On 19/03/2021 12:39, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 10:22:13 -0000 (UTC), Bev wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:41:16 +0000, T i m wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 10:37:59 -0000 (UTC), Bev wrote:


snip troll ****

So which is it nymshifter, ****headxx, Spuke or are you just another
nymshifting coward troll hiding behind a false name and 'invalid'
email address?

To put that in context for you, Tim is my real name and the address
used here *is* valid.

*My* message is the same as the message from every expert on human
health, world resources and animal welfare and that's that we should
all move to a more plant based diet.

The vegan message is that we don't cause any unnecessary suffering,
exploitation or death to innocent and sentient animals when / where
there is an alternative and that's all I'm advocating.

Now, if you don't care about the wellbeing of animals (because you are
happy to cause them suffering, exploitation and death, for *only* your
personal pleasure), then I'm pretty sure you are the one who needs
help.


Your message has not been "we should all move to a more plant based
diet". The word "more" is important.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 19/03/2021 15:59, Robin wrote:
On 19/03/2021 12:39, T i m wrote:

*My* message is the same as the message from every expert on human
health, world resources and animal welfare and that's that we should
all move to a more plant based diet.

Your message has not been "we should all move to a more plant based
diet". The word "more" is important.

There seems to be some more goalpost-shifting going on: T i m has
recently claimed that he did in fact vote in the Referendum, whereas for
the 4.5+ years since that time he's been saying he spoiled his paper
because of a lack of information. And now we have a shift of position of
his claims concerning his diet. His position about the dog seems a
little fluid as well.

--
Spike

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:45:53 +0000, Spike wrote:

On 19/03/2021 15:59, Robin wrote:
On 19/03/2021 12:39, T i m wrote:

*My* message is the same as the message from every expert on human
health, world resources and animal welfare and that's that we should
all move to a more plant based diet.

Your message has not been "we should all move to a more plant based
diet". The word "more" is important.

There seems to be some more goalpost-shifting going on: T i m has
recently claimed that he did in fact vote in the Referendum, whereas for
the 4.5+ years since that time he's been saying he spoiled his paper
because of a lack of information. And now we have a shift of position of
his claims concerning his diet. His position about the dog seems a
little fluid as well.

T i m is a little fluid when it comes to law breaking too - theft of
boss's property and cycling on pavements comes to mind. He always
changes his stance somewhat once he is caught out. For example the theft
was only 'technical' and he now claims that it was a 'shared use'
pavement which was never pointed out by him before.


He really does need to get some help for his problems and that is why I
have stopped replying to his posts directly. Its sad as *sometimes* he
does have something useful to say and then he goes and spoils it all.

On 19/03/2021 18:24, Bev wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:45:53 +0000, Spike wrote:

On 19/03/2021 15:59, Robin wrote:
On 19/03/2021 12:39, T i m wrote:

*My* message is the same as the message from every expert on human
health, world resources and animal welfare and that's that we should
all move to a more plant based diet.

Your message has not been "we should all move to a more plant based
diet". The word "more" is important.

There seems to be some more goalpost-shifting going on: T i m has
recently claimed that he did in fact vote in the Referendum, whereas for
the 4.5+ years since that time he's been saying he spoiled his paper
because of a lack of information. And now we have a shift of position of
his claims concerning his diet. His position about the dog seems a
little fluid as well.

T i m is a little fluid when it comes to law breaking too - theft of
boss's property and cycling on pavements comes to mind. He always
changes his stance somewhat once he is caught out. For example the theft
was only 'technical' and he now claims that it was a 'shared use'
pavement which was never pointed out by him before.


He really does need to get some help for his problems and that is why I
have stopped replying to his posts directly. Its sad as *sometimes* he
does have something useful to say and then he goes and spoils it all.


+1

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 15:59:22 +0000, Robin wrote:

snip

Your message has not been "we should all move to a more plant based
diet". The word "more" is important.

Every journey starts with a single step and so because most realise
many are so indoctrinated in their believe they simply must have (or
should be able to enjoy) the flesh of animals and their excretions, it
would be unrealistic to *persuade* those type of people to cut out all
the animal suffering, exploitation and death in one go, so they try to
point them in the right direction with the thought that anything is
*better* (it would never be *worse* etc) than nothing.

For us it was just the awakening, the guidance, the help and
opportunity (and the world waking up to a vegan lifestyle these days)
that meant we (the four of us) were able to switch instantly last
Veganuary and know we will never go back. We won't because we do
actually respect animals, we have accepted our logical inconsistency
and broken the cognitive dissonance and seen the truth.

So, the idea is that once we have peoples attention, in an ideal world
where others 'got it' as we did, they just stop consuming all animal
products and the world becomes a better place (especially for the
animals). But we get that once you have been brought up a particular
way to see a particular group of foods to be 'normal', it's not
necessarily easy for weak willed or ignorant (of the truths or facts)
people to change.

So the point is to try to get them to see the point, that it's not
*for* them (other than their heath / morals etc) but the animals that
are made to suffer, be exploited and killed, simply because of the
choices they make ... and the rest should fall into place 'naturally'.

Now, 'of course' if you CGAF about animals you will never see any
reason to not carry on causing them the suffering, exploitation and
death ... or maybe you would, if you had to actually do it yourself,
to be able to buy such? Maybe once you made people see the
consequences of their actions, many more would stop in any case? [1]

https://youtu.be/lSngJ-mGNoo

And it's not like 'slaughterhouse worker or 'fish gutter' were high on
the list when the career officer came round, more likely they were the
jobs you would end up doing if you didn't work hard.

And you might take one of the jobs on, given most haven't a clue what
*actually* goes on behind the walls of the windowless sheds they now
call 'Meat processing plants', but I wonder if most are prepared for
the mental stress the constant killing young, innocent, sentient
animals places on a person who would normally only care for animals?

So, we start with getting people to eat less meat, eggs and drinking
less milk and then we work our way down from there (to pets etc).

I think most people agree this planet would be a better place with
fewer people and part of that is that more people consume more
resources and produce more waste. Imagine doubling that load by having
the same number again of animals that also need food and also produce
waste ... when they weren't necessary at all?

Cheers, T i m

[1] Many have said they became vegan after watching some of the videos
you can find on the Net / Youtube that simply highlight the *everyday*
goings on in the processes that put animal based products on their
plates. Not just 'undercover' footage or special / bad cases (although
there are plenty of them), just the 'Red Tractor' or 'RSPCA Approved
stuff.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 19:22:22 +0000, Fredxx
wrote:

snip troll ****

He really does need to get some help for his problems and that is why I
have stopped replying to his posts directly. Its sad as *sometimes* he
does have something useful to say and then he goes and spoils it all.


+1


Oh, that's hilarious!! (really). Neither of you (and Spuke) have any
idea how many ****s I really couldn't give if you reply to me or not.
I even read some of it (for the laughs (at you, not with you)) and in
spite of all sorts of lies and false accusations, I care so little for
your opinions, I can ignore all of it (and I'm not alone in that of
course).

So please, carry on 'not replying to me directly', or better (esp for
the benefit of the group), don't reply at all, given I'll (and most
others) will not bother responding to it in any case ... or you can
just carry on consoling each other though the obvious guilt you are
suffering with more lies, left brained assumptions and general BS.

'Of course' it's hard to admit the truth and change the (bad) habits
of a lifetime, but it's possible. If I can do it ...

I do it by seeing 'a pig' (a cow, a sheep etc ...) for the sentient
individual beings they are and not commodify them like you do and en
mass as 'just' pork, beef or lamb.

It's funny, ****headxx / Spuke won't watch most of the videos on
Youtube showing what goes on behind the scenes to steal the animal
flesh / milk / eggs they are paying to have produced for them and
complain that they can't see some because it's got age protection or
'are you sure you want to continue' on it ... but even the reason for
that whooshes them.

If what goes on was really 'benevolent and compassionate' (the
dictionary definition of 'humane') why does such content need to be
protected?

Cheers, T i m

On 19/03/2021 21:28, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 19:22:22 +0000, Fredxx
wrote:

snip troll ****

He really does need to get some help for his problems and that is why I
have stopped replying to his posts directly. Its sad as *sometimes* he
does have something useful to say and then he goes and spoils it all.


+1


Oh, that's hilarious!! (really). Neither of you (and Spuke) have any
idea how many ****s I really couldn't give if you reply to me or not.
I even read some of it (for the laughs (at you, not with you)) and in
spite of all sorts of lies and false accusations, I care so little for
your opinions, I can ignore all of it (and I'm not alone in that of
course).

So please, carry on 'not replying to me directly', or better (esp for
the benefit of the group), don't reply at all, given I'll (and most
others) will not bother responding to it in any case ... or you can
just carry on consoling each other though the obvious guilt you are
suffering with more lies, left brained assumptions and general BS.

'Of course' it's hard to admit the truth and change the (bad) habits
of a lifetime, but it's possible. If I can do it ...

I do it by seeing 'a pig' (a cow, a sheep etc ...) for the sentient
individual beings they are and not commodify them like you do and en
mass as 'just' pork, beef or lamb.

It's funny, ****headxx / Spuke won't watch most of the videos on
Youtube showing what goes on behind the scenes to steal the animal
flesh / milk / eggs they are paying to have produced for them and
complain that they can't see some because it's got age protection or
'are you sure you want to continue' on it ... but even the reason for
that whooshes them.

If what goes on was really 'benevolent and compassionate' (the
dictionary definition of 'humane') why does such content need to be
protected?

Cheers, T i m

Please T i m, get some help.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 19/03/2021 21:28, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 19:22:22 +0000, Fredxx
wrote:

snip troll ****

He really does need to get some help for his problems and that is why I
have stopped replying to his posts directly. Its sad as *sometimes* he
does have something useful to say and then he goes and spoils it all.


+1


Oh, that's hilarious!! (really). Neither of you (and Spuke) have any
idea how many ****s I really couldn't give if you reply to me or not.
I even read some of it (for the laughs (at you, not with you)) and in
spite of all sorts of lies and false accusations, I care so little for
your opinions, I can ignore all of it (and I'm not alone in that of
course).

So please, carry on 'not replying to me directly', or better (esp for
the benefit of the group), don't reply at all, given I'll (and most
others) will not bother responding to it in any case ... or you can
just carry on consoling each other though the obvious guilt you are
suffering with more lies, left brained assumptions and general BS.

'Of course' it's hard to admit the truth and change the (bad) habits
of a lifetime, but it's possible. If I can do it ...

I do it by seeing 'a pig' (a cow, a sheep etc ...) for the sentient
individual beings they are and not commodify them like you do and en
mass as 'just' pork, beef or lamb.

It's funny, ****headxx / Spuke won't watch most of the videos on
Youtube showing what goes on behind the scenes to steal the animal
flesh / milk / eggs they are paying to have produced for them and
complain that they can't see some because it's got age protection or
'are you sure you want to continue' on it ... but even the reason for
that whooshes them.

If what goes on was really 'benevolent and compassionate' (the
dictionary definition of 'humane') why does such content need to be
protected?

Please T i m, get some help.

He is way beyond any help.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:05:02 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



He is way beyond any help.

Look who's talking! The senile troll from Oz who gets up every night between
1 and 4 am in Australia, just so he can pester people online without too
long a break!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 19/03/2021 21:28, T i m wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
Bev wrote:

T i m really does need to get some help for his problems and that is why I
have stopped replying to his posts directly. Its sad as *sometimes* he
does have something useful to say and then he goes and spoils it all.

+1

Oh, that's hilarious!! (really). Neither of you (and Spuke) have any
idea how many ****s I really couldn't give if you reply to me or not.
That's doubtless why you wind up in a spittle-laden frenzy in your rush
to defend the indefensible after yet another set of twisted facts of
yours is comprehensively demolished.

--
Spike

On 20/03/2021 02:05, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote
On 19/03/2021 21:28, T i m wrote:

snip

Please T i m, get some help.

He is way beyond any help.

Perhaps he ought to get a dog.

--
Spike

On 20 Mar 2021 12:30:30 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip troll ****

The issue is that T r o l l
either assumes he knows what he's talking about,

It doesn't take much to *know* that our treatment of animals as
commodities to teat as we wish is *wrong*.

or insists that emotions
override all other considerations.

I insist on no such thing (so even more Goblin lies and ****e).

The business with the treatment of injured
horses demonstrates that.

Bwhahaha ... everything I said on that subject was 100% correct and
ironically, you had to be educated on it by others!!!

But hey, I appreciate once you have been indoctrinated to ignore the
suffering, exploitation and death you unnecessarily bring to animals
is a difficult thing for you to accept (especially given how old /
left brained (and so inflexible re your thinking)), but it can be
done, if you *actually* care about animals.

The chances are you don't and hence why you are unable to understand
why what you are doing is wrong (especially in 2021).

Given that most meat you eat is 'factory farmed' (no matter how much
you would prefer to believe the marketing) and so not raised in a
natural environment where they might come in contact with the bacteria
they once might to allow them to produce B12, they have to be given it
in their food, in implants under the skin or devices in their
digestive tract, just so that you might get some of it when you
consume their flesh.

Seeing how 'unnatural' that process is, anyone who had any common
sense would see it would be far better all round for us to take the
B12 supplement ourselves ... and everyone who eats B12 supplemented
foods (and many are) already does (and it's easier absorbed that way
compared with trying to extract it from meat). Our recent blood tests
came back 'normal' (even when especially focused on vegan diet) and
that's from a starting point over a years ago with neither of us ever
being big meat eaters.

So, all you have left is your choice, you choose to satisfy your
(indoctrinated) taste buds by consuming something you could neither
catch, kill, cut up and digest raw, 'naturally' (like a carnivore
can) nor in most cases, or even be prepared to witness when you force
someone else to do your dirty work for you in a slaughterhouse.

Then when to try to argue against anyone trying to minimise the
unnecessary suffering, exploitation and death of millions of innocent
and sentient creatures makes you even more disgusting. ;-(

But hey, you are just a Goblin, and that's what they are all like.

Cheers, T i m

On 20/03/2021 13:49, T i m wrote:
On 20 Mar 2021 12:30:30 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip troll ****

The issue is that T r o l l
either assumes he knows what he's talking about,

It doesn't take much to *know* that our treatment of animals as
commodities to teat as we wish is *wrong*.

Have you asked your animals the same question? I'm sure you can
incarcerate them in conditions you would call pleasant. But it's still
prison.

or insists that emotions
override all other considerations.

I insist on no such thing (so even more Goblin lies and ****e).

More denial.

The business with the treatment of injured
horses demonstrates that.

Bwhahaha ... everything I said on that subject was 100% correct and
ironically, you had to be educated on it by others!!!

But hey, I appreciate once you have been indoctrinated to ignore the
suffering, exploitation and death you unnecessarily bring to animals
is a difficult thing for you to accept (especially given how old /
left brained (and so inflexible re your thinking)), but it can be
done, if you *actually* care about animals.

When your argument end with abusing those around you, you've effectively
lost the argument.

You exploit pets in your household. The fact you now deny owning a dog
demonstrates you are suffering cognitive dissonance.

The only indoctrination here is from your fellow fanatical vegans which
you've taken onboard, hook line and sinker.

Your desperation shows, please get help.

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 20/03/2021 02:05, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote
On 19/03/2021 21:28, T i m wrote:

snip

Please T i m, get some help.

He is way beyond any help.

Perhaps he ought to get a dog.

Cant have that, that would be exploiting animals
and having someone castrate them and feeding
them what is nothing like what they normally eat
and not letting them roam free when out walking
the dog, let alone letting them **** where they
normally prefer to do to mark their territory etc.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 08:04:08 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:38:19 +0000, newshound
wrote:

snip

http://www.newmarketequinehospital.com/

It won't treat a lot of broken legs. Some leg injuries can be treated,
but there are an awful lot of other things that can go wrong. Colic is
one, sometimes caused by a twisted gut. Bad cases need surgery at ~£5k
with not much better than a 50:50 chance of survival.

All of which indicates to me the extra 'stuff we put these 'extra (not
here naturally) animals though, that wouldn't happen if they didn't
exist in the first place (to the extra ones, animals still get ill /
injured 'in nature' of course but that is the definition of
'naturally'.

Extra in that most of them are 'man made' (catching / farming /
breeding etc) and so extra to what might be there 'naturally'.

And it's not beyond all levels of imagination to think that at some
point in the future, we won't be doing with animals what we do now,
both because of the ethics and the practical implications (required
resources / waste / animal cruelty etc ... and yes, that includes
pets).

The vegans are just doing it already (and yes, that (unfortunately)
includes 'rescuing' livestock / animals from cruelty / death where
practical / possible and allowing them to live out their natural lives
as naturally and enriched as practical / possible).


Cheers, T i m

p.s. If you were to try to justify any form of 'animal racing' where
the animal has some form of jockey on it's back, maybe it could be any
species that *naturally* carries say it's offspring on it's back, like
monkeys. Or kangaroo racing where the jockey goes in the pouch. ;-)

Tim Streater wrote:
assumes he knows what he's talking about

Quite common round here, that.

#Paul

On 17/03/2021 11:30, Robin wrote:
On 17/03/2021 10:29, Tim Streater wrote:
On 16 Mar 2021 at 14:05:46 GMT, T i m wrote:

That's not completely true, I always hoped it ended up without any
horse fatalities or injuries (typically leading to their slaughter,
'destroyed' ... as it wasn't 'cost effective' to spend any money on
making them healthy again), risks to the innocent animals just because
people like to treat them like a commodity or money making scheme? ;-(

So here's something else that you clearly know nothing about: horses.

1) Horses like to race; that's what they do in the wild. So the
activity in
itself is not an unnatural behaviour for Dobbin although whether
particular
features of the sport are cruel (such as the whip, jumping, etc) I don't
know.

2) It takes a while to train a horse not to throw its saddle off or to
aaccept
a rider on its back. If a horse breaks its leg, then it would need a
splint
and plaster immediately. No time to get used to it and Dobbin, being
in pain
anyway, would simply lash around trying to get the plaster off its
leg. More
pain and more lashing out.

AFAIK, once a horse is injured there's not much you can do about it; they
don't make good patients. Trting to could be considered more cruel than
euthanising it. Cost doesn't come into it.

Anyone here with direct experience of this?


I also doubt the financial nous of anyone who thinks it is a matter of
what's 'cost effective' that leads to the euthanisation of horses with
broken legs which, even if the injury meant they never raced again,
would still be worth loads of money at stud.


Maybe Findus made a better offer for it.

--
Adam

On 22/03/2021 04:22 pm, ARW wrote:
On 17/03/2021 11:30, Robin wrote:
On 17/03/2021 10:29, Tim Streater wrote:
On 16 Mar 2021 at 14:05:46 GMT, T i m wrote:

That's not completely true, I always hoped it ended up without any
horse fatalities or injuries (typically leading to their slaughter,
'destroyed' ... as it wasn't 'cost effective' to spend any money on
making them healthy again), risks to the innocent animals just because
people like to treat them like a commodity or money making scheme? ;-(

So here's something else that you clearly know nothing about: horses.

1) Horses like to race; that's what they do in the wild. So the
activity in
itself is not an unnatural behaviour for Dobbin although whether
particular
features of the sport are cruel (such as the whip, jumping, etc) I don't
know.

2) It takes a while to train a horse not to throw its saddle off or
to aaccept
a rider on its back. If a horse breaks its leg, then it would need a
splint
and plaster immediately. No time to get used to it and Dobbin, being
in pain
anyway, would simply lash around trying to get the plaster off its
leg. More
pain and more lashing out.

AFAIK, once a horse is injured there's not much you can do about it;
they
don't make good patients. Trting to could be considered more cruel than
euthanising it. Cost doesn't come into it.

Anyone here with direct experience of this?


I also doubt the financial nous of anyone who thinks it is a matter of
what's 'cost effective' that leads to the euthanisation of horses with
broken legs which, even if the injury meant they never raced again,
would still be worth loads of money at stud.


Maybe Findus made a better offer for it.

Or the Tesco butchery department?