On 01/06/2021 20:08, John Rumm wrote:
On 01/06/2021 19:25, Richard wrote:
On 01/06/2021 14:39, John Rumm wrote:
On 01/06/2021 12:46, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:10:02 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 01/06/2021 09:47, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 01:40:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 31/05/2021 07:13, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 17:00:31 -0700 (PDT), David P
wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons
from the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the
thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)

But why should I, why can't you simply not read (and especially reply
to) it?

Firstly, because you said you would, secondly because I would rather
just filter your OT posts, rather than all your posts.

and you probably have the OP filtered?

Filtered as in "marked as read" rather than the more aggressive filtered
into non existence that I reserve for some others. That way I can easily
skip past the messages, but still see followups if I want.

I'm not sure which reader you use, but with Thunderbird you can kill
sub-threads. That would also get rid of my corrections to T i m's posts
that I am sure are also a nuisance.

It's a great shame Thunderbird filtering doesn't allow searches in the
message body.

On 01/06/2021 21:20, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 14:39:38 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip
I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)

But why should I, why can't you simply not read (and especially reply
to) it?

Firstly, because you said you would,

I'm pretty sure I didn't because I wasn't aware I could. Are you sure
you aren't getting confused with an new OT topics I post that are
always marked correctly?

When you are netcopping (what you consider, this wasn't, it was
addressing the thread subject of MM climate change that I wouldn't
have thought you would have been interested in) thread drift, do you
do it on all subjects for all posters OOI?

secondly because I would rather
just filter your OT posts, rather than all your posts.

I would rather you didn't kill animals to eat when you don't need to
but here we are?

Which of those preferences just impacts us personally or also impacts
(innocent) 'others'? (I appreciate to answer that you would have to
have a belief that we can do what we like to all animals or that we
can't).

You still simply don't understand. Our existence adversely impacts
something in the universe. Same goes for any living organism.
Now get on with your life, or not.

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 06:04:10 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

Which of those preferences just impacts us personally or also impacts
(innocent) 'others'? (I appreciate to answer that you would have to
have a belief that we can do what we like to all animals or that we
can't).

You still simply don't understand.

This should be interesting ...

Our existence adversely impacts
something in the universe.

Ok?

Same goes for any living organism.

Ok?

Now get on with your life, or not.

I am, whilst trying to minimise my impact on other living organisms,
letting them get on with their lives as well.

(And there was me thinking you were going to say something interesting
for a change). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 01/06/2021 23:03, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

You should have done what I did, which was to give up eating beef and
lamb some four decades ago. Just think of all the animals that were
killed for you while you were having fun and enjoying the sort of life
that you now don't want others to have - known, appropriately, as the
'dog in a manger' attitude.

So, if you are 'bothered' about how much better you are for deciding
to not eat cows and sheep that long ago, how much advocacy and
education have you done over the same period that could have educated
me and others to do the same (and more) earlier?

Whatever makes you think that there was some sort of obligation to
evangelise?

If you did none, then you are simply experiencing with me the result
of your inaction and not something I would personally be proud of or
boast about.

Supposition piled upon supposition.

You haven't grasped even yet that your virtue-signalling about your
current lifestyle 'choice' (a "*We* are going vegan, what are *you*
going to do?" sort of choice) merely highlights the fact you had over
six decades of doing what you wanted, and now, like the dog in a manger,
now don't want others to have the chance to do the same. You even
advocate conditioning children to accept your 'choice'.

--
Spike

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:27:16 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 01/06/2021 23:03, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

You should have done what I did, which was to give up eating beef and
lamb some four decades ago. Just think of all the animals that were
killed for you while you were having fun and enjoying the sort of life
that you now don't want others to have - known, appropriately, as the
'dog in a manger' attitude.

So, if you are 'bothered' about how much better you are for deciding
to not eat cows and sheep that long ago, how much advocacy and
education have you done over the same period that could have educated
me and others to do the same (and more) earlier?

Whatever makes you think that there was some sort of obligation to
evangelise?

Because that's exactly what you did with your 'You should have done
what I did ..'.

If you did none, then you are simply experiencing with me the result
of your inaction and not something I would personally be proud of or
boast about.

Supposition piled upon supposition.

Nope, just you not being able to back pedal fast enough.

You haven't grasped even yet that your virtue-signalling about your
current lifestyle 'choice' (a "*We* are going vegan, what are *you*
going to do?" sort of choice)

Except that's not what it is. It's 'we should all go vegan' and I wish
I'd done so sooner. It's only your twisted mind that forces you to
take on such a POV.

merely highlights the fact you had over
six decades of doing what you wanted,

Nope. Again, because of your twisted POV to choose to make bogus
interpretations on what happened. I didn't do 'what I wanted', I did
what I had been indoctrinated to consider acceptable when it never
was.

and now, like the dog in a manger,
now don't want others to have the chance to do the same.

Again, a twisted interpretation from a sick mind.

You even
advocate conditioning children to accept your 'choice'.

Nope, I advocate not advocating children are conditioned to do
something bad to animals whilst telling them not to do bad things to
animals.

Carnism is the cult and the exposing of the hypocrisy and logical
inconsistency is hard for some people to deal with.

But hey, you carry on stamping on chickens ...

Cheers, T i m

On 02/06/2021 10:18, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 01/06/2021 23:03, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

You should have done what I did, which was to give up eating beef and
lamb some four decades ago. Just think of all the animals that were
killed for you while you were having fun and enjoying the sort of life
that you now don't want others to have - known, appropriately, as the
'dog in a manger' attitude.

So, if you are 'bothered' about how much better you are for deciding
to not eat cows and sheep that long ago, how much advocacy and
education have you done over the same period that could have educated
me and others to do the same (and more) earlier?

Whatever makes you think that there was some sort of obligation to
evangelise?

Because that's exactly what you did with your 'You should have done
what I did ..'.

Nope. You blather on about what others should do now you've been
converted to the evangelical branch of the anti-meat-eating branch of
veganism, while you totally ignore your six decades of a lifestyle that
you would, dog-in-manger fashion, now try to deny others.

If you did none, then you are simply experiencing with me the result
of your inaction and not something I would personally be proud of or
boast about.

Supposition piled upon supposition.

Nope, just you not being able to back pedal fast enough.

The 'if' and 'would be' in your statement is in fact what constitutes
piling supposition upon supposition.

You haven't grasped even yet that your virtue-signalling about your
current lifestyle 'choice' (a "*We* are going vegan, what are *you*
going to do?" sort of choice)

Except that's not what it is. It's 'we should all go vegan' and I wish
I'd done so sooner. It's only your twisted mind that forces you to
take on such a POV.

It can be seen in what you said.

merely highlights the fact you had over
six decades of doing what you wanted,

Nope.

Yep.

Again, because of your twisted POV to choose to make bogus
interpretations on what happened. I didn't do 'what I wanted', I did
what I had been indoctrinated to consider acceptable when it never
was.

And now you've been indoctrinated into something else. You just can't
see it, can you.

and now, like the dog in a manger,
now don't want others to have the chance to do the same.

Again, a twisted interpretation from a sick mind.

It's *exactly* your position in this matter. You just can't see it, can you.

You even
advocate conditioning children to accept your 'choice'.

Nope,

Yep.

I advocate not advocating children are conditioned to do
something bad to animals whilst telling them not to do bad things to
animals.

Which is of course advocating conditioning of children to accept your
choice for them.

Carnism is the cult and the exposing of the hypocrisy and logical
inconsistency

No wonder you fit in well, due to your lack of logic and your inconsistency.

But hey, you carry on stamping on chickens ...

You see, you make up lies to suit your anti-meat-eating agenda thinly
disguised under a cloak of evangelical veganism.


--
Spike

On 02/06/2021 08:48, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 06:04:10 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

Which of those preferences just impacts us personally or also impacts
(innocent) 'others'? (I appreciate to answer that you would have to
have a belief that we can do what we like to all animals or that we
can't).

You still simply don't understand.

This should be interesting ...

Our existence adversely impacts
something in the universe.

Ok?

Same goes for any living organism.

Ok?

Now get on with your life, or not.

I am, whilst trying to minimise my impact on other living organisms,

Be nice if you did that here.

letting them get on with their lives as well.

(And there was me thinking you were going to say something interesting
for a change). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 01/06/2021 21:20, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 14:39:38 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip
I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)

But why should I, why can't you simply not read (and especially reply
to) it?

Firstly, because you said you would,

I'm pretty sure I didn't because I wasn't aware I could. Are you sure
you aren't getting confused with an new OT topics I post that are
always marked correctly?

Well now you know, you could do both :-)

When you are netcopping (what you consider, this wasn't, it was
addressing the thread subject of MM climate change that I wouldn't

TBH the thread matters little it seems, since you will go "on message"
with little provocation in any thread.

have thought you would have been interested in) thread drift, do you

Personally I don't mind thread drift - it can take you to new and novel
destinations.

This is not thread drift, but a strong thread undercurrent. We keep
getting sucked into the same septic back water.

do it on all subjects for all posters OOI?

I have blocked all the output of many of them, and so don't see them. I
feel no sense of loss not being able to read the erudite and thought
provoking contributions from peeler or speed. However as a smart poster
with obvious skills and abilities, who has demonstrated they are capable
of posting interesting relevant content, and participating in
discussion; I hold you to a higher standard than some of the others. Any
group is only as good as the interactions between posters. Much like any
networks usefulness grows exponentially with respect to the number of
connections. If one causes people to disengage and break those
connections, then the whole group is poorer for it.

Now it is my impression that many of "animal" posts seem to be actively
encouraging people to disengage and break connections. Perhaps this is
just a cunning reverse psychology attack on the whole vegan concept by
undermining it?

secondly because I would rather
just filter your OT posts, rather than all your posts.

I would rather you didn't kill animals to eat when you don't need to
but here we are?

You seem to be suggesting that my choice of diet makes my opinion on say
electrical installation, plumbing or woodwork less palatable. I am not
sure why that might be, but you do have a kill file, so go ahead an use
it if it you want.

Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic rants.
Then we would both be happy.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 18:48:10 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

Now get on with your life, or not.

I am, whilst trying to minimise my impact on other living organisms,

Be nice if you did that here.

snip stuff for the lazy boy

'After you.' (let me know when you are vegan).

Cheers, T i m

On 02/06/2021 19:18, John Rumm wrote:
snip

Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic rants.
Then we would both be happy.



As would I

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

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 19:18:11 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 01/06/2021 21:20, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 14:39:38 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip
I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)

But why should I, why can't you simply not read (and especially reply
to) it?

Firstly, because you said you would,

I'm pretty sure I didn't because I wasn't aware I could. Are you sure
you aren't getting confused with an new OT topics I post that are
always marked correctly?

Well now you know, you could do both :-)

I could ... but only when everyone 'else' applies / abides to the
netettiquite etc. That's only fair isn't it?

When you are netcopping (what you consider, this wasn't, it was
addressing the thread subject of MM climate change that I wouldn't

TBH the thread matters little it seems, since you will go "on message"
with little provocation in any thread.

Not quite true and think you will find that:

1) I only participate in way less than 50% of the threads and only
bring the idea of livestock and their, GW gasses, their pollution,
their resource usage, their habitat destruction or suffering where it
is linked with the topic.

have thought you would have been interested in) thread drift, do you

Personally I don't mind thread drift - it can take you to new and novel
destinations.

Quite.

This is not thread drift, but a strong thread undercurrent.

Because it impacts all of us.

We keep
getting sucked into the same septic back water.

A 'septic backwater' created by man and that we are already suffering
from ourselves (health, antibiotic resistance, pollution, resource
waste).

do it on all subjects for all posters OOI?

I have blocked all the output of many of them, and so don't see them.

So you aren't going to be able to judge what I say with any real
overall comparison.

I
feel no sense of loss not being able to read the erudite and thought
provoking contributions from peeler or speed.

Even they can offer *some* good things now and again ... and you
aren't obliged to read *anything* from *anyone* of course, even if it
appears in front of you.

However as a smart poster
with obvious skills and abilities, who has demonstrated they are capable
of posting interesting relevant content, and participating in
discussion; I hold you to a higher standard than some of the others.

Why thank you kind sir. ;-)

Any
group is only as good as the interactions between posters.

And any group is likely to reflect the general feelings, attitudes and
issues of it's members unless moderated very tightly (which most
people here don't seem to want).

Much like any
networks usefulness grows exponentially with respect to the number of
connections. If one causes people to disengage and break those
connections, then the whole group is poorer for it.

Agreed.

Now it is my impression that many of "animal" posts seem to be actively
encouraging people to disengage and break connections.

Only by those who seem the most keen to continue to exploit, cause
suffering and death to innocent animals it seems?

Perhaps this is
just a cunning reverse psychology attack on the whole vegan concept by
undermining it?

Not from here it isn't and those who 'get it' seem willing to say so.
Many others may now be considering their own actions and questioning
if they align with their morals whilst others, like the spoilt
children they are will throw their toys out of the pram and go the
other way. And I'm happy about that as they are likely to have shorter
life spans because of it. ;-)

secondly because I would rather
just filter your OT posts, rather than all your posts.

I would rather you didn't kill animals to eat when you don't need to
but here we are?

You seem to be suggesting that my choice of diet makes my opinion on say
electrical installation, plumbing or woodwork less palatable.

Not sure where you got that from but all I was saying there are things
that we both may not like and we both have two choices?

I am not
sure why that might be,

You wouldn't because it isn't. ;-)

but you do have a kill file, so go ahead an use
it if it you want.

It would be the first time if I did but no, you are fine thanks.

Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic rants.

Where I'm trying to question people unnecessarily cause animals to
suffer and die you mean by 'rants' then?

To someone who doesn't condone the unnecessary suffering and death of
animals wouldn't see it as a rant but someone being passionate about
that?

Then we would both be happy.

No, I would be happy if more people stopped ignoring the conflict that
is within them and better aligned their actions with their morals.

I *hope* you wouldn't intentionally or unnecessarily hurt a dog, a cat
or most other animals so that is logically consistent, your actions
match your morals. That fact that you do only means your conditioning
is strong and might take some introspection by you to break the cycle
and start to see things for what they really are, not what you have
been conditioned to accept them to be for some animals to some levels.

eg. I like the taste and texture of meat, I must have done or I'm
guessing I wouldn't have eaten the meats I did ... and I may have also
liked the taste and texture of loads of other things (animals /
plants) that I never tried because I didn't want to because or I
couldn't or wouldn't (like cat, dog, rabbit, Guinea pig etc) or the
impact of consuming like heroin or cocaine, but didn't, simply because
there was no need for me to and I didn't want to (even if they were
legal).

So I have also always been logically inconsistent and for as long as I
can remember (from realising what 'meat' was), haven't felt
comfortable consuming it but because doing so had been 'normalised',
and I liked it and was partly addicted to it (dopamine), I carried on
doing it, all be it that I cut back on the few meats I did eat,
initially replacing minced animal carcass with Quorn type mince etc
(and not really being bothered by any difference and appreciating the
lack of bone, gristle or any other 'surprises' etc)) and then meats in
general.

The doctor steered me away from 'dairy' 7 years ago and I feel better
for and don't miss that.

Doing more general food research during a veganuary it was brought to
the fore some of the atrocities that go on behind the scenes in 'meat
/ dairy / egg' production and that finally undid my cognitive
dissonance and allowed me to become logically consistent at last. I
can now no more think of hurting a pig or chicken than I could a dog
or parrot ... and so I don't.

Now, what may have made that more relevant *today* is that I believe
we have reached a turning point with all this and are already
producing 'lab meat' for those who really can't be without 'meat' but
who agree they really don't also what to cause animals to suffer and
die, simply because they like the taste of their (cooked) flesh.

Add to that all the commercially available vegan ready meals (for the
people who might also have bought animal flesh based ready meals) but
if you prefer to eat more natural and nutritionally superior foods to
the meats that are linked with human illnesses like cancer, heart
disease and obesity, you can, and much easier (certainly in the sense
of ingredient availability) today than any time in the past.

Further, many (poor) health conditions can be reduced or reversed by
not eating meat and focusing on alternatives. All the good medical /
scientific advice ... 'reduce your meat consumption and eat more fruit
and vegetables'.

If we all did that, we would have less pollution, less wasted
resource, better human health, less antibiotic resistance, less chance
of zoonotic pandemics and better sustainability.

Given how much all of those could affect all of us, why wouldn't you
consider a simple lifestyle change?

Cheers, T i m

On 01/06/2021 12:46, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:10:02 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 01/06/2021 09:47, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 01:40:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 31/05/2021 07:13, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 17:00:31 -0700 (PDT), David P
wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)

But why should I, why can't you simply not read (and especially reply
to) it?

Because it courtesy to do so. I didn't see the OP, and so the only post
I initially saw was yours.

Why don't you feel the need to comment of *any* of the other OT posts
here?

Probably because they're generally in a killfile.

What is it about the idea of asking people to consider the
consequences of their actions 'that way' (reduction in greenhouse
gasses from live stock) that you find so objectionable? Is it you
don't use air flight but do eat meat or some such?

Once is fine, twice is perhaps ok, but the more you say the same twaddle
mixed with a few lies your posts carry no weight.

The subject was to do with 'Climate change' and 'a' solution being to
do with the reduction in air travel. If we could also reduce the
production of GWGG (even if you don't consider such an issue, many
people (scientists) seem to) to the same or greater extent by doing
'something else', why wouldn't it be valid or why wouldn't people also
consider it?

Then why make the subject wander onto another area.

A reduction of our consumption of animal flesh would be such a
solution PLUS a benefit in many many other ways, including the risk of
more zoonotic pandemics, heart / bowel disease, obesity, diabetes,
global pollution, environmental / habitat destruction and
sustainability. That's ignoring (as many choose to do) all the
unnecessary animal suffering, death and exploitation.

Your solution would be detrimental to people's health.

So, if you feel bad for being part of any of that and don't want to be
reminded of it in a genuine discussion on the subject topic, feel free
to skip over it. ;-)

Why do you believe anyone thinks it's 'bad' to have a natural balanced
diet? Well, apart from the vegan fanatic.

On 02/06/2021 20:31, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 18:48:10 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

Now get on with your life, or not.

I am, whilst trying to minimise my impact on other living organisms,

Be nice if you did that here.

snip stuff for the lazy boy

'After you.' (let me know when you are vegan).

Anyone reading your posts would be fearful of turning into a manic
fanatic and keep with their natural balanced diet.

You are the best example of what someone could become if their loved
ones said they're going vegan.

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:15:10 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

Whatever makes you think that there was some sort of obligation to
evangelise?

Because that's exactly what you did with your 'You should have done
what I did ..'.

Nope. You blather on

Discuss, promote, educate, advocate (for the benefit of all).

about what others should do now

Nope, not what they should do, but what they might consider not doing
any longer.

you've been
converted

*I* have changed my lifestyle, by me.

to the evangelical branch of the anti-meat-eating branch of
veganism,

Nope, most ethical vegans are so not for them but for others
(especially animals).

while you totally ignore your six decades of a lifestyle

No I don't, I am guilty of it. But hindsight is a lovely thing , as is
indoctrination, conditioning and marketing.

that
you would, dog-in-manger fashion, now try to deny others.

Only from your evangelistic POV. For me it's to educate others for
themselves.

If you did none, then you are simply experiencing with me the result
of your inaction and not something I would personally be proud of or
boast about.

Supposition piled upon supposition.

Nope, just you not being able to back pedal fast enough.

The 'if' and 'would be' in your statement is in fact what constitutes
piling supposition upon supposition.

But your statement was bollox so any logic fails at that point.

You haven't grasped even yet that your virtue-signalling about your
current lifestyle 'choice' (a "*We* are going vegan, what are *you*
going to do?" sort of choice)

Except that's not what it is. It's 'we should all go vegan' and I wish
I'd done so sooner. It's only your twisted mind that forces you to
take on such a POV.

It can be seen in what you said.

Only by someone with a twisted mind. The mere fact that you state so
many lies and bollox proves that 100%.

merely highlights the fact you had over
six decades of doing what you wanted,

Nope.

Yep.

See above. For the first decade I was told what to eat and given it to
eat. Once indoctrinated and brought up in a culture that normalises a
particular lifestyle, it can be difficult to see (and more do) the
right thing.

Again, because of your twisted POV to choose to make bogus
interpretations on what happened. I didn't do 'what I wanted', I did
what I had been indoctrinated to consider acceptable when it never
was.

And now you've been indoctrinated into something else. You just can't
see it, can you.

Ironically I can, and I have only shaken of the indoctrination that
allowed me to be logically inconsistent and now I'm mot. Being
logically consistent isn't the sign of anything other than being
logically consistent.

If you don't eat beef but eat other animals you are being logically
inconsistent, especially if it's though choice.

and now, like the dog in a manger,
now don't want others to have the chance to do the same.

Again, a twisted interpretation from a sick mind.

It's *exactly* your position in this matter.

It' is *exactly not* my position. Like I said, you are the one
demonstrating logical inconsistency, not me.

You just can't see it, can you.

Says the one in a cult that encourages a cognitive dissonance and
logical inconsistency that allows you to stamp on a chicken but not a
cat.

You even
advocate conditioning children to accept your 'choice'.

Nope,

Yep.

I advocate children aren't forced to become logically inconsistent,
not be indoctrinated to consider abusing animals to be acceptable.

I advocate not advocating children are conditioned to do
something bad to animals whilst telling them not to do bad things to
animals.

Which is of course advocating conditioning of children to accept your
choice for them.

It's not 'my choice', it's a natural human choice, without any
conditioning. If you were shown people stamping on chickens when
young, of course you are going to grow up considering such action to
be 'normal'. It's how domestic violence propagates though the
generations.

Carnism is the cult and the exposing of the hypocrisy and logical
inconsistency

No wonder you fit in well, due to your lack of logic and your inconsistency.

I didn't fit into to a carnist world, you are right. I'm much happier
now I have undone all the conditioning and am now aligning my actions
with my morals.

But hey, you carry on stamping on chickens ...

You see, you make up lies to suit your anti-meat-eating agenda thinly
disguised under a cloak of evangelical veganism.

Ah, now you see what it's like and you don't like it do you?

But the bottom line is that if you had an actual solid argument
against veganism or supporting carnism other than just stating that
you are happy to stamp on chickens g and can't see the issue with
that, you would have come out with it now but you haven't?

All you (and all the other carnists state) is what we have done over
history (like that determines what we should do now or in the future),
what animals do in the wild (when we don't set our moral compass on
what 'animals' do ... phrases like 'they acted like animals' to
differentiate the actions humans do when you stop being the advanced
species we are supposed to be) , we 'need to eat meat' when we clearly
don't (proven by the many cultures who haven't eaten meat over many
thousand years) when the only true justification is that they don't
actually give a **** about animals and will do whatever it takes
(including making them suffer and die), just to enjoy the taste of
their flesh because they are conditioned to do that.

And all that is without also considering the antibiotic resistance,
zoonotic pandemics, pollution, greenhouse gases, human health,
resource use, habitat and wildlife species under threat of extinction.

But why would you care about any of that, you like the taste of (some
species of) heated animal flesh and that's enough eh?

https://ibb.co/099MB36

Cheers, T i m

On 02/06/2021 21:48, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 19:18:11 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 01/06/2021 21:20, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 14:39:38 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip
I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)

But why should I, why can't you simply not read (and especially reply
to) it?

Firstly, because you said you would,

I'm pretty sure I didn't because I wasn't aware I could. Are you sure
you aren't getting confused with an new OT topics I post that are
always marked correctly?

Well now you know, you could do both :-)

I could ... but only when everyone 'else' applies / abides to the
netettiquite etc. That's only fair isn't it?

No it's not an appropriate excuse for your dismal behaviour. You also
have to ask yourself why you post in a DIY group and abuse those who
disagree with you.

When you are netcopping (what you consider, this wasn't, it was
addressing the thread subject of MM climate change that I wouldn't

TBH the thread matters little it seems, since you will go "on message"
with little provocation in any thread.

Not quite true and think you will find that:

It is patently true, you're too myopic to see it.

1) I only participate in way less than 50% of the threads and only
bring the idea of livestock and their, GW gasses, their pollution,
their resource usage, their habitat destruction or suffering where it
is linked with the topic.

You regularly create a thread about your fanaticism, and attract posts
from many sources to point out your lies and mistruths.

have thought you would have been interested in) thread drift, do you

Personally I don't mind thread drift - it can take you to new and novel
destinations.

Quite.

But when the thread drift becomes monotonous. Your posts are not novel
inventions with every post, but the same old, same old stuck record.

This is not thread drift, but a strong thread undercurrent.

Because it impacts all of us.

Quite, and your posts are a good reason to keeping eating meat and meat
products to stave off becoming like you.

Ethical vegans would be horrified with your posts and how they are
perceived.

We keep
getting sucked into the same septic back water.

A 'septic backwater' created by man and that we are already suffering
from ourselves (health, antibiotic resistance, pollution, resource
waste).

Then campaign to improve those aspects. There doesn't seem much concern,
otherwise you might be have be none of the signatories for this petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/archi...titions/168522

do it on all subjects for all posters OOI?

I have blocked all the output of many of them, and so don't see them.

So you aren't going to be able to judge what I say with any real
overall comparison.

A broken record needs only be judged once. You bring nothing of
substance to the table, usually lies.

I
feel no sense of loss not being able to read the erudite and thought
provoking contributions from peeler or speed.

Even they can offer *some* good things now and again ... and you
aren't obliged to read *anything* from *anyone* of course, even if it
appears in front of you.

However as a smart poster
with obvious skills and abilities, who has demonstrated they are capable
of posting interesting relevant content, and participating in
discussion; I hold you to a higher standard than some of the others.

Why thank you kind sir. ;-)

Any
group is only as good as the interactions between posters.

And any group is likely to reflect the general feelings, attitudes and
issues of it's members unless moderated very tightly (which most
people here don't seem to want).

And the general feeling here is you're a narcissistic fanatic.

Much like any
networks usefulness grows exponentially with respect to the number of
connections. If one causes people to disengage and break those
connections, then the whole group is poorer for it.

Agreed.

And you're a prime candidate for making this newsgroup 'poorer'.

Now it is my impression that many of "animal" posts seem to be actively
encouraging people to disengage and break connections.

Only by those who seem the most keen to continue to exploit, cause
suffering and death to innocent animals it seems?

Another broken record. Some of use campaign to reduce animal suffering
and improve animal welfare. You're on record for not caring an=out
animal welfare whilst an animal is alive.

Perhaps this is
just a cunning reverse psychology attack on the whole vegan concept by
undermining it?

Not from here it isn't

That's because you're a fanatic, and cannot see further than the end of
your nose.

and those who 'get it' seem willing to say so.

Some do, but they don't want top be associated with a fanatic, and
respect other's beliefs.

Many others may now be considering their own actions and questioning
if they align with their morals whilst others, like the spoilt
children they are will throw their toys out of the pram and go the
other way. And I'm happy about that as they are likely to have shorter
life spans because of it. ;-)

Many have learnt the damage to a child's brain development, and a
reduction of IQ if fed with a sustained vegan diet.

secondly because I would rather
just filter your OT posts, rather than all your posts.

I would rather you didn't kill animals to eat when you don't need to
but here we are?

You seem to be suggesting that my choice of diet makes my opinion on say
electrical installation, plumbing or woodwork less palatable.

Not sure where you got that from but all I was saying there are things
that we both may not like and we both have two choices?

I don't suppose you do. But I have proffered advice which you have
dismissed out of ignorance.

I am not
sure why that might be,

You wouldn't because it isn't. ;-)

It is, you just don't recognise it.

but you do have a kill file, so go ahead an use
it if it you want.

It would be the first time if I did but no, you are fine thanks.

Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic rants.

Where I'm trying to question people unnecessarily cause animals to
suffer and die you mean by 'rants' then?

Yes, they are rants, especially when you have no desire to reduce animal
suffering.

To someone who doesn't condone the unnecessary suffering and death of
animals wouldn't see it as a rant but someone being passionate about
that?

There is passion, and there is fanaticism. You are a fanatic and your
posts are counterproductive.

Then we would both be happy.

No, I would be happy if more people stopped ignoring the conflict that
is within them and better aligned their actions with their morals.

Once again your narcissism shows.

I *hope* you wouldn't intentionally or unnecessarily hurt a dog, a cat
or most other animals so that is logically consistent, your actions
match your morals. That fact that you do only means your conditioning
is strong and might take some introspection by you to break the cycle
and start to see things for what they really are, not what you have
been conditioned to accept them to be for some animals to some levels.

eg. I like the taste and texture of meat, I must have done or I'm
guessing I wouldn't have eaten the meats I did ... and I may have also
liked the taste and texture of loads of other things (animals /
plants) that I never tried because I didn't want to because or I
couldn't or wouldn't (like cat, dog, rabbit, Guinea pig etc) or the
impact of consuming like heroin or cocaine, but didn't, simply because
there was no need for me to and I didn't want to (even if they were
legal).

So I have also always been logically inconsistent and for as long as I
can remember (from realising what 'meat' was), haven't felt
comfortable consuming it but because doing so had been 'normalised',
and I liked it and was partly addicted to it (dopamine), I carried on
doing it, all be it that I cut back on the few meats I did eat,
initially replacing minced animal carcass with Quorn type mince etc
(and not really being bothered by any difference and appreciating the
lack of bone, gristle or any other 'surprises' etc)) and then meats in
general.

The doctor steered me away from 'dairy' 7 years ago and I feel better
for and don't miss that.

My doctor hasn't. Are you envious I can drink milk and you can't?

Doing more general food research during a veganuary it was brought to
the fore some of the atrocities that go on behind the scenes in 'meat
/ dairy / egg' production and that finally undid my cognitive
dissonance and allowed me to become logically consistent at last. I
can now no more think of hurting a pig or chicken than I could a dog
or parrot ... and so I don't.

If they are so truly bad, why not campaign for improvements. Your
concern is nothing more than a lie.

Now, what may have made that more relevant *today* is that I believe
we have reached a turning point with all this and are already
producing 'lab meat' for those who really can't be without 'meat' but
who agree they really don't also what to cause animals to suffer and
die, simply because they like the taste of their (cooked) flesh.

Add to that all the commercially available vegan ready meals (for the
people who might also have bought animal flesh based ready meals) but
if you prefer to eat more natural and nutritionally superior foods to
the meats that are linked with human illnesses like cancer, heart
disease and obesity, you can, and much easier (certainly in the sense
of ingredient availability) today than any time in the past.

Further, many (poor) health conditions can be reduced or reversed by
not eating meat and focusing on alternatives. All the good medical /
scientific advice ... 'reduce your meat consumption and eat more fruit
and vegetables'.

And many health conditions can be exacerbated from a vegan diet. Mental
health is an issue.

If we all did that, we would have less pollution, less wasted
resource, better human health, less antibiotic resistance, less chance
of zoonotic pandemics and better sustainability.

If we all did that our future generations would lack the intelligence of
previous generations, it would be a retrograde step.

Given how much all of those could affect all of us, why wouldn't you
consider a simple lifestyle change?

I have, and dismissed it on so many counts, your fanaticism being the
greatest hurdle. I would hate to become like you.

On 02/06/2021 21:48, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 19:18:11 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 01/06/2021 21:20, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 14:39:38 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip
I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)

But why should I, why can't you simply not read (and especially reply
to) it?

Firstly, because you said you would,

I'm pretty sure I didn't because I wasn't aware I could. Are you sure
you aren't getting confused with an new OT topics I post that are
always marked correctly?

Well now you know, you could do both :-)

I could ... but only when everyone 'else' applies / abides to the
netettiquite etc. That's only fair isn't it?

There are few others that appear to have a similar level of "on message"
dedication to a cause... the only ones that spring to mind are peeler in
his obsession with speed, and normen knobend and his anonymous mate who
have a similar zeal for posting anti-semetic rants (if that is indeed
what they are - its hard to make much sense of them and I am long past
caring).

When you are netcopping (what you consider, this wasn't, it was
addressing the thread subject of MM climate change that I wouldn't

TBH the thread matters little it seems, since you will go "on message"
with little provocation in any thread.

Not quite true and think you will find that:

1) I only participate in way less than 50% of the threads and only
bring the idea of livestock and

[snip non relevant back on message section]

have thought you would have been interested in) thread drift, do you

Personally I don't mind thread drift - it can take you to new and novel
destinations.

Quite.

This is not thread drift, but a strong thread undercurrent.

Because it impacts all of us.

Not for DIY... unless we are sharing tips for building a spit roast.

We keep
getting sucked into the same septic back water.

A 'septic backwater' created by

[snip non relevant back on message section]

do it on all subjects for all posters OOI?

I have blocked all the output of many of them, and so don't see them.

So you aren't going to be able to judge what I say with any real
overall comparison.

I judge it on its own merits - there is no need for comparison.

I
feel no sense of loss not being able to read the erudite and thought
provoking contributions from peeler or speed.

Even they can offer *some* good things now and again ...

Peeler, no. Speed, the s/n ratio is *far* to low to make it worth the
effort.

and you
aren't obliged to read *anything* from *anyone* of course, even if it
appears in front of you.

Harder to avoid when it keeps popping up without warning

However as a smart poster
with obvious skills and abilities, who has demonstrated they are capable
of posting interesting relevant content, and participating in
discussion; I hold you to a higher standard than some of the others.

Why thank you kind sir. ;-)

Any
group is only as good as the interactions between posters.

And any group is likely to reflect the general feelings, attitudes and
issues of it's members unless moderated very tightly (which most
people here don't seem to want).

Much like any
networks usefulness grows exponentially with respect to the number of
connections. If one causes people to disengage and break those
connections, then the whole group is poorer for it.

Agreed.

Now it is my impression that many of "animal" posts seem to be actively
encouraging people to disengage and break connections.

Only by those who seem the most keen to continue to exploit,

[snip non relevant back on message section]

Perhaps this is
just a cunning reverse psychology attack on the whole vegan concept by
undermining it?

Not from here it isn't

You need a wider perspective, since it is from here...

[snip non relevant back on message section]

secondly because I would rather
just filter your OT posts, rather than all your posts.

I would rather you didn't kill animals to eat when you don't need to
but here we are?

You seem to be suggesting that my choice of diet makes my opinion on say
electrical installation, plumbing or woodwork less palatable.

Not sure where you got that from but all I was saying there are things
that we both may not like and we both have two choices?

I am not
sure why that might be,

You wouldn't because it isn't. ;-)

but you do have a kill file, so go ahead an use
it if it you want.

It would be the first time if I did but no, you are fine thanks.

Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic rants.

Where I'm trying to question people

[snip non relevant back on message section]

you mean by 'rants' then?

Yes

To someone who doesn't condone the unnecessary suffering and death of
animals wouldn't see it as a rant but someone being passionate about
that?

You would, but that is because your viewpoint has become unreasonably
distorted.

Then we would both be happy.

No, I would be happy if more people stopped ignoring the conflict that
is within them and better aligned their actions with their morals.

That is a statement built on a false assumption.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In message , Robin
writes
On 02/06/2021 19:18, John Rumm wrote:
snip
Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic
rants. Then we would both be happy.


As would I

Sadly, with so little current *on topic* input from Tim, I have adopted
the full sanction.

That leaves the follow ups to his deliberate thread diversions...

To think, not so long ago, he used to rail about troll infestations!


--
Tim Lamb

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 22:33:46 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I could ... but only when everyone 'else' applies / abides to the
netettiquite etc. That's only fair isn't it?

There are few others that appear to have a similar level of "on message"
dedication to a cause... the only ones that spring to mind are peeler in
his obsession with speed, and normen knobend and his anonymous mate who
have a similar zeal for posting anti-semetic rants (if that is indeed
what they are - its hard to make much sense of them and I am long past
caring).

snip

OK. Bottom line. You consider it acceptable to cause animals to suffer
and be killed (because that's what your consumption of meat, eggs and
dairy requires) and you are obviously happy with that.

You are obviously selective re what you are willing to consider 'on
topic' here when all posts (not just the ones you happen to see from
behind your wall) are taken into consideration.

Even though the consequences of your lifestyle choice have a direct
impact on me and my diy interests (deforestation to feed livestock by
burning forests denies the world wood) and may well shorten my diy
life by the increased pollution and antibiotic resistance, you are
happy to disconnect all that from specific diy discussion whilst also
joining in obvious non diy discussion that isn't even posted off
topic, even if it causes you to question your lifestyle (like say
driving IC vehicles, flight or burning fossil fuels to heat your
home).

This thread was about Climate problems and from what I understand your
POV on it all, you were unlikely to read anything in it that wasn't of
interest to you. So why did you and more specifically, why did you
just pick on my ON TOPIC contributions and not any of the others?

Livestock is one of the biggest producers of CO2 (equivalence) gasses,
whether you believe there is a link to any global warming or not.

It really seems like you would much rather just put your fingers in
your ears when it comes to anything that calls into question your
acceptance of causing *some* animals to suffer and die because your
cognitive dissonance (to them) and your logical inconsistency (that
supports the former) has supported your conditioning for all these
years.

The message of the pollution dealing with millions of livestock
stands without having to be bothered about animals and that is
something that is affecting us all.

So, if you want to avoid reading anything about that you could stop
being part of the cause of it. If you want to live your diy world here
in isolation of any other conversation, may I suggest you suspend your
killfile and start *your* campaign (further victimisation?) elsewhere?

Q. If you were born into a world where there weren't billions of
sentient creatures held in restricted environments and given high
growth foods and killed young and their corpses conveniently packaged
in a way where it bears little resemblance to the innocent creature it
once was, and there was a ready supply of 'food' that provided all
your nutritional needs without all that, do you think you would think
to go out into the environment and kill a wild animal (and if so
what), bring it home and try to eat it like you see the carnivores
doing?

So, how about this, get everone to agree to mark any not directly
related to DIY post with an OT (and jump on them when they don't) and
get everone to only drift any topic to things you consider acceptable
(or you will jump on them) and all your problems will be resolved and
you will be seen to being fair, reasonable and consistent. ;-)


Cheers, T i m

In article , Spike
writes
On 31/05/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:

The actual fact is that our daughter just gave us the opportunity to
see the truth better for ourselves and *WE* decided to carry on with
it from then on. And it was far from a hard sell, it was that she
announced that she was going to *try* going vegan (from a vegi for a
few years, thinking that was enough before realising the egg and dairy
industry were as bad or worse) for one month (veganuary) and we
*offered* to join her.

You should have done what I did, which was to give up eating beef and
lamb some four decades ago. Just think of all the animals that were
killed for you while you were having fun and enjoying the sort of life
that you now don't want others to have - known, appropriately, as the
'dog in a manger' attitude. You'll need to live to over a 100 to catch
up with me, and given your stress levels caused by your trolling I think
that might be a bridge too far.

5 decades as a veggie for me. There was always a dilemma. Whilst we
would have liked more choice and more outlets we knew that eventually if
it became to popular the zealots would pile in and then the big food
manufacturers would follow with all the crap you now see on the
supermarket shelves labelled "vegan " etc.
--
bert

On 03/06/2021 08:40, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Robin
writes
On 02/06/2021 19:18, John Rumm wrote:
snip
Â*Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic
rants. Then we would both be happy.


As would I

Sadly, with so little current *on topic* input from Tim, I have adopted
the full sanction.

I invoked that some time ago. I could cope with him stating his point of
view in one OT thread, but not proselytising in every thread possible,
when no more than 2 or 3 posts would have covered it all.

In article , Robin
writes
On 02/06/2021 19:18, John Rumm wrote:
snip
Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic
rants. Then we would both be happy.


As would I

+1
--
bert

On 03/06/2021 09:25, bert wrote:
Spike writes
On 31/05/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:

The actual fact is that our daughter just gave us the opportunity to
see the truth better for ourselves and *WE* decided to carry on with
it from then on. And it was far from a hard sell, it was that she
announced that she was going to *try* going vegan (from a vegi for a
few years, thinking that was enough before realising the egg and dairy
industry were as bad or worse) for one month (veganuary) and we
*offered* to join her.

You should have done what I did, which was to give up eating beef and
lamb some four decades ago. Just think of all the animals that were
killed for you while you were having fun and enjoying the sort of life
that you now don't want others to have - known, appropriately, as the
'dog in a manger' attitude. You'll need to live to over a 100 to catch
up with me, and given your stress levels caused by your trolling I think
that might be a bridge too far.

5 decades as a veggie for me. There was always a dilemma. Whilst we
would have liked more choice and more outlets we knew that eventually if
it became to popular the zealots would pile in and then the big food
manufacturers would follow with all the crap you now see on the
supermarket shelves labelled "vegan " etc.

Yes, it would appear that T i m hasn't worked that out, and mistakes the
numbers of vegan-labelled foods and vegan food aisles for growing
popularity rather than as a business opportunity to sell cheap,
processed vegetables at a high mark-up. Sadly, that screws it up for
those who were already in to vegetarianism and those proper vegans
rather than the veganists as represented by T i m.

It didn't happen to the same extent for gluten-free foods, as people
don't convert to being coeliac.


--
Spike

On 02/06/2021 21:19, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

snip

Whatever makes you think that there was some sort of obligation to
evangelise?

Because that's exactly what you did with your 'You should have done
what I did ..'.

Nope. You blather on

Discuss

But you don't discuss. You lay down The Gospel According to T i m.

promote

How's that going? I don't see any new recruits to your religion from
your 'promotion'.

educate

Seeing as how your 'education' seems to consist of lies, distortions,
and fairy stories, how effective do you think it has been?

advocate

The only thing you seem to 'advocate' is a wildly unbalanced diet. It
doesn't seem to be doing you much good.

(for the benefit of all).

For the benefit of you - namely, your post-facto justification for being
the last in you family group to convert.

about what others should do now

Nope, not what they should do, but what they might consider not doing
any longer.

'Should do' according to your Gospel.

you've been
converted

*I* have changed my lifestyle, by me.

With a little 'encouragement' from your 'friends'.

to the evangelical branch of the anti-meat-eating branch of
veganism,

Nope, most ethical vegans are so not for them but for others
(especially animals).

You're not an ethical vegan. You feed meat to a dog.

while you totally ignore your six decades of a lifestyle

No I don't, I am guilty of it. But hindsight is a lovely thing , as is
indoctrination, conditioning and marketing.

If you'd played your cards right, you could have converted to your
anti-meat-eating crusade (thinly disguised by a cloak of veganism) on
your death bed, and so carried on having all the fun you previously
enjoyed with the added bonus of not having to bother with it all the
veganist claptrap.

that
you would, dog-in-manger fashion, now try to deny others.

Only from your evangelistic POV. For me it's to educate others for
themselves.

It's not working. Most of what you say has been shown to be wrong.

If you did none, then you are simply experiencing with me the result
of your inaction and not something I would personally be proud of or
boast about.

Supposition piled upon supposition.

Nope, just you not being able to back pedal fast enough.

The 'if' and 'would be' in your statement is in fact what constitutes
piling supposition upon supposition.

But your statement was bollox so any logic fails at that point.

You've said many times that you don't have a logical brain, so what
would you know about it?

You haven't grasped even yet that your virtue-signalling about your
current lifestyle 'choice' (a "*We* are going vegan, what are *you*
going to do?" sort of choice)

Except that's not what it is. It's 'we should all go vegan' and I wish
I'd done so sooner. It's only your twisted mind that forces you to
take on such a POV.

It can be seen in what you said.

Only by someone with a twisted mind. The mere fact that you state so
many lies and bollox proves that 100%.

LOL. That's rich, coming from a fact-distorter.

merely highlights the fact you had over
six decades of doing what you wanted,

Nope.

Yep.

See above. For the first decade I was told what to eat and given it to
eat. Once indoctrinated and brought up in a culture that normalises a
particular lifestyle, it can be difficult to see (and more do) the
right thing.

So your answer to indoctrination is indoctrination? Wow...

Again, because of your twisted POV to choose to make bogus
interpretations on what happened. I didn't do 'what I wanted', I did
what I had been indoctrinated to consider acceptable when it never
was.

And now you've been indoctrinated into something else. You just can't
see it, can you.

Ironically I can, and I have only shaken of the indoctrination that
allowed me to be logically inconsistent and now I'm mot. Being
logically consistent isn't the sign of anything other than being
logically consistent.

So you admit that you've been indoctrinated. How does that add
credibility to your anti-meat-eating crusade (thinly disguised by a
cloak of veganism)?

If you don't eat beef but eat other animals you are being logically
inconsistent, especially if it's though choice.

You have so much to learn, it's hard to know where to start.

and now, like the dog in a manger,
now don't want others to have the chance to do the same.

Again, a twisted interpretation from a sick mind.

It's *exactly* your position in this matter.

My mind is fed with a balanced diet, and yours isn't. Just think about
that, if you can.

It' is *exactly not* my position. Like I said, you are the one
demonstrating logical inconsistency, not me.

You just can't see it, can you.

Says the one in a cult that encourages a cognitive dissonance and
logical inconsistency that allows you to stamp on a chicken but not a
cat.

So you're now down to 'cognitive dissonance'. Stand by for 'left-brainer'.

You even
advocate conditioning children to accept your 'choice'.

Nope,

Yep.

I advocate children aren't forced to become logically inconsistent,
not be indoctrinated to consider abusing animals to be acceptable.

But you'd indoctrinate them while doing so. That is morally wrong.

I advocate not advocating children are conditioned to do
something bad to animals whilst telling them not to do bad things to
animals.

Which is of course advocating conditioning of children to accept your
choice for them.

It's not 'my choice', it's a natural human choice, without any
conditioning. If you were shown people stamping on chickens when
young, of course you are going to grow up considering such action to
be 'normal'. It's how domestic violence propagates though the
generations.

You keep mentioning 'stamping on chickens', is there something in your
past you're not telling us?

Carnism is the cult and the exposing of the hypocrisy and logical
inconsistency

No wonder you fit in well, due to your lack of logic and your inconsistency.

I didn't fit into to a carnist world, you are right. I'm much happier
now I have undone all the conditioning and am now aligning my actions
with my morals.

"What Is Veganism?"

"It is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions
people no to eat animals."

"Veganism is, essentially, an oppressive system. It shares the same
basic structure and relies on the same mentality as other oppressive
systems, such as patriarchy and racism."

But hey, you carry on stamping on chickens ...

You see, you make up lies to suit your anti-meat-eating agenda thinly
disguised under a cloak of evangelical veganism.

Ah, now you see what it's like and you don't like it do you?

I'm well used to your perversions of the facts.

But the bottom line is that if you had an actual solid argument
against veganism or supporting carnism other than just stating that
you are happy to stamp on chickens g and can't see the issue with
that, you would have come out with it now but you haven't?

I'm not here to support anything other than to counter your distortions
of the facts.

All you (and all the other carnists state) is what we have done over
history (like that determines what we should do now or in the future),
what animals do in the wild (when we don't set our moral compass on
what 'animals' do ... phrases like 'they acted like animals' to
differentiate the actions humans do when you stop being the advanced
species we are supposed to be) , we 'need to eat meat' when we clearly
don't (proven by the many cultures who haven't eaten meat over many
thousand years) when the only true justification is that they don't
actually give a **** about animals and will do whatever it takes
(including making them suffer and die), just to enjoy the taste of
their flesh because they are conditioned to do that.

You seem to be going off the rails again.For example, you just said "we
clearly don't need to eat meat', when the science - not something that
you mention much - says that we have evolved to have meat as part of a
balanced diet, and that those who are brought up as vegetarians have a
10-point lower IQ. That's a very telling difference.

And all that is without also considering the antibiotic resistance,
zoonotic pandemics, pollution, greenhouse gases, human health,
resource use, habitat and wildlife species under threat of extinction.

I did read once quite some time ago, that of all the species that have
ever lived on the planet, only 2% are currently extant. Some 98% have
died out, without man's helping hand. Species coming and going is part
of the natural life that you advocate for others but not for yourself.
So what's new?

But why would you care about any of that, you like the taste of (some
species of) heated animal flesh and that's enough eh?

You like the taste of vegetables that gave been highly processed to look
like, smell like, cook like, and taste like the very meats that you
despise others for eating. That's hypocrisy.

--
Spike

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:25:55 +0100, bert wrote:

snip

5 decades as a veggie for me.

Why did you go veggie?

There was always a dilemma.

Oh, the burden, for all those years ...

Whilst we
would have liked more choice and more outlets

Of what, vegetables? I think there have been (green) grocers for as
long as I remember and all over the place? Feck, they were selling
(vegan) veg at a lock keepers cottage we walked past yesterday?

we

We?

knew that eventually if
it became to popular the zealots would pile in

Would these be the same sort of 'zealots' who pile into pubs when they
first opened or petrol stations?

and then the big food
manufacturers would follow

Commercialism / capitalism eh, who would have guessed ...

with all the crap you now see on the
supermarket shelves labelled "vegan " etc.

Ah, so they have taken all the 'veggies' you have been living on all
these years away now have they?

I'm guessing you feel the same way about all the processed meats that
are now available and animal based fast / take-away foods that are
prevalent now that the zealots have jumped on?

So you are no different to Spike (well of course you aren't, you are
the same troll) where you try to conflate and evangelise your dietary
choice with the very different act of the protection of innocent
creatures from exploitation (inc cows and chickens etc).

I bet you also predicted the uptake of chips when you first saw a
potato or that we would put a man on the moon when you saw your first
firework rolls eyes.

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 08:40:45 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , Robin
writes
On 02/06/2021 19:18, John Rumm wrote:
snip
Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic
rants. Then we would both be happy.


As would I

Sadly, with so little current *on topic* input from Tim, I have adopted
the full sanction.

If that's what you need to do to protect yourself then so be it.

That leaves the follow ups to his deliberate thread diversions...

I call bull**** on that statement. The goal is and has never ever been
'thread diversions' and any topic drift is no more prevalent or
irrelevant than *all the other* thread drifts that you strangely
choose to ignore completely?

To think, not so long ago, he used to rail about troll infestations!

'Rail'? The use of the bogus and emotive language to single out my
postings says more about you and your 'angles' that you may have
intended to reveal. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 03/06/2021 09:26, Steve Walker wrote:
On 03/06/2021 08:40, Tim Lamb wrote:
Robin writes
On 02/06/2021 19:18, John Rumm wrote:

snip

Â*Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic
rants. Then we would both be happy.

As would I

Sadly, with so little current *on topic* input from Tim, I have adopted
the full sanction.

I invoked that some time ago. I could cope with him stating his point of
view in one OT thread, but not proselytising in every thread possible,
when no more than 2 or 3 posts would have covered it all.

A T-bird filter based on
Match all
Subject Contains OT
Author is T i m
Action Mark Message As Read

....will, if you select Unread Messages in the View pane, mean that these
won't be seen.

It's not as if he has anything new to say on the topic, after all.

--
Spike

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:50:05 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 02/06/2021 21:19, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

snip

Whatever makes you think that there was some sort of obligation to
evangelise?

Because that's exactly what you did with your 'You should have done
what I did ..'.

Nope. You blather on

Discuss

But you don't discuss.

It's difficult to discuss anything with someone who has a closed mind
and there is nothing more close than someone who has been
indoctrinated over most of their lives to accept something they agree
is against their morals. Confront any average meat eater with
slaughterhouse footage and they cringe and are disgusted. Why do they
react like that if what they are seeing is 'natural' and 'normal'?

You lay down The Gospel According to T i m.

Ah, you think I'm the first / only person out there trying to protect
the rights of animals! No wonder you are confused. ;-(

promote

How's that going? I don't see any new recruits to your religion from
your 'promotion'.

1) It's not a religion (there are no deities or requirement to belive
anything as it's all real and very tangible).

2) I was never looking for recruits to anything, just hoping people
start to discuss and consider and they have.

educate

Seeing as how your 'education' seems to consist of lies,

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

distortions,

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

and fairy stories,

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

how effective do you think it has been?

Difficult to tell. Without a doubt a good few people (and you trolls)
are now talking about it so who knows. I have also 'outed' the fact
that you / burk (same thing eh) are veggies that makes much of your
output on the subject even more confused.

advocate

The only thing you seem to 'advocate' is a wildly unbalanced diet.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

It
doesn't seem to be doing you much good.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

(for the benefit of all).

For the benefit of you - namely, your post-facto justification for being
the last in you family group to convert.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

Two members went veggi (15+) years ago (they both studied animal
psychology at uni) one is now teaching in the field herself and the
other a Policeman. Sister and BIL are cutting back on meat, eggs and
dairy after medical scares / issues and on doctors orders. We (the Mrs
and I) went vegan with daughter and step-niece and Mum (92) is happy
to have whatever we cook her (which from us is vegan of course) but is
more 'conditioned' than the rest of us. So she sends money to a donkey
sanctuary whilst eating 'other' animals.

about what others should do now

Nope, not what they should do, but what they might consider not doing
any longer.

'Should do' according to your Gospel.

'Should do' according to anyone who has the removal of the unnecessary
suffering, exploitation and death of animals in their sights yes.
Given that animal suffering is not a 'belief' but a very tangible fact
(as a visit to a slaughterhouse will quickly confirm).

you've been
converted

*I* have changed my lifestyle, by me.

With a little 'encouragement' from your 'friends'.

Sort of. It was actually more providing a facility to allow me (us) to
choose that (veganism) or not. There was *no pressure* at all. There
was no obligation at all. There was no expectation at all. There was
support (upon request) because soon after deciding to continue with
the experiment we were hit with Covid and daughter offered to do all
our shopping. We then had it easy as she had done more research at
that point (from being a veggie for a while before realising it was
bollox, RSPCA Approved and Red Tractor no better than 'Trade checkers'
etc) and niece had already had experience of home cooked veg based
high protein / nutrient foods when cooking for her Mum when she was
first diagnosed with cancer and had little appetite).

to the evangelical branch of the anti-meat-eating branch of
veganism,

Nope, most ethical vegans are so not for them but for others
(especially animals).

You're not an ethical vegan.

Of course I am and you have no way of suggesting otherwise.

You feed meat to a dog.

Last nights meal was probably 25% 'std kibble' (of which only a small
percentage is meat) and the rest a special vegan kibble, plus mashed
pulses and some veg oil.

How I can be an ethical vegan and keep and feed a dog on meat:

"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, when we are reasonably sure we are fulfilling all our (rescue()
dogs nutritional requirements he will also be only eating vegan food.
Not only is this likely give him a much more considered, balanced and
varied diet, it's also likely to remove some of the chemical and
medical risk that feeding him commercially made dog food could bring.
Many dogs have been put on meat free diets to cure them of mead diet
related issues.

We are highly confident that as long as we do sufficient research and
keep an eye on his general condition and activity, we are guaranteed
he will get a better diet than he might in the wild as a domesticated
animal. He certainly has more exercise and enrichment than most other
'pets' and certainly 98% of livestock.


while you totally ignore your six decades of a lifestyle

No I don't, I am guilty of it. But hindsight is a lovely thing , as is
indoctrination, conditioning and marketing.

If you'd played your cards right, you could have converted to your
anti-meat-eating crusade (thinly disguised by a cloak of veganism)

What is the difference? If you take opportunities to reduce the
suffering and death of innocent creatures I guess that is a level of
'activism' as would have been the case for pretty well every instance
where there has been improvements made for people, animals and the
environment since the beginning of time. Anyone who is aware of any
such injustice and who chooses to keep quiet about it is no less
culpable than the people actually doing it.

on
your death bed, and so carried on having all the fun you previously
enjoyed with the added bonus of not having to bother with it all the
veganist claptrap.

And here we go again, all the pathetic and childish bull****. It's as
if the stress of having to keep up any level of rational discussion is
impossible for you and you melt down.

that
you would, dog-in-manger fashion, now try to deny others.

Only from your evangelistic POV. For me it's to educate others for
themselves.

It's not working.

IYO.

Most of what you say has been shown to be wrong.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

If you did none, then you are simply experiencing with me the result
of your inaction and not something I would personally be proud of or
boast about.

Supposition piled upon supposition.

Nope, just you not being able to back pedal fast enough.

The 'if' and 'would be' in your statement is in fact what constitutes
piling supposition upon supposition.

But your statement was bollox so any logic fails at that point.

You've said many times that you don't have a logical brain,

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

so what
would you know about it?

More than enough. What I have said is that I have the mental ability
to be flexible, not continue to be trapped in a situation that I have
felt causes conflict between my actions and my morals. Now I have been
able to snap out of that (conditioning) and so are living more
logically.

You haven't grasped even yet that your virtue-signalling about your
current lifestyle 'choice' (a "*We* are going vegan, what are *you*
going to do?" sort of choice)

Except that's not what it is. It's 'we should all go vegan' and I wish
I'd done so sooner. It's only your twisted mind that forces you to
take on such a POV.

It can be seen in what you said.

Only by someone with a twisted mind. The mere fact that you state so
many lies and bollox proves that 100%.

LOL. That's rich, coming from a fact-distorter.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

merely highlights the fact you had over
six decades of doing what you wanted,

Nope.

Yep.

See above. For the first decade I was told what to eat and given it to
eat. Once indoctrinated and brought up in a culture that normalises a
particular lifestyle, it can be difficult to see (and more do) the
right thing.

So your answer to indoctrination is indoctrination? Wow...

Are you really that stupid? (You don't need to answer that of course).

Where did I state anything even like that?

The opposite of indoctrination (into anything) isn't other
indoctrination but *NO* indoctrination. It's education, giving people
ALL the facts and allowing them to choose for themselves.

Allowing a child to consider the drinking of the growth fluid created
for the young of a different species isn't being honest to that child
because there is no evidence WHAT SO EVER to suggest that process is
in any way natural, desirable or even acceptable.

Human mothers produce milk for their human babies.
After about 1 year they can be weaned off of human milk and onto
solids. A few months after that the child would entirely on solids,
they would stop consuming milk and the mother would stop producing it.

*THAT* is what is natural for a human mother and a human baby, just as
it is similar for many other mammal species and their young of course.

Again, because of your twisted POV to choose to make bogus
interpretations on what happened. I didn't do 'what I wanted', I did
what I had been indoctrinated to consider acceptable when it never
was.

And now you've been indoctrinated into something else. You just can't
see it, can you.

Ironically I can, and I have only shaken of the indoctrination that
allowed me to be logically inconsistent and now I'm mot. Being
logically consistent isn't the sign of anything other than being
logically consistent.

So you admit that you've been indoctrinated.

Of course, or why on earth would I have still been doing it (all be it
at restricted levels) till I was 60?

How does that add
credibility to your anti-meat-eating crusade (thinly disguised by a
cloak of veganism)?

Ok, someone who isn't a world champion 100m runner suddenly one day
run a world record beating 100m time. How does the fact that they
weren't a record breaker the day before, impact the fact that they are
a record breaker at that point?

Preempting the fact that such an analogy is likely to cause your troll
brain to implode, the answer is 'it isn't'.

If it turned out I was killing my wives and burying them under the
patio and was then found out, I would be held responsible for those
historic events because those were illegal when I did them. I have
chosen to stop doing what I was indoctrinated to do and it's only my
own guilt I now have to carry and the regret for not doing it sooner.
If only you had spoken up in support for your semi-vegetarianism (or
whatever conflict you still exist under) I might have been able to
save more animals sooner.

If you don't eat beef but eat other animals you are being logically
inconsistent, especially if it's though choice.

You have so much to learn, it's hard to know where to start.

Well, rather than coming out with bogus accusations and pointless
trolling you could try to explain.

and now, like the dog in a manger,
now don't want others to have the chance to do the same.

Again, a twisted interpretation from a sick mind.

It's *exactly* your position in this matter.

My mind is fed with a balanced diet, and yours isn't.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

Just think about
that, if you can.

I can but you are still wrong.


It' is *exactly not* my position. Like I said, you are the one
demonstrating logical inconsistency, not me.

You just can't see it, can you.

Says the one in a cult that encourages a cognitive dissonance and
logical inconsistency that allows you to stamp on a chicken but not a
cat.

So you're now down to 'cognitive dissonance'. Stand by for 'left-brainer'.

It's much more likely for someone to continue to fight the cognitive
dissonance when they are a left brainer yes. They do so because they
are likely to be less open to alternative / new / different ideas.

You even
advocate conditioning children to accept your 'choice'.

Nope,

Yep.

I advocate children aren't forced to become logically inconsistent,
not be indoctrinated to consider abusing animals to be acceptable.

But you'd indoctrinate them while doing so.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong. The opposite of indoctrination is
not more but just the facts / truth.

That is morally wrong.

Yes, it is and why I would advocate against doing it with animal
rights and children.

I advocate not advocating children are conditioned to do
something bad to animals whilst telling them not to do bad things to
animals.

Which is of course advocating conditioning of children to accept your
choice for them.

It's not 'my choice', it's a natural human choice, without any
conditioning. If you were shown people stamping on chickens when
young, of course you are going to grow up considering such action to
be 'normal'. It's how domestic violence propagates though the
generations.

You keep mentioning 'stamping on chickens', is there something in your
past you're not telling us?

No, it's yours, it's an analogy re your tolerance to seeing the
routine slaughter of animals as a child, your normalisation of it and
conditioning to it. It's (probably) a lie like many of the lies you
tell about me but as you continue to tell them, I assumed it was ok
for me to do the same?

Carnism is the cult and the exposing of the hypocrisy and logical
inconsistency

No wonder you fit in well, due to your lack of logic and your inconsistency.

I didn't fit into to a carnist world, you are right. I'm much happier
now I have undone all the conditioning and am now aligning my actions
with my morals.

"What Is Veganism?"

"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."

snip

You see, you make up lies to suit your anti-meat-eating agenda thinly
disguised under a cloak of evangelical veganism.

Ah, now you see what it's like and you don't like it do you?

I'm well used to your perversions of the facts.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

But the bottom line is that if you had an actual solid argument
against veganism or supporting carnism other than just stating that
you are happy to stamp on chickens g and can't see the issue with
that, you would have come out with it now but you haven't?

I'm not here to support anything other than to counter your distortions
of the facts.

It's good to have a hobby and thank you for continuing to keep the
discussions 'active'. The animals will thank you for it (well, the
ones out of a list you must have that you don't stamp on of course).

All you (and all the other carnists state) is what we have done over
history (like that determines what we should do now or in the future),
what animals do in the wild (when we don't set our moral compass on
what 'animals' do ... phrases like 'they acted like animals' to
differentiate the actions humans do when you stop being the advanced
species we are supposed to be) , we 'need to eat meat' when we clearly
don't (proven by the many cultures who haven't eaten meat over many
thousand years) when the only true justification is that they don't
actually give a **** about animals and will do whatever it takes
(including making them suffer and die), just to enjoy the taste of
their flesh because they are conditioned to do that.

You seem to be going off the rails again.

Aww, too difficult for you to follow is it?

For example, you just said "we
clearly don't need to eat meat', when the science - not something that
you mention much - says that we have evolved to have meat as part of a
balanced diet, and that those who are brought up as vegetarians have a
10-point lower IQ. That's a very telling difference.

No, all that says is that you have selected something you think is
'important' and keep repeating it when I don't consider it to be true
or relevant.

If eating the brains from live monkeys could be shown to make us 5%
more intelligent are you suggesting we should all start doing that?

Do you think that would reflect us 'evolving' into more sentient, more
compassionate beings that is what is considered to set us 'above' the
'other animals'?

And all that is without also considering the antibiotic resistance,
zoonotic pandemics, pollution, greenhouse gases, human health,
resource use, habitat and wildlife species under threat of extinction.

I did read once quite some time ago, that of all the species that have
ever lived on the planet, only 2% are currently extant. Some 98% have
died out, without man's helping hand. Species coming and going is part
of the natural life that you advocate for others but not for yourself.
So what's new?

The fact that prior to us appearing it was perfectly 'natural'. As
soon as we are involved species that may not have died out now do so
are down to us. If we are 'different' from all the others and that
difference is supposed to be considered 'better', being better would
mean we didn't make things worse.

But why would you care about any of that, you like the taste of (some
species of) heated animal flesh and that's enough eh?

You like the taste of vegetables that gave been highly processed to look
like, smell like, cook like, and taste like the very meats that you
despise others for eating.

And? I also like unprocessed vegetables, fruits, nuts, berries ...

That's hypocrisy.

Nope, it's 100% pathetic strawman.

You have no idea what I eat and it is completely irrelevant to the
cause of protecting innocent creatures from unnecessary suffering,
exploitation and death what I eat, as long as it doesn't contain
animals or their excretions or exploitation.

But I get it, you don't eat cow or sheep and as yes seem unable to
explain why you only don't eat those particular species. The answer to
that is more interesting than the one of why someone might not want to
kill any species to eat at all?

So, given how fixated you are on what I *don't* eat, how about you
tell us what logic / facts go behind what you decide *to* eat, animal
wise?

Is it all about you or are there any considerations for others
involved at all?

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:49:44 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

Yes, it would appear that T i m hasn't worked that out, and mistakes the
numbers of vegan-labelled foods and vegan food aisles for growing
popularity rather than as a business opportunity to sell cheap,
processed vegetables at a high mark-up.

Supply and demand mate. If people don't want or like it they won't
demand it and the manufacturers won't make it.

There are *millions* of products that have been pushed onto a market
and have failed due to lack of interest. Many animal based food
manufacturers are realising that the writing is on the wall and are
'getting onboard' with vegan products because they will either have to
go that way (because of demand) or go broke.

Sadly, that screws it up for
those who were already in to vegetarianism and those proper vegans

It does no such thing. The only people even slightly interested in
that aspect are the trolls desperate to make some point.

rather than the veganists as represented by T i m.

Unfortunately for you you are wrong.

It didn't happen to the same extent for gluten-free foods, as people
don't convert to being coeliac.

So, what's your take on the gluten 'thing' then OOI?

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:31:10 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , Robin
writes
On 02/06/2021 19:18, John Rumm wrote:
snip
Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic
rants. Then we would both be happy.


As would I

+1

Now, if you could just get all the other trolls to killfile me we
could get back to regular and respectful adult conversation across a
whole range of subjects.

Cheers, T i m

On 3 Jun 2021 11:12:54 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

I invoked that some time ago. I could cope with him stating his point of
view in one OT thread, but not proselytising in every thread possible,
when no more than 2 or 3 posts would have covered it all.

+1

Ah yes, that's why they just put two or three 'Smoking is bad for you'
adverts on telly and that was 'enough'.

We have had people on here who don't know you can get vegan chocolate,
or don't realised that animals are routinely killed for the production
of milk or eggs so *of course* the whole thing needs more / deeper
conversation for people to be better educated on it all.

But hey, I appreciate if you are old and can't get say a simple phone
app to work in a restaurant you could easily get overloaded by the
sheer throughput of DIY related posts on here every day and how some
OT posts (on subjects that affect all of us) could push you over the
edge.

Funny how all the non OT marked and completely irrelevant to anything
that affects us or DIY (or is of interest in most cases) posts don't
even get a mention? It's like talking about animal rights touches
nerves?

Cheers, T i m

On 03/06/2021 08:40, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Robin
writes
On 02/06/2021 19:18, John Rumm wrote:
snip
Â*Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic
rants. Then we would both be happy.


As would I

Sadly, with so little current *on topic* input from Tim, I have adopted
the full sanction.

T i m is such a ****** i wouldn't want to hear his on topic drivel

That leaves the follow ups to his deliberate thread diversions...

To think, not so long ago, he used to rail about troll infestations!
typical case of projection. veganism has turned his brain to porridge





--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 03/06/2021 10:10, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 22:33:46 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I could ... but only when everyone 'else' applies / abides to the
netettiquite etc. That's only fair isn't it?

There are few others that appear to have a similar level of "on message"
dedication to a cause... the only ones that spring to mind are peeler in
his obsession with speed, and normen knobend and his anonymous mate who
have a similar zeal for posting anti-semetic rants (if that is indeed
what they are - its hard to make much sense of them and I am long past
caring).

snip

OK. Bottom line.

[snip same stuff repeated so 'kin frequently]

So, how about this, get everone to agree to mark any not directly
related to DIY post with an OT (and jump on them when they don't) and
get everone to only drift any topic to things you consider acceptable
(or you will jump on them) and all your problems will be resolved and
you will be seen to being fair, reasonable and consistent. ;-)

As previously mentioned, in this group most people don't have a problem
with thread drift, or a fair amount of off topic chatter on a wide range
of topics - it's one of things (IMHO) that makes this group an
interesting place to hang out.

The thing you seem to be having difficulty grasping is that thread drift
and "off topic" chatter is just that - it's variable and the topics
under discussion change. It goes where the conversation takes it. I
personally did not even object to a few discussions on veganism to start
with.

Your version of thread drift is always in the same direction, is always
a variation of the same message, on the same topic, has become an
obsession, and now it gets on everyone's tits. We have now read it over
and over and over, some of us agree with some of your points. I suspect
there is probably no one who agrees with all of them, but hay that is
life. I personally take offence at the suggestion that the only reason
that we don't all agree with your every point is that we are too
stupid/brainwashed/immoral/suffering from cognitive dissonance or have
simply never given it enough thought.

You need to accept that not everyone sees things the way you do, and
likely never will. The more you rail against that, and try to counter it
with repetition of the same tired old messages, the more you guarantee
that is the case, and do actual harm to a cause you claim to care about.

ISTM that if you continue, you will find that there is an ever
diminishing set of people reading *any* of your posts, which would be a
shame IMHO.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 11:12:28 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 03/06/2021 09:26, Steve Walker wrote:
On 03/06/2021 08:40, Tim Lamb wrote:
Robin writes
On 02/06/2021 19:18, John Rumm wrote:

snip

*Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic
rants. Then we would both be happy.

As would I

Sadly, with so little current *on topic* input from Tim, I have adopted
the full sanction.

I invoked that some time ago. I could cope with him stating his point of
view in one OT thread, but not proselytising in every thread possible,
when no more than 2 or 3 posts would have covered it all.

A T-bird filter based on
Match all
Subject Contains OT
Author is T i m
Action Mark Message As Read

...will, if you select Unread Messages in the View pane, mean that these
won't be seen.

Thanks for that. The less denial I have to deal with here the easier
it will be for me to properly discuss the topic (that impacts us all)
with the grownups. ;-)


It's not as if he has anything new to say on the topic, after all.

You seem to find plenty to reply to troll?

Cheers, T i m

p.s. And I use the same email address, news reader, news server (till
I have to move from VM) and (real) name to make killfiling easier. No
socks, aliases or hiding behind false email addresses here.

On 03/06/2021 10:10, T i m wrote:

It really seems like you would much rather just put your fingers in
your ears when it comes to anything that calls into question your
acceptance of causing *some* animals to suffer and die because your
cognitive dissonance (to them) and your logical inconsistency (that
supports the former) has supported your conditioning for all these
years.

Do you (pandemics permitting) go to pubs, clubs, marrow growing
competitions, churches or other places where you meet people not of your
family or close acquaintance at which you find yourself in discussion
with people face to face?

If so, do you similarly turn the discussion time and again to the
necessity of veganism and the stupidity of anyone who disagrees?


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

On 03/06/2021 10:10, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 22:33:46 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I could ... but only when everyone 'else' applies / abides to the
netettiquite etc. That's only fair isn't it?

There are few others that appear to have a similar level of "on message"
dedication to a cause... the only ones that spring to mind are peeler in
his obsession with speed, and normen knobend and his anonymous mate who
have a similar zeal for posting anti-semetic rants (if that is indeed
what they are - its hard to make much sense of them and I am long past
caring).

snip

OK. Bottom line. You consider it acceptable to cause animals to suffer
and be killed (because that's what your consumption of meat, eggs and
dairy requires) and you are obviously happy with that.

You really haven't learnt have you?

It's ironic that you do nothing to stop animal suffering. And against
ethical veganism you still keep pets and subject them to cruel practices.

Suffering doesn't automatically follow meat or meat product consumption.
Only in the mind of a fanatic can that be possible.

Yes, most of us are happy for ourselves and our loved ones to enjoy a
natural balanced diet.

In article , T i m
writes
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:31:10 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , Robin
writes
On 02/06/2021 19:18, John Rumm wrote:
snip
Given the tools, I would be happy to filter just the off topic
rants. Then we would both be happy.


As would I

+1

Now, if you could just get all the other trolls to killfile me we
could get back to regular and respectful adult conversation across a
whole range of subjects.

Cheers, T i m
Actually that's not a bad idea. If everyone kill files the troll he can
rant at himself.

--
bert

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 13:02:38 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 03/06/2021 10:10, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 22:33:46 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I could ... but only when everyone 'else' applies / abides to the
netettiquite etc. That's only fair isn't it?

There are few others that appear to have a similar level of "on message"
dedication to a cause... the only ones that spring to mind are peeler in
his obsession with speed, and normen knobend and his anonymous mate who
have a similar zeal for posting anti-semetic rants (if that is indeed
what they are - its hard to make much sense of them and I am long past
caring).

snip

OK. Bottom line.

[snip same stuff repeated so 'kin frequently]

In the hope you might get the point (at least).

So, how about this, get everone to agree to mark any not directly
related to DIY post with an OT (and jump on them when they don't) and
get everone to only drift any topic to things you consider acceptable
(or you will jump on them) and all your problems will be resolved and
you will be seen to being fair, reasonable and consistent. ;-)

As previously mentioned, in this group most people don't have a problem
with thread drift, or a fair amount of off topic chatter on a wide range
of topics - it's one of things (IMHO) that makes this group an
interesting place to hang out.

Agreed, depending on your reasons for being here in the first place.

The thing you seem to be having difficulty grasping is that thread drift
and "off topic" chatter is just that - it's variable and the topics
under discussion change.

Nope, I 'get it' perfectly.

It goes where the conversation takes it.

Of course.

snip repeated personal preferences


You need to accept that not everyone sees things the way you do, and
likely never will.

I 'need' to do that do I? Like I didn't consider it to be the case
already?

I'm not trying to prove black is white, I'm trying to get (mostly)
intelligent people to consider there is another side (and a life and
death cost) to their choices, and potentially not just to innocent
creatures but us.

snip vegan advocacy advice

ISTM that if you continue, you will find that there is an ever
diminishing set of people reading *any* of your posts, which would be a
shame IMHO.

Like I said, you have the power, you have the big off button and I
don't (/can't of course) force anyone to read anything.

More importantly, there is no obligation what so ever for any one to
*reply* to what I type, even if they do actually read it and what
people are mostly upset by is the level of conversation on this
subject.

Now, if you don't want to consider the content (because there in no
flexibility to your thoughts / lifestyle) and don't read it how will
you know if there is something you hadn't considered that might make
you change your mind?

Given how little actual DIY chatter there is on here at the moment and
many of us are still under a level of lockdown, I really can't see how
difficult it can be to skip anything anyone types if you aren't
interested in it.

I don't run a killfile and have no issue dealing with (all be it
ignoring, reading but not replying or replying) to *everone* who posts
here and generally only reply if I can help, feel I have something to
add (similar story etc) or see it as something that could (or is
already) impact all of us.

I wonder if the reason that some seem to be more affected by what I
say (on animal rights) than all sorts of other and often disgusting /
racist / misogynistic stuff, because it hits a nerve? I know it did
with me in the past and I now regret not *actually* listening sooner.

Had you asked me five years ago if I was likely to stop being part of
the animal / human issue and I would probably have said 'unlikely'.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Why ARE you reading this thread and what part of 'Climate
Problem' do you think doesn't include livestock?

If you concede livestock are as much a part of any MM climate change
as aviation, why didn't you just reply to those facets of the
conversation, rather than any discussion on the justification of the
presence of livestock?

Thread drift can work both ways you know?

On 03/06/2021 11:44, T i m wrote:

It's difficult to discuss anything with someone who has a closed mind
and there is nothing more close than someone who has been
indoctrinated over most of their lives to accept something they agree
is against their morals.

Having been through your anti-meat-eating veganist-conditioning exercise
when very young, I'd have to say it doesn't work. I'm having a vegan
pizza tonight, balanced with added cheese and chicken. The morality is
that we are at the very top of the food chain. Get over it.

Confront any average meat eater with
slaughterhouse footage and they cringe and are disgusted. Why do they
react like that if what they are seeing is 'natural' and 'normal'?

Anyone who has seen the opening 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan, and
watched the occasional TV programme dealing with slaughterhouses, won't
have an issue, though snowflakes and veganists might.

--
Spike

On 03/06/2021 13:49, T i m wrote:

More importantly, there is no obligation what so ever for any one to
*reply* to what I type

Even more importantly, there is no obligation what so ever for you to
write it in the first place, in a DIY group.

--
Spike

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 13:22:12 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 03/06/2021 10:10, T i m wrote:

It really seems like you would much rather just put your fingers in
your ears when it comes to anything that calls into question your
acceptance of causing *some* animals to suffer and die because your
cognitive dissonance (to them) and your logical inconsistency (that
supports the former) has supported your conditioning for all these
years.

Do you (pandemics permitting) go to pubs,

I might go into a pub if it's continent and now smoking isn't allowed
but I don't go 'to' pubs in general.

clubs,

Not really. We did try both our motorcycle marque clubs but were
forced out be smokers not following the rules and risking the use of
the venue for everyone.

marrow growing
competitions,

I dislike most of that family of vegetable and don't currently grow
any veg either (mostly because of other peoples cats).

churches

Again, only if visiting somewhere and it's part of the list of things
to see (largest, smallest, thatched, floating etc).

or other places where you meet people not of your
family or close acquaintance at which you find yourself in discussion
with people face to face?

Of course. I went out for a walk with the dog, Mrs and niece yesterday
(about 7 miles) and had several chats with several people and some of
them fairly extended. One chap actually got off his bike and walk with
us and took my number re an electronic speed controller for his
electric outboard motor.

If so, do you similarly turn the discussion time and again to the
necessity of veganism

Of course, often and did yesterday. In the case of yesterday the two
longest conversations (30+ mins) included points re animal suffering
(everone in agreement and both were already either rarely eating and
even rarer buying meat) and another was the guy in the corner shop
where over a few days we had bought out his vegan ice cream stocks and
the discussion around what other vegan offerings might be available.
He is looking into it when at the suppliers today, as did an
independent ice cream van where he too went and got vegan ice creams
for us and said he was selling them to others as well after that.

and the stupidity of anyone who disagrees?

I would rarely call someone who 'disagrees' with the idea of not
causing animals to suffer and die stupid but cruel because that's the
official name for them?

If they didn't realise they were causing animals to die (as is often
the case with eggs and milk) then I wouldn't call them stupid either
but ignorant (or such matters) just as I was to some degree (It was
Tim Lamb that put me onto the fact that they macerate millions of live
male chicks ever year for example).

See, decent discussion is a two way thing and I've learn a lot about
both the processes involved in the meat / egg / dairy industries from
conversations here and even more about people and how typically caring
and animal protecting people can be conditioned to do the exact
opposite when the process is sufficiently remote / hidden from them.

Most people 'now' that cow has to die to provide them 'beef' but few
ever consider the details surround it, let alone being able to watch
it without being physically sick or traumatised and very very few
could actually do it themselves if that was required.

If they couldn't do it themselves (because it means taking the life of
an animal, even if it was a remote controlled button), why should they
delegate that to some other human when it's the consequences not the
actual process that's really the issue?

HTH.

Cheers, T i m