"Ray" <camcompany DeleteThis @goneforapint.com> wrote in message news:brfeu9$q7q$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> "ipse dixit" <nospam DeleteThis @email.com> wrote in message news:WnCCb.2961061$Id.462115@news.easynews.com...
> > "Ray" <camcompany DeleteThis @goneforapint.com> wrote in message news:brdd4q$35t$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> > > "ipse dixit" <nospam DeleteThis @email.com> wrote in message news:R5pCb.2979951$Of.458536@news.easynews.com...
> > > > "Ray" <camcompany DeleteThis @goneforapint.com> wrote in message news:brd6ej$n01$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Leave Rubystars out of this
> > > >
> > > > You dragged her into it by trying to pretend
> > > > you were refering to her instead of "One
> > > > Imaginary Girl".
> > > >
> > > > [start me]
> > > > > History shows that Ray has always claimed
> > > > > to abhor vivisection. He even gave away the
> > > > > particulars of a young girl on Usenet who he
> > > > > believes might actually be one, yet recent
> > > > > quotes from him reveal he believes in the
> > > > > principle of it to such an extent that he would
> > > > > use prisoners on the basis that they have no
> > > > > rights against researchers who may want to
> > > > > use them.
> > > > [you]
> > > > The 'young girl' was Rubystars
> > > > [end]
> > > >
> > > > Why did you do that?
> > >
> > > My response was to my recent posting when
> > > I had cause to query the validation of 'Rubystars'
> > > postings. This has now been resolved, Rubystars
> > > has kindly accepted my apology and there is no
> > > problem. OK?
> > >
> > You knew fine well that I was refering to "One
> > Imaginary Girl" in that. You deliberately tried
> > to dodge me by bringing in someone else who
> > you knew had nothing to do with it. You didn't
> > reveal "Rubystars'" particulars here on Usenet,
> > so why did you try roping her into this, drunk?
> >
Well, Slater? You didn't reveal "Rubystars'"
particulars here, so why did you try roping
her into this?
> > > You were citing my post to 'Fat Jackie'.
> >
> > That's right, and you knew it.
> >
Didn't you, drunk?
> > >Your mistake.
> >
> > It was yours, drunk.
> >
Wasn't it, drunk?
> > > But you do live in the past.
> > >
> > The past can be very helpful when trying to
> > guage the current and future position of a person.
> > Your past is well documented here and shows
> > you have been lying about your stance on
> > vivisection.
>
> Everyone on these groups knows my stance on
> vivisection
Yes;
History shows that Ray has always claimed
to abhor vivisection. He even gave away the
particulars of a young girl on Usenet who he
believes might actually be one, yet recent
quotes from him reveal he believes in the
principle of it to such an extent that he would
use prisoners on the basis that they have no
rights against researchers who may want to
use them.
Here's a quote from him advocating the use
of prisoners;
"I have not advocated using innocent people.
Let me tell you about a couple of my 'Neighbours'
.....
(a) One of them used to lure young guys back to his
home, sleep with them and perform all the usual acts
associated with homosexual perversion. He then used
to kill them, usually by strangulation or drowning.
......
(b) Used to kill prostitutes and young women by
smashing their skulls to pulp with a hammer. He
would then stamp over their bodies, masterbate
over them and then leave them to be found,
sometimes by children.
....
Now honestly, can you say that either of these
'things' have rights?
These are the type of people I advocate for
experimental use. *Not innocent people or
petty offenders*"
Ray Date: 2003-11-28
As we can see, he does support the *principle
of* vivisection and believes non-rights holders
are the perfect models to use. He doesn't even
believe humans have inalienable rights, let alone
the animals he claims to be in favour of
advocating rights for.
He wants prisoners to;
"Put a little back into the world."
And to make matters even worse for himself, he
now claims that he was merely offering a more
reliable model for researchers to vivisect;
"I was offering a more reliable form of testing. I
add that I expect few people to share my views"
Ray Date 2003-12-12
Promoting the principle of vivisection even harder
he whined;
"Faced with the fact that vivisection will continue,
which would you chose, an innocent animal or one
of these offenders?"
Ray Date 2003-12-12
It seems I was right to go after him, because it's
obvious he supports the practice and will even
defend other known supporters of it, too. For
example; Zakhar is a well-known supporter of it
and even offers his cost to benefit ratio of 1000:1
"for example if one rabbit would save 1000
humans, then I could accept that the rabbit
should die."
Zakhar 2003-02-02
But despite this blatant promotion of vivisection
Ray still believes he is "a valuable defender of all
animal rights issues." What a joke, and what a
pair of jokers.
>> Stay informed about: Hey Nash 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
