pearl wrote:

>>>>>Every objection you had is exposed as a sham.
>>>>
>>>>My objections stand.
>
> Every objection you had is

Fully sustained. Karen's diddling with her bird wasn't for any
commercial or reproductive purpose. She saw it as "sweet" and gets off
on the idea that the bird liked her more than it liked other birds.

>>>>Cattle farmers aren't wanking bulls for pleasure.
>>>
>>>They're certainly giving the bulls 'pleasure'. Go on - try denying it.
>>
>>They're not engaged in the pursuit of their own OR the bulls' pleasure,
>
> They're

not engaged in their own or the bulls' pleasure. It's applesranges to
compare their jobs to Karen's perversion.

chico chupacabra wrote:

<snip>

> Glorfindel's allowing "her" bird to please himself wasn't for any
> commercial or reproductive purpose.

That's absolutely true. It was for him, and completely his
own idea, not mine. I got nothing out of it except the
satisfaction of letting him do what he wanted to do, in a
way which harmed neither of us.

> She saw it as "sweet" and gets off
> on the idea that the bird liked her more than it liked other birds.

I think it is very sad that the experiences in his earlier
life had crippled him emotionally and psychologically as well
as physically. He was damaged in his mind as well as in his
body by what had been done to him by others before he came to
live with me. I wanted to do the best I could for him, given
his disabilities, and I think I succeeded.

And you do realize that you have just reversed yourself on
your original claim on this subject, and admitted you were
wrong. You now agree with what I said at the beginning.
What an idiot. You have no real knowledge of animal
behavior, you reversed your false scientific claim without
even admitting you were wrong, and, as usual, you invented
phony charges cloaked in equally phony spasms of fake moral
disapproval.

serial bird diddler Karen Winter wrote:


> <snip>
>
>> Karen Winter's allowing "her" bird to please *IT*self wasn't for any
>> commercial or reproductive purpose.
>
>
> That's absolutely true. It was for him, and completely his
> own idea, not mine.

You did nothing to stop him or his behavior. You were quite happy to be
his bitch.

> I got nothing out of it except the satisfaction

Pervert.

>> She saw it as "sweet" and gets off on the idea that the bird liked her
>> more than it liked other birds.
>
> ...He was damaged in his mind as well

Just because you think you had something in common didn't make your
"regular" hand jobs right.

> ...I wanted to do the best I could for him

Sicko.

> And you do realize that you have just reversed yourself on
> your original claim on this subject

I have not.