On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

T i m is suffering from a very common complaint. It's called Realism. It
is the utter and total conviction that the way you see the world, is in
fact the actual world, and not just your personal image of it.

Oh the irony! This is coming from a left brainer who lives in a
basement!

To a Realist, Veganism is a thing that *actually exists*, on a par with
pebbles.

We all know 'Pebbles' is a cartoon character. Veganisn actually exists
and has been around for a very long time with many million people
round the world you still have empathy, compassion and benevolence who
put the suffering of others over their own selfish and indoctrinated
desires.

As a Transcendental Idealist, Veganism is just a word, which may or may
not more or less accurately represent something in a Real World, which
is in itself somewhat of a supposition, based on inadequate data...

Wow. I didn't think it was possible to put that much compete and utter
BS into a paragraph!

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.

Therefore, some people choose not to do that, not only to align their
morals with their actions (few meat eaters could kill livestock
themselves or would eat a cat or dog), but improve their own health,
reduce resource consumption, reduce pollution and environmental damage
but most importantly, not take what was never ours in the first place.

So, replace 'vegan' with 'not hurting and exploiting animals' and try
justifying it with yer bs again.

Oh, and spare me the 'I have canine teeth', or 'we need to eat meat to
survive' as they are both BS for the vast majority of the worlds
population in 2021.

ALL of the science is pointing us towards a 'plant based diet' and the
logical conclusion to that is undoing of the cognitive dissonance that
we have been conditioned into from the time when the alternative
choices were fewer, the population much much smaller and our
understanding of what we *will* need to do to feed the world
population. That doesn't include feeding more livestock than humans,
food grown on land that can grow human consumable food instead and us
trying to get the value of that food (and other 'commodities') from
slaughtering billions of animals every year.

Cheers, T i m

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.


Lets make it even *simpler* for your limited grey matter.

What happens to all those cattle, pigs, sheep, ducks,
geese and hens if they are not for human consumption ?.
Are the public going to be expected to pay huge tax
increases to keep them alive until they peg out naturally,
while at the same time being forced to live on chemical
concoctions masquerading as 'food' ?.
Do you have any idea how many people are employed in the
worlds agricultural and fishing industries and what their
contribution is the GDP ?.
What about the severe developmental issues that will affect
children ?.
Who will keep the countryside looking nice and twee for
the millions of tourists who visit places like Wales,
the lake district, the Dales etc every year ?.
How do you propose to persuade the Chinese, French,
Argentinians and others to give up meat ?.

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.

That is the first lie... it may be true for a small subset of the
sufficiently wealthy, but it does not hold true for the large swathes of
humanity who depend on animals (dairy in particular) to get adequate
nutrition (and a multitude of other things).

Therefore,

the rest of the argument fails before it's started...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:24:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.

That is the first lie...

It isn't, it's a statement of scientific fact, and it's the way we are
heading with many things (like car tyres).

it may be true for a small subset of the
sufficiently wealthy,

No, it may be *necessary* for a small subset of the population that
would need to do so to survive.

but it does not hold true for the large swathes of
humanity who depend on animals (dairy in particular) to get adequate
nutrition (and a multitude of other things).

A subset.

Therefore,

the rest of the argument fails before it's started...

Ironically it doesn't.

What you are doing is looking at it from the mind set of a culture
that has normalised the exploitation of animals. This might have been
'acceptable' when science hadn't come up with alternatives but for the
vast majority it's no longer the need now.

And what if we stopped feeding billions of animals food they we could
eat ourselves or stopped wasting many more gallons of water per gallon
of 'milk' to grow alternatives?

But I get it, like many of our age(ish) we were brought up with the
whole animal exploitation thing to be normalised and so I can see how,
if you didn't care about animal suffering (physical and mental),
exploitation and death then 'why would' you want to try to do anything
different now?

Every time I might think of eating an egg I think of the suffering of
the hens and the death of millions of chicks every year who were
macerated, simply because they happen to have been born male.

Every time I might think of drinking milk I think of the cow that will
only live a 1/4 of the time she might naturally (and still can in a
rescue etc) and every time her child is taken away from her and either
forced into the same human-supply slavery or shot in the head (when
just born or a year later).

Ever time I might think of eating bacon I think of the pigs squalling
and screeching desperate to escape the gas that's slowly and painfully
suffocating them ... and before that having their tails cut off and
teeth cut down, simply so they don't damage each other because of the
unnatural numbers they are 'farmed' in.

Every time I think of eating fish I think of them slowly suffocating
on the deck of a ship and either eventually dying of suffocation or
being gutted alive, or swimming wound and round in circles for 3
years, often covered in sea mites and open wounds when they would
naturally be making their way thousands of miles across open oceans
(and back).

And none of the above are machines or some factory output, they are
all sentient beings that feel and sense and have families and social
groups and can fear and do suffer (mentally and physically).

And I'm not anthramorphising any of them, I just respect them for the
individual lives they are, not something we own or can just cause pain
and suffering to for a moments taste.

Do you think we will be still treating animals this way in 100 years
time or that we may have continued evolving to realise none of this is
sustainable or right?

Cheers, T i m

On 23/04/2021 19:58, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:24:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.

That is the first lie...

It isn't, it's a statement of scientific fact, and it's the way we are
heading with many things (like car tyres).

For a naturally balanced diet we need to eat meat and meat products.

It's a disingenuous lie to say otherwise, and your belief can only be
base on fanaticism.

snip some text surreptitiously added by T i m

the rest of the argument fails before it's started...

Ironically it doesn't.

It's ironic you think otherwise.

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

snip
We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.


I don't know how you define "we" but it patently excludes people who
would die without pancreatic enzymes derived from pigs.

I wonder if you have an advance decision ("living will" as was) that
makes clear you don't want to be treated by them or anything else
derived from animals.

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

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:05:57 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

snip
We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.


I don't know how you define "we" but it patently excludes people who
would die without pancreatic enzymes derived from pigs.

I wonder if you have an advance decision ("living will" as was) that
makes clear you don't want to be treated by them or anything else
derived from animals.

Let's see if this help answer your question:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is
possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

So, to answer your last question, depending on how old I was, my
potential life span after treatment and what any animal had to endure
to keep me alive, yes, such a will seems a good idea.

I guess to many they are 'just animals', until you kick their dog that
is ...

We (initially) aren't talking about the use of animals for (human)
life and death instances, we are talking about the wanton consumption
and so causing pain and suffering to billions of animals every year
when there is *no need*.

What many don't seem to realise is just how much we rely on the system
of animals being like it was when we first got here and how us and
them ****ting in our own drinking water (pollution in the rivers and
sea) and polluting the very air we need to breath and atmosphere that
protects us isn't good for us?

Cheers, T i m

On 23/04/2021 20:11, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:05:57 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

snip
We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.


I don't know how you define "we" but it patently excludes people who
would die without pancreatic enzymes derived from pigs.

I wonder if you have an advance decision ("living will" as was) that
makes clear you don't want to be treated by them or anything else
derived from animals.

Let's see if this help answer your question:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is
possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

So, to answer your last question, depending on how old I was, my
potential life span after treatment and what any animal had to endure
to keep me alive, yes, such a will seems a good idea.

My criteria is simply. I eat enough meat to ensure I have healthy levels
of B12.

I guess to many they are 'just animals', until you kick their dog that
is ...

For most of us the same as if any animal is kicked. Of course you don't
care about the welfare of animals when they're alive.

We (initially) aren't talking about the use of animals for (human)
life and death instances, we are talking about the wanton consumption
and so causing pain and suffering to billions of animals every year
when there is *no need*.

Consumption as part of a natural balanced diet can never be wanton.
You're just jealous we're allowed to eat meat.

What many don't seem to realise is just how much we rely on the system
of animals being like it was when we first got here and how us and
them ****ting in our own drinking water (pollution in the rivers and
sea) and polluting the very air we need to breath and atmosphere that
protects us isn't good for us?

Please explain, which animals are we considering, the ones than ****
alcohol? Or the ones that **** B12 in the guts of cattle?

On 23/04/2021 20:11, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:05:57 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

snip
We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.


I don't know how you define "we" but it patently excludes people who
would die without pancreatic enzymes derived from pigs.

I wonder if you have an advance decision ("living will" as was) that
makes clear you don't want to be treated by them or anything else
derived from animals.

Let's see if this help answer your question:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is
possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

So, to answer your last question, depending on how old I was, my
potential life span after treatment and what any animal had to endure
to keep me alive, yes, such a will seems a good idea.

I guess to many they are 'just animals', until you kick their dog that
is ...

We (initially) aren't talking about the use of animals for (human)
life and death instances, we are talking about the wanton consumption
and so causing pain and suffering to billions of animals every year
when there is *no need*.

What many don't seem to realise is just how much we rely on the system
of animals being like it was when we first got here and how us and
them ****ting in our own drinking water (pollution in the rivers and
sea) and polluting the very air we need to breath and atmosphere that
protects us isn't good for us?


You first stated baldly "We don't need to eat animals...". You then
state "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is
possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation ". And go on to
admit that you would accept in some cases treatment that exploits animals.

That indicates your acceptance that there are circumstances where it is,
as a matter of personal choice, /reasonable/ to exploit animals. So you
accept that there are no absolutes: different people may make different
choices.


PS
I commend to you Gower's "Plain Words". It helped me make the
transition from 6 years in which I wrote only one essay (and that just
for the easy prize money) to 30 years where words ruled.

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/184/184520/plain-words/9780241960349.html

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

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:48:32 +0100, Robin wrote:

snip

You first stated baldly "We don't need to eat animals...".

Correct, as ever old vegan proves.

You then
state "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is
possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation ".

I did, well done.

And go on to
admit that you would accept in some cases treatment that exploits animals.

So what part of that paragraph didn't you get Robin (apart from all of
it by the sound of it)?

That indicates your acceptance that there are circumstances where it is,
as a matter of personal choice, /reasonable/ to exploit animals.

I said 'yes' but *depending* on what the animal had to suffer on my
behalf.

So you
accept that there are no absolutes:

Ah, no, I see you are confusing me with a left brainer. *OF COURSE*
there are no absolutes, that's what "as far as is possible and
practicable' means?

different people may make different
choices.

Of course, as long as it's under the general guide of "as far as is
possible and practicable".

So, no one needs to use bear bile, or force feed ducks, or cut sharks
fins off and throw them back alive to drown, or suckle from a cow
after denying it's offspring both it's milk and life and you can work
your way down to keeping pets from there.

PS
I commend to you Gower's "Plain Words". It helped me make the
transition from 6 years in which I wrote only one essay (and that just
for the easy prize money) to 30 years where words ruled.

Sorry mate, that made little sense to me (or were trying to prove a
point). ;-)

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/184/184520/plain-words/9780241960349.html

See, maybe the issue here is not (wholly) with this author but the
ability for some to comprehend people who *aren't* writing bots.

Lots of writing requires some lateral thinking by the reader, both to
obtain say a 'hidden' meaning, or to spot sarcasm (something the likes
of the Fredxx troll fails on over and over), things that are often
lost if you have to signpost everything for the left brainers.

FWIW, I don't like reading (manuals especially), I find it slow,
boring and (therefore) rarely learn anything from it.

For me the saying should be:

"What you see, you forget (if it's written); what you hear, you
remember; what you do, you understand.

'Of course', if I *have* to read the instructions to do something or a
timetable for a train I will, do and can, but I wouldn't read a book
about say 'Shipping over the years' over a documentary / film on the
same subject.

I have read (books, not newspapers, unless I didn't have a book and
found one on the train), much preferring to have conversations with
people. So reading is something I'll only typically do when there is
absolutely nothing else, like in a hospital waiting room (that has no
TV or someone to talk to).

The Mrs loves reading and has a good few hundred on her Kindle (she
keeps the 'read' one in a 'Read' folder to remind her what ones she
has already read as you don't see the cover regularly like you might
with a paper book).

Cheers, T i m

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

T i m is suffering from a very common complaint. It's called Realism. It
is the utter and total conviction that the way you see the world, is in
fact the actual world, and not just your personal image of it.

Oh the irony! This is coming from a left brainer who lives in a
basement!

To a Realist, Veganism is a thing that *actually exists*, on a par with
pebbles.

We all know 'Pebbles' is a cartoon character. Veganisn actually exists
and has been around for a very long time with many million people
round the world you still have empathy, compassion and benevolence who
put the suffering of others over their own selfish and indoctrinated
desires.

You do realise that 'pebbles' was written without a capital letter, so
only a fanatic vegan could possibly think this was a name.

https://www.bridgetohealth.co.uk/blo...s-for-dyslexia

As a Transcendental Idealist, Veganism is just a word, which may or may
not more or less accurately represent something in a Real World, which
is in itself somewhat of a supposition, based on inadequate data...

Wow. I didn't think it was possible to put that much compete and utter
BS into a paragraph!

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.

We do to maintain a natural balanced diet.

Therefore, some people choose not to do that, not only to align their
morals with their actions

That is a personal choice, but like religion is best not foisted upon
others or abusing others who aren't vegans, fanatic or otherwise.

(few meat eaters could kill livestock
themselves or would eat a cat or dog),

Quite. It's dependent on culture and tradition.

but improve their own health,

It doesn't, that is the issue here. We are adapted to eat meat, and
dependent on this source of natural B12.

You give your dogs meat, so you must recognise the need for a natural
balanced diet.

reduce resource consumption, reduce pollution and environmental damage
but most importantly, not take what was never ours in the first place.

So, replace 'vegan' with 'not hurting and exploiting animals' and try
justifying it with yer bs again.

Then you are no vegan. You admit to not caring about animal welfare
whilst alive, but just don't want us to eat them when dead. You're
simply envious we're allowed to eat meat.

Oh, and spare me the 'I have canine teeth', or 'we need to eat meat to
survive' as they are both BS for the vast majority of the worlds
population in 2021.

Successful developed countries consume the most meat. It's the
difference between surviving and 'living'.

ALL of the science is pointing us towards a 'plant based diet'

No it doesn't. Dieticians regularly write about vegan diets lacking some
vital consumption the body needs. Only a fanatic vegan would make such
an unsubstantiated claim.

and the
logical conclusion to that is undoing of the cognitive dissonance that

There is no cognitive dissonance amongst most meat eaters. There is
amongst vegans who own pets and feed them meat.

Fanatical veganism and pet ownership are an oxymoron.

we have been conditioned into from the time when the alternative
choices were fewer,

Not only conditions, but through evolution we have evolved to require
meat as part of our natural diet and consume milk in adulthood.

the population much much smaller and our
understanding of what we *will* need to do to feed the world
population.

No we don't. World population is self limiting. The greater the
population the greater the damage to the environment. Why would you want
the population to grow?

That doesn't include feeding more livestock than humans,
food grown on land that can grow human consumable food instead and us
trying to get the value of that food (and other 'commodities') from
slaughtering billions of animals every year.

So not longer trillions! Will it be millions next?

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 19:29:54 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

T i m is suffering from a very common complaint. It's called Realism. It
is the utter and total conviction that the way you see the world, is in
fact the actual world, and not just your personal image of it.

Oh the irony! This is coming from a left brainer who lives in a
basement!

To a Realist, Veganism is a thing that *actually exists*, on a par with
pebbles.

We all know 'Pebbles' is a cartoon character. Veganisn actually exists
and has been around for a very long time with many million people
round the world you still have empathy, compassion and benevolence who
put the suffering of others over their own selfish and indoctrinated
desires.

You do realise that 'pebbles' was written without a capital letter, so
only a fanatic vegan could possibly think this was a name.

BWHAHAHAHAHA ... Bwhahahaha ... Bwhahahaha ... oh that *IS* hilarious
.... oh you poor sad, left brained troll.

Oh, and like loads of people here don't use a capital on their names
....

No, you make my day, thanks! (just the thought of you face planting
*again* I mean).

snip the rest unread as it couldn't beat that

Please keep up the good work! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 23/04/2021 22:00, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 19:29:54 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

T i m is suffering from a very common complaint. It's called Realism. It
is the utter and total conviction that the way you see the world, is in
fact the actual world, and not just your personal image of it.

Oh the irony! This is coming from a left brainer who lives in a
basement!

To a Realist, Veganism is a thing that *actually exists*, on a par with
pebbles.

We all know 'Pebbles' is a cartoon character. Veganisn actually exists
and has been around for a very long time with many million people
round the world you still have empathy, compassion and benevolence who
put the suffering of others over their own selfish and indoctrinated
desires.

You do realise that 'pebbles' was written without a capital letter, so
only a fanatic vegan could possibly think this was a name.

BWHAHAHAHAHA ... Bwhahahaha ... Bwhahahaha ... oh that *IS* hilarious
... oh you poor sad, left brained troll.

Oh, and like loads of people here don't use a capital on their names
...

No, you make my day, thanks! (just the thought of you face planting
*again* I mean).

Only you would find that funny, I guess of an embarrassed nervous kind.

snip the rest unread as it couldn't beat that

You snipped the facts you didn't like to hear. Sorry you didn't find
them amusing.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 23:39:11 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:
snip

You do realise that 'pebbles' was written without a capital letter, so
only a fanatic vegan could possibly think this was a name.

BWHAHAHAHAHA ... Bwhahahaha ... Bwhahahaha ... oh that *IS* hilarious
... oh you poor sad, left brained troll.

Oh, and like loads of people here don't use a capital on their names
...

No, you make my day, thanks! (just the thought of you face planting
*again* I mean).

Only you would find that funny, I guess of an embarrassed nervous kind.

Yeah, that must be it ('not', as you won't get the sarcasm). You
really do have issues don't you, but let me laugh at you even louder
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

So, what about your statement about name and capital letters, or have
you stopped digging that hole now?

You are like talking to one of those early chat bots. Absolutely no
'human' features coming through at all, so any laughter would really
and only be *at* you, every time *you* put *your* foot in *your*
mouth, *yourself*.

snip the rest unread as it couldn't beat that

You snipped the facts you didn't like to hear.

How could I, I didn't read them you thick weirdo.

Sorry you didn't find
them amusing.

Don't have to be sorry, well not for that. You *are* sorry so that's
enough for me and why I have the least amount of respect for you than
anyone else I know (here or ITRW).

So 'yes', I do rate you highly for something!

(Now it's time for you to play the victim and press whatever F key
that rattles out the whole 'abuse and that means you have lost the
argument' BS, when it's just me treating you like you deserve, like
you treat animals, with complete disdain and disrespect).

Cheers, T i m

On 24/04/2021 10:01, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 23:39:11 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:
snip

You do realise that 'pebbles' was written without a capital letter, so
only a fanatic vegan could possibly think this was a name.

BWHAHAHAHAHA ... Bwhahahaha ... Bwhahahaha ... oh that *IS* hilarious
... oh you poor sad, left brained troll.

Oh, and like loads of people here don't use a capital on their names
...

No, you make my day, thanks! (just the thought of you face planting
*again* I mean).

Only you would find that funny, I guess of an embarrassed nervous kind.

Yeah, that must be it ('not', as you won't get the sarcasm). You
really do have issues don't you, but let me laugh at you even louder
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

They say many a true word is said in jest.

So, what about your statement about name and capital letters, or have
you stopped digging that hole now?

Do you not understand that a name usually starts with a capital letter.
And it was obvious it was always meant to be an object not some cartoon
character.

It's not me digging the hole.

You are like talking to one of those early chat bots. Absolutely no
'human' features coming through at all, so any laughter would really
and only be *at* you, every time *you* put *your* foot in *your*
mouth, *yourself*.

snip the rest unread as it couldn't beat that

You snipped the facts you didn't like to hear.

How could I, I didn't read them you thick weirdo.

Oh yes you did. You hang on my every word.

Sorry you didn't find
them amusing.

Don't have to be sorry, well not for that. You *are* sorry so that's
enough for me and why I have the least amount of respect for you than
anyone else I know (here or ITRW).

Yeah, that must be it ('not', as you won't get the sarcasm). You really
do have issues don't you?

So 'yes', I do rate you highly for something!

Thank you.

(Now it's time for you to play the victim and press whatever F key
that rattles out the whole 'abuse and that means you have lost the
argument' BS, when it's just me treating you like you deserve, like
you treat animals, with complete disdain and disrespect).

I advocate the humane treatment of animals. You don't, and admit to not
caring about animal welfare whilst an animal is alive.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 11:00:04 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 24/04/2021 10:01, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 23:39:11 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:
snip

You do realise that 'pebbles' was written without a capital letter, so
only a fanatic vegan could possibly think this was a name.

BWHAHAHAHAHA ... Bwhahahaha ... Bwhahahaha ... oh that *IS* hilarious
... oh you poor sad, left brained troll.

Oh, and like loads of people here don't use a capital on their names
...

No, you make my day, thanks! (just the thought of you face planting
*again* I mean).

Only you would find that funny, I guess of an embarrassed nervous kind.

Yeah, that must be it ('not', as you won't get the sarcasm). You
really do have issues don't you, but let me laugh at you even louder
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

They say many a true word is said in jest.

So, what about your statement about name and capital letters, or have
you stopped digging that hole now?

Do you not understand that a name usually starts with a capital letter.

I love the way you load your questions in a desperate attempt of
back-peddling. 'OF COURSE' I do (and generally refer to people here in
the same form they present themselves) but what's that got to do with
anything, other than a left brainer trying to make sense of their
mistake?

And it was obvious it was always meant to be an object not some cartoon
character.

Yes, it was, and I played on it, and then you fell into a hole of your
own making then dug that hole deeper. How sad ... ;-(

It's not me digging the hole.

Keep digging.

You are like talking to one of those early chat bots. Absolutely no
'human' features coming through at all, so any laughter would really
and only be *at* you, every time *you* put *your* foot in *your*
mouth, *yourself*.

snip the rest unread as it couldn't beat that

You snipped the facts you didn't like to hear.

How could I, I didn't read them you thick weirdo.

Oh yes you did. You hang on my every word.

Bwhahahah (again, I'm laughing *at* you there). You simply cannot
resist replying to EVERY thing I type, yet I can (and do) refrain from
replying to you (apart from here where I'm just enjoying watching you
dig this hole deeper) and you even stated it was your duty! Well, it's
good to see you think you have *some* purpose in life, however
pointless / ineffective you are at it.

Sorry you didn't find
them amusing.

Don't have to be sorry, well not for that. You *are* sorry so that's
enough for me and why I have the least amount of respect for you than
anyone else I know (here or ITRW).

Yeah, that must be it ('not', as you won't get the sarcasm). You really
do have issues don't you?

So 'yes', I do rate you highly for something!

Thank you.

You are welcome, any time! ;-)

(Now it's time for you to play the victim and press whatever F key
that rattles out the whole 'abuse and that means you have lost the
argument' BS, when it's just me treating you like you deserve, like
you treat animals, with complete disdain and disrespect).

I advocate the humane treatment of animals. You don't, and admit to not
caring about animal welfare whilst an animal is alive.

Again, more lies and bull**** from the troll in his hole.

I was just watching the TV / weekend breakfast cooking show and Bill
Bailey is on there as a guest.

He was offered some duck and said 'he now feels guilty eating duck as
he has two pet ducks at home ...'

A classic example of cognitive dissonance and logical inconsistency if
there ever was one, where his morals aren't aligned with his actions
and hence why he feels 'guilty'.

He (like most people) are only eating meat in the first place (now, in
2021) because they have been brainwashed into thinking they still have
to do what we had to do, in some circumstances, to survive.

There have been what we call vegans for thousands of years, either by
choice or circumstance.

Meat was something that was rare (for the majority) and so expensive
and to eaten sparingly. When they were killing to survive it makes
sense to make full use of the rest of the animal.

But with depleted cobalt, animals that never eat off the soil or drink
from rivers or lakes are commonly supplemented with B12 (the ground
seeded, their food supplemented, implants or digestive release aids)
so if you are relying on that for your B12 you *are not* living off a
natural diet. Further, the B12 that is given to the animals for you to
*hope* that you absorb would be better absorbed by you when taken
directly, which of course you are doing *anyway* when you eat many
foods fortified with B12.

Do you realise that *every time* you roll out all this BS about my
family 'making' me do anything, it doesn't help your fanatic cause at
all?

I generate the shopping list because I do all the shopping (decisions)
and pre covid used to do all the actual shopping (the Mrs would come
with me etc). I also do all the cooking and so could and do prepare
anything I like, even meat, eggs or fish.

On the way back from a dog walk the other day I fancied a kebab, so
bought some pita bread and a box of salad from the shop we have used
for years (probably 40, first collection then later delivery) and came
home, cooked some vegan chicken pieces and warmed the pita in the oven
and made our own kebabs. We don't have any vegan garlic sauce yet
(forgot to put it on the list, it exists commercially or you can make
your own) but have vegan salad cream so had some of that in there
instead and it was lovely.

If I had want I could have just bought a 'mixed' kebab and eaten it
and *no one* would have stopped me, but *I* didn't want to.

So, you can carry on with all the lies and BS but you can be sure you
will the only one who will believe it for a second (so your efforts
making you look even more sad / pathetic).

Anyway, that's your lot for this thread, I'll leave you to try to get
out of that hole on your own (and I'm sure my ****ing on you down
there can't be helping). weg

Cheers, T i m