David Harrison (An Apology)

Re: Our earlier posts regarding acts of "Terrorism in East Yorkshire".

I have carefully looked at your remarks and the subsequent comments I made
after consulting the archives of my local newspaper.

Although the incidents are only a matter of months apart, they are indeed
different incidents, therefore it follows that I was wrong to call you 'A
Liar'. I withdraw the remark and offer you my sincere apologies for this
error.

If a Newsgroup is to be of any benefit the posters must at least ensure that
the messages they post are, to the best of their knowledge, the truth. A
factual error such as this is easy to spot, therefore I trust you will
gather that it was posted in error.

Your earlier comments:
>1. You are incredibly dishonest.
I hope that I have corrected my mistakes you have correctly construed to be
dishonest


>2. You only care about promoting veg*nism, regardless of its impact
on animals.

I care about promoting veg*nism solely *because* of it's impact on animals.
Just for a moment cast aside your theory about better to have lived
philosophy,in which I refuse to be a participant and admit that you are in
it for the money.

You don't care about animals otherwise you would not send them to market in
the knowledge that they may end up in the hands of Halal/Kosher perverts. I
have more respect for prostitutes than I have for farmers such as you. At
least the meat they are selling is their own!

I may have made a date error David, but at least I know that my beliefs
remain intact.

Take a look at the 'Google' archives, when was the last time an apology was
forwarded to the forum?

True ARAs believe their posts are correct and if proved otherwise, they are
never afraid to say they are sorry.

It costs little to be honest.

On Mon, 31 May 2004 14:44:03 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" <ray.DeleteThis@syntex.com> wrote:

>Re: Our earlier posts regarding acts of "Terrorism in East Yorkshire".
>
>I have carefully looked at your remarks and the subsequent comments I made
>after consulting the archives of my local newspaper.
>
>Although the incidents are only a matter of months apart, they are indeed
>different incidents, therefore it follows that I was wrong to call you 'A
>Liar'. I withdraw the remark and offer you my sincere apologies for this
>error.

Your apologies for that error are accepted.

>If a Newsgroup is to be of any benefit the posters must at least ensure that
>the messages they post are, to the best of their knowledge, the truth.

It seems to be quite the opposite to me. If people really believe most of
the things they post to me, then imo they are incredibly stupid. But I believe
they lie, and are aware they are lying. Then it gets back to why would they
lie....???

>A
>factual error such as this is easy to spot, therefore I trust you will
>gather that it was posted in error.

No, I can't go that far. I believe you tried to create the impression I
mentioned, by deliberately leaving out the part about the farmer being
injured. Though you apologised for one thing, I'm still quite convinced
that you don't mind lying when you can get away with it, and you
provide proof of that below...

>Your earlier comments:
>>1. You are incredibly dishonest.
>I hope that I have corrected my mistakes you have correctly construed to be
>dishonest
>
>
>>2. You only care about promoting veg*nism, regardless of its impact
> on animals.
>
>I care about promoting veg*nism solely *because* of it's impact on animals.

....that one I will never believe...

>Just for a moment cast aside your theory about better to have lived
>philosophy,in which I refuse to be a participant and admit that you are in
>it for the money.
>
>You don't care about animals otherwise you would not send them to market in
>the knowledge that they may end up in the hands of Halal/Kosher perverts. I
>have more respect for prostitutes than I have for farmers such as you.

....and that one I know to be an outright lie since I don't raise any animals,
much less make money from them, which I've told you before. So now you
owe me another apology.

>At
>least the meat they are selling is their own!
>
>I may have made a date error David, but at least I know that my beliefs
>remain intact.

You are still trying to promote lies. And though you "ARAs" seem to feel
that the lies you create and promote about me are some type of victory for
you, I can continue to feel good about myself because you are forced to
resort to such lowlife scumbag tactics. And why must you resort to those
tactics? Because I do present the truth, and you can't refute the truth.
Too bad for you that you're not in the same position....and really I believe
it's too bad for everyone and the animals too that you people are so
incredibly dishonest. If veg*ns were honest, people might have the option
of buying animal products which deliberately contribute to decent lives
for animals. But no...at least I haven't seen it. Veg*ns have had enough
influence that we can buy meat substitutes, but many of them involve
more animal deaths than products which provide decent lives for animals
could. Grass raised beef vs. tofu is one example. Grass raised dairy
products vs. soy and rice milk is another. Even meatless chicken is much
in question since it takes grain to produce both, and the meatless chicken
often contains egg whites (it always does in the products I've looked at).
And when it does it contributes to battery farming, which broiler chickens
do not contribute to.

>Take a look at the 'Google' archives, when was the last time an apology was
>forwarded to the forum?
>
>True ARAs believe their posts are correct and if proved otherwise, they are
>never afraid to say they are sorry.

Then apologise for calling me a farmer. Not that I would be in the least
bit ashamed of being one--in fact the insulting factor of your lie is more
toward farmers than it is toward me--but I'm not one, so you are again lying
about me and owe me another apology.

>It costs little to be honest.

Prove it. Stop lying. Here are some truths to practice with...some facts which
you "ARAs" hate to see pointed out, and are desperate that people do *not*
factor into their evaluation of human influence on animals:

1. Raising animals for food provides billions of them with life they otherwise would
not have.
2. Some animals raised for food have decent lives, and some do not.
3. Some types of animal products involve much fewer animal deaths than some
types of vegetable products.
4. Veg*nism does not contribute to better or longer lives for farm animals.
5. If people want to actually contribute to better or longer lives for farm animals with
their lifestyle, they must be more conscientious consumers of animal products,
*not!* veg*ns.

All of those things have a great impact on animals, and I refuse to believe you are
too stupid to understand that. Having reached the conclusion that you're not too
stupid to grasp the truth of those facts, I'm left with no choice but to believe your
refusal to support them--and more likely to try refuting them--is because you care
more about promoting veg*nism than human influence on animals.