On 04/06/2021 15:43, Spike wrote:
On 04/06/2021 13:48, T i m wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

T r o l l insisting that certain people have "never helped me" is another
example of his ********.

Aww bless. Touched another nerve have I?

What has usually happened is that true, relevant, and
correct advice has been offered but it has been ignored.

See, just because you are a simple Goblin you may get confused with
what you think might be considered help and what actually *helps*.

I see that you seem to have forgotten already about us putting you right
over your 'meat eating causes antibiotic resistance in viruses' blunder.

Pointing out a mistake to narcissist never helps them to remove their
blinkers.

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 14:43:06 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 04/06/2021 13:48, T i m wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

T r o l l insisting that certain people have "never helped me" is another
example of his ********.

Aww bless. Touched another nerve have I?

What has usually happened is that true, relevant, and
correct advice has been offered but it has been ignored.

See, just because you are a simple Goblin you may get confused with
what you think might be considered help and what actually *helps*.

I see that you seem to have forgotten already about us putting you right
over your 'meat eating causes antibiotic resistance in viruses' blunder.

You really are weird aren't you.

Let me put some real perspective on all that:

I *added* when I didn't need to, the word 'virus' to the 'antibiotic
resistance' thing.

Some left brainers thought I intentionally said 'virus' when I didn't
mean 'virus' and repeatedly corrected my 'error' because they were 1)
trolls and 2) considered it important when it patently wasn't.

So, the first person to correct that might have counted as 'helping',
had it been considered an issue and it wasn't to 'most people'.

The fact that the trolls tried to make something out of nothing only
indicates just how little real counter argument they / you have.

Cheers, T i m

On 04/06/2021 16:26, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 14:43:06 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 04/06/2021 13:48, T i m wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

T r o l l insisting that certain people have "never helped me" is another
example of his ********.

Aww bless. Touched another nerve have I?

What has usually happened is that true, relevant, and
correct advice has been offered but it has been ignored.

See, just because you are a simple Goblin you may get confused with
what you think might be considered help and what actually *helps*.

I see that you seem to have forgotten already about us putting you right
over your 'meat eating causes antibiotic resistance in viruses' blunder.

You really are weird aren't you.

Let me put some real perspective on all that:

I *added* when I didn't need to, the word 'virus' to the 'antibiotic
resistance' thing.

Some left brainers thought I intentionally said 'virus' when I didn't
mean 'virus' and repeatedly corrected my 'error' because they were 1)
trolls and 2) considered it important when it patently wasn't.

Some left brainers may well have done and those without conscious
thought continued to repost their mistake.

The rest of us with a fully functioning brain pointed out your mistake
many times before you accepted "eating meat makes viruses antibiotic
resistant" was a lie.

So, the first person to correct that might have counted as 'helping',
had it been considered an issue and it wasn't to 'most people'.

It wasn't a help to you as it showed how futile your fanaticism is. But
it might assist those reading your post believing it to be true.

The fact that the trolls tried to make something out of nothing only
indicates just how little real counter argument they / you have.

The troll here is the one who posted the lie "eating meat makes viruses
antibiotic resistant" and indicates how little argument they have in
their arsenal of lies.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Bwhahahaha ... and by 'asked' you mean 'forced', often after being
'broken'? I asked our dog if it wanted to go out for a walk earlier
but he didn't because it was raining. Just think how chuffed he would
be if I forced him out AND forced him to carry something on his back,
just because he 'could'?

I take it you don't understand the concept of work either then?

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 04/06/2021 15:26, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 04/06/2021 13:48, T i m wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

T r o l l insisting that certain people have "never helped me" is another
example of his ********.

Aww bless. Touched another nerve have I?

What has usually happened is that true, relevant, and
correct advice has been offered but it has been ignored.

See, just because you are a simple Goblin you may get confused with
what you think might be considered help and what actually *helps*.

I see that you seem to have forgotten already about us putting you right
over your 'meat eating causes antibiotic resistance in viruses' blunder.

You really are weird aren't you.

It's not me that's defending the indefensible, it's *you* that's doing so.

Let me put some real perspective on all that:

That'll be a first.

I *added* when I didn't need to, the word 'virus' to the 'antibiotic
resistance' thing.

So, you have only yourself to blame for your error.

Some left brainers thought I intentionally said 'virus' when I didn't
mean 'virus' and repeatedly corrected my 'error' because they were 1)
trolls and 2) considered it important when it patently wasn't.

Wriggle, wriggle.

Have you read what you just wrote?

T i m : "Some thought I intentionally said 'virus' when I didn't mean
'virus' "

So how is anyone supposed to know that? This is a text medium and not a
telepathic one. That's the most pathetic excuse I've heard in a long
time and about as transparent as a toddler's excuses for staying up late.

But then, after blaming 'trolls' for putting right your error, you then
went on to say:

T i m : "...some considered it important when it patently wasn't".

Since viruses don't respond to antibiotics and therefore can't become
resistant to them, it is *patently* *obvious* that this is the *crucial*
*point*.

So, the first person to correct that might have counted as 'helping',
had it been considered an issue and it wasn't to 'most people'.

The fact that the trolls tried to make something out of nothing only
indicates just how little real counter argument they / you have.

The fact that you carried on defending the indefensible, as you are
continuing to do so now, suggests a certain level of narcissistic
behaviour on your part. You are never wrong, the sun shines out of your
arse, you are the Custodian of The One True Way, everybody else is
conditioned in the wrong way, if only we could see your bigger picture.
Sheesh, you're just a puffed-up, self-important, gullible fool that's
managed to alienate a whole group against you and from which you've
converted *no-one* at all by your latest anti-meat-eating crusade thinly
disguised under the convenient mantles of evangelical veganism and
concern for animals.


--
Spike

On Sat, 05 Jun 2021 00:48:37 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Bwhahahaha ... and by 'asked' you mean 'forced', often after being
'broken'? I asked our dog if it wanted to go out for a walk earlier
but he didn't because it was raining. Just think how chuffed he would
be if I forced him out AND forced him to carry something on his back,
just because he 'could'?

I take it you don't understand the concept of work either then?

Do you? Then you would be wrong. ;-)

So, please expand exactly what you mean by 'work' here and what
animals you think should be doing it and why?

Cheers, T i m

On 05/06/2021 09:08, Spike wrote:
On 04/06/2021 15:26, T i m wrote:

The fact that the trolls tried to make something out of nothing only
indicates just how little real counter argument they / you have.

The fact that you carried on defending the indefensible, as you are
continuing to do so now, suggests a certain level of narcissistic
behaviour on your part. You are never wrong, the sun shines out of your
arse, you are the Custodian of The One True Way, everybody else is
conditioned in the wrong way, if only we could see your bigger picture.
Sheesh, you're just a puffed-up, self-important, gullible fool that's
managed to alienate a whole group against you and from which you've
converted *no-one* at all by your latest anti-meat-eating crusade thinly
disguised under the convenient mantles of evangelical veganism and
concern for animals.

What is the syndrome called? Right Man syndrome.

Western Enlightenment thought placed a great emphasis on truth telling,
but other cultures have often placed more emphasis on winning than being
truthful.

Lying to infidels is a moral duty in Islam.

Marxist thought defends the principle of the end justifying the means
which is why all leftards lie routinely.






--
€œIt is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.€�
Sir Roger Scruton

On 05/06/2021 09:46, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2021 00:48:37 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:

Bwhahahaha ... and by 'asked' you mean 'forced', often after being
'broken'? I asked our dog if it wanted to go out for a walk earlier
but he didn't because it was raining. Just think how chuffed he would
be if I forced him out AND forced him to carry something on his back,
just because he 'could'?

I take it you don't understand the concept of work either then?

Do you? Then you would be wrong. ;-)

So, please expand exactly what you mean by 'work' here and what
animals you think should be doing it and why?

Only fools and dogs work.

--
Max Demian

On 05/06/2021 09:46, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2021 00:48:37 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Bwhahahaha ... and by 'asked' you mean 'forced', often after being
'broken'? I asked our dog if it wanted to go out for a walk earlier
but he didn't because it was raining. Just think how chuffed he would
be if I forced him out AND forced him to carry something on his back,
just because he 'could'?

I take it you don't understand the concept of work either then?

Do you? Then you would be wrong. ;-)

I'm sure Dave has a good concept of work.

So, please expand exactly what you mean by 'work' here and what
animals you think should be doing it and why?

Why not, if they're fed and looked after?

More's the question, how do you justify keeping a dog?

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2021 00:48:37 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Bwhahahaha ... and by 'asked' you mean 'forced', often after being
'broken'? I asked our dog if it wanted to go out for a walk earlier
but he didn't because it was raining. Just think how chuffed he would
be if I forced him out AND forced him to carry something on his back,
just because he 'could'?

I take it you don't understand the concept of work either then?

Do you? Then you would be wrong. ;-)

So, please expand exactly what you mean by 'work' here and what
animals you think should be doing it and why?

Working animals like horses and dogs often lead a very happy life. But I'd
guess that has escaped you.

--
*Why do the two "sanction"s (noun and verb) mean opposites?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 05 Jun 2021 12:26:43 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

I take it you don't understand the concept of work either then?

Do you? Then you would be wrong. ;-)

So, please expand exactly what you mean by 'work' here and what
animals you think should be doing it and why?

Working animals like horses and dogs often lead a very happy life.

Ah, 'often'?

But I'd
guess that has escaped you.

DickHeadxx, is that you?

Ok, yes, you have quoted one of the scenarios where animals working
with humans is likely to be the least of the issues (of course you
would) but what YOU might need to consider is just how we might
normally get an animal to do what *we want* when it might not want to.

Traditionally is would be though fear and pain (circuses and 'breaking
horses' to ride etc), and it's still done coercively using play.

Every time whilst training a dog to do something for us we get it's
attention using a distraction (toy or food) we are influencing it's
behaviour to suit us, making it do something it would rarely do (for
us) if left to it's own devices, even if it had the skills / ability
to do it biologically / instinctively.

Now, try training say a cat or scorpion to sniff drugs on demand and
see how well that works out for you, just using the offer of play or a
treat.

With consent (assent / dissent) and assuming you can't speak horse
(and many don't seem to be able to read an animals body language or
they wouldn't assume they are 'ok' about being killed), an animal will
often have to way up the outcome of using either fight or flight to
avoid a particular situation. So, if a horse is tied up and you put a
saddle on it, you might then assume that it's happy with it when 'no
reaction' is simply a sign of submission ( exploitation), not
consent.

Capturing a wild animal or breeding one to make work for you (even in
reward for food, protection or shelter) is slavery and exploitation.

We seem most willing to do this to creatures that can't so easily
fight back (especially once they have been trapped / manhandled like a
pig into a gas chamber, not so easy with a leopard or hippo).

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Ok, yes, you have quoted one of the scenarios where animals working
with humans is likely to be the least of the issues (of course you
would) but what YOU might need to consider is just how we might
normally get an animal to do what *we want* when it might not want to.

Love the Utopia you obviously inhabit if you think only animals have to be
'trained' to do what 'we' want.

Every kid gets trained in the same way to do what his parents want. Many
animals too, by their parents.

--
*WHY IS IT CALLED TOURIST SEASON IF WE CAN'T SHOOT AT THEM?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:42:10 +0000, Spike
wrote:
snip

So, why do you not eat cows and sheep ...

It's called 'freedom of choice',

snip

But it's *still* not an explanation re the logical inconsistency.

Cheers, T i m

On 05/06/2021 14:23, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:42:10 +0000, Spike
wrote:
snip

So, why do you not eat cows and sheep ...

It's called 'freedom of choice',

snip

But it's *still* not an explanation re the logical inconsistency.

Your logic is faulty.

It is logical to supply your family and loved ones a natural balanced diet.

On Sat, 05 Jun 2021 14:07:32 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Ok, yes, you have quoted one of the scenarios where animals working
with humans is likely to be the least of the issues (of course you
would) but what YOU might need to consider is just how we might
normally get an animal to do what *we want* when it might not want to.

Love the Utopia you obviously inhabit if you think only animals have to be
'trained' to do what 'we' want.

DickHeadxx, is that you again? I love this as a way of trying to
justify the incomparable and the illogical. ;-)

Where the fcuk did you get the idea that that's what I might think
from, other than your own misconceptions (now I'm sure it's
DickHeadxx)! And using the left brainer / troll 'everything has to be
black or white' in the attempt to make a point?

Every kid gets trained in the same way to do what his parents want.

Ah, with sticks, chains and electric prods? Or 'rewards' like it can
eat if it does something not natural to it as a species?

eg. Animals don't typically use their power of smell for us, they have
and use it for themselves to sniff out food / prey, territory or
aggressors etc.

Many
animals too, by their parents.

Of course, training by their own species to do the things natural to
their own species. We call that 'natural'.

Training a horse to pull a cart isn't training it to what it would
*ever* do in the wild.

DickHeadXX mode on I'm going to train a parrot to sound like a car
alarm and keep it chained under the bonnet of my car. It will be fine
to do that because 1) I'm a god and 2) It's not specifically illegal
(I'll give it food and water 'obviously) and 3) I can. DickHeadxx
mode off

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 08:08:23 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

I *added* when I didn't need to, the word 'virus' to the 'antibiotic
resistance' thing.

So, you have only yourself to blame for your error.

You really are weird aren't you. Who else have I 'blamed' for my error
you freak?

Some left brainers thought I intentionally said 'virus' when I didn't
mean 'virus' and repeatedly corrected my 'error' because they were 1)
trolls and 2) considered it important when it patently wasn't.

snip

T i m : "Some thought I intentionally said 'virus' when I didn't mean
'virus' "

So how is anyone supposed to know that?

Bwhahahaha! .... no, you are serious aren't you so let me laugh (at
you) even louder! BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

So *now* you have revealed the truth. You admitting you were TOO
STUPID to pick up on what others have agreed was only a 'simple
mistake' (and most didn't even respond to it at all, fully
understanding what I meant in the first place) and now you are
embarrassed. I'm glad we got there in the end (but it's highlighted to
me how sad / difficult your world must be). ;-(

snip the rest as I'm embarrassed for you

Cheers, T i m

On 05/06/2021 13:36, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2021 12:26:43 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

I take it you don't understand the concept of work either then?

Do you? Then you would be wrong. ;-)

So, please expand exactly what you mean by 'work' here and what
animals you think should be doing it and why?

Working animals like horses and dogs often lead a very happy life.

Ah, 'often'?

But I'd
guess that has escaped you.

DickHeadxx, is that you?


Are you referring to Dave? If so that is disingenuous.

Ok, yes, you have quoted one of the scenarios where animals working
with humans is likely to be the least of the issues (of course you
would) but what YOU might need to consider is just how we might
normally get an animal to do what *we want* when it might not want to.

Don't you train your dog to defecate and urinate on command?

Traditionally is would be though fear and pain (circuses and 'breaking
horses' to ride etc), and it's still done coercively using play.

Are you against the training of animals?

Every time whilst training a dog to do something for us we get it's
attention using a distraction (toy or food) we are influencing it's
behaviour to suit us, making it do something it would rarely do (for
us) if left to it's own devices, even if it had the skills / ability
to do it biologically / instinctively.

Isn't that slavery? Paying your pet with food when it pleases you?

Now, try training say a cat or scorpion to sniff drugs on demand and
see how well that works out for you, just using the offer of play or a
treat.

Are you saying we can eat cats because they can't be trained, so easily?

With consent (assent / dissent) and assuming you can't speak horse
(and many don't seem to be able to read an animals body language or
they wouldn't assume they are 'ok' about being killed), an animal will
often have to way up the outcome of using either fight or flight to
avoid a particular situation. So, if a horse is tied up and you put a
saddle on it, you might then assume that it's happy with it when 'no
reaction' is simply a sign of submission ( exploitation), not
consent.

Quite, in much the same way you keep your dog indoors and train it to
defecate and urinate when you want them to?

Capturing a wild animal or breeding one to make work for you (even in
reward for food, protection or shelter) is slavery and exploitation.

Then why do you keep dogs, can't you see how inconsistent your argument is?

We seem most willing to do this to creatures that can't so easily
fight back (especially once they have been trapped / manhandled like a
pig into a gas chamber, not so easy with a leopard or hippo).

That is why we are a higher animal, except there is little need of
training an animal about to be slaughtered.


And there aren't many leopards or hippos in civilised Western Countries,
that also as it happens has a population with the lactase persistent
gene. It's not all coincidental.

On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 10:02:07 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

Western Enlightenment thought placed a great emphasis on truth telling,

Most 'decent people' put emphasis on that as well. I don't lie because
1) I don't need to and 2) my memory isn't good enough to pull it off
if I was to try.

but other cultures have often placed more emphasis on winning than being
truthful.

Yup, we call then trolls (and some self appointed 'philosophers').

Lying to infidels is a moral duty in Islam.

So you say.

Marxist thought defends the principle of the end justifying the means
which is why all leftards lie routinely.

Interesting that you looked into it all. Personally I'll stick to just
telling the truth.

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Love the Utopia you obviously inhabit if you think only animals have to
be 'trained' to do what 'we' want.

DickHeadxx,

Thanks for the abuse Timmy. Didn't really expect it from you. Turnip. yes.

is that you again? I love this as a way of trying to
justify the incomparable and the illogical. ;-)

Where the fcuk did you get the idea that that's what I might think
from, other than your own misconceptions (now I'm sure it's
DickHeadxx)! And using the left brainer / troll 'everything has to be
black or white' in the attempt to make a point?

Every kid gets trained in the same way to do what his parents want.

Ah, with sticks, chains and electric prods? Or 'rewards' like it can
eat if it does something not natural to it as a species?

Didn't know you went to public school.

You really do need to get out a bit more and discover the world is not
black and white. Just because some animals are treated badly doesn't mean
all are. And perhaps you think humans treat all other humans well too?

--
*A dog's not just for Christmas, it's alright on a Friday night too*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 05 Jun 2021 15:13:42 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Love the Utopia you obviously inhabit if you think only animals have to
be 'trained' to do what 'we' want.

DickHeadxx,

Thanks for the abuse Timmy. Didn't really expect it from you. Turnip. yes.

Quite. You seemed to have jumped in a bit early with the indignance
Dave when you added that there?

is that you again? I love this as a way of trying to
justify the incomparable and the illogical. ;-)

Oh looks, the rest of the sentence, including the question mark and
the smiley!

Where the fcuk did you get the idea that that's what I might think
from, other than your own misconceptions (now I'm sure it's
DickHeadxx)! And using the left brainer / troll 'everything has to be
black or white' in the attempt to make a point?

Every kid gets trained in the same way to do what his parents want.

Ah, with sticks, chains and electric prods? Or 'rewards' like it can
eat if it does something not natural to it as a species?

Didn't know you went to public school.

So was that the pain or the food bit that was referencing that to (or
both). ;-)

You really do need to get out a bit more and discover the world is not
black and white.

That's exactly what I already know from when I go out 'in the world'
every day. The point is we can make it less 'black' for the animals if
we choose to.

Just because some animals are treated badly doesn't mean
all are.

I never said they were. Really, this must be DickHeadxx, real Dave
doesn't keep stating the bleeding obvious! ;-)

And perhaps you think humans treat all other humans well too?

Yup, deffo DickHeadxx. ( that's a joke, again, on him, not you).

Seriously though, your replies here really do show either you haven't
had much contact with animals and / or you are in conflict between
your actions and your morals (and most people actually are of course).

From all our previous discussions over the years I don't think you are
the sort of person who would intentionally hurt an animal but would
agree animals *are* hurt in the process of getting them on your plate
(ignoring even the killing bit) and the reality of dealing with that
can be quite a thing for most of us.

Of course there can be a problem with 'quitting' anything we may have
done for a long time, probably enjoyed (like smoking, drinking,
over-eating or slave trading) and especially if we don't see why we
should ('what does the doctor know anyway?', 'why can't I keep 10,000
chickens locked in a shed all their lives, I'm feeding, not kicking
them?' sorta thing).

So believe / like / agree / care with the fact or not, sentient beings
that share many of the emotions and sensations we enjoy do suffer
*unnecessarily* for us. The choice is yours if you want to continue to
be part of that problem (certainly as seen by them), or be part of the
solution? Denial of the situation isn't a solution. ;-(

https://ibb.co/JFv5yTQ

Cheers, T i m

On 05/06/2021 14:50, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 10:02:07 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

Western Enlightenment thought placed a great emphasis on truth telling,

Most 'decent people' put emphasis on that as well. I don't lie because
1) I don't need to and 2) my memory isn't good enough to pull it off
if I was to try.

but other cultures have often placed more emphasis on winning than being
truthful.

Yup, we call then trolls (and some self appointed 'philosophers').

You are very definition a troll, go look it up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
A "posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic
messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room,
or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional
responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion."

Lying to infidels is a moral duty in Islam.

So you say.

Seem to be true of fanatical vegans.

Marxist thought defends the principle of the end justifying the means
which is why all leftards lie routinely.

Interesting that you looked into it all. Personally I'll stick to just
telling the truth.

Trump believed he was telling the truth too. You and Trump have much in
common.

On 05/06/2021 14:46, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 08:08:23 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

I *added* when I didn't need to, the word 'virus' to the 'antibiotic
resistance' thing.

So, you have only yourself to blame for your error.

You really are weird aren't you. Who else have I 'blamed' for my error
you freak?

Some left brainers thought I intentionally said 'virus' when I didn't
mean 'virus' and repeatedly corrected my 'error' because they were 1)
trolls and 2) considered it important when it patently wasn't.

snip

T i m : "Some thought I intentionally said 'virus' when I didn't mean
'virus' "

So how is anyone supposed to know that?

Bwhahahaha! .... no, you are serious aren't you so let me laugh (at
you) even louder! BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

So *now* you have revealed the truth. You admitting you were TOO
STUPID to pick up on what others have agreed was only a 'simple
mistake' (and most didn't even respond to it at all, fully
understanding what I meant in the first place) and now you are
embarrassed. I'm glad we got there in the end (but it's highlighted to
me how sad / difficult your world must be). ;-(

The person who is most stupid is the one who repeats their mistake in
the obvious belief they thought it was true.

snip the rest as I'm embarrassed for you

I'm sure I won't embarrass Spike for repeating it he
"The fact that you carried on defending the indefensible, as you are
continuing to do so now, suggests a certain level of narcissistic
behaviour on your part. You are never wrong, the sun shines out of your
arse, you are the Custodian of The One True Way, everybody else is
conditioned in the wrong way, if only we could see your bigger picture.
Sheesh, you're just a puffed-up, self-important, gullible fool that's
managed to alienate a whole group against you and from which you've
converted *no-one* at all by your latest anti-meat-eating crusade thinly
disguised under the convenient mantles of evangelical veganism and
concern for animals."

You need help, please ask your GP for some form of counselling, if only
to recognise your obsession and fanaticism.

On 05/06/2021 13:46, T i m wrote:

So *now* you have revealed the truth. You admitting you were TOO
STUPID to pick up on what others have agreed was only a 'simple
mistake' (and most didn't even respond to it at all, fully
understanding what I meant in the first place) and now you are
embarrassed. I'm glad we got there in the end (but it's highlighted to
me how sad / difficult your world must be). ;-(

What was that you were saying just now about always telling the truth?
What you wrote above is the very perversion of it. You've had to stoop
to saying that others said what you hope they said. Try reading the
record again, you only have to look at the timeline of your responses.
You appear to be confirming what I wrote such a short time ago, which
was this:

"The fact that you carried on defending the indefensible, as you are
continuing to do so now, suggests a certain level of narcissistic
behaviour on your part. You are never wrong, the sun shines out of your
arse, you are the Custodian of The One True Way, everybody else is
conditioned in the wrong way, if only we could see your bigger picture.
Sheesh, you're just a puffed-up, self-important, gullible fool that's
managed to alienate a whole group against you and from which you've
converted *no-one* at all by your latest anti-meat-eating crusade thinly
disguised under the convenient mantles of evangelical veganism and
concern for animals."

--
Spike

On 05/06/2021 13:23, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

So, why do you not eat cows and sheep ...

It's called 'freedom of choice',

But it's *still* not an explanation re the logical inconsistency.

Cheers, T i m

'Choice' doesn't have to be logical - for example you've claimed that
you took up your anti-meat-eating crusade as a result of the choices
made by people close to you. That smacks more of emotion than logic.

Regarding these posts made by you about your dog:

As it
happens he seems to love all the veg, typically leaving (meat based)
kibble and eating all the veg (then going back to it later when he's
hungry again).

I asked our dog if it wanted to go out for a walk earlier
but he didn't because it was raining

You understand animals so little, that you appear to have no grasp of
what's happening in these two situations.

In the first one, you are offering your dog a meal that contains meat.
Meat that you find repulsive for all the reasons you have so tediously
and repetitively spoken of. The dog picks up on this, because it is a
sentient, sensitive creature, so is reluctant to eat the meat part of
the meal. You think that the dog has made a choice, but it hasn't, it's
just following *you're* unvoiced choice.

In the second one, you think you offered a choice to your dog as to
whether to go for a walk in the rain. *You* most likely didn't want to
go, and the sentient, sensitive dog picked up on that and showed its
reluctance to go out. Again, you think that the dog has made a choice,
but it hasn't, it's just following *you're* unvoiced choice.

Half a bag of 'Plant Pioneers, meat free chicken-style pieces' between
us (about 7 chunks each, no room for more in the large wrap) in a wrap
with some salad, with some extra tomato, cucumber and diced onion.

With someone in the family suffering joint problems, I could think of a
worse meal to serve them to aggravate their condition, but this one's
bad enough as it is.

So, apart from knowing very little indeed about how sentient, sensitive
creatures function, and what foods trigger joint pain, what other
pertinent knowledge are you lacking that we can put you right on?

--
Spike

On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 16:05:43 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 05/06/2021 13:46, T i m wrote:

So *now* you have revealed the truth. You admitting you were TOO
STUPID to pick up on what others have agreed was only a 'simple
mistake' (and most didn't even respond to it at all, fully
understanding what I meant in the first place) and now you are
embarrassed. I'm glad we got there in the end (but it's highlighted to
me how sad / difficult your world must be). ;-(

What was that you were saying just now about always telling the truth?
What you wrote above is the very perversion of it.

snip ****e unread

Bwhahaha! You poor sad ****.

Are having fun yet? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 4 Jun 2021 17:42:22 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 04 Jun 2021 at 14:48:44 BST, T i m wrote:

On 4 Jun 2021 13:36:00 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

A bit like those
animals you sometimes see featuring in you-choob vids, where as it might be a
deer has become trapped by an illegal snare around its leg, and some guys have
quite a job to hold it down while another cuts off and removes the wire.

Yeah, I wouldn't imagine you would 'get' why that might happen with a
trapped animal (or care why or that it became trapped and was
suffering).

T r o l l misses the point again.

Yeah, sure ...

Which is that being a dimwit, when helped
he wriggles and tries to escape, being, like the animal, unable to recognise
help when it is offered.

Are you trying to suggest you *have* helped me personally (when the
chances are, even if you tried, your help didn't actually help. If the
latter, offering help is no guarantee of it actually helping, no
matter your intentions).

Oh, and in case your Goblin left brain rushes to find a single post
where you might have actually offered me help and that did actually
help (and it's not completely impossible I suppose, you could have
helped by accident etc), I'm talking about the general spirit of those
who offer real help and those who just want to massage their own egos.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 16:07:58 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 05/06/2021 13:23, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

So, why do you not eat cows and sheep ...

It's called 'freedom of choice',

But it's *still* not an explanation re the logical inconsistency.


'Choice' doesn't have to be logical -

No, but there generally is in many circumstances.

snip the distraction bs

So, why do you not eat cows and sheep ...?

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Jun 2021 12:26:43 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

I take it you don't understand the concept of work either then?

Do you? Then you would be wrong. ;-)

So, please expand exactly what you mean by 'work' here and what
animals you think should be doing it and why?

Working animals like horses and dogs often lead a very happy life.

Ah, 'often'?

But I'd
guess that has escaped you.

DickHeadxx, is that you?

Ok, yes, you have quoted one of the scenarios where animals working
with humans is likely to be the least of the issues (of course you
would) but what YOU might need to consider is just how we might
normally get an animal to do what *we want* when it might not want to.

Traditionally is would be though fear and pain (circuses and 'breaking
horses' to ride etc), and it's still done coercively using play.

Every time whilst training a dog to do something for us we get
it's attention using a distraction (toy or food) we are influencing
it's behaviour to suit us, making it do something it would rarely
do (for us) if left to it's own devices, even if it had the skills /
ability to do it biologically / instinctively.

Just like you do when you walk the dog and stop it
****ing anywhere it feels like ****ing in the house etc.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Jun 2021 14:07:32 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Ok, yes, you have quoted one of the scenarios where animals working
with humans is likely to be the least of the issues (of course you
would) but what YOU might need to consider is just how we might
normally get an animal to do what *we want* when it might not want to.

Love the Utopia you obviously inhabit if you think only animals have to be
'trained' to do what 'we' want.

DickHeadxx, is that you again? I love this as a way of trying to
justify the incomparable and the illogical. ;-)

Where the fcuk did you get the idea that that's what I might think
from, other than your own misconceptions (now I'm sure it's
DickHeadxx)! And using the left brainer / troll 'everything has to be
black or white' in the attempt to make a point?

Every kid gets trained in the same way to do what his parents want.

Ah, with sticks, chains and electric prods? Or 'rewards' like it can
eat if it does something not natural to it as a species?

Yep. I asked the oldest son of a mate of mine if he still let
them con him into showing up in church. He grinned and
said that if he refused he wouldn't get to eat. He must have
been about 16 at the time. I said that with his parents listening.

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 07:14:52 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

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

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 07:07:07 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
Xeno to trolling senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID:

On 05/06/2021 17:44, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 05/06/2021 13:23, T i m wrote:

Spike wrote:

So, why do you not eat cows and sheep ...

It's called 'freedom of choice',

But it's *still* not an explanation re the logical inconsistency.

'Choice' doesn't have to be logical - for example you've claimed that
you took up your anti-meat-eating crusade as a result of the choices
made by people close to you. That smacks more of emotion than logic.

Regarding these posts made by you about your dog:

As it
happens he seems to love all the veg, typically leaving (meat based)
kibble and eating all the veg (then going back to it later when he's
hungry again).

I asked our dog if it wanted to go out for a walk earlier
but he didn't because it was raining

You understand animals so little, that you appear to have no grasp of
what's happening in these two situations.

In the first one, you are offering your dog a meal that contains meat.
Meat that you find repulsive for all the reasons you have so tediously
and repetitively spoken of. The dog picks up on this, because it is a
sentient, sensitive creature, so is reluctant to eat the meat part of
the meal. You think that the dog has made a choice, but it hasn't, it's
just following *you're* unvoiced choice.

In the second one, you think you offered a choice to your dog as to
whether to go for a walk in the rain. *You* most likely didn't want to
go, and the sentient, sensitive dog picked up on that and showed its
reluctance to go out. Again, you think that the dog has made a choice,
but it hasn't, it's just following *you're* unvoiced choice.

Half a bag of 'Plant Pioneers, meat free chicken-style pieces' between
us (about 7 chunks each, no room for more in the large wrap) in a wrap
with some salad, with some extra tomato, cucumber and diced onion.

With someone in the family suffering joint problems, I could think of a
worse meal to serve them to aggravate their condition, but this one's
bad enough as it is.

I think you've missed the bigger picture in the spirit of my post.

So, apart from knowing very little indeed about how sentient, sensitive
creatures function, and what foods trigger joint pain, what other
pertinent knowledge are you lacking that we can put you right on?

And the question still stands...


--
Spike

On 05/06/2021 17:12, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 05/06/2021 13:46, T i m wrote:

So *now* you have revealed the truth. You admitting you were TOO
STUPID to pick up on what others have agreed was only a 'simple
mistake' (and most didn't even respond to it at all, fully
understanding what I meant in the first place) and now you are
embarrassed. I'm glad we got there in the end (but it's highlighted to
me how sad / difficult your world must be). ;-(

What was that you were saying just now about always telling the truth?
What you wrote above is the very perversion of it.

"The fact that you carried on defending the indefensible, as you are
continuing to do so now, suggests a certain level of narcissistic
behaviour on your part. You are never wrong, the sun shines out of your
arse, you are the Custodian of The One True Way, everybody else is
conditioned in the wrong way, if only we could see your bigger picture.
Sheesh, you're just a puffed-up, self-important, gullible fool that's
managed to alienate a whole group against you and from which you've
converted *no-one* at all by your latest anti-meat-eating crusade thinly
disguised under the convenient mantles of evangelical veganism and
concern for animals."

Bwhahaha! You poor sad ****.

Are having fun yet? ;-)

Que?

--
Spike

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 08:49:15 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

So, just *why* do you not eat cow and sheep but do eat everything
else? You know, you are very quick / keen to ask me questions, only
seems fair?

Or maybe it's because you found out takes too long to kick a cow or
sheep to death, compared with a chicken?

Cheers, T i m

On 06/06/2021 12:24, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 08:49:15 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

So, just *why* do you not eat cow and sheep but do eat everything
else? You know, you are very quick / keen to ask me questions, only
seems fair?

Or maybe it's because you found out takes too long to kick a cow or
sheep to death, compared with a chicken?

Only a fanatical vegan can hate animals so much they would consider
kicking a cow or sheep to death.

Most of use want improvements in animal welfare.

You need help, see you GP in regards your fanaticism.

On 06/06/2021 11:24, T i m wrote:

So, just *why* do you not eat cow and sheep but do eat everything
else? You know, you are very quick / keen to ask me questions, only
seems fair?

Or maybe it's because you found out takes too long to kick a cow or
sheep to death, compared with a chicken?

You're sick. Get help.

--
Spike

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 15:19:23 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 11:24, T i m wrote:

So, just *why* do you not eat cow and sheep but do eat everything
else? You know, you are very quick / keen to ask me questions, only
seems fair?

Or maybe it's because you found out takes too long to kick a cow or
sheep to death, compared with a chicken?

You're sick.

Oh the irony!

Get help.

After you, after all you are the one eating baby animals and suckling
from the teats of a different species!

So why *don't* you eat sheep or cows but eat everything else?

There has to be *a* reason, (religious, cultural, cult 'rules', your
parents were a cow and a sheep (does that make a troll?), allergy,
taste, logical inconsistency etc) unless you really are just
completely bonkers ( my money is on the last one).

Cheers, T i m

On 06/06/2021 18:15, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 15:19:23 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 11:24, T i m wrote:

So, just *why* do you not eat cow and sheep but do eat everything
else? You know, you are very quick / keen to ask me questions, only
seems fair?

Or maybe it's because you found out takes too long to kick a cow or
sheep to death, compared with a chicken?

You're sick.

Oh the irony!

Get help.

After you, after all you are the one eating baby animals

Not babies. A baby generally has to be fed, can't walk or stand up. Most
animals mature very quickly.

and suckling
from the teats of a different species!

Only in your dreams. I drink milk from a cup. I have evolved to digest
lactose. You haven't.

So why *don't* you eat sheep or cows but eat everything else?

What?

There has to be *a* reason, (religious, cultural, cult 'rules', your
parents were a cow and a sheep (does that make a troll?), allergy,
taste, logical inconsistency etc) unless you really are just
completely bonkers ( my money is on the last one).

You seriously need help. This is pure desperation. Where all about you
are bonkers it's time to look closer to home.

In article , Fredxx
writes
On 04/06/2021 12:25, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 11:19:50 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , Fredxx

writes
On 03/06/2021 18:43, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 17:09:56 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 03/06/2021 15:08, T i m wrote:

snip a puzzling response from someone so keen on "the bigger picture"
Shame you couldn't understand a very simple, honest and real world
answer. Maybe you didn't really want an answer in the first place.

HTH.

It did help. I am persuaded my remaining life is too short to read
anything more from or in response to you.
Good. That will save us both from wasting any further time then and
I'm pretty sure neither of us will be worse off.

Shame, just means more work for the rest of us.

Just Kill file him
Yes, listen to burk, killfile me, you know it makes sense (given you
are **** all use to me and always have been).

No, two reasons, I have helped you, and your lies need correcting.

I can see I am no use to anyone who spouts lies and doesn't want them
to be shown for what they are.
I've kill filed him. I only see responses now. I haven't really bothered
with him for a while, only skim reading the occasional post. He's beyond
help. Needs treatment for his autism.
--
bert

On 06/06/2021 20:32, bert wrote:
In article , Fredxx
writes
On 04/06/2021 12:25, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 11:19:50 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , Fredxx
writes
On 03/06/2021 18:43, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 17:09:56 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 03/06/2021 15:08, T i m wrote:

snip a puzzling response from someone so keen on "the bigger
picture"
Â* Shame you couldn't understand a very simple,Â* honest and real world
answer. Maybe you didn't really want an answer in the first place.

HTH.

It did help.Â* I am persuaded my remaining life is too short to read
anything more from or in response to you.
Â* Good. That will save us both from wasting any further time then and
I'm pretty sure neither of us will be worse off.

Shame, just means more work for the rest of us.

Just Kill file him
Â*Yes, listen to burk, killfile me, you know it makes sense (given you
are **** all use to me and always have been).

No, two reasons, I have helped you, and your lies need correcting.

I can see I am no use to anyone who spouts lies and doesn't want them
to be shown for what they are.

I've kill filed him. I only see responses now. I haven't really bothered
with him for a while, only skim reading the occasional post. He's beyond
help. Needs treatment for his autism.

He needs treatment. I do wonder if his wife sees the nonsense he posts.
I think she would be horrified.