http://organicconsumers.org/madcow.htm

wrote:
> http://organicconsumers.org/madcow.htm

**** off, Ray.

"Abner Hale" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> http://organicconsumers.org/madcow.htm
>
> **** off, Ray.

I have no wish to see a resume' of you family medical history. May I suggest
a shit, shave and shampoo. Perhaps that may help you clean up your act.
>

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:06:46 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" > wrote:

>
>"Abner (the Gonad) Hale" wrote:


>> **** off, Ray.
>
>I have no wish to see a resume' of you family medical history.

Maybe we could see the Gonad's "family" mental history. We
know it would include:

Jonathan Ball/Citizen/Benfez/Wilson Woods/Radical Moderate/
Bingo/Edward/George/Bill/Fred/Mystery Poster/Merlin the dog/
Bob the /elvira/Dieter/Abner Hale/
Roger Whitaker/****tard/Apoo/Ted /
Jay /Rudy Canoza

are there any that we missed? Have you found out if he's Kevin
Brandon too? And Brandi. I'm about convinced that he is enough
to add them to the list. What do you think?

>May I suggest
>a shit, shave and shampoo. Perhaps that may help you clean up your act.

Damn Ray, now he's probaly shit his pants and someone is going
to have the loathsome job of cleaning the imbecile up. He probably
even shaved and shampooed with it. You need to be careful what
you encourage Gonads to do.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:06:46 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Abner (the Gonad) Hale" wrote:
>
>
>>> **** off, Ray.
>>
>>I have no wish to see a resume' of you family medical history.
>
> Maybe we could see the Gonad's "family" mental history. We
> know it would include:

But then that still leaves you being a moron.. there just seems to be no way
around that.

See folks, prions *do* destroy the brain as evidenced by Bawl's
inability to post anything more substansive than a simple obscenity.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:01:03 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:06:46 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Abner (the Gonad) Hale" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> **** off, Ray.
>>>
>>>I have no wish to see a resume' of you family medical history.
>>
>> Maybe we could see the Gonad's "family" mental history. We
>> know it would include:
>
>But then that still leaves you being a moron.. there just seems to be no way
>around that.

Maybe, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for a talking pig trick. You are.
I'm sure glad he sang and went to heaven in the end though, aren't you?

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:01:03 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:06:46 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Abner (the Gonad) Hale" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> **** off, Ray.
>>>>
>>>>I have no wish to see a resume' of you family medical history.
>>>
>>> Maybe we could see the Gonad's "family" mental history. We
>>> know it would include:
>>
>>But then that still leaves you being a moron.. there just seems to be no
>>way
>>around that.
>
> Maybe, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for a talking pig trick. You
> are.

I would bet that you are the only person who ever read that essay who thinks
he is saying that pigs can talk.

> I'm sure glad he sang and went to heaven in the end though, aren't you?

Whatever gets you through the day...

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:55:53 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:01:03 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:06:46 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Abner (the Gonad) Hale" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> **** off, Ray.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have no wish to see a resume' of you family medical history.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we could see the Gonad's "family" mental history. We
>>>> know it would include:
>>>
>>>But then that still leaves you being a moron.. there just seems to be no
>>>way
>>>around that.
>>
>> Maybe, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for a talking pig trick. You
>> are.
>
>I would bet that you are the only person who ever read that essay who thinks
>he is saying that pigs can talk.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in order for it to be any more than
a childrens' story type of fantasy, pigs would have to be able to talk.
Also, they would have to be aware that they will be killed (among
thirty plus other things), and also feel the way Salt suggests they
feel about their situation. Even if they could learn of their situation,
there is no reason to believe that Salt is correct regarding how they
would feel about it. But there isn't any reason to give it any consideration
anyway, because they don't know of their situation, and you couldn't
explain it to them if you spent years trying to. That's the way it is Dutch,
and you can't blame me because other people can't see it for what it is,
and I can't fool myself into "thinking" it's any more than that, again
because that's what it is.

>> I'm sure glad he sang and went to heaven in the end though, aren't you?
>
>Whatever gets you through the day...
>

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:55:53 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:01:03 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:06:46 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" >
wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"Abner (the Gonad) Hale" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> **** off, Ray.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I have no wish to see a resume' of you family medical history.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe we could see the Gonad's "family" mental history. We
> >>>> know it would include:
> >>>
> >>>But then that still leaves you being a moron.. there just seems to be
no
> >>>way
> >>>around that.
> >>
> >> Maybe, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for a talking pig trick.
You
> >> are.
> >
> >I would bet that you are the only person who ever read that essay who
thinks
> >he is saying that pigs can talk.
>
> I'm not saying that.

You keep saying it is "A fantasy about a talking pig", which it isn't.

> I'm saying that in order for it to be any more than
> a childrens' story type of fantasy, pigs would have to be able to talk.

Then you think it means pigs can talk. Idiot.

> Also, they would have to be aware that they will be killed

It doesn't mean pigs are aware they are going to be killed. It means that to
be moral *we* ought to be honest with ourselves about why we cause pigs to
exist, and not pretend that we are doing them a favour by bringling them
into existence.

(among
> thirty plus other things), and also feel the way Salt suggests they
> feel about their situation. Even if they could learn of their situation,
> there is no reason to believe that Salt is correct regarding how they
> would feel about it. But there isn't any reason to give it any
consideration
> anyway, because they don't know of their situation, and you couldn't
> explain it to them if you spent years trying to. That's the way it is
Dutch,
> and you can't blame me because other people can't see it for what it is,
> and I can't fool myself into "thinking" it's any more than that, again
> because that's what it is.

You're totally wrong about what it is, you are deliberately misconstruing it
because it is an eloquent rebuttal of "The Logic of the Larder" and you
can't stand that.

****wit David Harrison, dumb cracker, wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:55:53 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison, dumb cracker, wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:01:03 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>****wit David Harrison, dumb cracker, wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:06:46 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" >
wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"Abner (the Gonad) Hale" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> **** off, Ray.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I have no wish to see a resume' of you family medical history.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe we could see the Gonad's "family" mental history. We
> >>>> know it would include:
> >>>
> >>>But then that still leaves you being a moron.. there just seems to
be no
> >>>way
> >>>around that.
> >>
> >> Maybe, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for a talking pig
trick. You
> >> are.
> >
> >I would bet that you are the only person who ever read that essay
who thinks
> >he is saying that pigs can talk.
>
> I'm not saying that.

Yes, you are. Stop lying. ****wit.

> I'm saying that in order for it to be any more than
> a childrens' story type of fantasy, pigs would have to be able to
talk.

No. You ARE saying it's about a talking pig. It isn't.

The "talking pig" is nothing more than a literary device. I think
that, even as stupid as you are, and you are MIND-BOGGLINGLY stupid,
you still know it is a legitimate use of a literary device. Because
this particular essay is so devastating to your ****witted position,
however, you feel a need to denigrate the essay, and the only thing -
unclever, as always - you could think of was to belittle the literary
device.

Your efforts, of course, failed.

> Also, they would have to be aware that they will be killed

No, none of that. EVERYTHING Salt says is true, without any remarkable
cognitive ability on the part of the pig. The "talking pig" is merely
Salt's literary vehicle for presenting his, Salt's, thoughts. Salt's
thoughts do not depend in any way on the pig having abnormal ability.
You know that.