On 12/31/2012 8:58 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:15:13 -0500, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:58:02 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> his insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
>>> thin mask
>>
>> LOL!!!
>
> Stop giggling; it makes you sound even more stupid than the
> idiocies you post (if that's even possible).

****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - has driven that into the ground. He
used to use a lot of other trite, hackneyed Usenet expressions, e.g.
"imo", but "LOL!!!" is by far his favorite.

The other trite, hackneyed bits of garbage he beats into the ground are
some really bizarre constructions, e.g. "how do you want people to think
that...", "in contrast to ...", "anti-consideration", and some others.

Here's what you need to keep in mind. ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* -
is at most a high school graduate; it's not established that he
completed high school. He grew up in the rural south. He says he
originally is from somewhere else, but most of his youth was in the
rural south - Georgia - and he never left. He is the epitome of every
negative stereotype of stupid, dimwitted southern anti-intellectualism.
****wit would have been right at home with the creationism bigotry
involved in the prosecution of John Thomas Scopes; also with the
"execution" of Mary the elephant
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_%28elephant%29).

****wit is just stupid - his stupidity, like that of most ignorant
crackers, is by choice.

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:09:06 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 12/31/2012 8:58 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:15:13 -0500, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:58:02 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> his insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
>>>> thin mask
>>>
>>> LOL!!!
>>
>> Stop giggling; it makes you sound even more stupid than the
>> idiocies you post (if that's even possible).
>
>****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - has driven that into the ground. He
>used to use a lot of other trite, hackneyed Usenet expressions, e.g.
>"imo", but "LOL!!!" is by far his favorite.
>
>The other trite, hackneyed bits of garbage he beats into the ground are
>some really bizarre constructions, e.g. "how do you want people to think
>that...", "in contrast to ...", "anti-consideration", and some others.
>
>Here's what you need to keep in mind. ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* -
>is at most a high school graduate; it's not established that he
>completed high school. He grew up in the rural south. He says he
>originally is from somewhere else, but most of his youth was in the
>rural south - Georgia - and he never left. He is the epitome of every
>negative stereotype of stupid, dimwitted southern anti-intellectualism.
> ****wit would have been right at home with the creationism bigotry
>involved in the prosecution of John Thomas Scopes; also with the
>"execution" of Mary the elephant
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_%28elephant%29).
>
>****wit is just stupid - his stupidity, like that of most ignorant
>crackers, is by choice.

Just a minor nit: Ignorance is by choice. Stupidity isn't,
and is a "forever" thing. From his posts I suspect he's
both.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:09:06 -0800, Goo wrote:

>hackneyed Usenet expressions, e.g. "imo"

LOL!!!

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:14:35 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On 12/30/2012 10:15 AM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:58:02 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> No problem, a lot of people use multiple nyms for various
>>> reasons, and the only group I know that forbids nymshifting
>>> is talk.origins (because so many jerks use them to avoid
>>> killfiles), and even t.o accepts *changing* a nym. But his
>>> insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
>>> thin mask created to foster the belief in others that no one
>>> but you disagrees with him.
>>
>> LOL!!!
>
>LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>> They are all "different" people George has dishonestly pretended to
>
>No, *Goo*. Many of them are nyms I've used - in fact, the majority of
>not all of them.

What percentage of "different" people that you've pretended to be do you
think I've got on my list, Goo? Do you think it's more than ten percent Goob?

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:58:28 -0700, probably Goo wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:15:13 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:58:02 -0700, probably Goo wrote:
>>
>>>his insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
>>>thin mask
>>
>> LOL!!!
>
>Stop

Why don't you want to believe Goo dishonestly pretended to be dozens of
different people?

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:54:59 -0700, probably Goo wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:12:31 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, Goo lied blatantly:
>>
>>>You know that Bob is not me.
>>
>> LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of lies Goober. IF "Bob" is not you
>
>I'm not, and I suspect that somewhere in that pea brain of
>yours you know it,

LOL!!! There's no way I could know it you moron, and that's a stupid claim
Goo makes all the time.

>even though it soothes your ego to
>pretend to believe that only he disagrees with your
>idiocies.

ONLY Goo has been using the Goobal method...Goo and now you. In the past
other "yous" have appeared, and they've always turned out to be Goo himself.
That's most likely the way it is this time too, because who else but Goo is
stupid enough to try insisting life isn't the benefit it appears to be without
being able to pretend he has any idea what he wants people to think is
preventing it from being one?

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:15:57 -0800, Goo lied:

>*all* the serious opponents of "ar" disagreed with his cracker idiocy

That's a lie Goo but try pretending they did. What do you want to pretend
they disagreed with me about?

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:25 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:54:59 -0700, probably Goo wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:12:31 -0500, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, Goo lied blatantly:
>>>
>>>>You know that Bob is not me.
>>>
>>> LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of lies Goober. IF "Bob" is not you
>>
>>I'm not, and I suspect that somewhere in that pea brain of
>>yours you know it,
>
> LOL!!! There's no way I could know

Granted, there's probably no way *you* could know it.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On 1/2/2013 12:38 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - lied:

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:56:54 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>

>>> or you're really George H. Plimpton and lying about it
>>> again.
>>
>> Nope. And you know it, regardless of how much you wish I were.
>>
>> <snip dh idiocies>
>
> LOL!

LOL!!!!!!


> Just like

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!


> There's no way I could know it,

You *do* know it, *Goo*.

On 12/30/2012 10:15 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:58:02 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> No problem, a lot of people use multiple nyms for various
>> reasons, and the only group I know that forbids nymshifting
>> is talk.origins (because so many jerks use them to avoid
>> killfiles), and even t.o accepts *changing* a nym. But his
>> insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
>> thin mask created to foster the belief in others that no one
>> but you disagrees with him.
>
> LOL!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!


> They are all "different" people George has dishonestly pretended to

No, *Goo*. Many of them are nyms I've used - in fact, the majority of
them - but not all of them. Your ignorant cracker ****wittery has led
you to **** up *again*, *Goo*. Again and again and again.

LOL!!!!!!!!!

On 1/2/2013 12:37 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - showed his lack
of imagination and creativity *again*:

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:09:06 -0800, George W. Plimpton belittled *Goo* again:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - has driven that into the ground. He used to use a lot of other trite, hackneyed Usenet expressions, e.g. "imo", but "LOL!!!" is by far his favorite.
>
> LOL!!!

You prove me right again, *Goo*.

On 12/31/2012 8:58 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:15:13 -0500, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:58:02 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> his insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
>>> thin mask
>>
>> LOL!!!
>
> Stop giggling; it makes you sound even more stupid than the
> idiocies you post (if that's even possible).

****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - has driven that into the ground. He
used to use a lot of other trite, hackneyed Usenet expressions, e.g.
"imo", but "LOL!!!" is by far his favorite.

The other trite, hackneyed bits of garbage he beats into the ground are
some really bizarre constructions, e.g. "how do you want people to think
that...", "in contrast to ...", "anti-consideration", and some others.

Here's what you need to keep in mind. ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* -
is at most a high school graduate; it's not established that he
completed high school. He grew up in the rural south. He says he
originally is from somewhere else, but most of his youth was in the
rural south - Georgia - and he never left. He is the epitome of every
negative stereotype of stupid, dimwitted southern anti-intellectualism.
****wit would have been right at home with the creationism bigotry
involved in the prosecution of John Thomas Scopes; also with the
"execution" of Mary the elephant
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_%28elephant%29).

****wit is just stupid - his stupidity, like that of most ignorant
crackers, is by choice.

On 1/2/2013 12:40 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:15:57 -0800, Goo lied:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - also knows that *all* the serious opponents of "ar"
>> disagreed with his cracker idiocy before they finally left. No one of any serious
>> reputation here ever agreed with him - no one.
>
> That's a lie

No. John Mercer, Martin Martens, Ward Clark, diderot, Rick Etter, and
of course Dutch and I: *everyone* told you you're a ****ing clueless,
stupid idiot.

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:01:15 -0800, Goo wrote:

>hackneyed Usenet expressions, e.g. "imo"

LOL!!!

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:01:14 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:15:13 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:58:02 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>his insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
>>>thin mask
>>
>> LOL!!! They are all "different" people Goo has dishonestly pretended to be
>>over the years. You're right to think it's lowlife and contemptible because it
>>is, but Goo DID do it because that's what he is. If you're not Goo and you deny
>>to yourself what he did then it's because you don't want to accept what a
>>contemptible person the Goober is, but he still IS that way even if you fool
>>yourself into thinking he's not. LOL...HE fooled you into thinking he's not, but
>>you let yourself be fooled also. If you're not Goo you are both at fault and Goo
>>has successfully tricked you so he's one up on you big time. And all I'm doing
>>is pointing out what Goo did to you...LOL....IF you're not Goo....
>>
>>>created to foster the belief in others that no one
>>>but you disagrees with him.
>>
>> I didn't make Goo pretend to be the dozens of "different" people I've got on
>>the list, or the probably 4+ times MORE he has also dishonestly pretended to be
>>that I'm not aware of and don't have on the list.
>
>not all of them.

I'm aware I didn't list all of them Goob. Do you think I've got ten percent
on the list, or less than that, Goo?

>>There are also quite a few I
>>know of that I don't have on the list, like he has dishonestly posted as me, and
>>as Ron Hamilton, and countless other people who do exist and he dishonestly
>>pretended to be in addition to all the others.
>>
>> All eliminationists agree with Goo that the lives of livestock should not be
>>given as much or more consideration than their deaths, but all people who have
>>come through the forum who honestly favor decent AW over elimination have
>>naturally agreed with me.

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:01:21 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:15:57 -0800, Goo lied:
>>
>>>*all* the serious opponents of "ar" disagreed with his cracker idiocy
>>
>> That's a lie Goo but try pretending they did. What do you want to pretend
>>they disagreed with me about?
>
>No. John Mercer,

He never did.

>Martin Martens,

He never did.

>Ward Clark,

He said he didn't agree but never gave a single reason why not.

>diderot,

diderot not only didn't disagree, but he agreed that the animals' lives
should be taken into consideration.

>Rick Etter,

He said he didn't agree but didn't give any reason why not either.

>and of course Dutch and I

"Dutch" was honest about the fact that he's an eliminationist when he
started posting:

"It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and
killing them." - "Dutch"

"abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"

"What's important is the medium/long term implications,
that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans." - "Dutch"

"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
for years." - "Dutch"

"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"

"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
and thrive." - "Dutch"

and I don't believe he ever got over it. I've never had any reason to believe
you favor AW over elimination, but if you do you're probably the stupidest
mother ****er who has ever posted anything about the subject. Not just ignorant,
but ignorant and very impressively STUPID!

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:38:33 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:25 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:54:59 -0700, probably Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:12:31 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, Goo lied blatantly:
>>>>
>>>>>You know that Bob is not me.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of lies Goober. IF "Bob" is not you
>>>
>>>I'm not, and I suspect that somewhere in that pea brain of
>>>yours you know it,
>>
>> LOL!!! There's no way I could know
>
>Granted, there's probably no way *you* could know it.

Hmmm. Since I've never known Goo to be that honest in over a dozen years of
reading his lies, that's some evidence you're not Goo. Still you can't say what
you want people to think is preventing life from being a benefit to you, and so
far only you and Goo are in that incredibly stupid position. It's hard enough to
believe even one person is that stupid, much less two people. Let's give you
another chance to try to defend your claim:

Do you think no prerequisites are benefits, or that some are but life is one
that's not? What do you think distinguishes those that are from those that
aren't, do you have any clue at all?

On 1/5/2013 11:09 AM, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:01:21 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:42 -0500, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:15:57 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> *all* the serious opponents of "ar" disagreed with his cracker idiocy
>>>
>>> That's a lie Goo but try pretending they did. What do you want to pretend
>>> they disagreed with me about?
>>
>> No. John Mercer,
>
> He never did.

He did.


>> Martin Martens,
>
> He never did.

He did - more than any of the rest.


>> Ward Clark,
>
> He said he didn't agree but

He said, politely, that you're full of shit.


>> diderot,
>
> diderot not only

diderot said you're full of shit.


>> Rick Etter,
>
> He said he didn't agree but

He said you're full of shit.

Oh, and I forgot James Hepler. He said you're full of shit, too.


>> and of course Dutch and I
>
> "Dutch" was honest

Of course he was.

They *all* said you're full of shit, *Goo* - every one of them. Dozens
more did, too.

You're full of shit, *Goo*, and every credible anti-"ar" poster here
said so.

On 12/30/2012 10:15 AM, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:58:02 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> No problem, a lot of people use multiple nyms for various
>> reasons, and the only group I know that forbids nymshifting
>> is talk.origins (because so many jerks use them to avoid
>> killfiles), and even t.o accepts *changing* a nym. But his
>> insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
>> thin mask created to foster the belief in others that no one
>> but you disagrees with him.
>
> LOL!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!


> They are all "different" people George has dishonestly pretended to

No, *Goo*. Many of them are nyms I've used - in fact, the majority of
them - but not all of them. Your ignorant cracker ****wittery has led
you to **** up *again*, *Goo*. Again and again and again.

LOL!!!!!!!!!

On 12/31/2012 8:58 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:15:13 -0500, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:58:02 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> his insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
>>> thin mask
>>
>> LOL!!!
>
> Stop giggling; it makes you sound even more stupid than the
> idiocies you post (if that's even possible).

****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - has driven that into the ground. He
used to use a lot of other trite, hackneyed Usenet expressions, e.g.
"imo", but "LOL!!!" is by far his favorite.

The other trite, hackneyed bits of garbage he beats into the ground are
some really bizarre constructions, e.g. "how do you want people to think
that...", "in contrast to ...", "anti-consideration", and some others.

Here's what you need to keep in mind. ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* -
is at most a high school graduate; it's not established that he
completed high school. He grew up in the rural south. He says he
originally is from somewhere else, but most of his youth was in the
rural south - Georgia - and he never left. He is the epitome of every
negative stereotype of stupid, dimwitted southern anti-intellectualism.
****wit would have been right at home with the creationism bigotry
involved in the prosecution of John Thomas Scopes; also with the
"execution" of Mary the elephant
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_%28elephant%29).

****wit is just stupid - his stupidity, like that of most ignorant
crackers, is by choice.

On 1/5/2013 11:09 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:01:21 -0800, Goo wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:15:57 -0800, Goo lied:
>>>
>>>> *all* the serious opponents of "ar" disagreed with his cracker idiocy
>>>
>>> That's a lie Goo but try pretending they did. What do you want to pretend
>>> they disagreed with me about?
>>
>> No. John Mercer, Martin Martens, Ward Clark, diderot, Rick Etter

Also Swamp, Woody Williams, 'ILBowhunter', Kevin Brandon, George Boggs,
James Hepler...

*EVERY* serious anti-"ar" poster here said your cracker "getting to
experience life" story is bullshit.


>
>> and of course Dutch and I

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:10:48 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:38:33 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:25 -0500, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:54:59 -0700, probably Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:12:31 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, Goo lied blatantly:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You know that Bob is not me.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of lies Goober. IF "Bob" is not you
>>>>
>>>>I'm not, and I suspect that somewhere in that pea brain of
>>>>yours you know it,
>>>
>>> LOL!!! There's no way I could know
>>
>>Granted, there's probably no way *you* could know it.
>
> Hmmm. Since I've never known Goo to be that honest in over a dozen years of
>reading his lies, that's some evidence you're not Goo.

It wasn't a compliment or anything similar, it was a note
regarding your many-times-demonstrated inabilities to
comprehend damn near anything.

> Still you can't say what
>you want people to think is preventing life from being a benefit to you

Already done so. The fact that you think there's some
nebulous "benefit" in being born with a painful heart defect
which kills you before the age of one, or born to abusive
addict parents who beat you to death at the age of two
(neither of which is any sort of "benefit"), is sufficient
to reject your conjecture. A short life of nothing but pain
isn't a "benefit".

>, and so
>far only you and Goo are in that incredibly stupid position. It's hard enough to
>believe even one person is that stupid, much less two people. Let's give you
>another chance to try to defend your claim:
>
> Do you think no prerequisites are benefits, or that some are but life is one
>that's not?

Prerequisites are just that: Requirements that must be met
before something else can happen:

From the AHD:

pre·req·ui·site (pr¶-rµk“w¹-z¹t) adj. 1. Required or
necessary as a prior condition.

> What do you think distinguishes those that are from those that
>aren't, do you have any clue at all?

ben·e·fit (bµn“…-f¹t) n. 1.a. Something that promotes or
enhances well-being; an advantage.

What enhancement to well-being does either of the above
examples enjoy merely through existence?

Note that I generally try to avoid using dictionary
definitions in this sort of discussion unless it's become
obvious that the other party is ignorant of them.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 12/30/2012 10:15 AM, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:58:02 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> No problem, a lot of people use multiple nyms for various
>>> reasons, and the only group I know that forbids nymshifting
>>> is talk.origins (because so many jerks use them to avoid
>>> killfiles), and even t.o accepts *changing* a nym. But his
>>> insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
>>> thin mask created to foster the belief in others that no one
>>> but you disagrees with him.
>>
>> LOL!!!
>
>LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

He does use that a lot, doesn't he? I was always a bit vague
regarding the meaning of "lollygagging" until I realized all
his LOLing was gagging me...

>> They are all "different" people George has dishonestly pretended to

>No, *Goo*. Many of them are nyms I've used - in fact, the majority of
>them - but not all of them. Your ignorant cracker ****wittery has led
>you to **** up *again*, *Goo*. Again and again and again.
>
>LOL!!!!!!!!!
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, Goo wrote:

>Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.

"Why do some people on one hand call for the extinction of a species
while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of another? Are they
not all equal?" - James Hepler

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:08:23 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:01:14 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:15:13 -0500, dh@. pointed out:
>>>
>>>> I didn't make Goo pretend to be the dozens of "different" people I've got on
>>>>the list, or the probably 4+ times MORE he has also dishonestly pretended to be
>>>>that I'm not aware of and don't have on the list.
>>>
>>>not all of them.
>>
>> I'm aware I didn't list all of them Goob. Do you think I've got ten percent
>>on the list, or less than that, Goo?
>
>Your ignorant cracker ****wittery has led you to **** up *again*

You're letting me know that even though I've got three dozen examples of
"different people" you've dishonestly pretended to be Goober, it's less than ten
percent of the total. That means you have dishonestly pretended to be hundreds
of "different" people Goo.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:20:06 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:10:48 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:38:33 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:25 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:54:59 -0700, probably Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:12:31 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, Goo lied blatantly:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You know that Bob is not me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of lies Goober. IF "Bob" is not you
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not, and I suspect that somewhere in that pea brain of
>>>>>yours you know it,
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! There's no way I could know
>>>
>>>Granted, there's probably no way *you* could know it.
>>
>> Hmmm. Since I've never known Goo to be that honest in over a dozen years of
>>reading his lies, that's some evidence you're not Goo.
>
>It wasn't a compliment or

LOL!!! YOU being honest about something seems like a compliment to the other
person from your pov. LOL...HILARIOUS. That almost convinces me you ARE Goo.
From here on unless something significant indicates you might not be, I'll take
it for granted you're Goo. Who else would be dishonest and stupid enough "think"
the way you do?

>anything similar, it was a note
>regarding your many-times-demonstrated inabilities to
>comprehend damn near anything.
>
>> Still you can't say what
>>you want people to think is preventing life from being a benefit to you
>
>Already done so.

What do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from
life? Why can't you say? Why is all you can do lie that you've already told us,
when if you had tried I'd probably be laughing at that rather than constantly
challenging you to try explaining what you want people to think it is?

>The fact that you think there's some
>nebulous "benefit" in being born with a painful . . . A short life of nothing but pain
>isn't a "benefit".

This is yet more evidence that you ARE Goo. I know from previous experience
that Goo can't acknowledge and probably can't even appreciate the distinction
between these two definitions of the word:
__________________________________________________ _______
1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
distinctive quality of animate beings

2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
up the existence of an individual

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
LOL...and if you can't then again you are uniquely stupid in a way that so far
has been resticted only to Goo and maybe his boy "Dutch". In case you are that
stupid, the life I point out is a benefit is the first definition, while the
second is not always a benefit of course. But if you can't appreciate the
distinction between the meanings, you also can't appreciate the distinction
between one being a benefit always and the other not always.

>>, and so
>>far only you and Goo are in that incredibly stupid position. It's hard enough to
>>believe even one person is that stupid, much less two people. Let's give you
>>another chance to try to defend your claim:
>>
>> Do you think no prerequisites are benefits, or that some are but life is one
>>that's not?
>
>Prerequisites are just that: Requirements

Do you think no prerequisites are benefits, or that some are but life is one
that's not? LOL...now that we mention it, life might be one of he few
prerequisites that IS also a benefit.

>that must be met
>before something else can happen:
>
>From the AHD:
>
>pre·req·ui·site (pr¶-rµk“w¹-z¹t) adj. 1. Required or
>necessary as a prior condition.
>
>> What do you think distinguishes those that are from those that
>>aren't, do you have any clue at all?
>
>ben·e·fit (bµn“…-f¹t) n. 1.a. Something that promotes or
>enhances well-being; an advantage.

Try to explain what you want people to think prevents life from being a
benefit from you. If you can't explain why you want us to think life in general
is not, then try explaining how you want us to think your life in particular is
not. Go:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:40:31 -0800, Goo lied hilariously:

>*EVERY* serious anti-"ar" poster here said your cracker "getting to
>experience life" story is bullshit.

LOL!!! Which of the animals raised for food are you trying to say "*EVERY*
serious anti-"ar" poster here" said don't experience life Goober? Post quotes
too, Goo.

On 1/7/2013 2:49 PM, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:

> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:40:31 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> *EVERY* serious anti-"ar" poster here said your cracker "getting to
>> experience life" story is bullshit.
>
> Which of the animals raised for food

*NO* animals raised for food "benefits" from coming into existence,
*Goo*. Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
That has been proved.

On 1/7/2013 2:48 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:08:23 -0500, On 12/30/2012 10:15 AM, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:01:14 -0800, George Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:15:13 -0500, On 12/30/2012 10:15 AM, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
>>>>
>>>>> dozens of "different" people I've got on
>>>>> the list,
>>>>
>>>> not all of them.
>>>
>>> I'm aware
>>
>> Your ignorant cracker ****wittery has led you to **** up *again*
>
> You're letting me know that

....that you're a ****witted cracker liar. Yes.

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - proved.

****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, an ignorant pig-****ing cracker - lied:

> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>
>> Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.
>
> [bullshit]

James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience life" nonsense
was bullshit. He's right.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

> What do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from
>life?

Goalpost shift? Your assertion was that "life is a benefit",
not that "one can benefit from life"; I certainly have no
argument with the latter. The answer to your *actual*
original assertion that "life is a benefit" is by
counterexample (two of them, actually; there are more
available on request):

The fact that you think there's some nebulous "benefit" in
being born with a painful heart defect which kills you
before the age of one, or born to abusive addict parents who
beat you to death at the age of two (neither of which is any
sort of "benefit"), is sufficient to reject your conjecture
that "life is a benefit". A short life of nothing but pain
isn't a "benefit".

Now stop snipping the answer and claiming I've given no
answer, you lying sack of shit.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> What do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from
>> life?
>
> Goalpost shift? Your assertion was that "life is a benefit",
> not that "one can benefit from life"; I certainly have no
> argument with the latter. The answer to your *actual*
> original assertion that "life is a benefit" is by
> counterexample (two of them, actually; there are more
> available on request):
>
> The fact that you think there's some nebulous "benefit" in
> being born with a painful heart defect which kills you
> before the age of one, or born to abusive addict parents who
> beat you to death at the age of two (neither of which is any
> sort of "benefit"), is sufficient to reject your conjecture
> that "life is a benefit". A short life of nothing but pain
> isn't a "benefit".
>
> Now stop snipping the answer and claiming I've given no
> answer, you lying sack of shit.
>

If by "life" one means the circumstances around you then they can be a
benefit or a harm. But he doesn't mean that, he is equivocating. He
means the very process of living, and that can't benefit you, because it
*is* you. But honestly, I don't think he knows he's doing it, he's too
stupid, he has just rehearsed all these different tortured wordings to
escape facing the utter stupidity of what he is saying for so long that
he thinks they make sense.

On 1/8/2013 1:49 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> What do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from
>> life?
>
> Goalpost shift? Your assertion was that "life is a benefit",
> not that "one can benefit from life"; I certainly have no
> argument with the latter.

The problem is he's trying to be slippery. A living entity possibly
benefits from things *in* its life. If we say, as many people
colloquially do ("colloquially" is not in ****wit's vocabulary), that
your "life" is the events you experience, and if we make the assumption
that the good in your life outweighs the bad, then we might say that
*your* life - your set of experiences - is a benefit to *you*.

But that does not allow us to say that coming into existence, or
"getting to experience life", is a benefit in any way. As usual,
****wit is trying to equivocate on this. Coming into existence is not
the same thing at all as being in the middle of one's existence.

All along, ****wit has been plaintively trying to persuade people that
"vegans", who would like to see all domestic animal husbandry stopped,
are doing some kind of disservice to the livestock animals that aren't
yet conceived and born. He sees them as wishing to "withhold" some kind
of "benefit" from non-existent farm animals. He ties himself into knots
trying to deny that's what he is saying, but trust me, it is exactly
what he's saying. "vegans" aren't trying to do anything harmful to
existing livestock animals; they are not trying to withhold any benefit
from *them*. It is *future* livestock animals that "vegans" wish to
keep from ever existing, and ****wit does say that "vegans" are doing
something harmful to those non-existent, merely potential animals.
That's pure ****wittery.

On 1/8/2013 1:57 PM, Dutch wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> What do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>> benefitting from
>>> life?
>>
>> Goalpost shift? Your assertion was that "life is a benefit",
>> not that "one can benefit from life"; I certainly have no
>> argument with the latter. The answer to your *actual*
>> original assertion that "life is a benefit" is by
>> counterexample (two of them, actually; there are more
>> available on request):
>>
>> The fact that you think there's some nebulous "benefit" in
>> being born with a painful heart defect which kills you
>> before the age of one, or born to abusive addict parents who
>> beat you to death at the age of two (neither of which is any
>> sort of "benefit"), is sufficient to reject your conjecture
>> that "life is a benefit". A short life of nothing but pain
>> isn't a "benefit".
>>
>> Now stop snipping the answer and claiming I've given no
>> answer, you lying sack of shit.
>>
>
> If by "life" one means the circumstances around you then they can be a
> benefit or a harm. But he doesn't mean that, he is equivocating. He
> means the very process of living,

He means existence, period - with no regard to the quality of the existence.


> and that can't benefit you, because it
> *is* you. But honestly, I don't think he knows he's doing it, he's too
> stupid, he has just rehearsed all these different tortured wordings to
> escape facing the utter stupidity of what he is saying for so long that
> he thinks they make sense.

He picked up this lame trick from someone else, and he doesn't know how
to manipulate it.

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:54:45 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 1/8/2013 1:57 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>> What do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>> benefitting from
>>>> life?
>>>
>>> Goalpost shift? Your assertion was that "life is a benefit",
>>> not that "one can benefit from life"; I certainly have no
>>> argument with the latter. The answer to your *actual*
>>> original assertion that "life is a benefit" is by
>>> counterexample (two of them, actually; there are more
>>> available on request):
>>>
>>> The fact that you think there's some nebulous "benefit" in
>>> being born with a painful heart defect which kills you
>>> before the age of one, or born to abusive addict parents who
>>> beat you to death at the age of two (neither of which is any
>>> sort of "benefit"), is sufficient to reject your conjecture
>>> that "life is a benefit". A short life of nothing but pain
>>> isn't a "benefit".
>>>
>>> Now stop snipping the answer and claiming I've given no
>>> answer, you lying sack of shit.
>>>
>>
>> If by "life" one means the circumstances around you then they can be a
>> benefit or a harm. But he doesn't mean that, he is equivocating. He
>> means the very process of living,
>
>He means existence, period - with no regard to the quality of the existence.

That's exactly what he claimed. Until now, that is. Now it
seems he may have caught on to the idiocy of that position.
He should have, as it's been explained enough times with
enough examples that even he should finally "get it", and
he's trying to weasel-word around his idiocy in hopes no one
will notice. Unfortunately for him he's too stupid to do so
with even minimal competence, and too arrogant and dishonest
to admit his errors.

>> and that can't benefit you, because it
>> *is* you. But honestly, I don't think he knows he's doing it, he's too
>> stupid, he has just rehearsed all these different tortured wordings to
>> escape facing the utter stupidity of what he is saying for so long that
>> he thinks they make sense.
>
>He picked up this lame trick from someone else, and he doesn't know how
>to manipulate it.

Seems so...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On 1/9/2013 9:10 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:54:45 -0800, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>
>> On 1/8/2013 1:57 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>> What do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>> benefitting from
>>>>> life?
>>>>
>>>> Goalpost shift? Your assertion was that "life is a benefit",
>>>> not that "one can benefit from life"; I certainly have no
>>>> argument with the latter. The answer to your *actual*
>>>> original assertion that "life is a benefit" is by
>>>> counterexample (two of them, actually; there are more
>>>> available on request):
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you think there's some nebulous "benefit" in
>>>> being born with a painful heart defect which kills you
>>>> before the age of one, or born to abusive addict parents who
>>>> beat you to death at the age of two (neither of which is any
>>>> sort of "benefit"), is sufficient to reject your conjecture
>>>> that "life is a benefit". A short life of nothing but pain
>>>> isn't a "benefit".
>>>>
>>>> Now stop snipping the answer and claiming I've given no
>>>> answer, you lying sack of shit.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If by "life" one means the circumstances around you then they can be a
>>> benefit or a harm. But he doesn't mean that, he is equivocating. He
>>> means the very process of living,
>>
>> He means existence, period - with no regard to the quality of the existence.
>
> That's exactly what he claimed. Until now, that is. Now it
> seems he may have caught on to the idiocy of that position.

He sort of vacillates back and forth. I beat the stuffing out of him on
this issue a few years ago, actually (so did Dutch), and that's when he
began his clumsy attempts at equivocation, but on occasion, he falls all
the way back to claiming that coming into existence, or "getting to
experience life" as he puts it in his wretchedly shitty cracker
terminology, is a benefit. He waffles back and forth now.


> He should have, as it's been explained enough times with
> enough examples that even he should finally "get it", and
> he's trying to weasel-word around his idiocy in hopes no one
> will notice. Unfortunately for him he's too stupid to do so
> with even minimal competence, and too arrogant and dishonest
> to admit his errors.

You seem much more reluctant - quite possibly you refuse - to believe in
any explanatory power of the sort of regional and class stereotypes I
have used to describe ****wit, but I think there is some explanatory
power in them. He really is a poorly educated and backward cracker.
Although he claims to have been born elsewhere, he spent most of his
youth in benighted territory in the far outskirts of Atlanta, Georgia.
He exemplifies southern anti-intellectual know-nothingism. If you've
ever read or had any exposure to Richard Hofstadter's
"Anti-Intellectualism In American Life", you know that he was writing
about the ****wits of America.


>>> and that can't benefit you, because it
>>> *is* you. But honestly, I don't think he knows he's doing it, he's too
>>> stupid, he has just rehearsed all these different tortured wordings to
>>> escape facing the utter stupidity of what he is saying for so long that
>>> he thinks they make sense.
>>
>> He picked up this lame trick from someone else, and he doesn't know how
>> to manipulate it.
>
> Seems so...

It is so. There is no way ****wit thought this up by himself. He
hasn't had an original thought in his life. In all seriousness, he
really hasn't.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:26 -0800, Goo ineptly puled:

>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:08:23 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:01:14 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:15:13 -0500, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't make Goo pretend to be the dozens of "different" people I've got on
>>>>>>the list, or the probably 4+ times MORE he has also dishonestly pretended to be
>>>>>>that I'm not aware of and don't have on the list.
>>>>>
>>>>>not all of them.
>>>>
>>>> I'm aware I didn't list all of them Goob. Do you think I've got ten percent
>>>>on the list, or less than that, Goo?
>>>
>>>Your ignorant cracker ****wittery has led you to **** up *again*
>>
>> You're letting me know that even though I've got three dozen examples of
>>"different people" you've dishonestly pretended to be Goober, it's less than ten
>>percent of the total. That means you have dishonestly pretended to be hundreds
>>of "different" people Goo.
>
>...that you're

Who else Goob? Who else have you dishonestly pretended to be that I don't
have on the list? Why are you ashamed to say, Goo?

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, Goo lied extremely blatantly:

>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.
>>
>>"Why do some people on one hand call for the extinction of a species
>>while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of another? Are they
>>not all equal?" - James Hepler
>
>James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience life" nonsense
>was bullshit.

He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:26 -0800, Goo wussed:

>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:10 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:40:31 -0800, Goo lied hilariously:
>>
>>>*EVERY* serious anti-"ar" poster here said your cracker "getting to
>>>experience life" story is bullshit.
>>
>> LOL!!! Which of the animals raised for food are you trying to say "*EVERY*
>>serious anti-"ar" poster here" said don't experience life Goober? Post quotes
>>too, Goo.
>
>*NO*

LOL!!! That's because you *CAN'T*, Goo.

On 1/9/2013 12:06 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:26 -0800, Goo wussed:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:10 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:40:31 -0800, Goo lied hilariously:
>>>
>>>> *EVERY* serious anti-"ar" poster here said your cracker "getting to
>>>> experience life" story is bullshit.
>>>
>>> Which of the animals raised for food
>>
>> *NO* animals raised for food "benefits" from coming into existence, *Goo*. Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit. That has been proved.
>
> LOL!!! That's because

That's because by definition, coming into existence - "getting to
experience life", in your ****witted pig-****ing cracker lingo - is not
a benefit.