast or gamble my money foolishly. I
don't overindulge in drugs and alcohol, I don't smoke and I don't make a
habit over overeating. None of that means I don't enjoy my life, quite the
contrary.

> Refuse to invest in the stock market due to the increased risk of loss
> compared to a bank?  Most household "slip and fall" accidents occure in
> the bathroom after a shower or bath, do you avoid that one also? Ofcourse
> you don't.  But why do you think THIS stastical increase is bad while the
> others you ignore?

The almost guaranteed damage to your health that results from smoking over
overeating are avoidable risks. Stumbling or slipping accidentally is not so
much, although one should learn to move consciously as well.

>>>> If you could snap your fingers and be your ideal weight for your height
>>>> right now, not skinny, not musclebound, just normal average, like 6'
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> "Prefer" is some rather strong words.

No it isn't, it's a simple question.

> Would I like myself more?  No I would not...  I would feel about myself
> the same as I do now.

If you consider *your body* as a component of that whole self, not just the
essence of you as a good person then I believe that you are wrong. Never
mind self-esteem for a moment, forget health risks for a moment, forget how
other perceive you, a slim body simply FEELS better. It is easier to manage,
easier on the joints, easier to get up, sit down, climb stairs, move around.

> I don't care about my weight.

You have chosen to make "not caring about your weight" a personal campaign,
a rights issue. That is not a particularly productive campaign, for you, it
is ultimately self-defeating.

> People like you, on the other hand, care about my weight for some strange
> reason.

I don't care about "your" weight per se, I don't know you at all, we will
probably never meet, however you seem like a nice person and I have an
opinion about weight as a personal issue, not a rights issue, so to that
extent I care. I don't think heavy people should be discriminated against
either, but that is a separate issue.

As I said, if my "magical snap of the
> fingers" would make you shut up about my weight, while I not having to do
> any work for it, ok sure.

There is some obvious self-deception in that response. If you wanted me or
anyone else to "shut up about your weight", you would not be volutarily
posting messages to a fat newsgroup. You obviously want to talk about it and
hear about it.

> But no matter how much you pester me and be an overall a.s (in the case of
> Rudy), I'm still not willing to put in effort to please YOU.  That IS the
> answer to your question.

Actually is not an answer to my question. I asked if YOU would prefer to be
light and slim *for yourself*, not to please critics of your weight. For
some reason you seem unwilling to answer the question honestly. It appears
you are afraid to have your bravado punctured.

>>> Am I willing to drink water and not coke?  Well, I already do that,
>>> since coke was too expensive, and water is cheeper.  That's a financial
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> problems I don't have now and only have an increased chance of getting
> anyhow.

You already limit your behaviour in many ways for various reasons. It's more
than merely a statistical gamble that one will incur health problems from
obesity, it is nearly a certainty. It is the equivalent of spending your
money unwisely in the assumption that it will result in only a statistical
probability of you ending up without a pot to piss in.  It's just bad
thinking.

Of course it is your right to over-eat, smoke, drink excessively, take
drugs, piss away your money. your lifestyle choices are your own. I would
prefer, given that we live in socialistic societies, that people would
manage their risks better so I don't end up paying for their mistakes,
however that's not the point I want to make. I'll use smoking as an analogy
A person who smokes does so because they smoke. It is entirely a circular
habit, if you don't smoke you don't want to smoke, NOT smoking is not a
sacrifice to a non-smoker. The very same principle applies to overeating.
Advertisers have conditioned us to over-eat, to super-size everything. We
over-eat because we over-eat. It is simple to replace that conditioning with
a more sensible conditioning that incorporates a sensible, healthy appetite
level. Like non-smoker, a non-over-eater is not sacrificing anything by not
indulging an addiction that they do not have. But, as you demonstrate,
people love their addictions and rarely give them up without a struggle.
Dutch - 06 Oct 2008 19:35 GMT
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Dutch wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Just like the increased risk of health problems for my smoking grand
> mother?

Yes, exactly like that. Rarely can a person can smoke for any length of time
without incurring serious negative health effects. Your argument is that
because a few people are lucky enough to be the exception that one should
follow the exception rather than the rule. That's a poor strategy.

> Do you base your entire life on avoiding statistical increases of risk?

Actually avoiding risks is an essential part of a successful life.  I don't
wander into traffic, drive excessively fast or gamble my money foolishly. I
don't overindulge in drugs and alcohol, I don't smoke and I don't make a
habit over overeating. None of that means I don't enjoy my life, quite the
contrary.

> Refuse to invest in the stock market due to the increased risk of loss
> compared to a bank?  Most household "slip and fall" accidents occure in
> the bathroom after a shower or bath, do you avoid that one also? Ofcourse
> you don't.  But why do you think THIS stastical increase is bad while the
> others you ignore?

The almost guaranteed damage to your health that results from smoking over
overeating are avoidable risks. Stumbling or slipping accidentally is not so
much, although one should learn to move consciously as well.

>>>> If you could snap your fingers and be your ideal weight for your height
>>>> right now, not skinny, not musclebound, just normal average, like 6'
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> "Prefer" is some rather strong words.

No it isn't, it's a simple question.

> Would I like myself more?  No I would not...  I would feel about myself
> the same as I do now.

If you consider *your body* as a component of that whole self, not just the
essence of you as a good person then I believe that you are wrong. Never
mind self-esteem for a moment, forget health risks for a moment, forget how
other perceive you, a slim body simply FEELS better. It is easier to manage,
easier on the joints, easier to get up, sit down, climb stairs, move around.

> I don't care about my weight.

You have chosen to make "not caring about your weight" a personal campaign,
a rights issue. That is not a particularly productive campaign, for you, it
is ultimately self-defeating.

> People like you, on the other hand, care about my weight for some strange
> reason.

I don't care about "your" weight per se, I don't know you at all, we will
probably never meet, however you seem like a nice person and I have an
opinion about weight as a personal issue, not a rights issue, so to that
extent I care. I don't think heavy people should be discriminated against
either, but that is a separate issue.

As I said, if my "magical snap of the
> fingers" would make you shut up about my weight, while I not having to do
> any work for it, ok sure.

There is some obvious self-deception in that response. If you wanted me or
anyone else to "shut up about your weight", you would not be volutarily
posting messages to a fat newsgroup. You obviously want to talk about it and
hear about it.

> But no matter how much you pester me and be an overall a.s (in the case of
> Rudy), I'm still not willing to put in effort to please YOU.  That IS the
> answer to your question.

Actually is not an answer to my question. I asked if YOU would prefer to be
light and slim *for yourself*, not to please critics of your weight. For
some reason you seem unwilling to answer the question honestly. It appears
you are afraid to have your bravado punctured.

>>> Am I willing to drink water and not coke?  Well, I already do that,
>>> since coke was too expensive, and water is cheeper.  That's a financial
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> problems I don't have now and only have an increased chance of getting
> anyhow.

You already limit your behaviour in many ways for various reasons. It's more
than merely a statistical gamble that one will incur health problems from
obesity, it is nearly a certainty. It is the equivalent of spending your
money unwisely in the assumption that it will result in only a statistical
probability of you ending up without a pot to piss in.  It's just bad
thinking.

Of course it is your right to over-eat, smoke, drink excessively, take
drugs, piss away your money. your lifestyle choices are your own. I would
prefer, given that we live in socialistic societies, that people would
manage their risks better so I don't end up paying for their mistakes,
however that's not the point I want to make. I'll use smoking as an analogy
A person who smokes does so because they smoke. It is entirely a circular
habit, if you don't smoke you don't want to smoke, NOT smoking is not a
sacrifice to a non-smoker. The very same principle applies to overeating.
Advertisers have conditioned us to over-eat, to super-size everything. We
over-eat because we over-eat. It is simple to replace that conditioning with
a more sensible conditioning that incorporates a sensible, healthy appetite
level. Like non-smoker, a non-over-eater is not sacrificing anything by not
indulging an addiction that they do not have. But, as you demonstrate,
people love their addictions and rarely give them up without a struggle.
Dutch - 06 Oct 2008 19:35 GMT
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in

Sorry for the duplicate posting, server glitch.
Hoots - 07 Oct 2008 11:30 GMT
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in
> Sorry for the duplicate posting, server glitch.

I hate to say it, but in this thread, I don't think anyone is going to
notice...
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 21:01 GMT
>>>>>> YOU, you fat hulking tanker, you want to eat an entire f.cking 
>>>>>> pint of the stuff,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Yes bullshit,

No bullshit, fatty.  But your self-destructive spite in eating it,
imagining that the eating of it is what bothers people, is funny.

>>> Because if I want it, then I want it.  If I don't want it, then I
>>> don't want it.  It's basic really.  When you spout off about
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Sacrafice for the sake of having to sacrafice you mean...

No, you self-loathing lard tanker - sacrifice to get something that
you'd /really/ value more than the immediate gratification of your
childlike urges.

> For your argument to have ANY validity, I would WANT to lose weight, but
> won't due to the hard work.  The reality of the matter is, I do NOT want
> to lose weight,

Bullshit.  If you were just a tad overweight, it might be believable,
but you're morbidly obese, and grotesque, and you hate it.  You hate it
for a number of reasons, but the chief one is that you know it speaks
badly of who and what you are.  You have an ego, and you'd like to be
admired, but you know you're despised, and that you're doing it to
yourself, and so you hate yourself even more than you hate those who
quite rightly despise you.

> so why work hard for something I don't even care about?
>
> Answer me that one...

You're lying.  That's the answer.  You *do* care about it.

See earlier posts about what a shitty, incompetent liar you are.

How much do you weigh, fatso?  Why not just tell us?
The Master - 03 Oct 2008 17:34 GMT
>>> You *never* want to do anything that involves work and sacrifice.
>>
>> Sacrafice for the sake of having to sacrafice you mean...
>
> No, you self-loathing lard tanker - sacrifice to get something that you'd
> /really/ value more than the immediate gratification of your childlike urges.

But you see, I /DON'T/ value skinny.  If someone offered you $1 to walk 20
miles, would you do it?  I wouldn't...  But if someone offered me
$1,000,000 to walk 20 miles, I'll put on my shoes.

Why?  Simple...  I value $1,000,000 more then $1.  It's a basic
cost/reward function.  I don't value walking 20 miles very much, so what
would be the reward for the cost of having to do it?  $1 isn't enough, but
a million sure would.

Being skinny for the sake of being skinny is WORTHLESS to me, so I'm not
willing to put in ANY cost to get NO reward.

>> For your argument to have ANY validity, I would WANT to lose weight, but
>> won't due to the hard work.  The reality of the matter is, I do NOT want to
>> lose weight,
>
> Bullshit.  If you were just a tad overweight, it might be believable, but
> you're morbidly obese, and grotesque, and you hate it.

No, YOU hate it.  You have tantrumed about it non-stop.
Rudy Canoza - 03 Oct 2008 18:15 GMT
>>>> You *never* want to do anything that involves work and sacrifice.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> But you see, I /DON'T/ value skinny.

No one said "skinny", troll.  But to a lard tanker like you, I suppose
185 pounds on a 5'10" frame is "skinny".

You're an obvious f.cking troll, and a shitty liar.  The lying part is
given away in the WHINY pissing and moaning you were doing about
"glorified diet" in response to Dutch.  You /have/ wanted to lose
weight, you /have/ tried to lose weight, you /want/ to lose weight and
achieve the unquestionable benefits that go with that, but your too much
of a LAZY f.cking SLUG to do it, so you've rationalized it away and
slopped together this laughable story that you "like" being a goddamned
leaky lard tanker.

>>> For your argument to have ANY validity, I would WANT to lose weight,
>>> but won't due to the hard work.  The reality of the matter is, I do
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> No, YOU hate it.

No, in terms of your suffering from your in-the-toilet self-esteem and
generally bad and deteriorating health, I don't care about "it" at all.
 I only care about fat f.cks rolling into my airplane seat, and the
next time that looks like it might happen, the fat f.ck is going to get
a humiliating earful.

You're such a shitty goddamned liar - a liar for certain, but a
stupendously shitty one.
The Master - 03 Oct 2008 18:38 GMT
>>> No, you self-loathing lard tanker - sacrifice to get something that you'd
>>> /really/ value more than the immediate gratification of your childlike
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> No one said "skinny", troll.  But to a lard tanker like you, I suppose 185
> pounds on a 5'10" frame is "skinny".

The accusation of "troll", when comming from an a.shole like you, is a
bage of honor.  I accept it as a high compliment.

> The lying part is given
> away in the WHINY pissing and moaning you were doing about "glorified diet"
> in response to Dutch.

Pointing out the obvious is hardly moaning about it.  I simply called it
what it was, and no matter how much you pout and bitch and cry about it,
it's still a glorified diet.  It's a shame that it pisses you off so much.

> You /have/ wanted to lose weight,

I have?!?!?!  Really?!?!?!  That's weird, don't remember wanting to...

> so you've rationalized it away and slopped together this laughable story
> that you "like" being a goddamned leaky lard tanker.

But I do...  And in so doing so, your pathetic excuse for a brain is short
circuting.

> No, in terms of your suffering from your in-the-toilet self-esteem

ROTFLMAO!!!

Add another vote for brainless, for reasons that are abundantly obvious to
me, but probably not to you.  Thus, another vote for it as well.

> You're such a shitty goddamned liar - a liar for certain, but a stupendously
> shitty one.

Blah blah blah...
Rudy Canoza - 03 Oct 2008 19:17 GMT
>>>> No, you self-loathing lard tanker - sacrifice to get something that
>>>> you'd /really/ value more than the immediate gratification of your
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> The accusation of "troll",

...is entirely apt.  You aren't really looking to promote fatty
acceptance or any such thing, you're just a f.cking whiny troll.

>> The lying part is given away in the WHINY pissing and moaning you were
>> doing about "glorified diet"
>> in response to Dutch.
>
> Pointing out the obvious is hardly moaning about it.

You were so obvious it was laughable.

>> You /have/ wanted to lose weight,
>
> I have?!?!?!  Really?!?!?!  That's weird, don't remember wanting to...

Yes, you have, and yes, you remember.  The bitterness in your whiny
lament just flooded out of the posts you made.

>> so you've rationalized it away and slopped together this laughable
>> story that you "like" being a goddamned leaky lard tanker.
>
> But I do...

No, you don't.  You *HATE* it.  You just wish there was some magical way
you could continue to shovel pints of ice cream into your trolling fat
greasy yap, and not be fat.

>> No, in terms of your suffering from your in-the-toilet self-esteem
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!

Nope.  You're not laughing, fat troll.

>> You're such a shitty goddamned liar - a liar for certain, but a
>> stupendously shitty one.
>
> Blah blah blah...

Concession of defeat noted.
The Master - 03 Oct 2008 19:27 GMT
>>> You /have/ wanted to lose weight,
>>
>> I have?!?!?!  Really?!?!?!  That's weird, don't remember wanting to...
>
> Yes, you have, and yes, you remember.  The bitterness in your whiny lament
> just flooded out of the posts you made.

Nope, you must be mistaking, retard boy.

>>> so you've rationalized it away and slopped together this laughable story
>>> that you "like" being a goddamned leaky lard tanker.
>>
>> But I do...
>
> No, you don't.  You *HATE* it.

Incorrect.  Now this is the point where you say yes, and I say no, and you
say yes, and I say no, and blah blah blah blah...

>>> You're such a shitty goddamned liar - a liar for certain, but a
>>> stupendously shitty one.
>>
>> Blah blah blah...
>
> Concession of defeat noted.

Clutching at straws noted...

.
.
.
.
.
Rudy Canoza - 03 Oct 2008 19:40 GMT
>>>> You /have/ wanted to lose weight,
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Nope,

Yep.  I'm not the only one who noticed it.

You're excruciatingly obvious.

>>>> so you've rationalized it away and slopped together this laughable
>>>> story that you "like" being a goddamned leaky lard tanker.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Incorrect.

No, I'm right, fatso.  You /hate/ being a lard tanker; what you like is
the gluttony and dedication-to-excess that make you a lard tanker.  But
you wish you could eat ice cream by the bucket and still be fit.

>>>> You're such a shitty goddamned liar - a liar for certain, but a
>>>> stupendously shitty one.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Clutching at straws noted...

Hardly, fatso - hardly.

I know you're in here somewhere:
http://fatchicksinpartyhats.com/part1.shtml  Do you do the Fat Hat
Dance?  http://fatchicksinpartyhats.com/fathatdance.html

You sure do stink at lying, fat f.ck.
The Master - 03 Oct 2008 20:15 GMT
> You sure do stink at lying, fat f.ck.

And yet you can't get enough of me...  *smile*  Dance some more for me
bitch.
Rudy Canoza - 03 Oct 2008 20:17 GMT
The UnMaster of Anything wrote:

>> You sure do stink at lying, fat f.ck.
>
> And yet you can't get enough of me...

Nope.  Never heard of you until now, and when the atherosclerosis gets
you soon, I'll never hear of you again.

You sure do stink at lying, fatty.
The Master - 03 Oct 2008 20:33 GMT
>>> You sure do stink at lying, fat f.ck.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> You sure do stink at lying, fatty.

HAHAHAHA!!!!  You danced for me again!  You are a whore for attention.
Whore yourself some more Rudy.

.
.
.
.
.
.
Rudy Canoza - 03 Oct 2008 20:49 GMT
The UnMaster of Anything lied wrote:

>>>> You sure do stink at lying, fat f.ck.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> HAHAHAHA!!!!  You danced for me again!

Nope.  In addition to being obese and a liar, you're also delusional.

How much do you weigh, fatso?  How many multiples of 100 lb. overweight
are you?  200?  300? *400*?  Tell us, fat f.ck.
The Master - 03 Oct 2008 21:05 GMT
>>>>> You sure do stink at lying, fat f.ck.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Nope.  In addition to being obese and a liar, you're also delusional.

And there you go again...  :)  Weeeeee!!!!  You are my bitch.

.
.
.
.
.
.
Hoots - 04 Oct 2008 12:22 GMT
>>>>>> You sure do stink at lying, fat f.ck.
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> .
> .

You guys are a stitch...

:-)
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 17:31 GMT
>> As I've said in a few posts, my wife lost 50 pounds without changing
>> the components of her diet at all, and it took her 18 months, which is
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> as you are here?  She must not have any sense of self worth to stay with
> a prick like you.  Do you beat her too?

I realized there was something else that needed to be said here.

This bullshit above is the myth you just /have/ to believe, isn't it?
You /need/ to believe that I browbeat her into it, that I made her feel
bad and she felt she had "no other choice" but to lose the weight.  It
just /kills/ you to think that someone else who was overweight actually
had the self-discipline and inner strength to change it.  As much as you
claim you hate people who have always been fit for "discriminating"
against you and expressing "intolerance", whom you /REALLY/ hate are
formerly obese people who got a grip on it and not only lost the weight,
but just stopped /being/ fatsos.  You're like people who won't even try
to quit smoking:  far more than being unhappy with the anti-smoking
sentiments of people who never smoked, smokers /really/ resent and are
afraid of people who did smoke and quit.

Here's even more to make you miserable, you disgusting whiny fat f.ck.
My wife's parents, both still living, and her two siblings are both
significantly overweight, and the spouse of one of the siblings is also
a behemoth.  She grew up in cultures, both geographic and familial, in
which physical slothfulness and dietary excess were seen as normal.  So,
it really represented a radical change for her to break out of that, and
it wasn't going to happen without a lot of mental discipline, which she
clearly has and which you clearly do not and *NEVER WILL* have.

You stupid fat pillock:  you're too stupid to realize that it isn't your
obesity per se that people find offensive; it's the loathsome bad
character that led you to become a blowpig in the first place, and that
has you seeing yourself as some kind of "victim", that really disgusts
people.  If it *really* were a medical problem that led to your being
overweight, people /would/ naturally be more tolerant of your bulk; but
they, and *YOU*, know that it's your character that's at fault.
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 18:18 GMT
>>> As I've said in a few posts, my wife lost 50 pounds without changing the
>>> components of her diet at all, and it took her 18 months, which is a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I realized there was something else that needed to be said here.

Oh joy...

> This bullshit above is the myth you just /have/ to believe, isn't it? You
> /need/ to believe that I browbeat her into it, that I made her feel bad and
> she felt she had "no other choice" but to lose the weight.

Not at all.  Actually, I was trying to trick you into an emotional
outburst of hate and anger over the suggestion.  It didn't quite work out
the way I had planned, but the time you took to reply to it shows me that
it did sting you at some level...

Chances are, you know you are a dick to her, you two might have even gone
to couples therapy...  There is probably a little twinge of guilt, where
you think perhaps you are emotionally abusive.  So rather then the
outburst I was expecting, I get a relatively calm reply.  Comming from
you, it sounds more like addmitting guilt then anything.  I just didn't
get the outburst.  Oh well...

I do, however, need to give you points on the nice rambling at the end of
your post.

> It just /kills/
> you to think that someone else who was overweight actually had the
> self-discipline and inner strength to change it.

Not at all.  If it was her idea, more power to her.  But you being an a.s 
isn't going to make me feel the same way.  Sucks to be you, hu?

> You're like people who won't even try to quit smoking:

That's another group of people that are crapped on by society...  Why
should a smoker be forced to quit because you are too much of a pussy when
it comes to second hand smoke?

> You stupid fat pillock:  you're too stupid to realize that

Blah blah blah blah blah....
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 19:05 GMT
>>>> As I've said in a few posts, my wife lost 50 pounds without changing
>>>> the components of her diet at all, and it took her 18 months, which
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> Not at all.

Yes, "at all".  You just /have/ to believe that she was pressured into
it, that there was something "unfair" and "discriminatory" and
"intolerant" about the environment around her.

> If it was her idea, more power to her.

Bullshit.  It's excruciatingly obvious, to you as well as to everyone
else, that you can't possibly believe that.

> But you being an
> a.s isn't going to make me feel the same way.  Sucks to be you, hu?

It's great, actually:  good-looking wife with a well-proportioned sexy
body, terrific and lean athletic son, good job...yes, life is all right.

>> You're like people who won't even try to quit smoking:
>
> That's another group of people that are crapped on by society...

WAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!  More "victims", right?  You f.cking double-wide full
of whiny bullshit.

> Why should a smoker be forced to quit because you are too much of a
> pussy when it comes to second hand smoke?

You smoke too, obviously.  Boy, the crippled-victim mentality just has a
death grip on you, doesn't it, fatso?

>> You stupid fat pillock:  you're too stupid to realize that
>
> Blah blah blah blah blah....

Here, let's restore the whole thing:

   You stupid fat pillock:  you're too stupid to realize that it isn't
   your obesity per se that people find offensive; it's the loathsome
   bad character that led you to become a blowpig in the first place,
   and that has you seeing yourself as some kind of "victim", that
   really disgusts people.  If it *really* were a medical problem that
   led to your being overweight, people /would/ naturally be more
   tolerant of your bulk; but they, and *YOU*, know that it's your
   character that's at fault.

Character counts, fatso, and yours is disgusting, and people quite
rightly loath you for your SHITTY character, and what /KILLS/ you is you
know they're right to do so.
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 20:04 GMT
>>> It just /kills/ you to think that someone else who was overweight actually
>>> had the self-discipline and inner strength to change it.
>>
>> Not at all.
>
> Yes, "at all".  You just /have/ to believe that she was pressured into it,

No, I think you smack her around, and she covers it up with make-up, or
says she fell down the stairs.  Makes you feel like a man, beating a
woman?

>> If it was her idea, more power to her.
>
> Bullshit.  It's excruciatingly obvious, to you as well as to everyone else,
> that you can't possibly believe that.

I don't believe it.  Honestly, I doubt you are even married.  No woman
would be willing to put up with your sh.t.

>> But you being an a.s isn't going to make me feel the same way.  Sucks to be
>> you, hu?
>
> It's great, actually:  good-looking wife with a well-proportioned sexy body,
> terrific and lean athletic son, good job...yes, life is all right.

And when you are done, you let out the air, fold her up, and put her back
in the closet.

>> Why should a smoker be forced to quit because you are too much of a pussy
>> when it comes to second hand smoke?
>
> You smoke too, obviously.

Actually no.  Unlike you, I don't beg big government to protect me from
the boogy man.

>>> You stupid fat pillock:  you're too stupid to realize that
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>   You stupid fat pillock:  you're too stupid to realize that

Here, let me reply:

Blah blah blah blah blah....

.
.
.
.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 20:18 GMT
>>>> It just /kills/ you to think that someone else who was overweight
>>>> actually had the self-discipline and inner strength to change it.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> No, I think you smack her around, and she covers it up with make-up, or
> says she fell down the stairs.  Makes you feel like a man, beating a woman?

No, you don't think that at all.

You just /have/ to think that she couldn't do it yourself, don't you,
fatso?  It just /kills/ you to think that some other overweight person,
who didn't want to be overweight, had the gumption to get control of her
life.  Your life is out of control - out of any meaningful control - and
it infuriates you nearly to apoplexy that someone else seized control of
her life in a way you can scarcely even dream of doing.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

>>> If it was her idea, more power to her.
>>
>> Bullshit.  It's excruciatingly obvious, to you as well as to everyone
>> else, that you can't possibly believe that.
>
> I don't believe it.

No, you don't /want/ to believe it, but you've lived an entire life
counting on wish fulfillment rather than action.

>>> But you being an a.s isn't going to make me feel the same way.  Sucks
>>> to be you, hu?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> And when you are done,

Not going to be done for a long time, fatty.

How much do you weigh, fatso?

>>> Why should a smoker be forced to quit because you are too much of a
>>> pussy when it comes to second hand smoke?
>>
>> You smoke too, obviously.
>
> Actually no.

You're most likely lying.

> Unlike you, I don't beg big government to protect me from
> the boogy man.

You most certainly do!  What else is "fatty acceptance" about, fatso?
You want to see laws passed to prevent imaginary discrimination.  You
want to see Thought Police established to weed out people from thinking
ill of you and the other lard-a.s self-marginalized fat f.cks.

>>>> You stupid fat pillock:  you're too stupid to realize that
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Here,

Here, let's put it back to raise your BP another few points:

   You stupid fat pillock:  you're too stupid to realize that it isn't
   your obesity per se that people find offensive; it's the loathsome
   bad character that led you to become a blowpig in the first place,
   and that has you seeing yourself as some kind of "victim", that
   really disgusts people.  If it *really* were a medical problem that
   led to your being overweight, people /would/ naturally be more
   tolerant of your bulk; but they, and *YOU*, know that it's your
   character that's at fault.

Character counts, fatso, and yours is disgusting, and people quite
rightly loath you for your SHITTY character, and what /KILLS/ you is you
know they're right to do so.
Dutch - 02 Oct 2008 19:48 GMT
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> In other words, glorified diet.  Thanks for pointing out the obvious...

Why do you call yourself "The Master" when you so obviously are not the
master of your own body? You are a slave to your bloated appetite, to
western excess. A food addict.  People who quit smoking have to eliminate
cigarettes from their life, people who get slim quit overeating and
eliminate certain unhealthy foods and unecessaily large portions. It
involves fundamentally changing your attitude towards food. It is not your
god-given right to eat as much of anything you want whenever you want, not
if you want to live a long and healthy life. Your body is given to you for
to care for, not destroy.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 19:54 GMT
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> western excess. A food addict.  People who quit smoking have to
> eliminate cigarettes from their life,

He's a "put-upon" smoker, too.

> people who get slim quit
> overeating and eliminate certain unhealthy foods and unecessaily large
> portions. It involves fundamentally changing your attitude towards food.
> It is not your god-given right to eat as much of anything you want
> whenever you want, not if you want to live a long and healthy life. Your
> body is given to you for to care for, not destroy.
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 20:12 GMT
> Why do you call yourself "The Master" when you so obviously are not the
> master of your own body?

What are you talking about?  I can eat a cupcake any time I want?
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 20:20 GMT
>> Why do you call yourself "The Master" when you so obviously are not
>> the master of your own body?
>
> What are you talking about?  I can eat a cupcake any time I want?

He's talking about your pathetic anguish over being a loathsome lard
tanker.  You wish you weren't, but you don't have the mastery to do what
it takes not to be one.
Robin King - 02 Oct 2008 23:49 GMT
> >> Why do you call yourself "The Master" when you so obviously are not
> >> the master of your own body?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> tanker.  You wish you weren't, but you don't have the mastery to do what
> it takes not to be one.

       Funny coming from a guy who claims to master what goes in his
mouth, but lacks self-control regarding what comes out of it.

Tsk tsk,
Robin
Rudy Canoza - 03 Oct 2008 00:15 GMT
>>>> Why do you call yourself "The Master" when you so obviously are
> not
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>         Funny coming from a guy who claims to master what goes in his
> mouth, but lacks self-control regarding what comes out of it.

I have mastery over both.

You still haven't acknowledged your screw-up of basic physics.  You also
didn't acknowledge your lousy reading comprehension problem that I
pointed out.
pearl - 05 Oct 2008 12:44 GMT
> > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> master of your own body? You are a slave to your bloated appetite, to
> western excess. A food addict.

"Dutch" is Rude Canooze's lap puppy.  They're both addicted to
animal fat, so of course in denial about increased risk of disease.

> People who quit smoking have to eliminate
> cigarettes from their life, people who get slim quit overeating and
> eliminate certain unhealthy foods

Eliminating meat "reduces the risk of obesity, heart disease,
high blood pressure, diabetes, and some types of cancers... "
- American Dietetic Association.
Hoots - 06 Oct 2008 13:27 GMT
>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> high blood pressure, diabetes, and some types of cancers... "
> - American Dietetic Association.

Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?
dh@. - 06 Oct 2008 15:19 GMT
>>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?

   "pearl" is another interesting case. She believes there
can be hundreds of thousands or millions of frogs in rice
fields anyplace where there are rice fields, *except* in TX.
You might think to yourself: 'What an odd thing to think.
Why would any person think such a thing?' The reason
she claims to believe it is even stranger than the thought
itself. The reason she believes there are not hundreds of
thousands or millions of frogs in rice fields in TX, is because
a TX rice farmer explained that there are.
Hoots - 07 Oct 2008 11:28 GMT
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> thousands or millions of frogs in rice fields in TX, is because
> a TX rice farmer explained that there are.

That's good enough for me!
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 13:18 GMT
..
> >> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> That's good enough for me!

Someone claiming to be a rice farmer.  There's no support for
the claims made of "green waterfalls" of frogs in rice farming
anywhere on the www.  This attention-seeker, dh@, has posted
a picture of the type of frog that hangs out near/in rice fields -
hardly evidence for their outrageous "you too" argument, and
evidence for thriving frog populations in S.E Asia, where for
the most part rice is still cultivated in the traditional manner -
manually and with draught animals - well frogs are part of that
kind of ecosystem.  He posted counts of healthy populations
of frogs on Australian rice farms - estimates using numbers
of frogs *dispersing* during the farming process - probably
when fields had been drained, which occurs prior to harvest
(as explained by a genuine rice farmer, who called the claims
"a hoax.").  dh@ refuses to acknowledge that frogs migrate/
- even relatively long distances, and appears not to understand
that frogs are amphibious - that they can't survive out of water.
The funniest thing he did was crash various Tx groups to ask
people if they'd observed these billions of Tx frogs.  When
he didn't get the affirmative answer he so desperately sought
he lashed-out with a vicious torrent of abuse - poor thing.
I mean, come on.. if every harvest of rice was a veritable
holocaust of frogs et al, you'd think some ecological groups
and researchers - who do actually observe frogs, and there's
urgent concern about frogs/amphibians as well - would have
amply documented "the green waterfalls" of countless frogs..
dh@. - 07 Oct 2008 16:45 GMT
>..
>> >> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>anywhere on the www.  This attention-seeker, dh@, has posted
>a picture of the type of frog that hangs out near/in rice fields -

"rice is cut twice, and those are numbers from two cuttings.  even the
most jaundiced onserver would agree, 'damn that is a *lot* of frogs
hopping around out there.'  i was not specific on the types of frogs,
and therein might be part of the wide-eyed problem.  there are either 2
or 3 varieties of tree frogs - little bitty boogers, and we have leopard
frogs and grass frogs larger and fewer, but still plentiful.  by count,
i would guess there are 10x the number of tree frogs as all others
total, and there are plenty of leopards and grass.  in one pool of
water, there were seven varieties of frog & toad eggs.  we have a *lot*
of frogs in the gulf coastal plains." - diderot

>hardly evidence for their outrageous "you too" argument,

"the vertebrate deaths come from: frogs (5+ species), toads (common
bufo), anole lizards, shrews (3 species), voles, mice, rats, snakes, a
couple of kinds of turtles, cats, rabbits, skunk, nutria & muskrats,
raccoons, possums, deer (never less than a pair of fawns harvested per
50 acres), pheasants, quail, pigeons, cattle egrets, sparrows,
starlings, waxwings, ....  although all of these are not harvested
*every* time, they are the 'regulars.'  occasionally a canvasback, teal,
heron, mallard, black duck, coot, spoonbill, crow, hawk, kite, eagle,
buzzard ... is shredded, as is the occasional feral pig or lost calf,
coyote or dog.

for information, an acre has 43,264+ square feet.  the vast majority of
the deaths are (as one would imagine): frogs, toads and anole lizards;
rodents and insectivores.

- when cutting the rice, there is a - literal - green waterfall of frogs
and anoles moving in front of the combine.  sometimes the 'rain' is just
a hard shower (± 10,000 frogs per acre) crossing the header, other times
it is a deluge (+50,000 acre).  never is it a drought; never a mist.
sometimes, the number of frogs swimming across the cutter-bar is so
massive, we have to reduce travel speed of the combine - there is just
too much rice lost by being pressed into the rather thickish 'arroz con
gracielà paté' which travels across the screens, rather than falling
into the hopper as good grain should." - diderot

>and
>evidence for thriving frog populations in S.E Asia, where for
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>(as explained by a genuine rice farmer, who called the claims
>"a hoax.").  dh@ refuses to acknowledge that frogs migrate/

  I acknowledged it, and also pointed out that diderot
estimated only about 20% of them are killed, but the numbers
are still huge especially in organic farming.

> - even relatively long distances, and appears not to understand
>that frogs are amphibious - that they can't survive out of water.

   I wouldn't have asked you why you think they don't
dehydrate if not, but then honesty isn't very important
to you.

>The funniest thing he did was crash various Tx groups to ask
>people if they'd observed these billions of Tx frogs.  When
>he didn't get the affirmative answer he so desperately sought
>he lashed-out with a vicious torrent of abuse - poor thing.

   They abused me for asking, and I abused them for being
rude a.sholes and abusing me. The truth doesn't mean a
whole lot to you.

>I mean, come on.. if every harvest of rice was a veritable
>holocaust of frogs et al, you'd think some ecological groups
>and researchers - who do actually observe frogs, and there's
>urgent concern about frogs/amphibians as well - would have
>amply documented "the green waterfalls" of countless frogs..

   Why wouldn't we figure they just deny it like you do?
I told you I saw that same thing on the back of a bush hog
with grasshoppers every time I mowed a field, and have no
doubt it would be similar in areas where there are a lot of
frogs, and especially a lot of tree frogs. Again:

"by count, i would guess there are 10x the number of tree frogs
as all others total"

So the tree frogs are usually knocked from the rice stalks, and
the "others" that find puddles and haven't dehydrated yet get
to be crushed by the wheels of the machinery. Unless they
manage to survive that too and enjoy being killed by predators
when they no longer have the shelter of the rice plants to
hide them.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 23:01 GMT
> ..
>>>> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Someone claiming to be a rice farmer.

No - a rice farmer, full stop.

You have no evidence.
Hoots - 08 Oct 2008 12:14 GMT
> ..
>>>> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> urgent concern about frogs/amphibians as well - would have
> amply documented "the green waterfalls" of countless frogs..

Frog waterfalls, eh?

Now *that's* something you don't see every day.

I learn so much on newsgroups!!
pearl - 08 Oct 2008 13:57 GMT
> > ..
> >>>> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
> I learn so much on newsgroups!!

Innit just.  :)

The Texas incident - poor thing - http://tinyurl.com/4o3jul , or
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.texas/browse_frm/thread/7e9db2d07f8a872
9/897e8e9965c9efb4?lnk=st&q=pearl+frogs+texas#897e8e

9965c9efb4

7.  d...@.   Sep 11 2006, 2:06 am
Newsgroups: alt.music.texas, tx.guns, tx.general, tx.motorcycles
Subject: Re: OT question about frogs in rice fields...

><dh@.> wrote in message news:9858g2dnph3ffk06dnhlj2nbnitfinu0ch@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:03:53 GMT, Rex B <burkhei...@NOSPAMearthlink.net>
[quoted text clipped - 62 lines]
>
>Jerry

   The Google search you people suggested didn't bring up things that
are related to what I'm asking. None of you seem able to grasp that.

-------------------------------------

33.  d...@.   Sep 12 2006, 1:31 am
><dh@.> wrote in message news:ddcbg2hlf0qi6o3hoplidm7984lon0h70b@4ax.com...
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>tasty indeed, please feel free to ask. Hell I will give you that answer now.
>It is one frog per square yard. And no, I don't have to prove it.

   You can't prove it but what makes you think so, have you any idea?

>Now that you have that information what are you going to do with it?
>
>Jerry

   I'll make it available to the "aras", but they'll want photographic evidence
or something too. The particular fool I've been arguing with will deny the
existence of the frogs, deny that frogs, tadpoles and eggs can be carried
into rice fields when they're flooded with creek or river water, and then
go on to explain how she believe the frogs she claims don't exist survive
when the fields are drained, and how she thinks these nonexistent frogs
get into the fields in ways other than with the water.

---

Now, Hoots and all - aren't you inspired to put your brain in a blender?

For the record, I've never denied the existence of frogs on Texas
rice farms, just don't buy the numbers of biblical proportions or
deadly rice harvests. "The Texas Rice-Harvester Massacre" folks...
dh@. - 08 Oct 2008 15:31 GMT
>> > if every harvest of rice was a veritable
>> > holocaust of frogs et al, you'd think some ecological groups
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>
>> Now *that's* something you don't see every day.

"the facts are that modern, large-scale cereal grain production comes at
a minimum cost of _several deaths per pound_, whereas grass-fed meat
production, whether from production agriculture or hunting is counted
_several pounds per death_.  it is absolutely inescapable that: from
death comes life, and agriculture: is, always has been, and always will
be a bloody, bloody business.  anybody who believes that by eating a
pound of pasta instead of a pound of venison they are 'saving a life' is
delusional.  

evaluating organic production is instructive for several reasons: many
well-meaning, good-at-heart people believe organic = 'better, healthier'
(it is not, necessarily), and the number of included collateral deaths -
while considerably fewer than in 'conventional' production - are much
more visible; more personal; more illustrative for those who favour
responsibility and information." - diderot

>> I learn so much on newsgroups!!

"- when cutting the rice, there is a - literal - green waterfall of frogs
and anoles moving in front of the combine.  sometimes the 'rain' is just
a hard shower (± 10,000 frogs per acre) crossing the header, other times
it is a deluge (+50,000 acre).  never is it a drought; never a mist.
sometimes, the number of frogs swimming across the cutter-bar is so
massive, we have to reduce travel speed of the combine - there is just
too much rice lost by being pressed into the rather thickish 'arroz con
gracielà paté' which travels across the screens, rather than falling
into the hopper as good grain should.

these numbers may sound extreme to those who believe there is a wildlife
de-population crisis, but considering one can easily see 10-20-30+ frogs
(and several anoles) within the top few inches of a foot stand of rice,
the numbers making gracielà paté are trivial.

most times, judging from the visible continuious population swimming
across the header, it is somewhere between 10K & 50+K per acre
harvested.  a good, reasonable, annualised (but still conservative)
number of amphibian and anole deaths through the combine is 35,000 of
all species harvested per acre, combined average for two cuttings.  in
spite of these seemingly large numbers, far, far more frogs & lizards
escape than are combined.  i would guess that the 35,000 amphibian
deaths represents less than 20% of the total population, and probably
far less, but that is just a guess - plenty, plenty, plenty are not killed."
- diderot
pearl - 06 Oct 2008 21:44 GMT
> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?

Hoots.  :).

'Please, do not be alarmed, remain calm
Do not attempt to leave the dancefloor
The DJ booth is conducting
a troubleshoot test of the entire system
Somehow, while the party was in progress,
an unidentified frequency
has been existing in the system
for some time
And while many of you have been made
too brainwashed to comprehend,
this frequency is, and has become
a threat to our society, as we know it
This frequency has been used by a secret society
in conjunction with Lucifer,
to lure and pray on innocent party goers
with hypnotism, syncroprism, tricknology,
lies, scandal, and pornography
While the party is still in progress,
we will keep you updated
on our current status

We repeat: this is only a test.
This is only a test.
This station,
in conjunction with other airwave announcements
will conduct this exact test
without prejudice,
under the jurisprudence of
The Soul, the Mind, the Body
The Positive, the Negative, the Ground
The Proton, the Neutron, the Electron
The Yin, the Yang, the Young
The Sun, the Moon, the Star

This  is only a test

This is only a test

This is only a test

..........

Foremost Poets - Moonraker

*
pearl - 06 Oct 2008 21:54 GMT
c.

"Hoots" <ratty_dew@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:sqnGk.44599$bx1.6690@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?

Hoots.  :).

'Please, do not be alarmed, remain calm
Do not attempt to leave the dancefloor
The DJ booth is conducting
a troubleshoot test of the entire system
Somehow, while the party was in progress,
an unidentified frequency
has been existing in the system
for some time
And while many of you have been made
too brainwashed to comprehend,
this frequency is, and has become
a threat to our society, as we know it
This frequency has been used by a secret society
in conjunction with Lucifer,
to lure and prey on innocent party goers
with hypnotism, syncroprism, tricknology,
lies, scandal, and pornography
While the party is still in progress,
we will keep you updated
on our current status

We repeat: this is only a test.
This is only a test.
This station,
in conjunction with other airwave announcements
will conduct this exact test
without prejudice,
under the jurisprudence of
The Soul, the Mind, the Body
The Positive, the Negative, the Ground
The Proton, the Neutron, the Electron
The Yin, the Yang, the Young
The Sun, the Moon, the Star

This  is only a test

This is only a test

This is only a test

..........

Foremost Poets - Moonraker

*
Hoots - 07 Oct 2008 11:50 GMT
b.

> c.
>
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>
> *
Rudy Canoza - 06 Oct 2008 22:03 GMT
>> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?
>
> Hoots.  :).
>
> 'Please, do not be alarmed,
> [snip unimaginative, unoriginal copypasta]

Why don't you shut the f.ck up?
pearl - 06 Oct 2008 22:30 GMT
> >> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?
> >
> > Hoots.  :).
> >
> > 'Please, do not be alarmed,
> > [snip unimaginative, unoriginal copypasta]

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.
..'
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Can't say these pics of you are unimaginitive or unoriginal
neither... http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html :)

> Why don't you shut the f.ck up?

'The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath

Also known as the corporate psychopath, workplace psychopath,
industrial psychopath and administrative psychopath.

Motivation: power, gratification, personal gain, survival
Mindset: manipulation, deception, evil
Malice: high to very high; when held accountable, off the scale
..
- at all times restricts the actions and rights of others (especially
those holding the sociopath accountable) whilst aggressively
protecting his or her right to do anything without being hampered
by social norms or legal requirements
- pursues endless vindictive vendettas against anyone perceived
as a threat or who attempts, knowingly or unknowingly, to identify
or reveal or expose the sociopath, or who makes efforts to hold
the sociopath accountable
- is adept at appropriating rules, regulations, procedures and law
to manipulate, control and punish accusers regardless of relevance,
logic, facts or consequences
- persists in and pursues vindictive vendettas using self-evidently
false evidence or information, even after this is brought to the
attention of the sociopath
- will often manipulate minor bullies of the Wannabe type (who
on their own might or would not merit the label 'serial bully')
into acting as agents of harassment and as unwitting or unwilling
conductors of vendettas
..
- revels in the gratification gained from seeing or causing other
people's distress
-when faced with accountability or unwelcome attention which might
lead to others discerning the sociopath's true nature, responds with
repeated and escalating attempts to control, manipulate and punish
..
- has no limits on his or her vindictiveness
- the need to control, manipulate and punish develops into an
obsession with many of the hallmarks of an addiction
- is skilled at mimicry and can plausibly and spontaneously
regurgitate all the latest management jargon
- exhibits minimal professional skill level and competency
- exploits his or her intelligence to excel at talentless mediocrity
..
- is pushy and extremely persuasive
- is sexually inadequate and sexually abusive
- is likely to protect anyone accused of or suspected of sexual abuse
of pedophile activity, and will frustrate or obstruct investigations into
that person
- maybe associating with, or actively involved in, abuse or pedophile
activity
- has no emotions, no emotional processing capability and no ability
to understand other's emotions
- is incapable of understanding, initiating or sustaining intimacy
..
- is likely to be leaking confidential information or secrets to third parties
- is likely to have committed or be committing criminal or near-criminal
offences, eg fraud, embezzlement, deception
- is likely to have committed or be committing breaches of harassment
and discrimination law, employment law, contract law, etc
- disregards rules, regulations, Health and Safety requirements,
professional standards, codes of conduct and legal requirements, etc
- cannot comprehend the deeper semantic meaning of language and is
thus unable to understand or appreciate metaphor, hyperbole, irony,
satire etc (these elicit either zero response or a hostile response)
- likes, seeks, enjoys and relies on procedure, ritual and ritualistic
practices
- through arrogant overconfidence takes increasingly risky chances
and eventually overplays their hand or makes a mistake which leads
to the sociopath revealing him or herself
- exhibits parasitical behaviour, takes everything and gives nothing
- grabs headline credit for minimal, flukey or other peoples' success
whilst surviving off the backs of manipulatees who are exclusively
blamed for all failures
- rarely blinks, may have stary scary eyes that cut right through you,
or may avoid eye contact completely
- is callous, cold and calculating
- is devious, clever and cunning
- is ruthless in the extreme
- regards people as objects and playthings to be discarded when
surplus to requirements
- displays zero empathy
- completely without conscience, remorse and guilt
- malicious and evil
...'
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm
Rudy Canoza - 06 Oct 2008 22:40 GMT
>>>> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?
>>> Hoots.  :).
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> [snip still more of it]

Just shut the f.ck up, why don't you?
Dutch - 06 Oct 2008 23:46 GMT
>> >> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> 'Bullies

WAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 00:03 GMT
>>> > "Hoots" <ratty_dew@yahoo.com> wrote in message >
>>> news:sqnGk.44599$bx1.6690@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> WAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

There she goes with that perennial victim thing again...
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 00:42 GMT
> >> >> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?
> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> WAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

'The Guru

Motivation: task focused
Mindset: confusion, inability to understand how others think and feel
Malice: zero to low; when held accountable, low to medium (it's
often the absence of malice that identifies a guru type of serial bully)
but could be medium to high if narcissistic or psychopathic traits
are present
..
- ruthlessly pursues objectives regardless of the cost
- ruthless determination to succeed
- can be successful over the medium term in their field
- task focused
- zero people skills
- control freak
- mainly but not exclusively male
..
- selfish, self-centred, self-opinionated, dogmatic and
thoughtless and with a tendency to pontificate
- apt to throw temper tantrums when things don't go well
or can't get their own way
- emotionally immature, perhaps emotionless, sometimes
cold and frigid
- convincingly intellectualises feelings to compensate for
emotional immaturity
- intelligent (often highly) but lacks common sense
- is happy to lie to suit own purposes
- can have a rigid routine
- does not accept responsibility for their own behavior
- blames others for own inadequacies
- refuses to recognise that they could have any shortcomings
of their own
..
- makes assumptions about others' thoughts
..
- appears unable to read people and their thoughts and especially
feelings
..
- is unable to comprehend or meet the emotional needs of others
..
- may view people as objects (this enables controlling behaviour
of other people) [+ non-human animals]
- thinks of self as superior and above the law / rules / regulations
etc (these only apply to other people)
- uses denial as a defence mechanism
...'
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 00:54 GMT
>>>>>> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?
>>>>> Hoots.  :).
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> 'The Guru
> [snip copypasta BULLSHIT]

Just shut the f.ck up, lesley, you victim-by-choice.
Dutch - 07 Oct 2008 01:04 GMT
>> >> >> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?
>> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> 'The Guru

LOL, am I not meeting your emotional needs dear?
Hoots - 07 Oct 2008 11:56 GMT
>>> > "Hoots" <ratty_dew@yahoo.com> wrote in message >
>>> news:sqnGk.44599$bx1.6690@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> WAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

Don't worry, I don't think she's *really* gonna bully you.

It's just an innernets sort of thing.
Hoots - 07 Oct 2008 11:50 GMT
>> Hi pearl, how have you guys been? What's new in your group?
>
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> *

So, you've been out clubbin, eh?

Sounds fun!

I wish it took plac earlier in the evening--I can't stay up that late
anymore.
dh@. - 07 Oct 2008 16:46 GMT
>The Soul, the Mind, the Body

   Is the soul all in the mind? If not where else, and what would
make us think so?

>The Positive, the Negative, the Ground

   In 110V AC I've gotten the impression that the ground is tied
to the center of the secondary coil, and the two 110 legs are
taken from the ends of the coil, and an electrician I asked about
it says that's about right. But I still don't understand exactly WTF
it means. Is there realy a wire soldered to the center of the
secondary coil and then buried several feet into the ground?

>The Proton, the Neutron, the Electron

   Typical DJ sh.t, not really caring about the Photon. Damn few of
us do though, that's for sure, even among the general population.

>The Yin, the Yang, the Young

   WTF?

>The Sun, the Moon, the Star

   The sun is a star, but some things that appear to be stars are not.

>This  is only a test
>
>This is only a test

   Try passing it and answer the questions for a change.
Dutch - 02 Oct 2008 19:37 GMT
>>>>> What - eating less and exercising more?  No, just the opposite:
>>>> making
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> weight.  But the weight loss *will* occur.  It must - it's basic,
> immutable physics.

Sure, after the desired loss happens you can raise the level to a
maintenance one and stop being quite so strict.

>> If you burn 2000 cal/day just doing your
>> daily activities and you consume 1600 you will lose weight. If one were
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> mentality of excess.  Being extremely childlike in their approach to life,
> they want the weight loss to be nearly instantaneous.

It so happens that for the vast majority of people, the further you are
above your ideal weight the easier it is to take the weight off. The weight
loss curve is kind of logarithmic, it is steep at first then flattens right
out as the body weight approaches ideal. Most of the weight is lost early
on, which should be motivating. The trouble might come later, as results are
not as dramatic or when there are plateau periods which can be frustrating.

> As I've said in a few posts, my wife lost 50 pounds without changing the
> components of her diet at all, and it took her 18 months, which is a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> master of anything in his life at all), she didn't consider it
> "deprivation".

That's what we did, measure, weigh, and keep track. By doing so one learns
to *become* the master of one's body weight. We retrained our appetites and
took back control of ourselves, away from the ad-men and fast-food peddlers.
Its the same principle one applies when taking control of personal finances,
if you don't account for and control what you spend you will never
accumulate wealth. In fact we used the metaphor of "spending" during our
weight loss to relate to consuming calories. Eating an ice cream would be
like "spending" $10 on a movie.

> Guys like this lard tanker whining in this thread have the *classic*
> American dedication to excess.  I have long thought of it as the ugly
> national credo:  If a little of something is good, a lot of it must be
> great.  That's just *WRONG* thinking.  It's *BAD* thinking - morally bad.
> It's the very essence of gluttony, which has long been considered a deadly
> sin, for good reason.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 19:53 GMT
>>>>>> What - eating less and exercising more?  No, just the opposite:
>>>>> making
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> Sure, after the desired loss happens you can raise the level to a
> maintenance one and stop being quite so strict.

Correct.  And, if you're willing to keep the activity level - the
caloric expenditure - high, you can raise the intake substantially.
It's not hard to imagine some obese couch potato who takes up a sport
like cycling, loses the weight, then continues to ride 50 miles or so a
few times a week, and can probably have a pretty high caloric intake.

>>> If you burn 2000 cal/day just doing your
>>> daily activities and you consume 1600 you will lose weight. If one
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> come later, as results are not as dramatic or when there are plateau
> periods which can be frustrating.

My boss, also a long-time friend, is about 5'9" tall and weighed over
260 lb.  For most of that time he was vegetarian, too, although not
"vegan".  He didn't quite complain about his weight, but he obviously
wasn't happy about it.  Finally, in his 50s, he got serious about taking
it off, and off most of it came.  But he did get "stuck" at a weight
higher than he wanted, up in the 190s; he wanted to get down to the low
to mid 180s.  He held pretty steady at about 195 for quite a while, but
then he began doing some business travel, and his diet worsened and his
exercise dwindled.  He's now up around 210-215, but he'll *never* be up
near 260 again, I'm certain.

>> As I've said in a few posts, my wife lost 50 pounds without changing
>> the components of her diet at all, and it took her 18 months, which is
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> That's what we did, measure, weigh, and keep track. By doing so one
> learns to *become* the master of one's body weight.

Exactly.  That's what's so hilarious about this fat guy who so clearly
is *not* the "master" of anything, unless it's master of the whiny
victimhood lament.

> We retrained our
> appetites and took back control of ourselves, away from the ad-men and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>> bad. It's the very essence of gluttony, which has long been considered
>> a deadly sin, for good reason.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 05:38 GMT
>> No, it doesn't explain any such thing.  I'm posting in "fat
> acceptance"
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>         So what? You could remove it from the headers.

So what?  I can leave it in, too.

>> What - eating less and exercising more?  No, just the opposite: making
>> habits of those is the *only* way to lasting, healthful weight loss for
>> fatties.
>
>         <Shrug>  Works for some, not for everybody.

It works for *EVERYONE*, if they do it.

> Fortunately,
> exercise and healthy eating will help you be healthier, even if you
> don't lose much weight.

Exercising more, and consuming fewer calories than you expend, will
necessarily lead to weight loss.  It's an iron law of physics.

>> I've been rewarded already by my wife, without me nagging her at all,
>> deciding to join Curves, start watching her portions (of all the same
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>         So you married a woman who was 50 pounds over your preferred
> weight?

Did I say she was 50 pounds overweight when I married her, you stupid pig?

Where do you get this "over my preferred weight" bullshit, anyway?  I
didn't say a thing to her or in any way influence her decision to change
her exercise and diet habits.

>>>> Oh, wait - we already know you don't /want/ to do that.  You
>>>> prefer gluttony.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>         That is what some people need to do to lose weight.

Why do you equate refraining from disgusting excess to "deprivation"?

>> Anyway, you didn't argue my main point:  that there is no "medical
>> problem" afflicting the vast majority of fatties that causes their
>> obesity.  It's a character problem.
>
>         That's what they used to say about impotence and depression.

I doubt you know what you're talking about.

You're still being evasive:  there is no "medical problem" afflicting
the vast majority of fatties that is causing their obesity.  It isn't a
physiological or anatomical problem.  It's a way-of-looking-at-life problem.

>> Y'know, if fatties /really/ "accepted" themselves as fat hulking
>> blowpigs, there would not be any need for a "fat acceptance"
>> movement.
>
>         Blowpigs?

Yes - a nicely apt description of people who are more than twice *their*
- not "my" - ideal body weight.

> You also have
> a common misconception.

No, I have a conception at variance with your self-serving one.

> There is need for a fat acceptance movement,

There is not.

> if only because fat people suffer discrimination and intolerance.

Most of what *LITTLE* there is is perfectly justified on ethical
grounds.  But you state this "discrimination and intolerance" bullshit
like it's just the received wisdom - sort of an "everybody knows..."
nugget of bullshit.  But it *is* bullshit.

Some of what you call "discrimination" is only just.  You *should* pay
far more for health insurance than I do:  you are far more likely than I
to need major medical care, and much earlier in life.  You *should* have
to pay for two seats on an airplane if you consume more than one, as
that FAT f.ck next to me did last month.  That's not "discrimination" in
the incorrect sense you use it to mean "unfair" - it's called
usage-based pricing, and it is *perfectly* fair and just.

As for "intolerance":  just what is it you expect to be tolerated?  Am I
supposed to "tolerate" the fact that huge fatties are far more likely to
be standing *cluelessly* blocking a grocery or other aisle, blissfully
and *fattily* unaware that they're an impediment?  Am I supposed to
"tolerate" fatties who, because of their own *self*-inflicted
disability, gobble up handicapped parking spaces?  f.ck, no, I have no
moral obligation to be "tolerant" of that.

> You don't even have to be particularly fat for that to happen.  When even
> Britney Spears can get razzed for being fat,

Britney Spears looked like a goddamned sausage about to explode.  It's
heinous to dress like that when you're that fat.  She should dress in
something modest like Mama Cass
(http://www.quizilla.com/user_images/E/emmasamantha/1045703313_cturescass.jpg),
or like Linda Ronstadt
(http://www.scott-smith.com/images/topical/linda_ronstadt.jpg) did when
she blimped out.

>         People of all weights can be fat acceptors, and most fat
> people are not.

Nor should they be - they should lose weight.

>> That "movement" is really all about them trying, but failing, to pretend
>> there's nothing wrong with them.  They know there's something major
>> wrong with them, and it ain't any "medical" problem.
>
>         The "problem" is frequently more social than physical.

It's mental.  They're mental defectives.
The Master - 30 Sep 2008 14:57 GMT
>>> Invalid comparison, fattie.
>>
>> Yes valid,
>
> Invalid, you fat f.ck.  Completely invalid, and you *know* it.

Couldn't disagree more there, a.shole.  But hey, I doubt very many people
agree with your "head up your a.s" view of the world.  Oh well, sucks to
be you.

>> "All fat people have to do is eat less, it's so simple"
>
> No, they have to get off their FAT f.cking LARD a.ses and get more exercise,
> too.

ROTFLMAO!!!!  Yeah...  Sure...  Simple...  Must be why fat people don't do
it, because it's super easy...  If we could all be like you...  *rolling
eyes*
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 16:01 GMT
>>>> Invalid comparison, fattie.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Couldn't disagree more there, a.shole.

I don't give a f.ck if you claim to "disagree" or not, you illogical,
irrational FAT f.ck-drip.  You're wrong:  it's an invalid comparison,
you FAT f.ck, and you know it is.  Would you like for me to explain
/why/ it's invalid, you FAT BLOWPIG?

>>> "All fat people have to do is eat less, it's so simple"
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> ROTFLMAO!!!!  Yeah...  Sure...  Simple...  Must be why fat people don't
> do it, because it's super easy...

No, they don't do it because they have bad character.  They know it's
the right thing to do, and they willfully choose not to do it.

Here's what we *ALL* do know:  that most hugely obese blowpigs are not
that way because of some physical medical problem, e.g. "hormones",
"glands", "body type", etc.  It's not as if there's some 450 lb.
behemoth who is only eating 1500 calories a day, and can't lose weight.
 No, that's not the case for any of them.

How much do you weigh, fatso?
The Master - 30 Sep 2008 16:15 GMT
>>>>> Invalid comparison, fattie.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I don't give a f.ck if you claim to "disagree" or not, you illogical,
> irrational FAT f.ck-drip.

And I don't care what you see when your head is firmly shoved up your own
a.s.

> You're wrong:

So says you.  But as I already said, I don't care what you see when your
head is firmly shoved up your own a.s.

See how that works, sh.t for brains?

> it's an invalid comparison

WWWWwwwhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......

Mommy, the mean fat man won't play fair...

WWWWwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......

> No, they don't do it because they have bad character.

There you go again...  But at least your shoulders are preventing your
head from going any further.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 16:29 GMT
>>>>>> Invalid comparison, fattie.
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> And I don't care what you see when your head is firmly shoved up your
> own a.s.

Fatties are the way the are mostly due to bad character, fattie.

>> You're wrong:
>
> So says you.

Right.

>> it's an invalid comparison
>
> WWWWwwwhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......
>
> Mommy, the mean fat man

The stupid FAT f.ck is just bitchy because he /knows/ he's been outed as
an excuse-making, bad-character LYING SHITBAG.

>> No, they don't do it because they have bad character.
>
> There you go again...

Right:  telling the truth.

You're a loathsome, LAZY, gluttonous shitbag, and you know it.  We all
know it.
The Master - 30 Sep 2008 16:59 GMT
>>> I don't give a f.ck if you claim to "disagree" or not, you illogical,
>>> irrational FAT f.ck-drip.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Fatties are the way the are mostly due to bad character, fattie.

*shove shove shove*

>>> You're wrong:
>>
>> So says you.
>
> Right.

And since you're wrong...

> The stupid FAT f.ck is just bitchy because he /knows/ he's been outed as an
> excuse-making, bad-character LYING SHITBAG.

ROTFLMAO!!!!  The more you stomp your feet and hold your breath and pout
in general, the more pathetic you look.  But hey, I didn't expect a retard
to do anything less.  I must say, it's a good show, feel like I'm getting
my money's worth with you.

>>> No, they don't do it because they have bad character.
>>
>> There you go again...
>
> Right:  telling the truth.

No, shoving your head up your a.s...

.
.
.
.
.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 21:03 GMT
>>>> I don't give a f.ck if you claim to "disagree" or not, you
>>>> illogical, irrational FAT f.ck-drip.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> *shove shove shove* [more doughnuts and pizza and potato chips and ice cream into your fat greasy gluttonous yap]

Got it, fattie, but we already knew that.

What whole-number multiple of 100 lb. overweight are you, anyway?  200?
 300?  *400?*  Tell the truth.

You can forget "fat acceptance", fatso.  I don't have to accept it - not
in the way you demand, in any case.  The next time I get on an airplane
and there's a 400 lb. lard tanker in the seat next to me, I'm going to
make a BIG scene over it.  No one has *any* excuse for being like that.
The Master - 01 Oct 2008 17:15 GMT
>>>>> I don't give a f.ck if you claim to "disagree" or not, you illogical,
>>>>> irrational FAT f.ck-drip.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> *shove shove shove* [more doughnuts and pizza and potato chips and ice
>> cream into your fat greasy gluttonous yap]

Is that the best you can do?  Crap, you truely ARE pathetic.  I pitty you.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rudy Canoza - 01 Oct 2008 18:48 GMT
The FAT BLOWPIG wrote:

>>>>>> I don't give a f.ck if you claim to "disagree" or not, you
>>>>>> illogical, irrational FAT f.ck-drip.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Is that the best you can do?

Gotcha!

You are one loathsome fat f.ck...
The Master - 01 Oct 2008 18:54 GMT
> You are one loathsome fat f.ck...

That why you spend so much time talkint to me?  Can't stand fat people so
much, you seek us out.  What a pathetic sh.t eater you must be in real
life.  Well, what you call a life that is...

But hey, you have the right to be dickless.
Rudy Canoza - 01 Oct 2008 19:03 GMT
The FAT BLOWPIG wrote:

>> You are one loathsome fat f.ck...
>
> That why you spend so much time talkint to me?

I like reminding you of your loathsomeness.  I consider it a public service.

> Can't stand fat people
> so much, you seek us out.

Nope.  Some ignorant FAT f.ck crossposted his excuse-making-for-fatties
bullshit to a group I follow, as well as posting it to a
(gag/retch/hurl) "fat acceptance" newsgroup.  The FAT f.ck was trying to
be provocative.

Understand this, fatso:  *NO WAY* do I have to "accept" your
loathsomeness.  Being as fat as you are is inherently offensive, and I
am under no moral or legal compulsion to "accept" it.

You never answered the question, you LAZY FAT f.ck:  what whole number
multiple of 100 lb. overweight are you?  200?  300?  *400*?  Answer the
question, blowpig.
The Master - 01 Oct 2008 20:08 GMT
>>> You are one loathsome fat f.ck...
>>
>> That why you spend so much time talkint to me?
>
> I like reminding you of your loathsomeness.  I consider it a public service.

Then you are over compensating for something.  The choices are:

1) you are brainless.
2) you are dickless.
3) your girlfriend left you for a fat person.

Can anyone else come up with a few options to add to the list?

>> Can't stand fat people so much, you seek us out.
>
> Nope.  Some ignorant FAT f.ck crossposted his excuse-making-for-fatties
> bullshit to a group I follow,

Then what group are you reading?  I'll make sure I remove it next post
since you seem unable to do it yourself.  Vote one for brainless...

> Understand this, fatso:  *NO WAY* do I have to "accept" your loathsomeness.

Don't get me wrong.  You have the constitutional right to be the a.shole 
that you have shown yourself to be.

> Being as fat as you are is inherently offensive, and I am under no moral or
> legal compulsion to "accept" it.

But you don't have the right to do anything about it...  And it pisses you
off, doesn't it you powerless maggot?

> You never answered the question, you LAZY FAT f.ck:  what whole number
> multiple of 100 lb. overweight are you?  200?  300?  *400*?  Answer the
> question, blowpig.

I don't engage in question affirmative action, you liberal sack of sh.t.
Just because I haven't answered a "dickhead" question today, it doesn't
mean I'm required to answer yours to keep my quota up.  And that pisses
you off, doesn't it you powerless maggot?
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 05:19 GMT
>>>> You are one loathsome fat f.ck...
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Then you are over compensating for something.

Nope.  Why do you fatties keep at this silly tele-psychology bullshit,
fatso?  You stink at it.

> The choices are:

[snip stupid fattie's misstatement of choices]

Wrong.

> Can anyone else come up with a few options to add to the list?

Just one:  you fat f.cks are loathsome, you want to pretend that you're
not, and I enjoy reminding you that you are.  See above about public
service, stupid blowpig.

>>> Can't stand fat people so much, you seek us out.
>>
>> Nope.  Some ignorant FAT f.ck crossposted his
>> excuse-making-for-fatties bullshit to a group I follow,
>
> Then what group are you reading?

Not something you need to know, fatso.

>> Understand this, fatso:  *NO WAY* do I have to "accept" your
>> loathsomeness.
>
> Don't get me wrong.

You just *are* wrong.

>> Being as fat as you are is inherently offensive, and I am under no
>> moral or legal compulsion to "accept" it.
>
> But you don't have the right to do anything about it...

Never suggested otherwise, fatso.

> And it pisses you off, doesn't it you powerless maggot?

The only thing that pissed me off was I couldn't force that 400 pound
FAT f.ck off the plane, or to pay me 2/3 of my air fare for taking up
half of my seat.  That was monumentally unjust.

>> You never answered the question, you LAZY FAT f.ck:  what whole number
>> multiple of 100 lb. overweight are you?  200?  300?  *400*?  Answer
>> the question, blowpig.
>
> I don't engage in question affirmative action, you liberal sack of sh.t.

Answer the question, fattie:  are you 200, 300, or 400 pounds overweight?

You goddamned useless sack of goo.
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 15:05 GMT
>> Then you are over compensating for something.
>
> Nope.  Why do you fatties keep at this silly tele-psychology bullshit, fatso?
> You stink at it.

Does it look like you are on the f.cking phone, retard?  Vote three for
brainless...

> Just one:  you fat f.cks are loathsome,

That's why you can't stop talking to us...  Stop trying to justify your
bigotry.

Oh wait, that's it, isn't it?  Secretly, you wanted to f.ck a fat chick,
but she turned you down, didn't she?  Ever since then, you have probably
been trying to convinve yourself that she was below you, when in fact, you
were not good enough for her.

> See above about public service,
> stupid blowpig.

Yeppers...  That's it.  Explains a lot actually.

>>> Nope.  Some ignorant FAT f.ck crossposted his excuse-making-for-fatties
>>> bullshit to a group I follow,
>>
>> Then what group are you reading?
>
> Not something you need to know, fatso.

Then stop bitching about the corss posting, moron.

>> And it pisses you off, doesn't it you powerless maggot?
>
> The only thing that pissed me off was I couldn't force that 400 pound FAT
> f.ck off the plane,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!  You stupid powerless f.ck.

>> I don't engage in question affirmative action, you liberal sack of sh.t.
>
> Answer the question, fattie:

Bite me, powerless f.ck.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 15:30 GMT
>>> Then you are over compensating for something.
>>
>> Nope.  Why do you fatties keep at this silly tele-psychology bullshit,
>> fatso? You stink at it.
>
> Does it look like you are on the f.cking phone, retard?

You're an *ignorant* fat f.ck - "tele" does not mean telephone.

>> Just one:  you fat f.cks are loathsome,
>
> That's why you can't stop talking to us...

Who's the whiny greasy excuse-making corpulent blowpig who keeps
responding to me?

>> See above about public service, stupid blowpig.
>
> Yeppers...  That's it.

Yes, it is.

>>>> Nope.  Some ignorant FAT f.ck crossposted his
>>>> excuse-making-for-fatties bullshit to a group I follow,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Then stop bitching about the corss posting,

I'm not.  You are.

>>> And it pisses you off, doesn't it you powerless maggot?
>>
>> The only thing that pissed me off was I couldn't force that 400 pound
>> FAT f.ck off the plane,
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

It will be different next time.

>>> I don't engage in question affirmative action, you liberal sack of sh.t.
>>
>> Answer the question, fattie:
>
> Bite me,

Nope - I adhere to a low-fat diet, fatso.

How many hundred pounds overweight are you, lard tanker?  200?  300?  *400*?
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 15:55 GMT
>>> Just one:  you fat f.cks are loathsome,
>>
>> That's why you can't stop talking to us...
>
> Who's the whiny greasy excuse-making corpulent blowpig who keeps responding
> to me?

I'm bored.  Your excuse?

>>>>> Nope.  Some ignorant FAT f.ck crossposted his excuse-making-for-fatties
>>>>> bullshit to a group I follow,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> I'm not.  You are.

How soon you forgot your bitch fest about how someone cross-posted to your
group.  You can't even troll correctly, that that makes you more fun then
a movie.

.
.
.
.
.
.
DB - 02 Oct 2008 16:02 GMT
"The Master" <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote in

> How soon you forgot your bitch fest about how someone cross-posted to your
> group.  You can't even troll correctly, that that makes you more fun then
> a movie.

LOL, I'm really enjoying watching Rudy blow up, he must be pounding them
keys when he's not pounding his little pee pee between messages.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 16:55 GMT
> "The Master" <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote in
>> How soon you forgot your bitch fest about how someone cross-posted to your
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> LOL, I'm really enjoying watching Rudy blow up, he must be pounding them
> keys when he's not pounding his little pee pee between messages.

Uh, yeah, sure, sport.  WHO is blowing up?  It's pretty obviously The
Unmasterful who's doing the blowing up.  He'd like to crawl through the
wires and out my monitor and strangle me for refusing to go along with
his little fiction about why he's a blowpig.
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 18:08 GMT
>> LOL, I'm really enjoying watching Rudy blow up, he must be pounding them
>> keys when he's not pounding his little pee pee between messages.
>
> Uh, yeah, sure, sport.  WHO is blowing up?

You are...  Don't even know?  Gee...

> It's pretty obviously The
> Unmasterful who's doing the blowing up.

LOL!!!  Dude, I'm smiling ear to ear right now.  I am EAGER to read the
next shitfest you are trying to pass off as a legitimate post.  It's
better then Larry the Cable Guy!
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 19:00 GMT
>>> LOL, I'm really enjoying watching Rudy blow up, he must be pounding
>>> them keys when he's not pounding his little pee pee between messages.
>>
>> Uh, yeah, sure, sport.  WHO is blowing up?
>
> You are...  

Nope.  Not me, fatso.  I'm having a grand time.

>> It's pretty obviously The Unmasterful who's doing the blowing up.
>
> LOL!!!  Dude, I'm smiling ear to ear right now.

SUUUUUUURE you are, you whiny bitchy nearly-immobile tank of goo.  Ha ha
ha ha ha!
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 16:42 GMT
>>>> Just one:  you fat f.cks are loathsome,
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> I'm bored.

You're a LAZY FAT f.ck who probably wears a catheter and leg bag because
getting up and going to the toilet is too much work.

>>>>>> Nope.  Some ignorant FAT f.ck crossposted his
>>>>>> excuse-making-for-fatties bullshit to a group I follow,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> How soon you forgot your bitch fest about how someone cross-posted to
> your group.

Not a bitch fest at all, you stupid talking cheesecake.  Some fatty was
bitching about why I was posting to your group, and I merely explained.

What whole-number multiple of 100 lb. overweight are you?  Why won't you
answer?  I mean, if you /really/ had this "I'm-okay-Jack" attitude about
your obesity, you'd just shrug and tell me.  Instead, you're
embarrassed.  Why is that?
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 17:57 GMT
>>>>> Just one:  you fat f.cks are loathsome,
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> You're a LAZY FAT f.ck who probably wears a catheter and leg bag because
> getting up and going to the toilet is too much work.

And you seem easily pissed.  How's your blood preasure, prick?

>> How soon you forgot your bitch fest about how someone cross-posted to your
>> group.
>
> Not a bitch fest at all,

Horse crap, fucknugget.  You whined and pouted like the little bitch you
are.  It was all quite amusing.

> What whole-number multiple of 100 lb. overweight are you?  Why won't you
> answer?

Already answered your question as to why I haven't answered, powerless
maggot.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

.
.
.
.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 18:37 GMT
>>>>>> Just one:  you fat f.cks are loathsome,
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> And you seem easily pissed.  How's your blood preasure, Rudy?

Thank you for asking.  It's usually under 120 systolic, under 70
diastolic.  When I walk the block to the grocery store and sit down too
soon at the BP test machine they have next to the pharmacy, it sometimes
registers something like 128/78 at first, but if I sit there a while, or
if I casually stroll around the store first - never on the prepared
foods aisles, mind you - and then test the BP, it's back down around
116/68.  I always get nice low numbers like that for it when I go to the
doctor, too.

How about yours, fatty?

>>> How soon you forgot your bitch fest about how someone cross-posted to
>>> your group.
>>
>> Not a bitch fest at all,
>
> Horse crap, fucknugget.  You whined and pouted

Nope.  I didn't complain about it at all, lard-bucket.  In fact, I
welcomed it - I usually like cross-posts like that, because it gives me
a lovely opportunity to tell some more f.cked-up people just how f.cked 
up they are.  This one is no exception.

>> What whole-number multiple of 100 lb. overweight are you?  Why won't
>> you answer?
>
> Already answered your question as to why I haven't answered

No, you didn't, actually; you just whiffed off.

So, just answer it, crater-face:  how many hundred pounds overweight are
you?  There's really no reason not to answer it - well, no reason unless
you're ashamed.
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 18:45 GMT
>>> You're a LAZY FAT f.ck who probably wears a catheter and leg bag because
>>> getting up and going to the toilet is too much work.
>>
>> And you seem easily pissed.  How's your blood preasure, Rudy?
>
> Thank you for asking.  It's usually under 120 systolic, under 70 diastolic.

And when your face is turning red at the computer, with the vein poppong
out of your forehead?

STROKE STROKE STROKE STROKE!!!!!

>>>> How soon you forgot your bitch fest about how someone cross-posted to
>>>> your group.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Nope.  I didn't complain about it at all,

Need me to to back in google groups and quote your tantrum, retard boy?

>>> What whole-number multiple of 100 lb. overweight are you?  Why won't you
>>> answer?
>>
>> Already answered your question as to why I haven't answered
>
> No, you didn't, actually; you just whiffed off.

You mean about my denying you question welfare?  Boohoo welfare daddy.

.
.
.
.
.
.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 19:10 GMT
>>>> You're a LAZY FAT f.ck who probably wears a catheter and leg bag
>>>> because getting up and going to the toilet is too much work.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> And when your face is turning red at the computer, with the vein poppong
> out of your forehead?

Doesn't happen.

What's your blood pressure, fatso?

>>>>> How soon you forgot your bitch fest about how someone cross-posted
>>>>> to your group.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Need me to to back in google groups and quote your tantrum,

You can't, lard-tanker - it isn't there.  I have *reveled* in this whole
thing; no bitching at all.

I told you what happened, sh.t-4-braincell:  someone ELSE first raised
the issue of why I was posting to the fat-blowpig-acceptance group, and
I calmly and patiently explained that I was merely responding to the
groups that the original poster selected, as I saw no need to change
them, and in fact wouldn't have been having the great sport I've had if
I had removed fatty-acceptance from the headers.

So, let's add lying to the list of your character defects, okay?

>>>> What whole-number multiple of 100 lb. overweight are you?  Why won't
>>>> you answer?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> You mean about

I mean about your having whiffed off.  You just whiffed off, because
you're gutless and ashamed.
The Master - 02 Oct 2008 20:11 GMT
>>> Thank you for asking.  It's usually under 120 systolic, under 70
>>> diastolic.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Doesn't happen.

Sure it does...  Feel any pain in your chest yet?  STROKE STROKE STROKE!

>>>>>> How soon you forgot your bitch fest about how someone cross-posted to
>>>>>> your group.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> You can't, lard-tanker - it isn't there.  I have *reveled* in this whole
> thing; no bitching at all.

***
Nope.  Some ignorant FAT f.ck crossposted his excuse-making-for-fatties
  bullshit to a group I follow, as well as posting it to a
  (gag/retch/hurl) "fat acceptance" newsgroup.  The FAT f.ck was trying to
  be provocative.
***

WWWWWwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 20:19 GMT
>>>> Thank you for asking.  It's usually under 120 systolic, under 70
>>>> diastolic.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Sure it does...

Doesn't happen, fatty.  I'll bet dollars to dill pickles - sorry, I
realize you prefer doughnuts - that I'm already older than you'll reach.

How's your diabetes doing?

>>>>>>> How soon you forgot your bitch fest about how someone
>>>>>>> cross-posted to your group.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>   (gag/retch/hurl) "fat acceptance" newsgroup.  The FAT f.ck was trying to
>   be provocative. ***

Hardly a complaint, fatty.

You lied - no surprise.
Ragnar - 02 Oct 2008 18:24 GMT
> You're a LAZY FAT f.ck who probably wears a catheter and leg bag because
> getting up and going to the toilet is too much work.

Wow what kind of person actually thinks about sh.t like that, unless
of course it is part of your daily routine, LOL.

Ragnar
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 19:07 GMT
>> You're a LAZY FAT f.ck who probably wears a catheter and leg bag because
>> getting up and going to the toilet is too much work.
>>
> Wow what kind of person actually thinks about sh.t like that, unless
> of course it is part of your daily routine, LOL.

I actually had to wear one once, because of a bladder stone.  It wasn't
something I'd like to repeat.  But this FAT f.ck, The Unmasterful, does
it by choice.
Ragnar - 03 Oct 2008 16:36 GMT
> >> You're a LAZY FAT f.ck who probably wears a catheter and leg bag because
> >> getting up and going to the toilet is too much work.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> something I'd like to repeat.  But this FAT f.ck, The Unmasterful, does
> it by choice.

I sympathize with your pain but I originally though you may have an
extreme case of shy bladder syndrome and were frighten to use a public
bathroom. A quick Google of the subject shows that the vast majority
of those that use the procedure you’ve described are afflicted with
just such a psychological issue. But then I reread some of your posts
and realized that you have no problem pissing in a public venue and in
fact you’ve added an artful form of moaning along with it.

Ragnar
Hoots - 03 Oct 2008 12:39 GMT
>> You're a LAZY FAT f.ck who probably wears a catheter and leg bag because
>> getting up and going to the toilet is too much work.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Ragnar

I thought it was funny, too.  :-)
Hoots - 03 Oct 2008 12:22 GMT
>>>>> Just one:  you fat f.cks are loathsome,
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> You're a LAZY FAT f.ck who probably wears a catheter and leg bag because
> getting up and going to the toilet is too much work.

Damn it, Rudy, I read this and laughed while I was drinking coffee and
almost spit it all over the keyboard.

I gotta be more careful around here.

>>>>>>> Nope.  Some ignorant FAT f.ck crossposted his
>>>>>>> excuse-making-for-fatties bullshit to a group I follow,
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> your obesity, you'd just shrug and tell me.  Instead, you're
> embarrassed.  Why is that?
DB - 01 Oct 2008 19:39 GMT
>> You are one loathsome fat f.ck...
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> But hey, you have the right to be dickless.

If he had a life, would he be posting here? LOL
Rudy Canoza - 01 Oct 2008 19:54 GMT
>>> You are one loathsome fat f.ck...
>> That why you spend so much time talkint to me?  Can't stand fat people so
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> If he had a life, would he be posting here? LOL

How many posts do I have in the fattie acceptance group, compared with
you two lard tankers?  I wouldn't have had *any* if some blowpig hadn't
cross-posted the first post in this silly thread to a group I follow.
The Master - 01 Oct 2008 20:11 GMT
> How many posts do I have in the fattie acceptance group, compared with you
> two lard tankers?  I wouldn't have had *any* if some blowpig hadn't
> cross-posted the first post in this silly thread to a group I follow.

Actually, sh.t face, a fat basher cross posted to your group.  Don't blame
us, blame some a.shole on your own side, that thought you would be
interested in it.  Vote two for brainless.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 05:19 GMT
>> How many posts do I have in the fattie acceptance group, compared with
>> you two lard tankers?  I wouldn't have had *any* if some blowpig
>> hadn't cross-posted the first post in this silly thread to a group I
>> follow.
>
> Actually, sh.t face, a fat basher cross posted to your group.

No, it was not a "fat basher", you stupid useless whiny fat f.ck.
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 06:50 GMT
>> How many posts do I have in the fattie acceptance group, compared with
>> you two lard tankers?  I wouldn't have had *any* if some blowpig
>> hadn't cross-posted the first post in this silly thread to a group I
>> follow.
>
> Actually, Rudy, a fat basher cross posted to your group.

Actually, fatso, you stupid lying excuse-making whiny f.ck, the original
post in this thread is the *ONLY* post ever made using that posting
address, to these or any other groups; no other posts, not one, from the
address 'linda@not4eamil.com' turn up in the entire Google archive.  And
as the post is only advocating a particular approach to weight loss (one
that I think is patently bullshit), and says nothing about fat people at
all, then actually, you lying sack of cellulite, the poster cannot be
characterized as a "fat basher" at all, unless one happens to be a
hugely obese, excuse-making, whiny fat f.ck.

You're a pathetic lump, you know that?
DB - 02 Oct 2008 15:58 GMT
>>> How many posts do I have in the fattie acceptance group, compared with
>>> you two lard tankers?  I wouldn't have had *any* if some blowpig hadn't
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> You're a pathetic lump, you know that?

You must be a very frustrated individual! LOLOLOLOL
Rudy Canoza - 02 Oct 2008 16:45 GMT
>>>> How many posts do I have in the fattie acceptance group, compared with
>>>> you two lard tankers?  I wouldn't have had *any* if some blowpig hadn't
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> You must be a very frustrated individual!

Nope.  There's that pathetic and absurd tele-psychology going on
again...  Why /do/ you idiots do it?
dh@. - 05 Oct 2008 18:41 GMT
>On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, The Goober wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>us, blame some a.shole on your own side, that thought you would be
>interested in it.  Vote two for brainless.

   As well as being a childish inconsiderate moron who can't
support his own idiotic claims, Goo is also the most dishonest
person I've ever encountered.
Hoots - 02 Oct 2008 12:35 GMT
>>>> You are one loathsome fat f.ck...
>>> That why you spend so much time talkint to me?  Can't stand fat
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> you two lard tankers?  I wouldn't have had *any* if some blowpig hadn't
> cross-posted the first post in this silly thread to a group I follow.

See what I mean?

We're all making new bestestest friends here!
The Master - 01 Oct 2008 20:10 GMT
> If he had a life, would he be posting here? LOL

How true...  I for one do have a life...  It's "The Sims" though...
Hoots - 02 Oct 2008 12:36 GMT
>> If he had a life, would he be posting here? LOL
>
> How true...  I for one do have a life...  It's "The Sims" though...

Have you tried Supple?
Hoots - 02 Oct 2008 11:26 GMT
>>>>>> I don't give a f.ck if you claim to "disagree" or not, you
>>>>>> illogical, irrational FAT f.ck-drip.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> .
> .

But what *kind* of pizza?
DB - 30 Sep 2008 06:05 GMT
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in

>> Ever been fat yourself,
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Why do you make excuses for bad character and bad choices, shitbag?

Judging from your juvenile comments and general demeanor, you definitely
didn't graduate high school and you're  far too immature to be in your 50's.

Tell you what Muscle Head, when you learn to converse in a civil tone and
put away the steroids, maybe people will take what you have to say a little
more serious. Right now you're acting like a complete a.s with no regard to
people's real problems. If you don't know how to  talk intelligently, then
don't spout your playground antics here.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 06:33 GMT
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Judging from your juvenile comments and general demeanor, you definitely
> didn't graduate high school and you're  far too immature to be in your 50's.

You are, as always, full of sh.t.

> Tell you what Muscle Head, when you learn to converse in a civil tone and
> put away the steroids, maybe people will take what you have to say a little
> more serious. Right now you're acting like a complete a.s with no regard to
> people's real problems.

Listen, f.ck-scum:  very few morbidly obese people - and the U.S. is
f.cking /infested/ with them - have any "problem" other than their own
bad character.
DB - 30 Sep 2008 18:01 GMT
>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in
>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> f.cking /infested/ with them - have any "problem" other than their own bad
> character.

What's with the hostility?
Ragnar - 30 Sep 2008 18:34 GMT
> >> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote in
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

It’s anger born of frustration stemming from the fact that he is
hiding the inadequacies of his point of argument. When an individual
resorts to hostility and personal attacks in an attempt to force an
argument home, it is a sure sign that the individual is full of sh.t.
If the individual truly has a valid point, the anger and name calling
isn’t necessary.

Ragnar
DB - 30 Sep 2008 19:14 GMT
On Sep 30, 1:01 pm, "DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

It’s anger born of frustration stemming from the fact that he is
hiding the inadequacies of his point of argument. When an individual
resorts to hostility and personal attacks in an attempt to force an
argument home, it is a sure sign that the individual is full of sh.t.
If the individual truly has a valid point, the anger and name calling
isn’t necessary.

Ragnar
-------------------------------------------

I agree, he seems to be a very frustrated individual!
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 19:33 GMT
> On Sep 30, 1:01 pm, "DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
> I agree, he seems to be a very frustrated individual!

Practicing tele-psychology without a license noted.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 19:33 GMT
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote in
>>>>>> Ever been fat yourself,
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> It’s anger born of frustration stemming from the fact that he is
> hiding the inadequacies of his point of argument. [snip remaining psychobabble]

No, it isn't.  Blowpigs are just inherently offensive.
Ragnar - 01 Oct 2008 16:57 GMT
> >> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Derogatory and dubious opinion noted. I refer back to my previous
statement.

Ragnar
Rudy Canoza - 01 Oct 2008 18:48 GMT
>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote in
>>>>>>>> Ever been fat yourself,
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Derogatory and dubious opinion noted.

Good.

Now stop offending - put down the garden trowel you use to eat Sugar
Pops, get off your FAT LARD a.s, and get some exercise.

Before you go...tell us what whole number multiple of 100 lb. overweight
you are?  Is it 200 lb.?  300 lb.?  *400* lb.?  Tell the truth.
DB - 01 Oct 2008 18:13 GMT
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in

>> It’s anger born of frustration stemming from the fact that he is
>> hiding the inadequacies of his point of argument. [snip remaining
>> psychobabble]
>
> No, it isn't.  Blowpigs are just inherently offensive.

Practicing tele-psychology without a license noted!
Rudy Canoza - 01 Oct 2008 18:49 GMT
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Practicing tele-psychology

Not done.  I have no need to get into the blowpigs', uh, "minds" in
order to determine that they're offensive.
Shava_X - 28 Sep 2008 23:42 GMT
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/weightloss.angela.stokes/
> index.html?iref=mpstoryview (pictures and video on web site)
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> ...  

It has nothing to do with the 'raw' part.  It was/is the vegan diet.  
Want to loose weight?  Switch to a vegan diet.  Half the vegans i know
look like the loosing members of the Donner party.  The others aren't
much past that.
Rudy Canoza - 29 Sep 2008 00:18 GMT
>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
> weightloss.angela.stokes/
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> It has nothing to do with the 'raw' part.  It was/is the vegan diet.  

Bullshit.  It wasn't that, either.
Shava_X - 29 Sep 2008 04:38 GMT
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
>> weightloss.angela.stokes/
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Bullshit.  It wasn't that, either.

How many overweight vegans do You know?  
The more variety in a diet, the more likely a person is to overeat.  In a
diet with as many restrictions as the vegan diet, the chances of over
eating are slim to none.  Most vegans seem to under eat.  The same
handful of veggies over and over get boring real fast.
Rudy Canoza - 29 Sep 2008 05:12 GMT
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
>>> weightloss.angela.stokes/
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> How many overweight vegans do You know?  

non sequitur

> The more variety in a diet, the more likely a person is to overeat.

Bullshit.
dh@. - 29 Sep 2008 12:01 GMT
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 Goo lied:

>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 Goo wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
>Bullshit.

   That part is obviously true, Goo.
Rudy Canoza - 29 Sep 2008 16:42 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
>     That part is obviously true

No.
dh@. - 29 Sep 2008 18:50 GMT
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 the Goober maundered through his confusion:

>>On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 Goo lied:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
>No.

   LOL. Okay, it's obvious to people less mentally challenged
than yourself then, Goob...LOL...what a Goober...
Fred C. Dobbs - 20 Apr 2010 17:45 GMT
On 9/29/2008 10:50 AM, Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - lied:

>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:01:51 -0200, Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - lied:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>      LOL. Okay, it's obvious to people less mentally challenged
> than

It's obvious to everyone, Goo, that *you* are the most severely mentally
defective person in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian and any other group
you pollute with your ignorant cracker bullshit.

Signature

Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

Fred C. Dobbs - 20 Apr 2010 17:43 GMT
On 9/29/2008 4:01 AM, Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - lied:

>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
>>>>> weightloss.angela.stokes/
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
>      That part is obviously true, Rudy.

It's not true, Fuckwit.  There is no connection of any kind between
variety in diet and overeating.

Signature

Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

trader4@optonline.net - 29 Sep 2008 13:27 GMT
> >>>>http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
> >>> weightloss.angela.stokes/
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'd say what's BS is your claim that all obese people didn't get obese
at least partly as a result of a medical problem.  It's well
documented that there are medical conditions, like the thyroid problem
cited in the news article, that can cause weight gain.   From
experience, anyone who cares to look, will find people who have
similar levels of activity as they do, yet they can eat all kinds of
food that one would think would make them fat, but not put on
weight.   In other words, their metabolism is different.   With the
huge variation in other body attributes, I don't see why anyone would
believe every single persons body's metabolism and the way it turns
food into fat must be exactly the same.
Rudy Canoza - 29 Sep 2008 16:49 GMT
>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
>>>>> weightloss.angela.stokes/
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> I'd say what's BS is your claim that all obese people didn't get obese
> at least partly as a result of a medical problem.

I'd say what's BULLSHIT in your post is that you claimed I said "all".
I never said it.

The vast, overwhelming majority of hugely obese people - blowpigs - do
not have any "medical" problem that caused them to become overweight.
What they have is a *character* problem.  They're lazy, gluttonous f.cks.

You can stick your "fat acceptance" bullshit right up your 300 pound
a.s, sport.  Last month, I had to sit in a middle seat on an airplane
next to some FAT f.ck who must have weighed 400 pounds.  This huge
blowpig had an enormous fat roll that flowed over the armrest and pushed
me up against the passenger on the other side of me.  The f.cking 
bloated whale kept reaching down to get something from under the seat in
front, and every time he did, he had to spread his goddamned bulging
potato sacks of legs apart, shoving one of them halfway into the space
in front of my seat, cramming my legs over against the other passenger.
 I DO NOT and WILL NOT ever "accept" that.  People like that are
loathsome.  That fat lard dumpster should have been obliged to buy two
tickets, and I should have had the right to put him off the plane.
dh@. - 29 Sep 2008 18:46 GMT
>On Sep 29, 12:12 am, the Goober wrote:
>> > On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:18:49 -0700, Goo wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>believe every single persons body's metabolism and the way it turns
>food into fat must be exactly the same.

   Any sort of details or consideration of others stymies the Goober.
Shava_X - 29 Sep 2008 22:48 GMT
>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
>>>> weightloss.angela.stokes/
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Bullshit.

No, no it is not.  There have been at least a couple studies in animals
showing this, and the behavior is fairly easy to observe in humans.  Go
find a buffet with a wide variety of choices, and then find one with a
fairly narrow selection.  The latter has become hard to find, but they
might still exist.  Then just watch.  Pull up a chair, set up a video
camera, barrow surveillance footage, whatever.  What You will observe is
that with fewer choices, people tend to eat less.  With many, many
choices, people are much more likely to over-eat.  Some people may be
exceptions, and the difference may evaporate if the comparison is between
a buffet with a large selection and a buffet with a very large
selection.  

Unless You are one of the rare exceptions, You can probably observe this
in Your own home.  Restrict Your selection at the supermarket to a
handful essential choices, and stick that solution for several months, or
just eat the same thing everyday for several months, then watch Your
behavior.  For most people, even Oreo cookies get boring after a while.  

If You restrict Your diet to only vegan choices, that should take care of
reducing the variety for You.  For instance, many people do not consider
regular or Double-Stuff Oreos to be vegan, so they would be off the
list.  
http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?p=1073238
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 06:31 GMT
>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
>>>>> weightloss.angela.stokes/
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> showing this, and the behavior is fairly easy to observe in humans.  Go
> find a buffet with a wide variety of choices,

f.ck off, you stupid fat f.ck.  Any effect of more variety in a *diet*
is not proved by talking about more variety in a *single meal*.

You fat excuse makers are too much.
Shava_X - 01 Oct 2008 15:49 GMT
>>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
>>>>>> weightloss.angela.stokes/
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> You fat excuse makers are too much.

Your ignorance is astounding.  You should consider putting it on a diet.
Rudy Canoza - 01 Oct 2008 16:06 GMT
>>>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
>>>>>>> weightloss.angela.stokes/
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> Your ignorance is astounding.

I'm not ignorant about this.  You fatties are the ones who have
substituted dogma for thinking.

You got caught out saying something incredibly stupid.  Variety in diet
is *not* the same as variety in a meal.  What the f.ck is wrong with
you, anyway?
Shava_X - 03 Oct 2008 22:28 GMT
>> ...
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> is *not* the same as variety in a meal.  What the f.ck is wrong with
> you, anyway?

"You fatties"?  Who exactly are You referring to?  Does Your ignorance
and willingness to jump to absurd, unfounded conclusions know no bounds?
Rudy Canoza - 04 Oct 2008 08:14 GMT
>>> ...
>>>> You fat excuse makers are too much.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> "You fatties"?  Who exactly are You referring to?

Don't refer to me as "You" in the middle of a sentence.  I'm not a deity
and I'm not royalty, although I'm edging closer to both all the time.

I'm referring to the incredibly stupid comment you made about variety in
a diet being demonstrated by variety in a meal.  That was just
breathtakingly fuckwitted of you.
DB - 04 Oct 2008 22:25 GMT
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in

>  That was just breathtakingly fuckwitted of you.

Classic traits of an Internet Troll!
http://www.flayme.com/troll/

Time to put him on the kill file list, he's a boring troll anyway! LOL
dh@. - 05 Oct 2008 18:42 GMT
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:

>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:06:27 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Don't refer to me as "You" in the middle of a sentence.  I'm not a deity

   LOL! That's for sure Goobernicus. You're barely even human, Goo.

>and I'm not royalty,

   No, you're just a stupid Goober.

>although I'm edging closer to both all the time.

   LOL! You're just going around in a cirlce of Goobal idiotics Goo,
never even being able to figure out what you think you think about
your own absurdities, or how you think you disagree with yourself.

>I'm referring to the incredibly stupid comment you made about variety in
>a diet being demonstrated by variety in a meal.  That was just
>breathtakingly fuckwitted of you.

   I'm jumping in in the middle here Goob, but from much past
experience with how stupid you are it seems most likely that
this is another example of you either being too stupid to
understand what someone pointed out, or your dishonestly
pretending to be for whatever reason(s). Which is it Goo,
do you have any clue?
dh@. - 05 Oct 2008 18:53 GMT
>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:06:27 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>"You fatties"?  Who exactly are You referring to?  Does Your ignorance
>and willingness to jump to absurd, unfounded conclusions know no bounds?  

   It appears to be boundless. Here are some examples of the Goober's
idiocies to give you an idea of how boundlessly stupid he is:

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo

"Life is not a gain because there *was* no person to
experience the gain" - Goo

"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was" - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare" - Goo

"Animals do not have a sense of insult." - Goo

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way.  It can't be." - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment.  They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting.  He
saw something that wasn't there.  He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo
_________________________________________________________
Ron asked:
>So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance
>and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in
>the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of
>supplying the pet food industry?

Goo replied:
Yes.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Ron pointed out:
>You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become
>PET FOOD.

Goo replied:
Some are.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
>>>     The main thing to consider in both of course is the life
>>> which is experienced
>>
>> No.  
>
>     LOL! So what do you think is, Goo?

Not "the life which is experienced"
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
mikesmith9999@hotmail.com - 29 Sep 2008 13:26 GMT
> >http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

"The loosing members of the Donner party" What the heck does that
mean???
Shava_X - 29 Sep 2008 23:00 GMT
>> >http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
>>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> "The loosing members of the Donner party" What the heck does that
> mean???

It is a sarcastic way of saying they are noting but skin and bones, thin
nearly to the point of looking unhealthy.  i don't live in the biggest of
cities, and it is not the most vegan (or vegetarian) friendly place to
live, so that might have something to do with.  i have heard that in
place that are more vegan-friendly (large cities), fewer vegans look like
skeletons with skin stretched over, but i have still never met a long
term vegan that is over-weight or obese.  With so many restrictions on
diet, it would take effort.
pearl - 29 Sep 2008 14:25 GMT
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/weightloss.angela.stokes/
> index.html?iref=mpstoryview (pictures and video on web site)
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> interest in dieting; I just wanted to eat all the time ... that was like my
> comfort in life."

'.. consumption of high-energy sweet and fat food increases endogenous
opiates release (ie, feedforward interaction; Tanda and Di Chiara,
1998;
Colantuoni et al, 2002; Grigson, 2002)
..
.. reward centers activation by high sugar and fat content palatable
foods
promotes desire 'to come back for more' (Kelley et al, 2002) by
upregulating
of hunger signaling (orexin, AgRP, and MCH) in hypothalamic orexigenic
networks and by blunting brain responses to the peripheral satiety
hormones,
insulin and leptin (Erlanson-Albertsson, 2005; Isganaitis and Lustig,
2005).
Prefrontal cortex modulates these effects via reciprocal innervation
with the
hypothalamic-limbic areas (Berthoud, 2004a) by forming subjective
hedonic
perceptions and integrating them with metabolic signals and with
intrapsychic
and environmental contexts (Kringelbach, 2005).

REPETITIVE PALATABLE FOOD CONSUMPTION MAY
DYSREGULATE HOMEOSTATIC AND REWARD PROCESSES

To maintain stability of the body adipose content, energy expenditure
should
tightly match caloric intake. This is accomplished through negative
feedback
regulation exerted by the endocrine markers of body fat mass, insulin
and
leptin; both are also affected by recent food intake and its
macronutrient
composition (Havel, 2001; Schwartz et al, 2003). In the basal state
(Figure 1),
insulin and leptin inhibit anabolic pathways (appetite and energy
conservation)
while maintaining tonic activation of the catabolic pathways (satiety
and
energy outflow).

Such regulatory system may be adequate for regular diets but is
'inherently
biased toward weight gain' (Havel, 2001; Schwartz et al, 2003;
Schwartz and
Niswender, 2004) in 'obesigenic' environments abound in 'supersized'
meals,
more than twice caloric density (energy per weight) and content of
healthy
diets (Prentice and Jebb, 2003). High caloric density food contributes
to
abnormally elevated total caloric intake as weight and volume of meals
ingested by humans tend to remain relatively steady (Rolls et al,
1998).
Such rich in caloric content diets robustly activate reward centers
and fail
to produce proportional (to the amount of ingested calories)
suppression
of hunger signals, as CNS insulin and leptin stop boosting and
restraining,
respectively, already activated (in the basal state) catabolic
pathways and
already inhibited (in the basal state) anabolic pathways, that is,
ceiling effect
(Schwartz et al, 2003). Thus, metabolic restraint on reward function
via
insulin/leptin mechanism becomes inefficient at about 40% fat
concentration,
typical of the Western diet (Figlewicz, 2003a, 2003b, 2004), allowing
reward
mechanisms to over-ride metabolic requirements (perhaps owing to
evolutionary pressure giving preferentiality to food intake over
fasting) and
underscoring the role of cortical cognitive control mechanisms in the
determination of the amount of eaten food.

Pleasurable hedonic impact and inefficient suppression of hunger by
palatable foods predictably brings increases in the amount of consumed
food and weight gain (in the absence of compensatory caloric loss)
with
ensuing hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance (Kahn and Flier, 2000;
Homko et al, 2003), which drive weight further upward (Sigal et al,
1997;
Odeleye et al, 1997). Moreover, weight gain and insulin resistance
from
habitual consumption of palatable foods decrease insulin and leptin
blood-
brain barrier (BBB) penetrability (Caro et al, 1996; Kaiyala et al,
2000;
Banks, 2003; Banks and Farrell, 2003; Woods et al, 2003) and their CNS
effects (Couce et al, 2001; Banks and Farrell, 2003; Lindqvist et al,
2005;
Porte et al, 2005), albeit some homeostatic hypothalamic areas lack
BBB
(Peruzzo et al, 2000; Ganong, 2000). The resultant brain insulin and
leptin
'resistance' renders normal satiety signals even more ineffective
(Erlanson-
Albertsson, 2005; Isganaitis and Lustig, 2005) leading to further
impairments in physiologic mechanisms regulating food intake (eg,
overeating) and shifting the set point for energy homeostasis towards
the
development of overweight and obesity (Levine et al, 2003; Erlanson-
Albertsson, 2005; Isganaitis and Lustig, 2005). It is quite difficult
to
reverse the developing vicious cycle (schematically illustrated in
Figure 4)
as attempted weight loss by caloric restriction results in insulin and
leptin
declines triggering robust activation of anabolic pathways and
suppression
of catabolic pathways; the magnitude of these responses exceeds by far
that during caloric overflow (Niswender et al, 2004).

Figure 4.
Diagram describing repetitive and compulsive nature of palatable food
consumption. The figure depicts transition from occasional palatable
food
intake to dysregulation of homeostatic and reward processes leading to
impairments in normal signals of hunger and satiety along with
adaptations
and deviations of physiological set points (cf, Koob and Le Moal,
2001).
Full figure and legend (33K)
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v31/n10/fig_tab/1301051f4.html#figure-title
...'
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v31/n10/full/1301051a.html

> At the time, she says she was so "emotionally shut down" she refused to
> talk to anyone about what was happening. The weight was also taking a
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> "So those enzymes are broken down anyway in your gastro-intestinal tract."

'The enzymes we need to consider when planning our diets are the third
category, the food enzymes. These are present in raw foods and they
initiate the process of digestion in the mouth and upper stomach. Food
enzymes include proteases for digesting protein, lipases for digesting
fats
and amylases for digesting carbohydrates. Amylases in saliva
contribute
to the digestion of carbohydrates while they are being chewed, and all
enzymes found in food continue this process while it rests in the
upper
or cardiac portion of the stomach. The upper stomach secretes no
digestive juices whatsoever, but acts much like the crop of a bird or
the
first stomach of ruminant animals. It can be described as a holding
tank
where the enzymes present in raw foods do their work on what we have
eaten before this more or less partially digested mass passes on to
the
lower stomach, about 30 minutes after food is ingested. Hydrochloric
acid secretion occurs only in the lower stomach and is stimulated by
the
passage of food from the upper to lower stomach. (This hydrochloric
acid does not digest meat, as is commonly believed, but activates the
enzyme pepsinogen to its active form pepsin that digests protein.)

Enzyme research has revealed the importance of raw foods in the diet.
The enzymes in raw food help start the process of digestion and reduce
the body's need to produce digestive enzymes. All enzymes are
deactivated at a wet-heat temperature of 118 degrees Fahrenheit, and
a dry-heat temperature of about 150 degrees. It is one of those happy
designs of nature that foods and liquid at 117 degrees can be touched
without pain, but liquids over 118 degrees will burn. Thus we have a
built-in mechanism for determining whether or not the food we are
eating still contains its enzyme content.

A diet composed exclusively of cooked food puts a severe strain on
the pancreas, drawing down its reserves, so to speak. If the pancreas
is constantly overstimulated to produce the enzymes that ought to be
in foods, the result over time will be inhibited function. Humans
eating
an enzyme-poor diet, comprised primarily of cooked food, use up a
tremendous amount of their enzyme potential in the outpouring of
secretions from the pancreas and other digestive organs. The result,
according to the late Dr. Edward Howell, a noted pioneer in the field
of enzyme research, is a shortened life-span, illness, and lowered
resistance to stress of all types. He points out that humans and
animals on a diet comprised largely of cooked food have enlarged
pancreas organs while other glands and organs, notably the brain,
actually shrink in size.
..'
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Special-Diets-768/enzymes-raw-food.htm

> Giancoli believes there's a nutritional downside to a vegetarian diet.
> People who eat no animal foods run the risk of nutritional deficiencies
> such as a lack of vitamin B-12,

The B12-Cobalt Connection
http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm

Aug 'Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?

Nearly two-fifths of the U.S. population may be flirting with marginal
vitamin B12 status - that is, if a careful look at nearly 3,000 men
and
women in the ongoing Framingham (Massachusetts) Offspring Study
is any indication. Researchers found that 39 percent of the volunteers
have plasma B12 levels in the "low normal" range - below 258
picomoles per liter (pmol/L).
..
The researchers found no association between plasma B12 and meat,
poultry, and fish intake, even though these foods supply the bulk of
B12
in the diet. "It's not because people aren't eating enough meat,"
Tucker
says. "The vitamin isn't getting absorbed."

The vitamin is tightly bound to proteins in meat and dairy products
and
requires high acidity to cut it loose. As we age, we lose the acid-
secreting
cells in the stomach.
..'
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/aug00/vita0800.htm

> iron and zinc

'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional
difference
between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer
inhibits
absorption of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to
begin with in soils that have been abused.  This may be caused in part
by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high
levels
of fertilizer tend to kill them.  Standard diets tend to be low in
various
minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis.
..'
http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health%20&%20Nutrition/Foods/organic.html

> and the powerful Omega-3 fatty acids

'Given the rate of conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA, it has been
suggested  that a safe and adequate ratio for the vegetarian and vegan
populations would be in the range of 2:1-4:1 (22). This can best be
achieved by increasing ALA in the diet and decreasing LA, if indicated
(see below).

.. it is important to ensure that there are sufficient amounts of ALA,
which is necessary for the production of EPA and DHA. Most healthy
vegetarians would be well advised to double their intake of ALA,
providing  1% of energy from n-3 fatty acids or 1.1 g/1000 cal. For
those with increased needs or decreased capacity to convert, an intake
of 2% of energy or 2.2 g/1000 cal may be necessary. The primary
sources of ALA are selected seeds, nuts, and legumes (flaxseed,
hempseed, .pumpkin seeds., canola, walnuts, and soy) and the green
leaves of plants, including phytoplankton and algae.
..
Practical guidelines for achieving optimal EFA intake in vegetarians
are
as follows. 1) Make a wide variety of whole plant foods the foundation
of the diet. 2) Get most fat from whole foods- nuts, seeds, olives,
avocados, and soy foods. 3) If using concentrated fats and oils,
select
those rich in monounsaturated fats, such as olive, canola, or nut
oils.
n-3-Rich oils can also be used but should not be heated. Moderate use
of n-6-rich oils is recommended. 4) Limit intake of processed foods
and
deep-fried foods rich in trans and n-6 fatty acids. 5) Reduce intake
of
foods rich in saturated fat and cholesterol. 6) Include foods rich in
n-3
fatty acids in the daily diet. Aim for 2-4 g ALA/d.  7) Consider using
a
direct source of DHA. Aim for 100-300 mg/d.
...
For those with increased needs for EPA and DHA (eg, pregnant and
lactating women) or at greater risk for poor conversion (persons with
diabetes, those with neurological disorders, premature infants, the
elderly),
it may be prudent to ensure that there is a direct source of EPA and
DHA.

While they are the original sources of EPA and DHA (fish do not
produce
long-chain n-3 fatty acids), most are not concentrated sources because
of
their extremely low total fat content. An important exception is a DHA-
rich
microalgae that provides 10-40% DHA by dry weight and is currently
available in supplement form. When supplementing with a direct DHA
source, 100-300 mg/d is recommended. Blue-green algae (spirulina and
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae) are low in long-chain n-3 fatty acids.
Spirulina
is rich in -linolenic acid (GLA, n-6), while A. flos-aquae is more
concentrated in ALA. Though blue-green algae is not a significant
source
of EPA or DHA, some research indicates that it has a very high
conversion
rate in comparison to other plants (R Kushak et al, unpublished
observations,
1999).
...'
http://tinyurl.com/65xn7

> found in fish, she said.

'Results: Compared with the nonfish diet, the lean fish diet induced
higher
plasma total and LDL apolipoprotein (apo) B and apo B:apo A-1 ratio,
indicating that the substitution of lean fish for beef, veal, pork,
eggs and
milk provides little benefits with regard to plasma apo B
concentrations in
a low-fat high P:S diet. Moreover, triglycerides:apo B and
cholesterol:apo B
ratios of VLDL were lower following the lean fish diet than the
nonfish diet,
suggesting the presence of smaller very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL)
particles following the consumption of lean fish.
..'
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/6/745

'Limited information is available comparing the effect of different
species
of fish on serum low-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) and
apolipoprotein B (apo B) concentrations. We fed 21
normotriglyceridemic
males diets containing different species of fish (200 g Dover sole,
Chinook
salmon, or sablefish) for 18 d in a three- period crossover design.
Concentrations of apo B and LDL-C rose on the salmon and sablefish
diets compared with the sole diet (P = 0.02 for apo B, 0.08 for LDL-
C).
These increases were parallel to each other:  apo B rose 14% and LDL-C
rose 16% on the salmon diet and 17% and 14%, respectively, on the
sablefish diet compared with the diet consumed before the study. These
results suggest that the consumption of fish with a moderate amounts
of
n-3 fatty acids may cause a deleterious rise in LDL-C and apo B
concentrations in normotriglyceridemic males.
..'
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/54/2/334

> Giancoli recommends people meet with a dietitian to develop a balanced
> eating plan before they embark on a raw food diet.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> may find pot lucks," said Stokes. "Read books to inspire you to keep going
> on this journey."
pearl - 29 Sep 2008 14:36 GMT
Sorry for the messy format - problems with news server so
posted via groups with a shorter line-wrap than I'm used to.
Rudy Canoza - 29 Sep 2008 16:42 GMT
> Sorry for the messy format

Like f.ck you're "sorry" for it, you spamming STUPID c.nt.  Your foul
reeking copypasta of bullshit you HAVEN'T read, and in fact *CANNOT*
read, is always a sh.t format.
pearl - 29 Sep 2008 20:51 GMT
> > Sorry for the messy format
>
> Like f.ck you're "sorry" for it, you spamming STUPID c.nt.  Your foul
> reeking copypasta of bullshit you HAVEN'T read, and in fact *CANNOT*
> read, is always a sh.t format.

Whata loada nonsense.  Know that your posting activity
is currently being investigated by Google's Legal Dept.

'.. you agree that when using the Service, you will not:
 a.. defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise
violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity)
of others;
 b.. post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene,
or unlawful Content;
 c.. impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete
any author attributions, [...]
...'
http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/terms_of_service3.html
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 06:29 GMT
>>> Sorry for the messy format
>> Like f.ck you're "sorry" for it, you spamming STUPID c.nt.  Your foul
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Whata loada nonsense.  Know that your posting activity
> is currently being investigated by Google's Legal Dept.

No, it isn't, you fat lying c.nt.  "Google's Legal Dept." [sic] doesn't
give a rat's a.s what I post.
DB - 30 Sep 2008 19:16 GMT
>>>> Sorry for the messy format
>>> Like f.ck you're "sorry" for it, you spamming STUPID c.nt.  Your foul
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> No, it isn't, you fat lying c.nt.  "Google's Legal Dept." [sic] doesn't
> give a rat's a.s what I post.

Bill, you must be off your Meds again, your brother Jim says hello!
Shava_X - 01 Oct 2008 15:49 GMT
>> Sorry for the messy format
>
> Like f.ck you're "sorry" for it, you spamming STUPID c.nt.  Your foul
> reeking copypasta of bullshit you HAVEN'T read, and in fact *CANNOT*
> read, is always a sh.t format.

And with that uncalled for, uncivilized, foulmouthed, infantile,
outburst, welcome to the kill-file.
Rudy Canoza - 01 Oct 2008 16:07 GMT
>>> Sorry for the messy format
>> Like f.ck you're "sorry" for it, you spamming STUPID c.nt.  Your foul
>> reeking copypasta of bullshit you HAVEN'T read, and in fact *CANNOT*
>> read, is always a sh.t format.
>
> And with that uncalled for,

No, lesley has richly earned the treatment.

> uncivilized, foulmouthed, infantile,
> outburst, welcome to the kill-file.  

Like I'm going to lose sleep over /that/ - yeah, sure.
Hoots - 02 Oct 2008 11:24 GMT
>>>> Sorry for the messy format
>>> Like f.ck you're "sorry" for it, you spamming STUPID c.nt.  Your foul
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Like I'm going to lose sleep over /that/ - yeah, sure.

You all crack me up the way you kid around.
Hoots - 30 Sep 2008 10:10 GMT
> Sorry for the messy format - problems with news server so
> posted via groups with a shorter line-wrap than I'm used to.

bad hair day, I get it...
Rudy Canoza - 29 Sep 2008 16:41 GMT
>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/weightloss.angela.stokes/
>> index.html?iref=mpstoryview (pictures and video on web site)
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> 1998;
> Colantuoni et al, 2002; Grigson, 2002)

A paper the STUPID SPAMMING c.nt lesley didn't read, and in fact
*CANNOT* read because the STUPID SPAMMING HIV-OOZING c.nt is too stupid
and brain-damaged to read it.
pearl - 29 Sep 2008 21:03 GMT
> >> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/weightloss.angela.stokes/
> >> index.html?iref=mpstoryview (pictures and video on web site)
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> *CANNOT* read because the STUPID SPAMMING HIV-OOZING c.nt is too stupid
> and brain-damaged to read it.

Typical non-rebuttal.  Google's legal dept. are interested tho'..

'.. you agree that when using the Service, you will not:
 a.. defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise
violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity)
of others;
 b.. post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene,
or unlawful Content;
 c.. impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete
any author attributions, [...]
...'
http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/terms_of_service3.html
Shava_X - 29 Sep 2008 23:53 GMT
>> >> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/weightloss.angela.stokes/
>> >> index.html?iref=mpstoryview (pictures and video on web site)
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> ...'
> http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/terms_of_service3.html

Unfortunately, it appears the User "Rudy Canoza" is not posting through
Google.  The first server listed is an Earth Link server, and it appears
to have been posted using Mozilla Thunderbird for Windows.  
Try complaining to Earth Link.  i doubt Earth Like approves of their
customers being so abusive.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 06:32 GMT
>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
> weightloss.angela.stokes/
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> Unfortunately, it appears the User "Rudy Canoza" is not posting through
> Google.

What's unfortunate about it, f.ck-scum?

> The first server listed is an Earth Link server, and it appears
> to have been posted using Mozilla Thunderbird for Windows.

AREN'T you just the cutest little net-nanny detective ever, now?  You
stupid f.ck.
pearl - 30 Sep 2008 13:43 GMT
> >>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
> > weightloss.angela.stokes/
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> AREN'T you just the cutest little net-nanny detective ever, now?  You
> stupid f.ck.

Meanwhile...

'Hostility hurts - hostility, anger found to negatively affect blood
homocysteine metabolism, increase risk of heart disease

Running & FitNews,  April, 2001

You probably know that hostility and anger, whether expressed
or inhibited, are associated with increased risk of death. Those
road-raging, fist-pounding, angry individuals among us are
hammering away at their future. Recent research revealed at least
part of the reason. In a study of healthy, middle-aged men and
women, anger and hostility were positively associated with
higher blood homocysteine levels. Homocysteine is an amino
acid that is linked to your risk of coronary vascular disease.
While this study does not show that hostility causes high
homocysteine levels, it does reveal that for whatever reason,
individuals with high degrees of hostility and anger also show
high levels of artery-damaging homocysteine.

In another study, proneness to anger was associated with
significant risk of morbidity and death from coronary heart
disease independent of biological risk factors. And in a third
report, anger-prone patients who already had coronary heart
disease suffered far more rapid progression of their disease
compared to more even-tempered individuals.
..
In addition, diet is extremely important to homocysteine
chemistry and heart disease risk in general. Folate, a B-vitamin
found in fresh fruits and vegetables reduces the level of
homocysteine in the blood and a diet rich in folate and other
B-vitamins will lower your risk of coronary artery disease.
Given that cardiovascular disease claims nearly a million
American lives a year (more than cancer, accidents, and AIDS
combined), taking the angry bull by the horns makes a lot of
sense.

(Circulation, 2000, Vol. 101, No. 17, pp. 2034-2039; Journal
of the American College of Cardiology, 2000, Vol. 36, No. 6,
pp. 1781-1788; Life Sciences, 2000, Vol. 66, No. 23, pp.
2267-2275; Archives of Internal Medicine, 2000, Vol. 160,
No. 21, pp. 3258-3262; Statistics from www.americanheart.org)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NHF/is_/ai_86743853
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 14:57 GMT
>>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/
>>> weightloss.angela.stokes/
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
> Meanwhile...
> [snip bullshit copypasta]

You're a f.cking moron.
pearl - 30 Sep 2008 12:19 GMT
> > Typical non-rebuttal.  Google's legal dept. are interested tho'..
> >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Try complaining to Earth Link.  i doubt Earth Like approves of their
> customers being so abusive.

Earthlink apparently couldn't care less.  Doesn't matter though
as it's using Google Groups, and they do definitely disapprove.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 16:08 GMT
>>> Typical non-rebuttal.  Google's legal dept. are interested tho'..
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Earthlink apparently couldn't care less.  Doesn't matter though
> as it's using Google Groups, and they do definitely disapprove.

I mostly use Earthlink, and as you note, they sneer at stupid whiny
shitworms like you.  As for Google, I'll bet they mostly don't care, either.

You're a f.cking moron, and you walk around in life with a great big
"Abuse me" sign in 86-point font on your front and back.  I'm only too
happy to oblige.  Eat sh.t and bark at the moon, you stupid bitch.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 06:29 GMT
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/weightloss.angela.stokes/
>>>> index.html?iref=mpstoryview (pictures and video on web site)
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> Typical non-rebuttal.  Google's legal dept. are interested tho'..

No, they're not, you HIV-oozing c.nt.
Hoots - 30 Sep 2008 10:13 GMT
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/weightloss.angela.stokes/ 
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> *CANNOT* read because the STUPID SPAMMING HIV-OOZING c.nt is too stupid
> and brain-damaged to read it.

Who's lesley?
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 16:04 GMT
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/weightloss.angela.stokes/ 
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Who's lesley?

"pearl".  Her real name is lesley, and she's a science-illiterate whore
and foot masseuse living in or near Cork, Ireland.  She has *NO*
education or other background that would enable her to read a
peer-reviewed scientific paper and make sense of it.
pearl - 30 Sep 2008 16:49 GMT
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:ju-
dnYRkermJ3X_VnZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d@earthlink.com...
> >>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/weightloss.angela.stokes/
> >>>>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
> "pearl".  Her real name is lesley,

Very good.  Your real name is Jonathan Ball.

> and she's a science-illiterate whore

False.  You are being investigated, ball.  Keep on digging.

'.. you agree that when using the Service, you will not:
 a.. defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise
violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity)
of others;
 b.. post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene,
or unlawful Content;
 c.. impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete
any author attributions, [...]
...'
http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/terms_of_service3.html

> and foot masseuse

Reflexologist.
http://www.reflexology-research.com/Abstracts.html

> living in or near Cork,

Wrong, but everyone can know you're in Pasadena, CA.

> Ireland.  She has *NO*
> education or other background that would enable her to read a
> peer-reviewed scientific paper and make sense of it.

Typical curriculum:
http://www.mariposasacademy.com/#REFLEXOLOGY

- And thousands of hours of research since I qualified.

But let's talk about you, ball, starting with your "taking
pride in your appearance"... poor little woman-stalking
goop - http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 17:04 GMT
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:ju-
> dnYRkermJ3X_VnZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d@earthlink.com...
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>
> False.

No, it's true.

> You are being investigated, Rudy.

No, I'm not.  You're delusional.

>> and foot masseuse
>
> Reflexologist.

Foot masseuse.

>> living in or near Cork,
>
> Wrong,

No, right.

>> Ireland.  She has *NO*
>> education or other background that would enable her to read a
>> peer-reviewed scientific paper and make sense of it.
>
> Typical curriculum:
> http://www.mariposasacademy.com/#REFLEXOLOGY

No science; just pseudo-scientific bullshit.  There is *ZERO* validity
to "reflexology", the fancy bullshit term for foot massage, and *NO*
science to support the fanciful claims it makes.
Hoots - 01 Oct 2008 12:20 GMT
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:ju-
> dnYRkermJ3X_VnZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d@earthlink.com...
[quoted text clipped - 77 lines]
> pride in your appearance"... poor little woman-stalking
> goop - http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

Hold on, now I am confused again...

Is the Ball guy "Goo"?

Is Rudy the Ball guy?

Then who's David?
Shava_X - 02 Oct 2008 23:41 GMT
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:ju-
> ...
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>> ...

User "Rudy Canoza" isn't using Google Groups.  Unless they have a policy
of kill-filing particularly abusive users from other providers, there is
nothing Google can do.
Rudy Canoza - 03 Oct 2008 00:00 GMT
>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:ju-
>> ...
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> of kill-filing particularly abusive users from other providers, there is
> nothing Google can do.  

lesley has foamed at the mouth and raved deliriously about having me
"investigated" for years.  My ISP, Earthlink, has never even responded
to her bitching.

What most people don't understand is that most ISPs don't give a rat's
a.s about Usenet.  When Earthlink had some technical difficulties with
the news servers a couple of years ago, and after I finally got someone
in their support department even to acknowledge the problem, he
basically just laughed and said that their research shows that Usenet is
used by only one or two percent of their customers.  Unless there's an
allegation of criminal activity - and calling that stupid c.nt lesley a
stupid c.nt is not a crime - they're just going to blow it off.
DB - 03 Oct 2008 00:21 GMT
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in

> used by only one or two percent of their customers.  Unless there's an
> allegation of criminal activity - and calling that stupid c.nt lesley a
> stupid c.nt is not a crime - they're just going to blow it off.

Much the same way people simply blow off what you have to say!
Rudy Canoza - 03 Oct 2008 00:24 GMT
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Much the same way people simply blow off what you have to say!

Yeah, sure - you fatties who simply can't refrain from responding and
arguing; some "blowing off".
Hoots - 01 Oct 2008 12:12 GMT
>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/weightloss.angela.stokes/ 
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> education or other background that would enable her to read a
> peer-reviewed scientific paper and make sense of it.

OoooOOOoooo, pearl is lesley and she's a Cork and she can't read
scientific papers.

Got it.

You two are kind of funny together, you know. She brings out the best in
you, it seems.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.