By now you've seen the pathetic bleatings of the stupid
Brit homo "John Jones", ****ing and moaning about
postings to alt.philosophy. Those postings occur
because ****wit (David Harrison) began posting to
alt.philosophy. In consequence, I have replied to him
in alt.philosophy.

The action of replying to alt.philosophy was mine. The
outcome is that "John Jones", drunken Brit homo, is
unhappy about it. Does ****wit share in the
responsibility for "John Jones", leaky Brit homo, being
unhappy?

Of course he does. I personally think ****wit had no
valid reason for "animal rights"-related stuff to
alt.philosophy, given that it was purely trolling, but
post it there he did. He has initiated a process that
has led to the querulous faggot "John Jones" being
unhappy. OF COURSE he shares in the responsibility for it.

JJ is a stupid Welsh homo. There is no need to insult
people on this ng.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ink.net...
: By now you've seen the pathetic bleatings of the stupid
: Brit homo "John Jones", ****ing and moaning about
: postings to alt.philosophy. Those postings occur
: because ****wit (David Harrison) began posting to
: alt.philosophy. In consequence, I have replied to him
: in alt.philosophy.
:
: The action of replying to alt.philosophy was mine. The
: outcome is that "John Jones", drunken Brit homo, is
: unhappy about it. Does ****wit share in the
: responsibility for "John Jones", leaky Brit homo, being
: unhappy?
:
: Of course he does. I personally think ****wit had no
: valid reason for "animal rights"-related stuff to
: alt.philosophy, given that it was purely trolling, but
: post it there he did. He has initiated a process that
: has led to the querulous faggot "John Jones" being
: unhappy. OF COURSE he shares in the responsibility for it.

formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:

> JJ is a stupid Welsh homo. There is no need to insult
> people on this ng.

My apologies. "Jones", of course; I forgot about that
being Welsh.

>
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> : By now you've seen the pathetic bleatings of the stupid
> : Brit homo "John Jones", ****ing and moaning about
> : postings to alt.philosophy. Those postings occur
> : because ****wit (David Harrison) began posting to
> : alt.philosophy. In consequence, I have replied to him
> : in alt.philosophy.
> :
> : The action of replying to alt.philosophy was mine. The
> : outcome is that "John Jones", drunken Brit homo, is
> : unhappy about it. Does ****wit share in the
> : responsibility for "John Jones", leaky Brit homo, being
> : unhappy?
> :
> : Of course he does. I personally think ****wit had no
> : valid reason for "animal rights"-related stuff to
> : alt.philosophy, given that it was purely trolling, but
> : post it there he did. He has initiated a process that
> : has led to the querulous faggot "John Jones" being
> : unhappy. OF COURSE he shares in the responsibility for it.
>
>

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:52:05 GMT, the Gonad wrote:

>By now you've seen the pathetic bleatings of the stupid
>Brit homo "John Jones", ****ing and moaning about
>postings to alt.philosophy. Those postings occur
>because ****wit (David Harrison) began posting to
>alt.philosophy. In consequence, I have replied to him
>in alt.philosophy.
>
>The action of replying to alt.philosophy was mine.

Ooh Gonad...you didn't...oh no...you're doing it again
....what the hell's wrong with you boy?

>The
>outcome is that "John Jones", drunken Brit homo, is
>unhappy about it. Does ****wit share in the
>responsibility for "John Jones", leaky Brit homo, being
>unhappy?

No. It's entirely your fault. What happened anyway?
Did he actually believe your garbage about life not
being a benefit or something?

>Of course he does. I personally think ****wit had no
>valid reason for "animal rights"-related stuff to
>alt.philosophy, given that it was purely trolling, but
>post it there he did.

That was in case anyone wanted to give a philosophic
view of your idiocy Mr Gonad. Don't try to think about it,
or you will just develop an aching between your ears.

>He has initiated a process that
>has led to the querulous faggot "John Jones" being
>unhappy. OF COURSE he shares in the responsibility for it.

Well John Jones, if my positing has in some way caused
you unhappiness then I'm sorry that it has, but can't realy
feel any guilt for it, given the freakshow environment that
news groups are and we willingly participate in them. On a
more positive note: the Gonad here is one of the most
childish and dishonest people you will ever meet. Have fun
with the stupid clown. What do you have to lose? It's really
quite amusing some of the stupid things he does, and the
stupid lies that he tells are sometimes hilarious. I can honestly
say that I've laughed at the stupidity of the Gonad more than
any other single thing in my life. Thanks for the years of hilarity
via stupidity Mr Gonad.

I read alt.food.vegan to read about vegan recipies and nutrition.

The kind of content in the post below is not a good use of my time.

I am setting my filters to ignore threads from you. Not personal, but
it doesn't look like you are posting interesting content.

Have a good weekend.

Bye.

Steve


Rudy Canoza wrote:
> By now you've seen the pathetic bleatings of the stupid Brit homo "John
> Jones", ****ing and moaning about postings to alt.philosophy. Those
> postings occur because ****wit (David Harrison) began posting to
> alt.philosophy. In consequence, I have replied to him in alt.philosophy.
>
> The action of replying to alt.philosophy was mine. The outcome is that
> "John Jones", drunken Brit homo, is unhappy about it. Does ****wit
> share in the responsibility for "John Jones", leaky Brit homo, being
> unhappy?
>
> Of course he does. I personally think ****wit had no valid reason for
> "animal rights"-related stuff to alt.philosophy, given that it was
> purely trolling, but post it there he did. He has initiated a process
> that has led to the querulous faggot "John Jones" being unhappy. OF
> COURSE he shares in the responsibility for it.


--

Steve

Be A Healthy Vegan Or Vegetarian
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdo...ealthyVeg.html

Steve's Home Page
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/

"The great American thought trap: It is not real
unless it can be seen on television or bought in a
shopping mall"

wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:52:05 GMT, some guy who makes ****wit look stupid wrote:
>
>
>>By now you've seen the pathetic bleatings of the stupid
>>Brit homo "John Jones", ****ing and moaning about
>>postings to alt.philosophy. Those postings occur
>>because ****wit (David Harrison) began posting to
>>alt.philosophy. In consequence, I have replied to him
>>in alt.philosophy.
>>
>>The action of replying to alt.philosophy was mine.
>
>
> Ooh

It's your fault, ****wit.

>
>
>>The outcome is that "John Jones", drunken Brit homo, is
>>unhappy about it. Does ****wit share in the
>>responsibility for "John Jones", leaky Brit homo, being
>>unhappy?
>
>
> No.

Yes. You share in it. Without your initial malicious
crossposting to alt.philosophy, no one from
a.a.e.v./t.p.a. ever would post there.

>
>
>>Of course he does. I personally think ****wit had no
>>valid reason for "animal rights"-related stuff to
>>alt.philosophy, given that it was purely trolling, but
>>post it there he did.
>
>
> That was in case anyone wanted to give a philosophic
> view

**** off.

>
>
>>He has initiated a process that
>>has led to the querulous faggot "John Jones" being
>>unhappy. OF COURSE he shares in the responsibility for it.

> wrote in message
...
> Well John Jones, if my positing has in some way caused
> you unhappiness then I'm sorry that it has, but can't realy
> feel any guilt for it, given the freakshow environment that
> news groups are and we willingly participate in them.

sadly this is true. the only way to avoid this sort of sewage is to
subscribe to a moderated listing, but then it's very rare that the normally
anally retentive members of such a listing would deign to reply to us mere
mortals in pursuit of illumination. the only thing we can do is to quietly
ignore these infestations with their pointless and idiotic back-biting, and
perhaps feel a little compassion for the perpetrators who must lead very sad
lives if such as this is the only way to alleviate their feelings of
inadequacy.

> wrote in message
...
> Well John Jones, if my positing has in some way caused
> you unhappiness then I'm sorry that it has, but can't realy
> feel any guilt for it, given the freakshow environment that
> news groups are and we willingly participate in them.

sadly this is true. the only way to avoid this sort of sewage is to
subscribe to a moderated listing, but then it's very rare that the normally
anally retentive members of such a listing would deign to reply to us mere
mortals in pursuit of illumination. the only thing we can do is to quietly
ignore these infestations with their pointless and idiotic back-biting, and
perhaps feel a little compassion for the perpetrators who must lead very sad
lives if such as this is the only way to alleviate their feelings of
inadequacy.

****

**** off ******

Your father was a good **** but the haemerrhoids got in the way

**** off from altphilosophy you tosser

Your mothers crack was too big to do anything worthwhile with

"John Jones" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> **** off from altphilosophy you tosser

so it's a case of if you can't beat 'em then join 'em eh? not for me jj.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:57:57 GMT, "misanthrope" > wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>> Well John Jones, if my positing has in some way caused
>> you unhappiness then I'm sorry that it has, but can't realy
>> feel any guilt for it, given the freakshow environment that
>> news groups are and we willingly participate in them.
>
>sadly this is true. the only way to avoid this sort of sewage is to
>subscribe to a moderated listing, but then it's very rare that the normally
>anally retentive members of such a listing would deign to reply to us mere
>mortals in pursuit of illumination.

I try to avoid moderated groups, but believe how things go is greatly
determined by who is moderating. As for replies from the group after
you get in there, I guess it depends on the participants. But in all the
groups I've seen so far there is always an asshole or two, to varying
degrees. I hoped the philosophy group might be different, but Jones
seems pretty much an asshole. Maybe not. Maybe the subject of
whether or not life is a benefit doesn't apply to philosophy, but I feel
that it does. Really almost everything does, and that as much as any
imo.

>the only thing we can do is to quietly
>ignore these infestations with their pointless and idiotic back-biting,

You could take more than one approach...in fact you're taking
a different one now. I will say though that in all the times I've seen
people complain about what was posted in their chosen groups,
I have rarely if ever seen such a person have anything of value
to say.

>and
>perhaps feel a little compassion for the perpetrators who must lead very sad
>lives if such as this is the only way to alleviate their feelings of
>inadequacy.

I guess that varies from person to person too. It makes me wonder
why people do things as much as anything. Especially why do people
lie? There must always be a reason. The Gonad lies about my beliefs,
and feels that his lies are "needed". But why? Why would a person
feel that lies about what I believe, are needed by anyone? What I do
believe is that some farm animals benefit from farming, and that some
do not. That is what it's all about. The Gonad is very much opposed
to people giving such facts consideration, to the point of feeling that
lying about my beliefs is "needed", and of insisting that life has never
been a benefit for anything. But why???

<
> Well John Jones, if my positing has in some way caused
> you unhappiness then I'm sorry that it has, but can't realy
> feel any guilt for it, given the freakshow environment that
> news groups are and we willingly participate in them. On a
> more positive note: the Gonad here is one of the most
> childish and dishonest people you will ever meet. Have fun
> with the stupid clown. What do you have to lose? It's really
> quite amusing some of the stupid things he does, and the
> stupid lies that he tells are sometimes hilarious. I can honestly
> say that I've laughed at the stupidity of the Gonad more than
> any other single thing in my life. Thanks for the years of hilarity
> via stupidity Mr Gonad.

Ray wrote:

Rudy the Spic (AKA) ~~Jonnie Ball~~( Mr. Gonad) is a well known idiot on
these groups,
he dresses in funny clothes and hangs around male public lavatories. he is
best avoided. He is also the group 'Racist' and hates the population of the
UK. He abuses the decent people of Yorkshire and reports group members to
their ISP for sending binary files on 'text only' groups.

I will leave it to your imagination what's at the other end of this rope,
but some poor black family is short of a Father!

BTW. ~~Jonnie~~ is the one with the hat, I have no idea why the other guy
has his hand up his shorts.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:31:47 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" > wrote:

>
><
>> Well John Jones, if my positing has in some way caused
>> you unhappiness then I'm sorry that it has, but can't realy
>> feel any guilt for it, given the freakshow environment that
>> news groups are and we willingly participate in them. On a
>> more positive note: the Gonad here is one of the most
>> childish and dishonest people you will ever meet. Have fun
>> with the stupid clown. What do you have to lose? It's really
>> quite amusing some of the stupid things he does, and the
>> stupid lies that he tells are sometimes hilarious. I can honestly
>> say that I've laughed at the stupidity of the Gonad more than
>> any other single thing in my life. Thanks for the years of hilarity
>> via stupidity Mr Gonad.
>
>Ray wrote:
>
>Rudy the Spic (AKA) ~~Jonnie Ball~~( Mr. Gonad) is a well known idiot on
>these groups,

Probably one of the of the best known, considering the volume
of contaminant he is able to produce, and the number of reactions
is able to get from it.

>he dresses in funny clothes and hangs around male public lavatories. he is
>best avoided. He is also the group 'Racist' and hates the population of the
>UK. He abuses the decent people of Yorkshire and reports group members to
>their ISP for sending binary files on 'text only' groups.
>
>I will leave it to your imagination what's at the other end of this rope,
>but some poor black family is short of a Father!
>
>BTW. ~~Jonnie~~ is the one with the hat, I have no idea why the other guy
>has his hand up his shorts.

Gag. Just think what kind of stuff goes on in more private moments.
I wonder if the Gonad has explained to all those guys, and they stupidly
agree with him, that life has never been a benefit for anything.

> wrote in message
...
>
> I try to avoid moderated groups, but believe how things go is greatly
> determined by who is moderating. As for replies from the group after
> you get in there, I guess it depends on the participants. But in all the
> groups I've seen so far there is always an asshole or two, to varying
> degrees. I hoped the philosophy group might be different, but Jones
> seems pretty much an asshole. Maybe not. Maybe the subject of
> whether or not life is a benefit doesn't apply to philosophy, but I feel
> that it does. Really almost everything does, and that as much as any
> imo.
>
> >the only thing we can do is to quietly
> >ignore these infestations with their pointless and idiotic back-biting,
>
> You could take more than one approach...in fact you're taking
> a different one now. I will say though that in all the times I've seen
> people complain about what was posted in their chosen groups,
> I have rarely if ever seen such a person have anything of value
> to say.

jj is an interesting and colourful character on alt.phil, and he's just
****ed that what used to be a useful group is now being turned into a circus
by clowns with no interest in anything but infecting groups with their
faecal discharges. i think he voices the opinion of the silent majority in
alt.phil: it's a shame when this sort of thing happens to a group that's
been useful and interesting. it not only deters new members but also drives
away old ones, and can in the long run kill the group.

>
> Ray wrote:

<Snip>
>
> The real Ray Wrote.:

I completely disassociate myself from the earlier posting and binary file
depicting Jonathan Ball on his KKC exploits. It is a complete forgery from
the PC of "Abner Hale" the well known Jonathan Ball impersonator. His
forgery of my address is perfect, you simply can not trust anyone on these
groups.
>
>
>
>
>

misanthrope wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I try to avoid moderated groups, but believe how things go is
greatly
> > determined by who is moderating. As for replies from the group
after
> > you get in there, I guess it depends on the participants. But in
all the
> > groups I've seen so far there is always an asshole or two, to
varying
> > degrees. I hoped the philosophy group might be different, but Jones
> > seems pretty much an asshole. Maybe not. Maybe the subject of
> > whether or not life is a benefit doesn't apply to philosophy, but I
feel
> > that it does. Really almost everything does, and that as much as
any
> > imo.
> >
> > >the only thing we can do is to quietly
> > >ignore these infestations with their pointless and idiotic
back-biting,
> >
> > You could take more than one approach...in fact you're taking
> > a different one now. I will say though that in all the times I've
seen
> > people complain about what was posted in their chosen groups,
> > I have rarely if ever seen such a person have anything of value
> > to say.
>
> jj is an interesting and colourful character on alt.phil, and he's
just
> ****ed that what used to be a useful group is now being turned into a
circus
> by clowns with no interest in anything but infecting groups with
their
> faecal discharges. i think he voices the opinion of the silent
majority in
> alt.phil: it's a shame when this sort of thing happens to a group
that's
> been useful and interesting. it not only deters new members but also
drives
> away old ones, and can in the long run kill the group.

As you can guess... I am dumpposting insults on this thread. You must
know, I hope, yours got accidentally dumped on. If its alright with
you, I shall continue dumping for our Country and the Glory of our dear
Sovereign Queen.
JJ

misanthrope wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I try to avoid moderated groups, but believe how things go is
greatly
> > determined by who is moderating. As for replies from the group
after
> > you get in there, I guess it depends on the participants. But in
all the
> > groups I've seen so far there is always an asshole or two, to
varying
> > degrees. I hoped the philosophy group might be different, but Jones
> > seems pretty much an asshole. Maybe not. Maybe the subject of
> > whether or not life is a benefit doesn't apply to philosophy, but I
feel
> > that it does. Really almost everything does, and that as much as
any
> > imo.
> >
> > >the only thing we can do is to quietly
> > >ignore these infestations with their pointless and idiotic
back-biting,
> >
> > You could take more than one approach...in fact you're taking
> > a different one now. I will say though that in all the times I've
seen
> > people complain about what was posted in their chosen groups,
> > I have rarely if ever seen such a person have anything of value
> > to say.
>
> jj is an interesting and colourful character on alt.phil, and he's
just
> ****ed that what used to be a useful group is now being turned into a
circus
> by clowns with no interest in anything but infecting groups with
their
> faecal discharges. i think he voices the opinion of the silent
majority in
> alt.phil: it's a shame when this sort of thing happens to a group
that's
> been useful and interesting. it not only deters new members but also
drives
> away old ones, and can in the long run kill the group.

As you can guess... I am dumpposting insults on this thread. You must
know, I hope, yours got accidentally dumped on. If its alright with
you, I shall continue dumping for our Country and the Glory of our dear
Sovereign Queen.
JJ

a yappy little Yorkshire terror wrote:
>>Ray wrote:
>
>
> <Snip>
>
>>The real Ray Wrote.:
>
> I completely disassociate myself

Too late, you old tosser. You cross-posted binaries to four non-binary
groups.

> from the earlier posting and binary file
> depicting Jonathan Ball on his KKC exploits. It is a complete forgery from
> the PC of "Abner Hale" the well known Jonathan Ball impersonator. His
> forgery of my address is perfect,

How is he spoofing your IP, Raymond?

> you simply can not trust anyone on these
> groups.

Especially drunken Yorkshire racists like you.

a yappy little Yorkshire terror wrote:
>>Ray wrote:
>
>
> <Snip>
>
>>The real Ray Wrote.:
>
> I completely disassociate myself

Too late, you old tosser. You cross-posted binaries to four non-binary
groups.

> from the earlier posting and binary file
> depicting Jonathan Ball on his KKC exploits. It is a complete forgery from
> the PC of "Abner Hale" the well known Jonathan Ball impersonator. His
> forgery of my address is perfect,

How is he spoofing your IP, Raymond?

> you simply can not trust anyone on these
> groups.

Especially drunken Yorkshire racists like you.

"John Jones" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> misanthrope wrote:

<snip>


Ray wrote:

A close look at your message source is interesting JJ.

God bless the Queen my arse. The only Queen around here is you.

"John Jones" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> misanthrope wrote:

<snip>


Ray wrote:

A close look at your message source is interesting JJ.

God bless the Queen my arse. The only Queen around here is you.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
>a yappy little Yorkshire terror wrote:
>>>Ray wrote:
>>
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>The real Ray Wrote.:
>>
>> I completely disassociate myself
>
> Too late, you old tosser. You cross-posted binaries to four non-binary
> groups.
>
>> from the earlier posting and binary file depicting Jonathan Ball on his
>> KKC exploits. It is a complete forgery from the PC of "Abner Hale" the
>> well known Jonathan Ball impersonator. His forgery of my address is
>> perfect,
>
> How is he spoofing your IP, Raymond?

Same way as a sent me a few thousand virus infected e-mails a couple of
years ago. He's an expert hacker.
>
>> you simply can not trust anyone on these groups.
>
> Especially drunken Yorkshire racists like you.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
>a yappy little Yorkshire terror wrote:
>>>Ray wrote:
>>
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>The real Ray Wrote.:
>>
>> I completely disassociate myself
>
> Too late, you old tosser. You cross-posted binaries to four non-binary
> groups.
>
>> from the earlier posting and binary file depicting Jonathan Ball on his
>> KKC exploits. It is a complete forgery from the PC of "Abner Hale" the
>> well known Jonathan Ball impersonator. His forgery of my address is
>> perfect,
>
> How is he spoofing your IP, Raymond?

Same way as a sent me a few thousand virus infected e-mails a couple of
years ago. He's an expert hacker.
>
>> you simply can not trust anyone on these groups.
>
> Especially drunken Yorkshire racists like you.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:00:18 GMT, "misanthrope" > wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> I try to avoid moderated groups, but believe how things go is greatly
>> determined by who is moderating. As for replies from the group after
>> you get in there, I guess it depends on the participants. But in all the
>> groups I've seen so far there is always an asshole or two, to varying
>> degrees. I hoped the philosophy group might be different, but Jones
>> seems pretty much an asshole. Maybe not. Maybe the subject of
>> whether or not life is a benefit doesn't apply to philosophy, but I feel
>> that it does. Really almost everything does, and that as much as any
>> imo.
>>
>> >the only thing we can do is to quietly
>> >ignore these infestations with their pointless and idiotic back-biting,
>>
>> You could take more than one approach...in fact you're taking
>> a different one now. I will say though that in all the times I've seen
>> people complain about what was posted in their chosen groups,
>> I have rarely if ever seen such a person have anything of value
>> to say.
>
>jj is an interesting and colourful character

I've yet to see evidence of that.

>on alt.phil, and he's just
>****ed that what used to be a useful group is now being turned into a circus
>by clowns with no interest in anything but infecting groups with their
>faecal discharges.

Meaning that philosophy people have no interest in whether or
not life is a benefit to anything. Most of the "Animal Rights" people
feel the same way about it apparently.

>i think he voices the opinion of the silent majority in
>alt.phil: it's a shame when this sort of thing happens to a group that's
>been useful and interesting.

Yes, if it ever was, it's too bad that it isn't any more. I've posted
to it more than once and don't recall anything useful or interesting
coming from it, so I can't be blamed for its downfall.

>it not only deters new members but also drives
>away old ones, and can in the long run kill the group.

Well, if instead of discussing the topic you simply complain about
it being brought up, that *could* have a negative influence as well,
imo.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:00:18 GMT, "misanthrope" > wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> I try to avoid moderated groups, but believe how things go is greatly
>> determined by who is moderating. As for replies from the group after
>> you get in there, I guess it depends on the participants. But in all the
>> groups I've seen so far there is always an asshole or two, to varying
>> degrees. I hoped the philosophy group might be different, but Jones
>> seems pretty much an asshole. Maybe not. Maybe the subject of
>> whether or not life is a benefit doesn't apply to philosophy, but I feel
>> that it does. Really almost everything does, and that as much as any
>> imo.
>>
>> >the only thing we can do is to quietly
>> >ignore these infestations with their pointless and idiotic back-biting,
>>
>> You could take more than one approach...in fact you're taking
>> a different one now. I will say though that in all the times I've seen
>> people complain about what was posted in their chosen groups,
>> I have rarely if ever seen such a person have anything of value
>> to say.
>
>jj is an interesting and colourful character

I've yet to see evidence of that.

>on alt.phil, and he's just
>****ed that what used to be a useful group is now being turned into a circus
>by clowns with no interest in anything but infecting groups with their
>faecal discharges.

Meaning that philosophy people have no interest in whether or
not life is a benefit to anything. Most of the "Animal Rights" people
feel the same way about it apparently.

>i think he voices the opinion of the silent majority in
>alt.phil: it's a shame when this sort of thing happens to a group that's
>been useful and interesting.

Yes, if it ever was, it's too bad that it isn't any more. I've posted
to it more than once and don't recall anything useful or interesting
coming from it, so I can't be blamed for its downfall.

>it not only deters new members but also drives
>away old ones, and can in the long run kill the group.

Well, if instead of discussing the topic you simply complain about
it being brought up, that *could* have a negative influence as well,
imo.

> wrote >>on alt.phil, and he's just
>>****ed that what used to be a useful group is now being turned into a
>>circus
>>by clowns with no interest in anything but infecting groups with their
>>faecal discharges.
>
> Meaning that philosophy people have no interest in whether or
> not life is a benefit to anything. Most of the "Animal Rights" people
> feel the same way about it apparently.

Life is not "a benefit" you incoherent idiot.

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:00:18 GMT, "misanthrope"
> wrote:
> Yes, if it ever was, it's too bad that it isn't any more. I've posted
> to it more than once and don't recall anything useful or interesting
> coming from it, so I can't be blamed for its downfall.

then just maybe it's the wrong group for you.

> >it not only deters new members but also drives
> >away old ones, and can in the long run kill the group.
>
> Well, if instead of discussing the topic you simply complain about
> it being brought up, that *could* have a negative influence as well,
> imo.

that would be valid point in the case of valid topics, but it's not valid
for posts that contain nothing more than back-biting garbage.

wrote:

> lies about my beliefs

No one has EVER lied about your beliefs.

****wit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison",
has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
I have never lied about his beliefs. He has written
thousands of usenet posts based on his beliefs, and I
have correctly interpreted his writing. His belief
about animals, specifically his belief that animals
"getting to experience life" is a morally good thing
in and of itself, is something that appears frequently
and with (believe it or not) a peculiar kind of clarity.

Read these quotes that I have culled from ****wit's
usenet rantings over a four and a half year period,
and judge for yourselves.

All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is
****wit's own.


****wit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
morally considerable "somethings":

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.
****wit - 12/09/1999


He believes they can experience things - loss,
deprivation, unfairness:

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.
****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 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.
****wit - 10/19/1999


He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
quality of their lives:

*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
****wit - 09/04/1999

All of that has nothing to do with how many
actually get to live. But that is why I feel
that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
since the odds are infinite against all of us
that *we* will actually get to experience life.
****wit - 12/11/1999

Then I guess raising billions of animals for
food provides billions of beings with a place in
eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
some of it.
****wit - 04/12/2002

But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
more so, since we provide life for most of the
animals we kill.
****wit - 04/20/2002

Life is the benefit that makes all others possible.
****wit - 06/25/2003 (and numerous other posts)

I can be glad for a chicken in a chickenhouse
who got to experience life and what it's
about for 6 weeks.
****wit - 12/22/2004



****wit tries to deny that he attaches any importance
to the mere fact of "getting to experience life" per
se, but as usual, his words betray him. Here, we see
that ****wit believes that "providing them with life"
earns humans some kind of moral bonus points:

As for whether or not providing them with life
is an acceptable trade off for taking it later,
no one has ever had a problem with it.
****wit - 10/12/2003


He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
prevent them from being born:

People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
****wit - 09/13/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
****wit - 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.
****wit - 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.
****wit - 10/19/1999
[like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]


****wit claims, falsely, that what the animals feel
about their lives is what matters:

But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
about their lives is what matters, and in order
to get some idea of what that is, we have to
ignore the things that we know, and that they
do not (like the fact that they will be
killed). If a person is not willing to try to
do that, then they really don't care about the
animals, but are worried more about their self.
****wit - 08/20/1999


But of course, he's lying. It's what *****wit* feels
about them, about his connection to them, about his
ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
to him:

Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
well for letting [****wit's cat] have any
[kittens]. At least one of them feels that for
every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
about things. Even if it were that way, there
is really no reason for me to encourage life
for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
of kittens that could get to experience life
from a cat that I actually care about, and
kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
least for a little while.
****wit - 09/23/1999

At least my "insanity" allows appreciation for
what life has to offer [to animals].
****wit - 05/06/2004

I can be glad for a chicken in a chickenhouse
who got to experience life and what it's
about for 6 weeks.
****wit - 12/22/2004
[another one that does double-duty]


****wit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
them. But as we see, ****wit isn't at all concerned
with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
period, irrespective of the quality of that life. And
he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.

No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
"proposal" over another, at all, as long as ****wit is
lying about *his* proposal and as long as he continues
to insist on presenting the bogus, logically invalid
choice that he does.

The record, in ****wit's own words, speaks for itself.
No one has "lied" about ****wit's beliefs. ****wit
believes everything I have said he believes, as
supported by ****wit's own ranting.

wrote:

> I can honestly
> say that I've laughed at

You have not laughed. You haven't persuaded a single
person of your stupid, ****witted, nonsensical "animals
getting to experience life" bullshit. I have persuaded
dozens that you're full of shit, and I have done so by
EXCLUSIVELY telling the truth about you.

You have not laughed, ****wit.

wrote:

>
>
> Meaning that philosophy people have no interest in whether or
> not life is a benefit to anything.

Life _per se_ is not a benefit to anything.

>
>>i think he voices the opinion of the silent majority in
>>alt.phil: it's a shame when this sort of thing happens to a group that's
>>been useful and interesting.
>
>
> Yes, if it ever was,

Not that you'd know. You only crossposted there to be
taking a shit.

**** off from altphilosophy

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:43:10 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote >>on alt.phil, and he's just
>>>****ed that what used to be a useful group is now being turned into a
>>>circus
>>>by clowns with no interest in anything but infecting groups with their
>>>faecal discharges.
>>
>> Meaning that philosophy people have no interest in whether or
>> not life is a benefit to anything. Most of the "Animal Rights" people
>> feel the same way about it apparently.
>
>Life is not "a benefit" you incoherent idiot.

Life is the benefit which allows zygotes to grow into animals.
Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.

**** off from here then

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:43:10 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote >>on alt.phil, and he's just
> >>>****ed that what used to be a useful group is now being turned into a
> >>>circus
> >>>by clowns with no interest in anything but infecting groups with their
> >>>faecal discharges.
> >>
> >> Meaning that philosophy people have no interest in whether or
> >> not life is a benefit to anything. Most of the "Animal Rights" people
> >> feel the same way about it apparently.
> >
> >Life is not "a benefit" you incoherent idiot.
>
> Life is the benefit which allows zygotes to grow into animals.
> Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.

Life is good
Benefits are good
therefore Life is a Benefit

Is that it?

You are a ****. Stay off altphilosophy tosspot

"John Jones" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> **** off from here then

Eat shit, netcop