On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:05:37 -0800 (PST), Chemo the Clown > wrote:

>On Feb 23, 6:15*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:14:55 -0800 (PST), DWMeowMix > wrote:
>> >On Feb 18, 5:51*pm, Guillaume Ier de Normandie
>> > wrote:
>> >> My lover died of hiv related illness recently. He had a little yorkie
>> >> named Rooney. On his death bed he made me promise to take care of him
>> >> after his death. I said of course! *After he died, I took Rooney out
>> >> into the country and dropped him off on the side of the road because I
>> >> hated that little mother ****er!! *The point of this post is I had 3
>> >> cases of Iams dog food left. Times being as they are, food is a little
>> >> scarce as of late. I decided to taste a little. It wasn't bad at all
>> >> and it's dynamite
>> >> on crackers! It tastes a little like duck liver pté. *Do you know of
>> >> any health risks?
>>
>> >I hope you choke on it asswipe.
>>
>> * * He hates the dog but gave it a better chance than it would likely
>> get if he took it to the pound.
>
>You can't really believe his post now can you?

Sure. Why not?

>He's a troll and nothing more.

Sometimes even trolls tell the truth. That doesn't seem like the
sort of thing someone would make up and lie about anyway...
usually they make up stuff to make themselves appear better,
not worse. Although people do claim to believe some things that
are so stupid it really makes you wonder if they are actually stupid
enough to believe them, or if they're dishonestly pretending to be
for some reason(s). For example eliminationists--who have enjoyed
basking beneath the gross misnomer "animal rights" for year$ and
year$ and year$...--want people to believe it's ethically superior to
*refuse to* consider the animals' lives when considering whether
or not it's cruel to raise particular animals for food. Considering their
lives is a NECESSARY part of making any such evaluation, yet
the misnomer advocates maniacally insist we must refuse to
take the lives of the animals we're discussing into consideration.
So the question is: Could they really be too stupid to understand
why it's necessary to take them into consideration, or are they
dishonestly pretending to be too stupid for some reason(s).