On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 08:44:52 +0000, Spike
wrote:

Spuke / burk / any other nyms you post under?

But I'll play ...

On 01/04/2021 15:05, T i m wrote:

The Mrs gave some kid an actual clip_round_the_ear (without really
thinking)

Child abuse, eh?

Well, if that were our kid and was doing the same we would have
considered it to be more 'see how you like it' and would have thanked
anyone for putting him / her straight.

Personally, I would consider exposing a child to the routine slaughter
on innocent / defenseless creatures to be way more abusive and
potentially mind affecting (for the rest of their lives), than any
'clip round the ear'.

because he was poking one of the chickens with a stick. It
was probably Spike, he saw one being slaughtered when a kid and it
didn't put him off so ... ;-(

FTAOD it was all the chickens, one or two at a time.

Lovely. All helping with the early conditioning.

Note that you're now so unhinged that you not only condemn people for
not following The Gospel According to T i m, but also for actually
following it.

WTF are you talking about?

I have no 'gospel' and you can be assured that any efforts to reduce
the unnecessary cruelty to animals didn't initially emanate from me.

So, are you as confused / hypocritical as Fredxx, or don't you GAS
about the ducks and geese and foie gois production at all either?

See, he recognises that ducks / geese abused that way is very wrong,
and probably (hopefully) would feel the same way about fox hunting,
bare / badger bating and bull / dog fighting (because of the cruelty
involved) but is completely happy with piglets having their tails and
teeth cut off, chicks having the beaks burned off, goats / sheep
having their horn stubs burned off, cows having their newborns taken
away or sows not being allowed to move to tend for or get away from
their piglets.

Now, assuming you don't consider *all* the above (inc the illegal /
banned things) 'perfectly ok', there must be somewhere down that list
where you would draw the line?

*Personally*, the line is still a long way away and doesn't include
just making an animal 'a bit less uncomfortable' before bolt gunning
or gassing it, cutting it's throat and bleeding it to death.

That doesn't seem a very kind / humane / benevolent / compassionate
thing for a (so called) advanced species to do to any other species
does it? War of the worlds?

So much for your silly Meat Eaters Licence.

Hardly silly, given how common the use of such tools are for making
people aware of the consequences of their actions.

Making offenders confront their victims etc. A meat eater licence is
the exact same thing and *would* have a direct impact on the number of
animals abused and killed. This isn't stopping anyone doing anything,
it's reminding them that they shouldn't have ever started doing what
they did in the first place.

The likes of Fredxx has stated how distressing he finds the picture of
a duck with a broken beak (which is the *right* response of course) so
just think how upset he might be if he had the balls to watch the
videos of the things going on in everyday slaughterhouses around the
UK today. RSPCA / Red Tractor *approved* processes that don't actually
stop the suffering and death ... the things he pays to have done for
him but won't watch. He won't watch it because he knows it will upset
him and he doesn't want to be reminded of that when he is selfishly
(therefore) enjoying the flesh of an animal he has (effectively)
killed.

None of that would bother you of course, you lost any compassion you
may have had when a child (not your fault, you too were a victim of
abuse). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 02/04/2021 13:38, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 08:44:52 +0000, Spike
wrote:

Spuke / burk / any other nyms you post under?

But I'll play ...

On 01/04/2021 15:05, T i m wrote:

The Mrs gave some kid an actual clip_round_the_ear (without really
thinking)

Child abuse, eh?

Well, if that were our kid and was doing the same we would have
considered it to be more 'see how you like it' and would have thanked
anyone for putting him / her straight.

Personally, I would consider exposing a child to the routine slaughter
on innocent / defenseless creatures to be way more abusive and
potentially mind affecting (for the rest of their lives), than any
'clip round the ear'.

The idea is that children should learn according to their age as they
mature. It's why there are laws about inflicting indecent images to
children.

What you are advocating is child abuse.

As a side-effect it may well improve animal welfare. Something you care
little about. We might end up with some pretty touch children.

because he was poking one of the chickens with a stick. It
was probably Spike, he saw one being slaughtered when a kid and it
didn't put him off so ... ;-(

FTAOD it was all the chickens, one or two at a time.

Lovely. All helping with the early conditioning.

Note that you're now so unhinged that you not only condemn people for
not following The Gospel According to T i m, but also for actually
following it.

WTF are you talking about?

I have no 'gospel' and you can be assured that any efforts to reduce
the unnecessary cruelty to animals didn't initially emanate from me.

You've been given numerous chances to deny you follow a mythical deity
like father christmas.

Are all this time are you going to admit to being an atheist?

So, are you as confused / hypocritical as Fredxx, or don't you GAS
about the ducks and geese and foie gois production at all either?

Either? You're the one who says you don't want the conditions during the
animal's life to be improved. Do make up your mind.

See, he recognises that ducks / geese abused that way is very wrong,
and probably (hopefully) would feel the same way about fox hunting,
bare / badger bating and bull / dog fighting (because of the cruelty
involved) but is completely happy with piglets having their tails and
teeth cut off, chicks having the beaks burned off, goats / sheep
having their horn stubs burned off, cows having their newborns taken
away or sows not being allowed to move to tend for or get away from
their piglets.

Now, assuming you don't consider *all* the above (inc the illegal /
banned things) 'perfectly ok', there must be somewhere down that list
where you would draw the line?

Whereas from your numerous posts on the subject, you choose to nothing
about animal welfare. You have no line.

*Personally*, the line is still a long way away and doesn't include
just making an animal 'a bit less uncomfortable' before bolt gunning
or gassing it, cutting it's throat and bleeding it to death.

Quite, but you condone the process of slaughter where these processes
are carried out where the animal is aware of it's environment. Some of
us don't.

That doesn't seem a very kind / humane / benevolent / compassionate
thing for a (so called) advanced species to do to any other species
does it? War of the worlds?

That is because we are a higher animal, and it natural for higher
animals to consume lower ones in the food chain.

So much for your silly Meat Eaters Licence.

Hardly silly, given how common the use of such tools are for making
people aware of the consequences of their actions.

No more silly to have a pet license when household members should carry
out the castration of the pet they're about to own.

Making offenders confront their victims etc. A meat eater licence is
the exact same thing and *would* have a direct impact on the number of
animals abused and killed. This isn't stopping anyone doing anything,
it's reminding them that they shouldn't have ever started doing what
they did in the first place.

That is the point, up to the point of slaughter I want to look an animal
in the eye and confident it has been treated well. After slaughter the
animal won't care.

The likes of Fredxx has stated how distressing he finds the picture of
a duck with a broken beak (which is the *right* response of course) so
just think how upset he might be if he had the balls to watch the
videos of the things going on in everyday slaughterhouses around the
UK today. RSPCA / Red Tractor *approved* processes that don't actually
stop the suffering and death ... the things he pays to have done for
him but won't watch. He won't watch it because he knows it will upset
him and he doesn't want to be reminded of that when he is selfishly
(therefore) enjoying the flesh of an animal he has (effectively)
killed.

I never said I found the duck with a broken beak distressing. Have you
been hearing those voices again or dreaming about me? All I have said is
I dislike the practice and support the banning of import of fois gras. I
even said the photo was unnecessary and inappropriate but designed for
an emotional response.

Of course you don't care about the force feeding of geese as you don't
want the conditions during the animal's life to be improved.

None of that would bother you of course, you lost any compassion you
may have had when a child (not your fault, you too were a victim of
abuse). ;-(

Where did that come from?

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 01/04/2021 15:05, T i m wrote:

The Mrs gave some kid an actual clip_round_the_ear (without really
thinking)

Child abuse, eh?

because he was poking one of the chickens with a stick. It
was probably Spike, he saw one being slaughtered when a kid and it
didn't put him off so ... ;-(

FTAOD it was all the chickens, one or two at a time.

Note that you're now so unhinged that you not only condemn people for
not following The Gospel According to T i m, but also for actually
following it. So much for your silly Meat Eaters Licence.

Get help.

He's way beyond any help.

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 04:18:52 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



He's way beyond any help.

This coming of course, from the senile troll who gets up EVERY NIGHT between
1 and 4 am in Australia, just so he can continue with his insipid trolling
on these groups without too long a break! BG

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 04:18:52 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Snip Spuke puke

He's way beyond any help.

Aww bless. Thanks for playing and caring though.

But consider this ... many of those who have had progressive views
over history were pilloried, 'the world is round' or 'the earth
revolves around the sun' and the ever increasing number of people who
now care more about what we do with animals in all sorts of areas *is*
another.

We have already outlawed, banned, licensed, controlled *loads* of
animal related things, most of which were perfectly legal and socially
acceptable at one time.

Why wouldn't anyone, knowing how innocent, sentient and trusting
creatures have to suffer unnecessarily, not choose something that
didn't cause all that I don't know?

But I guess many people are very routine, they always have the same
thing to eat each day of the week or simply aren't aware of all the
alternatives that in the main are more sustainable, healthier for us
and create less pollution.

And you live in one of the top countries for veganism////// people
caring about animals.

https://www.chefspencil.com/top-most...egans-in-2020/
https://www.futurekind.com/blogs/vegan/vegan-statistics

Cheers, T i m

On 02/04/2021 20:02, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 04:18:52 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Snip Spuke puke

He's way beyond any help.

Aww bless. Thanks for playing and caring though.

He is right, you do need help.

But consider this ... many of those who have had progressive views
over history were pilloried, 'the world is round' or 'the earth
revolves around the sun' and the ever increasing number of people who
now care more about what we do with animals in all sorts of areas *is*
another.

The successful ones were those who achieved things incrementally.

Brexit is a case in point. Through John Major and Tony Blair pushing
through significant changes in the EEC to EU causing sufficient disquiet
over a number of issues made the pack op cards come tumbling down.

You don't understand the concept of managed change, in the same way you
don't understand consent.

We have already outlawed, banned, licensed, controlled *loads* of
animal related things, most of which were perfectly legal and socially
acceptable at one time.

Quite, but you admit you don't care about animal welfare when they're
alive. You simply want to stop us eating them after that point, but then
have the audacity to feed your dog meat.

Why wouldn't anyone, knowing how innocent, sentient and trusting
creatures have to suffer unnecessarily, not choose something that
didn't cause all that I don't know?

So support campaigns to improve their lot, stop whingeing about use
eating meat through your envy, because you're not allowed to.

But I guess many people are very routine, they always have the same
thing to eat each day of the week or simply aren't aware of all the
alternatives that in the main are more sustainable, healthier for us
and create less pollution.

And you proposed increasing the population still further.

And you live in one of the top countries for veganism////// people
caring about animals.

https://www.chefspencil.com/top-most...egans-in-2020/
https://www.futurekind.com/blogs/vegan/vegan-statistics

Veganism is a personal life choice, I commend those who don't inflict
their way of life, either religion or diet, onto others.

Fredxx wrote
T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

He's way beyond any help.

Aww bless. Thanks for playing and caring though.

He is right, you do need help.

But consider this ... many of those who have had progressive views over
history were pilloried, 'the world is round' or 'the earth revolves
around the sun' and the ever increasing number of people who now care
more about what we do with animals in all sorts of areas *is* another.

The successful ones were those who achieved things incrementally.

Thats not true of those who had decided that the earth
wasnt flat or that the earth did revolve around the sun.

But there were also plenty of fools that proclaimed that
theirs were progressive views which turned out to be
stupid ideas and got abandoned eventually too.

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:59:50 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile troll**** unread

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On 02/04/2021 12:38, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 01/04/2021 15:05, T i m wrote:

The Mrs gave some kid an actual clip_round_the_ear (without really
thinking)

Child abuse, eh?

Well, if that were our kid and was doing the same we would have
considered it to be more 'see how you like it' and would have thanked
anyone for putting him / her straight.

So, you condone child abuse?

Personally, I would consider exposing a child to the routine slaughter
on innocent / defenseless creatures to be way more abusive and
potentially mind affecting (for the rest of their lives), than any
'clip round the ear'.

Don't try that excuse in court. It won't go well.

because he was poking one of the chickens with a stick. It
was probably Spike, he saw one being slaughtered when a kid and it
didn't put him off so ... ;-(

FTAOD it was all the chickens, one or two at a time.

Lovely. All helping with the early conditioning.

Only following your Meat Eaters Licence rules, seventy years before you
thought of them.

Note that you're now so unhinged that you not only condemn people for
not following The Gospel According to T i m, but also for actually
following it.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm talking about you being a two-faced ****wit.

I have no 'gospel' and you can be assured that any efforts to reduce
the unnecessary cruelty to animals didn't initially emanate from me.

So?

50 lines of attempted deflection away from an account of child abuse
snipped

Get help.

--
Spike

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:12:23 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 02/04/2021 12:38, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 01/04/2021 15:05, T i m wrote:

The Mrs gave some kid an actual clip_round_the_ear (without really
thinking)

Child abuse, eh?

Well, if that were our kid and was doing the same we would have
considered it to be more 'see how you like it' and would have thanked
anyone for putting him / her straight.

So, you condone child abuse?

I condone what may now be describes as such today by snowflakes as it
was applied by sensible people *then*.

Experiment. Put a remote speaker in what looks like a dog carrier,
give it to a kid (say a 10 year old boy) and sit him in a shopping
centre. Play the sounds of a dog yelping / whimpering and whenever the
noises play, have the boy kick and shout at the carrier and see how
long that goes on before someone remonstrates / stops the kid.

The irony of this experiment (apart from demonstrating that even a 10
year old child is likely to be 'dealt with' when they appear to be
being cruel to animals) is the same people doing the remonstrating
will go back into eating their beef burger or ham sandwich. Such is
the cognitive dissonance of the general population.

Personally, I would consider exposing a child to the routine slaughter
on innocent / defenseless creatures to be way more abusive and
potentially mind affecting (for the rest of their lives), than any
'clip round the ear'.

Don't try that excuse in court. It won't go well.

Like you could ever have a balanced view on that. ;-(

because he was poking one of the chickens with a stick. It
was probably Spike, he saw one being slaughtered when a kid and it
didn't put him off so ... ;-(

FTAOD it was all the chickens, one or two at a time.

Lovely. All helping with the early conditioning.

Only following your Meat Eaters Licence rules, seventy years before you
thought of them.

Except the rules were really aimed at those typically buying 'meat'
*today* (where there as so many animals being slaughtered and so many
plant based alternatives available) everywhere. Not children being
routinely exposed to animal slaughter and the mental scarring /
normalisation of such abuse.

The irony is that most people, including meat eaters:
1) Wouldn't / couldn't watch went on in an abattoir (std practice
stuff).
2) Certainly wouldn't want their young kids to see such because of how
traumatizing they will most likely experience it to be.

The only way you might be able to soften that blow is to start with
all the normalisation and conditioning / lies first, telling them it's
'nature' and 'we need to eat meat', when most animals in nature aren't
gassed in a cage and we don't *need* to eat meat (as any one of the
millions of vegetarians and vegan's round the world will attest).

Note that you're now so unhinged that you not only condemn people for
not following The Gospel According to T i m, but also for actually
following it.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm talking about you being a two-faced ****wit.

Ah, but only based on your twisted interpretation of things. Talk
English and I might understand you.

I have no 'gospel' and you can be assured that any efforts to reduce
the unnecessary cruelty to animals didn't initially emanate from me.

So?

So you are shooting the messenger (and using bollox for ammunition).

50 lines of attempted deflection away from an account of child abuse
snipped

Aww, poor nymshifting Spuke. Just like that other coward Fredxx, can't
actually discuss (only spuke out your selfish animal cruelty biased
bs) the core topic so roll out all sort of strawmen to try to cover
your desperation.

The thread was about Fredxx and his hypocrisy and trolling BS on his
birthday. He wants to force people to stop eating foie gras whilst
eating what he wants himself and whilst attacking me for not eating or
exploiting any animal? He doesn't need to sign any petitions to stop
me being cruel to any animals.

Not that you would be likely to be able to understand / follow that,
what with your troubled background etc. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 03/04/2021 09:28, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 02/04/2021 12:38, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 01/04/2021 15:05, T i m wrote:

The Mrs gave some kid an actual clip_round_the_ear (without really
thinking)

Child abuse, eh?

Well, if that were our kid and was doing the same we would have
considered it to be more 'see how you like it' and would have thanked
anyone for putting him / her straight.

So, you condone child abuse?

I condone what may now be describes as such today by snowflakes as it
was applied by sensible people *then*.

You have just confirmed you approve of child abuse. Shame on you.

Personally, I would consider exposing a child to the routine slaughter
on innocent / defenseless creatures to be way more abusive and
potentially mind affecting (for the rest of their lives), than any
'clip round the ear'.

Don't try that excuse in court. It won't go well.

Like you could ever have a balanced view on that. ;-(

because he was poking one of the chickens with a stick. It
was probably Spike, he saw one being slaughtered when a kid and it
didn't put him off so ... ;-(

FTAOD it was all the chickens, one or two at a time.

Lovely. All helping with the early conditioning.

Only following your Meat Eaters Licence rules, seventy years before you
thought of them.

Except the rules were really aimed at those typically buying 'meat'
*today* (where there as so many animals being slaughtered and so many
plant based alternatives available) everywhere. Not children being
routinely exposed to animal slaughter and the mental scarring /
normalisation of such abuse.

Furious piece of back-pedalling there to condone your views on child abuse.

Note that you're now so unhinged that you not only condemn people for
not following The Gospel According to T i m, but also for actually
following it.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm talking about you being a two-faced ****wit.

Ah, but only based on your twisted interpretation of things. Talk
English and I might understand you.

They are all things you have said, which (at different times) say
different things?

Such that in your rush (to condemn), you trip over yourself?

50 lines of attempted deflection away from an account of child abuse
snipped

Aww, poor nymshifting Spuke. Just like that other coward Fredxx, can't
actually discuss (only spuke out your selfish animal cruelty biased
bs) the core topic so roll out all sort of strawmen to try to cover
your desperation.

Ah, the abuse hurled by the very poor loser, having been shot down with
his own arguments?

Get help.

--
Spike

On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 08:10:39 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip desperate ****e from the nymshifting troll

Cheers, T i m

On 03/04/2021 10:28, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:12:23 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 02/04/2021 12:38, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 01/04/2021 15:05, T i m wrote:

The Mrs gave some kid an actual clip_round_the_ear (without really
thinking)

Child abuse, eh?

Well, if that were our kid and was doing the same we would have
considered it to be more 'see how you like it' and would have thanked
anyone for putting him / her straight.

So, you condone child abuse?

I condone what may now be describes as such today by snowflakes as it
was applied by sensible people *then*.

Experiment. Put a remote speaker in what looks like a dog carrier,
give it to a kid (say a 10 year old boy) and sit him in a shopping
centre. Play the sounds of a dog yelping / whimpering and whenever the
noises play, have the boy kick and shout at the carrier and see how
long that goes on before someone remonstrates / stops the kid.

The irony of this experiment (apart from demonstrating that even a 10
year old child is likely to be 'dealt with' when they appear to be
being cruel to animals) is the same people doing the remonstrating
will go back into eating their beef burger or ham sandwich.

There is no irony. You can't comprehend that the average human being
doesn't like wanton cruelty to animals. You had admitted that you don't
care about animal welfare during the life of animals.

Such is the cognitive dissonance of the general population.

There is no cognitive dissonance shared by the population when it comes
to animal cruelty. Most caring humans want to minimise pain and
suffering during the animals life and slaughter.

You on the other hand endorse ritual slaughter, a disgusting practice.

All your posts show envy to meat eaters, where out loved ones allow us
to eat meat as part of a natural, balanced healthy diet.

Personally, I would consider exposing a child to the routine slaughter
on innocent / defenseless creatures to be way more abusive and
potentially mind affecting (for the rest of their lives), than any
'clip round the ear'.

Don't try that excuse in court. It won't go well.

Like you could ever have a balanced view on that. ;-(

I don't think a fanatical vegan with an admission they don't care about
animal welfare whilst the animal is alive is not a balanced person
giving a balanced view.

because he was poking one of the chickens with a stick. It
was probably Spike, he saw one being slaughtered when a kid and it
didn't put him off so ... ;-(

FTAOD it was all the chickens, one or two at a time.

Lovely. All helping with the early conditioning.

Only following your Meat Eaters Licence rules, seventy years before you
thought of them.

Except the rules were really aimed at those typically buying 'meat'
*today* (where there as so many animals being slaughtered and so many
plant based alternatives available) everywhere. Not children being
routinely exposed to animal slaughter and the mental scarring /
normalisation of such abuse.

The irony is that most people, including meat eaters:
1) Wouldn't / couldn't watch went on in an abattoir (std practice
stuff).

Some of us have and we would rather spend our time to improve slaughter
practices. You, by way of example, endorse ritual slaughter, and then
whinge about the gassing, bolting or stunning of animals. Such practices
could easily be improved.

2) Certainly wouldn't want their young kids to see such because of how
traumatizing they will most likely experience it to be.

In much the same way we don't show our children films that incorporate
violence. You are sick if you want to show age restricted films to children.

The only way you might be able to soften that blow is to start with
all the normalisation and conditioning / lies first, telling them it's
'nature' and 'we need to eat meat', when most animals in nature aren't
gassed in a cage and we don't *need* to eat meat (as any one of the
millions of vegetarians and vegan's round the world will attest).

Quite, we should be told that meat is part of a natural balanced diet,
one that provides us with vitamins like B12.

Note that you're now so unhinged that you not only condemn people for
not following The Gospel According to T i m, but also for actually
following it.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm talking about you being a two-faced ****wit.

Ah, but only based on your twisted interpretation of things. Talk
English and I might understand you.

No, someone who admits they don't care about animal welfare is twisted.
No interpretation is required when your views are written down in black
and white.

I have no 'gospel' and you can be assured that any efforts to reduce
the unnecessary cruelty to animals didn't initially emanate from me.

So?

So you are shooting the messenger (and using bollox for ammunition).

Is that a way of saying that others care about animal welfare while you
don't?

50 lines of attempted deflection away from an account of child abuse
snipped

Aww, poor nymshifting Spuke. Just like that other coward Fredxx, can't
actually discuss (only spuke out your selfish animal cruelty biased
bs) the core topic so roll out all sort of strawmen to try to cover
your desperation.

I am no coward. I discuss every point you make. It is you who snip
chunks of text that gives you cognitive dissonance, and now you admit
you want to subject children to age restricted violence.

The thread was about Fredxx and his hypocrisy and trolling BS on his
birthday.

The post was about you and your 'weirdo'[1] family. And your dreams.

He wants to force people to stop eating foie gras whilst
eating what he wants himself and whilst attacking me for not eating or
exploiting any animal? He doesn't need to sign any petitions to stop
me being cruel to any animals.

You misunderstand I want to minimise animal cruelty. I know this is not
important for you.

Force feeding geese is unnecessary. If you don't think it causes the
goose pain or discomfort then please do let me know and I'll then remove
my name from the petition (if I can).

Not that you would be likely to be able to understand / follow that,
what with your troubled background etc. ;-(

You come across as the troubled fanatic. The parts that trouble you most
simply get snipped from your replies.

[1] as described by T i m himself in his initial post.

On 04/04/2021 10:32, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 08:10:39 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip desperate ****e from the nymshifting troll

You tend to snip contents that aren't to your liking. It's to be
expected from a fanatic who is blinkered to the truth they would rather
not exist.

On 02/04/2021 22:59, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxx wrote
T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

He's way beyond any help.

Aww bless. Thanks for playing and caring though.

He is right, you do need help.

But consider this ... many of those who have had progressive views
over history were pilloried, 'the world is round' or 'the earth
revolves around the sun' and the ever increasing number of people who
now care more about what we do with animals in all sorts of areas
*is* another.

The successful ones were those who achieved things incrementally.

Thats not true of those who had decided that the earth
wasnt flat or that the earth did revolve around the sun.

I was thinking about changing morals. Facts and the laws of physics have
a habit of being difficult to change or discard.

But there were also plenty of fools that proclaimed that
theirs were progressive views which turned out to be
stupid ideas and got abandoned eventually too.

On 01/04/2021 15:31, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:07:50 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

snip

In the fridge at work, one reusable container used to be labelled
"Typist's Milk".

Exactly, the milk meant *for* the typist(s), not *from* them. ;-)

Have you never known a woman to express milk for their child whilst they
are at work?

One of the biggest slap_in_the_face for cows in America is that humans
often post pictures of their lost / missing children on cow milk
cartons. ;-(

Do you seriously think the cows care, or even understand the concept of
advertising?

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 02/04/2021 22:59, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxx wrote
T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

He's way beyond any help.

Aww bless. Thanks for playing and caring though.

He is right, you do need help.

But consider this ... many of those who have had progressive views over
history were pilloried, 'the world is round' or 'the earth revolves
around the sun' and the ever increasing number of people who now care
more about what we do with animals in all sorts of areas *is* another.

The successful ones were those who achieved things incrementally.

Thats not true of those who had decided that the earth
wasnt flat or that the earth did revolve around the sun.

I was thinking about changing morals.

Not sure how you change those incrementally with
homosexuality, not beating the wife, not hanging
murderers etc or even sex outside marriage etc.

Spose you can with some stuff like what used to be called petting.

Facts and the laws of physics have a habit of being difficult to change or
discard.

But not necessarily that hard to change whether some accept them.

But there were also plenty of fools that proclaimed that theirs were
progressive views which turned out to be stupid ideas and got abandoned
eventually too.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 01/04/2021 15:31, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:07:50 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

snip

In the fridge at work, one reusable container used to be labelled
"Typist's Milk".

Exactly, the milk meant *for* the typist(s), not *from* them. ;-)

Have you never known a woman to express milk for their child whilst they
are at work?

That would be more likely to be labelled Freda's milk etc.

One of the biggest slap_in_the_face for cows in America is that humans
often post pictures of their lost / missing children on cow milk
cartons. ;-(

Do you seriously think the cows care, or even understand the concept of
advertising?

And its unlikely that they buy containers of cows milk very often.

On 04/04/2021 09:32, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

snip desperate ****e from the nymshifting troll

Cheers, T i m

That's your only defence against the facts, isn't it - to shut your eyes
and hurl abuse.

Have you considered getting help? You have now admitted you support
child abuse, and you also abuse those that show up your facts and logic
for what they are. You yourself said you have a 'weirdo' family.
Clearly, something is wrong.

--
Spike

On 05/04/2021 10:59, Spike wrote:
On 04/04/2021 09:32, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

snip desperate ****e from the nymshifting troll

Cheers, T i m

That's your only defence against the facts, isn't it - to shut your eyes
and hurl abuse.

Have you considered getting help? You have now admitted you support
child abuse, and you also abuse those that show up your facts and logic
for what they are. You yourself said you have a 'weirdo' family.
Clearly, something is wrong.

I conclude that someone in most need of help is least likely to actually
try and get help, and if anything will be abusive to those making the
suggestion.

T i m has now entered a chatty mode to curry favour with other posters,
perhaps from being ashamed of what the stands for. If it makes him feel
better then that can only be a good thing.

Now I'm once again in his killfile I can safely correct his fallacious
claims without abuse nor cause him any anxiety.

On 05/04/2021 12:15, Fredxx wrote:
On 05/04/2021 10:59, Spike wrote:
On 04/04/2021 09:32, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

snip desperate ****e from the nymshifting troll

Cheers, T i m

That's your only defence against the facts, isn't it - to shut your eyes
and hurl abuse.

Have you considered getting help? You have now admitted you support
child abuse, and you also abuse those that show up your facts and logic
for what they are. You yourself said you have a 'weirdo' family.
Clearly, something is wrong.

I conclude that someone in most need of help is least likely to actually
try and get help, and if anything will be abusive to those making the
suggestion.

Yes, we've seen this destructive response so often.

T i m has now entered a chatty mode to curry favour with other posters,
perhaps from being ashamed of what the stands for. If it makes him feel
better then that can only be a good thing.

I colour-code T i m ' s postings, and his recent charm offensive has
made d-i-y look like like a pakapoo ticket.

Now I'm once again in his killfile I can safely correct his fallacious
claims without abuse nor cause him any anxiety.

Quite so. He'll be much happier with his head in the sand.

--
Spike

On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 13:15:42 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip sad troll ****

Now I'm once again in his killfile I can safely correct his fallacious
claims without abuse nor cause him any anxiety.

Oh, like yet another fallacious claim by you that I have you in my
killfile this time, let alone 'again'?

Right, without restoring to any attempts of ad hominem attacks from
you because you have no genuine counterpoint, or dragging out the same
old bogus strawmen or already countered left brainer lie lists, try
explaining the following:

You want to force EVERYONE in to stop eating foie gras by signing the
petition because you have decided you agree that the industrial
farming process used to force feed the ducks / geese is cruel?

Potentially you would also force everyone from using anything produced
using bare bile, because of the cruelty of the process?

You would force everone to stop using anything based on sharks fins
because cutting them off with the animal alive then throwing the
animal back in the sea, unable to swim and then drown is cruel.

You would force everyone in the world to not pit dogs on dogs, or dogs
on foxes or cocks on cocks?

So, *you* FORCE your views on animal cruelty on people, because *you*
agree / judge those things to be cruel.

What is the difference between what you are trying to do and I'm
trying to do, other than where the line is drawn?

How are you not 'interfering' with other peoples choices?

Cheers, T i m

On 05/04/2021 15:21, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 13:15:42 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip sad troll ****

Now I'm once again in his killfile I can safely correct his fallacious
claims without abuse nor cause him any anxiety.

Oh, like yet another fallacious claim by you that I have you in my
killfile this time, let alone 'again'?

LOL :-)

I knew you couldn't resist!

Right, without restoring to any attempts of ad hominem attacks from
you because you have no genuine counterpoint, or dragging out the same
old bogus strawmen or already countered left brainer lie lists, try
explaining the following:

You want to force EVERYONE in to stop eating foie gras by signing the
petition because you have decided you agree that the industrial
farming process used to force feed the ducks / geese is cruel?

Do you not think that force feeding geese is cruel?

Potentially you would also force everyone from using anything produced
using bare bile, because of the cruelty of the process?

Of it is cruel to the animal when alive, then I don't see an issue with
stopping the practice.

You would force everone to stop using anything based on sharks fins
because cutting them off with the animal alive then throwing the
animal back in the sea, unable to swim and then drown is cruel.

Do you not think it is an unnecessary waste? I have never campaigned to
stop this practice.

You would force everyone in the world to not pit dogs on dogs, or dogs
on foxes or cocks on cocks?

Do you not think blood sports are cruel?

So, *you* FORCE your views on animal cruelty on people, because *you*
agree / judge those things to be cruel.

That is right, I do campaign to reduce animal suffering and improve
animal welfare.

What is the difference between what you are trying to do and I'm
trying to do, other than where the line is drawn?

Simple:
1) You are a fanatic
2) Hypocrite in terms of incarcerating your pets unbecoming of a vegan.
3) Keeping a dog in captivity, admitting you subjecting it to pain
through full bladders and bowels.
4) Likely deficient in B12
5) Being an unworthy example of a vegan
6) Abusing others who disagree with you, questioning their brain
7) In denial you abuse others who disagree with you
8) Not caring for animal welfare, as indicated by the snipping of
petitions and not wanting to improve slaughter procedures.
9) You believe in a deity like father christmas and endorse religious
practises employed in cruel animal slaughter
10) Admit you don't want the conditions during the animal's life to be
improved
11) Wish to subject children to age restricted violence
12) Endorse the cruel force-feeding of geese so you can enjoy fois gras
13) Endorse the cruel practice of caging bears for their raw bile
14) Endorse cruel blood sports

Now what have I left out?

How are you not 'interfering' with other peoples choices?

Apart from two-faced hypocrites like yourself, I am only interfering
with animal welfare during the animal's life.

You on the other hand are envious that some of us have loved ones who
support our natural balanced diet. You simply don't care, by your own
admission about animal welfare during the life of the animal.

In short you are insanely jealous we are allowed to eat meat and care
about little else.

On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 17:43:23 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip

Oh, like yet another fallacious claim by you that I have you in my
killfile this time, let alone 'again'?

snip

That is right

snip


Cheers, T i m

On 05/04/2021 18:09, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 17:43:23 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip

Oh, like yet another fallacious claim by you that I have you in my
killfile this time, let alone 'again'?

To which I replied:

LOL
I knew you couldn't resist!


snip

And my reply to:
So, *you* FORCE your views on animal cruelty on people, because *you*
agree / judge those things to be cruel.

Was:

That is right

snip

You snipped:
1) You are a fanatic
2) Hypocrite in terms of incarcerating your pets unbecoming of a vegan.
3) Keeping a dog in captivity, admitting you subjecting it to pain
through full bladders and bowels.
4) Likely deficient in B12
5) Being an unworthy example of a vegan
6) Abusing others who disagree with you, questioning their brain
7) In denial you abuse others who disagree with you
8) Not caring for animal welfare, as indicated by the snipping of
petitions and not wanting to improve slaughter procedures.
9) You believe in a deity like father christmas and endorse religious
practises employed in cruel animal slaughter
10) Admit you don't want the conditions during the animal's life to be
improved
11) Wish to subject children to age restricted violence
12) Endorse the cruel force-feeding of geese so you can enjoy fois gras
13) Endorse the cruel practice of caging bears for their raw bile
14) Endorse cruel blood sports

Now what have I left out?

On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 18:28:05 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip

So, *you* FORCE your views on animal cruelty on people, because *you*
agree / judge those things to be cruel.


That is right

snip

Cheers, T i m

On 05/04/2021 18:34, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 18:28:05 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip

So, *you* FORCE your views on animal cruelty on people, because *you*
agree / judge those things to be cruel.


That is right

snip

You snipped:
1) You are a fanatic
2) Hypocrite in terms of incarcerating your pets unbecoming of a vegan.
3) Keeping a dog in captivity, admitting you subjecting it to pain
through full bladders and bowels.
4) Likely deficient in B12
5) Being an unworthy example of a vegan
6) Abusing others who disagree with you, questioning their brain
7) In denial you abuse others who disagree with you
8) Not caring for animal welfare, as indicated by the snipping of
petitions and not wanting to improve slaughter procedures.
9) You believe in a deity like father christmas and endorse religious
practises employed in cruel animal slaughter
10) Admit you don't want the conditions during the animal's life to be
improved
11) Wish to subject children to age restricted violence
12) Endorse the cruel force-feeding of geese so you can enjoy fois gras
13) Endorse the cruel practice of caging bears for their raw bile
14) Endorse cruel blood sports

Now what have I left out?

On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 18:55:21 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 05/04/2021 18:34, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 18:28:05 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip

So, *you* FORCE your views on animal cruelty on people, because *you*
agree / judge those things to be cruel.


That is right

snip

You *really are* a stupid **** aren't you and now you have been busted
for the sick troll you are.

So, you are back to being ignored, (even in your 'special' birthday
thread) and you can be assured the more blatantly_obvious lies and
bull**** you continue post, the more your 'sick pointless troll'
status will be confirmed to everone else.

Cheers, T i m

On 05/04/2021 19:05, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 18:55:21 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 05/04/2021 18:34, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 18:28:05 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip

So, *you* FORCE your views on animal cruelty on people, because *you*
agree / judge those things to be cruel.


That is right

snip

You *really are* a stupid **** aren't you and now you have been busted
for the sick troll you are.

So, you are back to being ignored, (even in your 'special' birthday
thread) and you can be assured the more blatantly_obvious lies and
bull**** you continue post, the more your 'sick pointless troll'
status will be confirmed to everone else.


The only person who is a stupid taw is the one foisting his vegan ways
on us, out of jealousy and not out of caring for animal welfare.

Just to remind us:

1) You are a fanatic
2) Hypocrite in terms of incarcerating your pets unbecoming of a vegan.
3) Keeping a dog in captivity, admitting you subjecting it to pain
through full bladders and bowels.
4) Likely deficient in B12
5) Being an unworthy example of a vegan
6) Abusing others who disagree with you, questioning their brain
7) In denial you abuse others who disagree with you
8) Not caring for animal welfare, as indicated by the snipping of
petitions and not wanting to improve slaughter procedures.
9) You believe in a deity like father christmas and endorse religious
practises employed in cruel animal slaughter
10) Admit you don't want the conditions during the animal's life to be
improved
11) Wish to subject children to age restricted violence
12) Endorse the cruel force-feeding of geese so you can enjoy fois gras
13) Endorse the cruel practice of caging bears for their raw bile
14) Endorse cruel blood sports

Now what have I left out?