"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares
moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.

His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:

* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal

* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery

* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions

* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food


"mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral
responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living
a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
CD footprint because he has never measured.

On Mar 7, 9:32*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.
>
> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>
> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>
> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
> * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>
> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>
> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
> * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food
>
> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
> who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral
> responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living
> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
> CD footprint because he has never measured.

Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
these elements:

- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.

- You are an active participant

- You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
humans

- It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
legitimate goal.

You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
your activity.

On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote:
>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares
>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.
>>
>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>>
>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>>
>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>>
>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>>
>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food
>>
>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
>> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral
>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living
>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
>> CD footprint because he has never measured.
>
> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
> these elements:
>
> - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.
>
> - You are an active participant
>
> - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
> humans
>
> - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
> legitimate goal.
>
> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
> your activity.

Yep - I never denied it, either.

On Mar 8, 4:42*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
> >> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
> >> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
> >> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.
>
> >> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>
> >> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>
> >> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
> >> * * the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>
> >> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>
> >> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
> >> * * achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food
>
> >> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
> >> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
> >> who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral
> >> responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living
> >> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
> >> CD footprint because he has never measured.
>
> > Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
> > these elements:
>
> > * - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.
>
> > * - You are an active participant
>
> > * - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
> > injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
> > humans
>
> > * - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
> > legitimate goal.
>
> > You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
> > to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
> > your activity.
>
> Yep - I never denied it, either.

Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?
If that takes place, do you agree that it constitutes a rights
violation?

On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares
>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
>>>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.
>>
>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>>
>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>>
>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
>>>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>>
>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>>
>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
>>>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food
>>
>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
>>>> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral
>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living
>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured.
>>
>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
>>> these elements:
>>
>>> - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.
>>
>>> - You are an active participant
>>
>>> - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
>>> humans
>>
>>> - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
>>> legitimate goal.
>>
>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
>>> your activity.
>>
>> Yep - I never denied it, either.
>
> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?

Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't
work. Your belief about your moral pose is false.

On Mar 8, 5:09*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
> >>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
> >>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
> >>>> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.
>
> >>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>
> >>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>
> >>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
> >>>> * * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>
> >>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>
> >>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
> >>>> * * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food
>
> >>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
> >>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
> >>>> who kills animals collaterally. *That he does makes him share moral
> >>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. *He cannot claim to be living
> >>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
> >>>> CD footprint because he has never measured.
>
> >>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
> >>> these elements:
>
> >>> * *- It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.
>
> >>> * *- You are an active participant
>
> >>> * *- You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
> >>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
> >>> humans
>
> >>> * *- It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
> >>> legitimate goal.
>
> >>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
> >>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
> >>> your activity.
>
> >> Yep - I never denied it, either.
>
> > Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
> > humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
> > anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?
>
> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? *It won't
> work. *Your belief about your moral pose is false.

I don't know what belief you are talking about, and it would be really
great if you could just answer the questions.

On Mar 7, 9:32*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.
>
> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>
> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>
> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
> * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>
> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>
> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
> * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food
>

If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to
buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food. I
really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you
would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is
not a "legitimate goal".

On 3/8/2012 12:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote:
>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares
>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.
>>
>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>>
>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>>
>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>>
>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>>
>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food
>>
>
> If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to
> buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food.

So? There is no need to remain so employed; that's a *want* that you have.


> I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you
> would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is
> not a "legitimate goal".

You are making a choice. You must bear all moral responsibility for the
consequences of your choice.

You keep losing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to cause
zero animal deaths or harm. I'm instructing you to stop making the
false conclusion you make about the meaning of not putting animal bits
in your mouth. You are not following a "cruelty free" diet, and you are
not "minimizing" the harm you cause. You must admit that your
conclusion about your moral position due to adhering to the false belief
system of "veganism" is false.

On Mar 8, 4:53*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 12:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
> >> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
> >> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
> >> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.
>
> >> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>
> >> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>
> >> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
> >> * * the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>
> >> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>
> >> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
> >> * * achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food
>
> > If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to
> > buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food.
>
> So? *There is no need to remain so employed; that's a *want* that you have.
>
> > I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you
> > would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is
> > not a "legitimate goal".
>
> You are making a choice. *You must bear all moral responsibility for the
> consequences of your choice.
>
> You keep losing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to cause
> zero animal deaths or harm. *I'm instructing you to stop making the
> false conclusion you make about the meaning of not putting animal bits
> in your mouth. *You are not following a "cruelty free" diet, and you are
> not "minimizing" the harm you cause. *You must admit that your
> conclusion about your moral position due to adhering to the false belief
> system of "veganism" is false.

No, I'm not following a cruelty free diet, and I'm not doing literally
everything that is within my power short of suicide to minimise the
harm that I cause, and I never made either of those claims. I claimed
that I am doing just about everything within my power without making
major disruptions in my life - making every reasonable effort, as I
frequently have put it in the past - to reduce the amount of harm that
I cause, just as you claim that you are making every reasonable effort
to reduce the externalities you impose on others through your
contributions to environmental degradation. Even if you think that
these externalities will never cause any premature deaths, which is
actually highly unlikely, you cannot avoid the conclusion that they
involve violations of property rights. You are engaging in activities
which you know full well contribute to processes which will lead to
violations of other people's property rights. And you are responding
to the situation in the same way as me, you are not doing literally
everything within your power to avoid engaging in the activities, but
merely making every reasonable effort to reduce the harm they cause.
You do not claim that you are doing literally everything within your
power, you claim that you are making every reasonable effort, and this
is correct (for all I know). Likewise I do not claim that I am doing
literally everything within my power and never have, but I have
claimed that I am making every reasonable effort, in the sense that I
am doing just about everything I can without making major disruptions
to my life to reduce the amount of suffering caused by my diet. The
two cases are analogous.

It should also be noted that by remaining employed I thereby gain
opportunities to alleviate suffering in other ways which would not
otherwise be available to me.

On 3/8/2012 8:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 4:53 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 12:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares
>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
>>>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.
>>
>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>>
>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>>
>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
>>>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>>
>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>>
>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
>>>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food
>>
>>> If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to
>>> buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food.
>>
>> So? There is no need to remain so employed; that's a *want* that you have.
>>
>>> I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you
>>> would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is
>>> not a "legitimate goal".
>>
>> You are making a choice. You must bear all moral responsibility for the
>> consequences of your choice.
>>
>> You keep losing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to cause
>> zero animal deaths or harm. I'm instructing you to stop making the
>> false conclusion you make about the meaning of not putting animal bits
>> in your mouth. You are not following a "cruelty free" diet, and you are
>> not "minimizing" the harm you cause. You must admit that your
>> conclusion about your moral position due to adhering to the false belief
>> system of "veganism" is false.
>
> No, I'm not following a cruelty free diet, and I'm not doing literally
> everything that is within my power short of suicide to minimise the
> harm that I cause

Therefore, being "vegan" achieves nothing ethically required.

On Mar 8, 5:47*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 8:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 4:53 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 12:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
> >>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. *He shares
> >>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
> >>>> his plate. *This cannot be rationally disputed.
>
> >>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>
> >>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>
> >>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
> >>>> * * *the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>
> >>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>
> >>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
> >>>> * * *achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food
>
> >>> If I am to remain employed at the University of Münster, I do need to
> >>> buy the products of commercial agriculture in order to obtain food.
>
> >> So? *There is no need to remain so employed; that's a *want* that you have.
>
> >>> I really don't think there's any way around that. So presumably you
> >>> would claim that remaining employed at the University of Münster is
> >>> not a "legitimate goal".
>
> >> You are making a choice. *You must bear all moral responsibility for the
> >> consequences of your choice.
>
> >> You keep losing sight of the fact that I am not telling you to cause
> >> zero animal deaths or harm. *I'm instructing you to stop making the
> >> false conclusion you make about the meaning of not putting animal bits
> >> in your mouth. *You are not following a "cruelty free" diet, and you are
> >> not "minimizing" the harm you cause. *You must admit that your
> >> conclusion about your moral position due to adhering to the false belief
> >> system of "veganism" is false.
>
> > No, I'm not following a cruelty free diet, and I'm not doing literally
> > everything that is within my power short of suicide to minimise the
> > harm that I cause
>
> Therefore, being "vegan" achieves nothing ethically required.

That obviously does not follow.

On 07/03/2012 20:32, George Plimpton wrote:
> "glen" He shares
> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.

Yes it can. St. Derek disputed it rationally and took you out.

> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>
> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>
> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>
> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>
> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food

Stop killing humans with your tailpipe hypocrite. They have a right not to be killed by you. Start
believing in your own bullshit first and maybe others might take you seriously.

Note to St. Derek.

1. How the **** can you respect this guy?
2. *WHAT* the **** can I learn from him?
3. Decent? What the ****?
4. Honest? What the ****?
5. Intelligent? **** no.

Yep, Rupert is very smart and inquisitive and you regret a lot of stuff you've said to him because
he's a decent but no way is Ball smarter than him!!! How the **** can I stick with Ball and learn
stuff I never thought existed? He's a **** end of.

>
> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral
> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living
> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
> CD footprint because he has never measured.

Been kicked out of any local parishes, lately, Karen?

On 3/8/2012 7:29 AM, Derek wrote:
> Been kicked out of any local parishes, lately, Karen?

Is it Karen? It doesn't really write like Karen.

Did you notice the exchange between "Lesley" and "Mark" back on 04
January? "Lesley" began threatening to post my street address and phone
number here, and "Mark" said, "Don't do it Lesley. Don't sink to his
level." I'm wondering now if the exchange was a sham - if it was one
person pretending to be two. Posts from both are through
eternal-september, and they came through the same posting host,
"eLPkOsHrLOoh4XVdX6as5w". They did use different newsreaders, but
that's an easy scam.

If it's Karen, what a demented warped person she's become.

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:07:50 -0800, George Plimpton > wrote:

>On 3/8/2012 7:29 AM, Derek wrote:
>> Been kicked out of any local parishes, lately, Karen?
>
>Is it Karen? It doesn't really write like Karen.

It's either Karen or Lesley's let that thug of a husband get his feet
back under the table, and he doesn't like some of the things I said
about her being a filthy horse-trader. Karen would've remembered
that I was a garage electrician, not a mechanic.

>Did you notice the exchange between "Lesley" and "Mark" back on 04
>January? "Lesley" began threatening to post my street address and phone
>number here, and "Mark" said, "Don't do it Lesley. Don't sink to his
>level." I'm wondering now if the exchange was a sham - if it was one
>person pretending to be two. Posts from both are through
>eternal-september, and they came through the same posting host,
>"eLPkOsHrLOoh4XVdX6as5w". They did use different newsreaders, but
>that's an easy scam.
>
>If it's Karen, what a demented warped person she's become.

Karen, Lesley, Lesley's bloke, Slater, Greg George, and probably
a good few more would love to have one last go at Usenet, and a
go at me for old-times sake. The aggression came on too quickly
for it to be Karen or Lesley, and the grammar was far too poor. It
could be Slater or Greg, but I reckon Lesley's Heathcliff has come
back to her. The aggression, style and motive are all there, and it
wouldn't be the first time that the contents of a private email sent
to Ireland found itself here, either. Was it something I said about
her being a horse trader?

On 3/8/2012 8:48 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:07:50 -0800, George > wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/2012 7:29 AM, Derek wrote:
>>> Been kicked out of any local parishes, lately, Karen?
>>
>> Is it Karen? It doesn't really write like Karen.
>
> It's either Karen or Lesley's let that thug of a husband get his feet
> back under the table, and he doesn't like some of the things I said
> about her being a filthy horse-trader. Karen would've remembered
> that I was a garage electrician, not a mechanic.
>
>> Did you notice the exchange between "Lesley" and "Mark" back on 04
>> January? "Lesley" began threatening to post my street address and phone
>> number here, and "Mark" said, "Don't do it Lesley. Don't sink to his
>> level." I'm wondering now if the exchange was a sham - if it was one
>> person pretending to be two. Posts from both are through
>> eternal-september, and they came through the same posting host,
>> "eLPkOsHrLOoh4XVdX6as5w". They did use different newsreaders, but
>> that's an easy scam.
>>
>> If it's Karen, what a demented warped person she's become.
>
> Karen, Lesley, Lesley's bloke, Slater, Greg George, and probably
> a good few more would love to have one last go at Usenet, and a
> go at me for old-times sake. The aggression came on too quickly
> for it to be Karen or Lesley, and the grammar was far too poor. It
> could be Slater or Greg, but I reckon Lesley's Heathcliff has come
> back to her. The aggression, style and motive are all there, and it
> wouldn't be the first time that the contents of a private email sent
> to Ireland found itself here, either. Was it something I said about
> her being a horse trader?

It didn't get to the threats of violence that came from Lesley's former
sperm donor in his very first posts, so I don't think it's him. It
didn't have the lachrymose hysteria of a Slater post. It was a bit too
nasty to be a GregGeorge post, I reckon. Whoever was the "Lesley" half
made a point of looking into my Facebook account and seeing something
there that was never posted on my "wall" - something which has already
been obsoleted, too. I agree that it seemed far too aggressive, too
easily, to be either Lesley Simon or Karen.

On 3/8/2012 8:48 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:07:50 -0800, George > wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/2012 7:29 AM, Derek wrote:
>>> Been kicked out of any local parishes, lately, Karen?
>>
>> Is it Karen? It doesn't really write like Karen.
>
> It's either Karen or Lesley's let that thug of a husband get his feet
> back under the table, and he doesn't like some of the things I said
> about her being a filthy horse-trader. Karen would've remembered
> that I was a garage electrician, not a mechanic.
>
>> Did you notice the exchange between "Lesley" and "Mark" back on 04
>> January? "Lesley" began threatening to post my street address and phone
>> number here, and "Mark" said, "Don't do it Lesley. Don't sink to his
>> level." I'm wondering now if the exchange was a sham - if it was one
>> person pretending to be two. Posts from both are through
>> eternal-september, and they came through the same posting host,
>> "eLPkOsHrLOoh4XVdX6as5w". They did use different newsreaders, but
>> that's an easy scam.
>>
>> If it's Karen, what a demented warped person she's become.
>
> Karen, Lesley, Lesley's bloke, Slater, Greg George, and probably
> a good few more would love to have one last go at Usenet, and a
> go at me for old-times sake. The aggression came on too quickly
> for it to be Karen or Lesley, and the grammar was far too poor. It
> could be Slater or Greg, but I reckon Lesley's Heathcliff has come
> back to her. The aggression, style and motive are all there, and it
> wouldn't be the first time that the contents of a private email sent
> to Ireland found itself here, either. Was it something I said about
> her being a horse trader?

It was greggeorge, better known as that snarky little shitworm "zakhar".
The fact that he stalked me and looked up recent stuff about me in
Facebook and the like is the key.

On 3/8/2012 5:35 AM, Glen wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 20:32, George Plimpton wrote:
>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.
>
> Yes it can.

Nope - not rationally; only by bullshitting.


>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>>
>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>>
>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>>
>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>>
>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food
>
> Stop killing humans with

You cause animals to die. You are morally responsible. Your belief
about your moral stance is false.


>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
>> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral
>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living
>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
>> CD footprint because he has never measured.
>