NASH 'in absentia'

"Derek" <dereknash RemoveThis @btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bo8v79$1cj2nk$1@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Ray" <camcompany RemoveThis @ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:r5Tpb.2568$3h5.20369@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> > Having spent an enjoyable afternoon at your expense I am still in the
dark
> > regarding the question posed last night by Zakhar.
> >
> I'll bet you are. You're a drunken soak, so it's no surprise.

Is that the best you can do?

Impress us, answer all the questions I have asked. In particular clarify the
statement Zakhar highlighted.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: NASH 'in absentia' 

"Ray" <camcompany RemoveThis @ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:7uTpb.2595$3h5.20591@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> "Derek" <dereknash RemoveThis @btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:bo8v79$1cj2nk$1@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Ray" <camcompany RemoveThis @ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:r5Tpb.2568$3h5.20369@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > Having spent an enjoyable afternoon at your expense
> > > I am still in the dark regarding the question posed last
> > > night by Zakhar.
> > >
> > I'll bet you are. You're a drunken soak, so it's no surprise.
>
> Is that the best you can do?
>
It's all I need to do, pisshead. I don't take you seriously.
Never have, weepy cry-baby Ray. haw haw haw.
 >> Stay informed about: NASH 'in absentia' 

"Derek" <dereknash.DeleteThis@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bo90du$1bd0tn$1@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Ray" <camcompany.DeleteThis@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:7uTpb.2595$3h5.20591@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> > "Derek" <dereknash.DeleteThis@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bo8v79$1cj2nk$1@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > "Ray" <camcompany.DeleteThis@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:r5Tpb.2568$3h5.20369@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> > > >
> > > > Having spent an enjoyable afternoon at your expense
> > > > I am still in the dark regarding the question posed last
> > > > night by Zakhar.
> > > >
> > > I'll bet you are. You're a drunken soak, so it's no surprise.
> >
> > Is that the best you can do?
> >
> It's all I need to do, pisshead. I don't take you seriously.
> Never have, weepy cry-baby Ray. haw haw haw.

I'm not crying Derek, if anything I feel a bit of a prat. In fact I am a
prat.

Only a prat would believe all the garbage you have posted over the years.
But you are the real loser Derek, you have lost *any* credibility you had on
the Groups.
When tackled in a straight forward manner you are absolutely nothing. You
have nothing, you are about as genuine as a five bob note.
You have lost Derek, don't take my word for it, see how much support you
receive from posters over the coming few weeks.
I can not solit any answers from you, you have none to give
You are a fake.

BTW.
The next time you refer to me as 'pisshead' have the decency to call me Mr.
Pisshead, remember my taxes help pay your wages.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: NASH 'in absentia' 

"Ray" <camcompany.DeleteThis@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:d1Upb.2624$3h5.20924@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>
> "Derek" <dereknash.DeleteThis@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:bo90du$1bd0tn$1@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Ray" <camcompany.DeleteThis@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:7uTpb.2595$3h5.20591@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> > > "Derek" <dereknash.DeleteThis@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:bo8v79$1cj2nk$1@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > "Ray" <camcompany.DeleteThis@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:r5Tpb.2568$3h5.20369@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > Having spent an enjoyable afternoon at your expense
> > > > > I am still in the dark regarding the question posed last
> > > > > night by Zakhar.
> > > > >
> > > > I'll bet you are. You're a drunken soak, so it's no surprise.
> > >
> > > Is that the best you can do?
> > >
> > It's all I need to do, pisshead. I don't take you seriously.
> > Never have, weepy cry-baby Ray. haw haw haw.
>
> I'm not crying Derek, if anything I feel a bit of a prat. In fact I am a
> prat.
>
> Only a prat would believe all the garbage you have posted over the years.
> But you are the real loser Derek, you have lost *any* credibility you had
on
> the Groups.
> When tackled in a straight forward manner you are absolutely nothing. You
> have nothing, you are about as genuine as a five bob note.
> You have lost Derek, don't take my word for it, see how much support you
> receive from posters over the coming few weeks.
> I can not solit any answers from you, you have none to give
> You are a fake.
>
> BTW.
> The next time you refer to me as 'pisshead' have the decency to call me
Mr.
> Pisshead, remember my taxes help pay your wages.

What missed the typo?


> >
> >
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: NASH 'in absentia' 

"Ray" <camcompany.TakeThisOut@ntlworld.com> wrote

> Having spent an enjoyable afternoon at your expense I am still in the dark
> regarding the question posed last night by Zakhar.
>
> Namely:-
>
>
> "I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to farm and eat them."
>
> Derek 03/11/03 13:14

Far it be from me to support Derek Nash, but I believe his statment meant
that assuming animals were allowed to live idyllic (happy) lives and die of
old age or other natural causes, then he could see no ethical objection to
such a system. I don't think that goes against a reasonable vegan point of
view, although it does violate the basic vegan so-called principle of "using
animals for our benefit".

Meanwhile, your concession that it would be acceptable that one rabbit die
to save a thousand humans violates that principle also.

Guess what? Ethics are not all black and white.
 >> Stay informed about: NASH 'in absentia' 

Ray wrote:
> I'm not crying Derek, if anything I feel a bit of a prat. In fact I am a
> prat.
>
> Only a prat would believe all the garbage you have posted over the years.
> But you are the real loser Derek, you have lost *any* credibility you had on
> the Groups.
> When tackled in a straight forward manner you are absolutely nothing. You
> have nothing, you are about as genuine as a five bob note.
> You have lost Derek, don't take my word for it, see how much support you
> receive from posters over the coming few weeks.
> I can not solit any answers from you, you have none to give
> You are a fake.
>
> BTW.
> The next time you refer to me as 'pisshead' have the decency to call me Mr.
> Pisshead, remember my taxes help pay your wages.

In fairness, the dole isn't exactly a wage. Wages are *earned*.
 >> Stay informed about: NASH 'in absentia' 

usual suspect wrote:

> Ray wrote:
>
>> I'm not crying Derek, if anything I feel a bit of a prat. In fact I am a
>> prat.
>>
>> Only a prat would believe all the garbage you have posted over the years.
>> But you are the real loser Derek, you have lost *any* credibility you
>> had on
>> the Groups.
>> When tackled in a straight forward manner you are absolutely nothing. You
>> have nothing, you are about as genuine as a five bob note.
>> You have lost Derek, don't take my word for it, see how much support you
>> receive from posters over the coming few weeks.
>> I can not solit any answers from you, you have none to give
>> You are a fake.
>>
>> BTW.
>> The next time you refer to me as 'pisshead' have the decency to call
>> me Mr.
>> Pisshead, remember my taxes help pay your wages.
>
>
> In fairness, the dole isn't exactly a wage. Wages are *earned*.

But Dump *is* a bit of a prat, anyway.
 >> Stay informed about: NASH 'in absentia' 

"usual suspect" <who RemoveThis @where.how> wrote in message
news:mxVpb.7421$f53.5928@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Ray wrote:
> > I'm not crying Derek, if anything I feel a bit of a prat. In fact I am a
> > prat.
> >
> > Only a prat would believe all the garbage you have posted over the
years.
> > But you are the real loser Derek, you have lost *any* credibility you
had on
> > the Groups.
> > When tackled in a straight forward manner you are absolutely nothing.
You
> > have nothing, you are about as genuine as a five bob note.
> > You have lost Derek, don't take my word for it, see how much support you
> > receive from posters over the coming few weeks.
> > I can not solit any answers from you, you have none to give
> > You are a fake.
> >
> > BTW.
> > The next time you refer to me as 'pisshead' have the decency to call me
Mr.
> > Pisshead, remember my taxes help pay your wages.
>
> In fairness, the dole isn't exactly a wage. Wages are *earned*.

Perhaps you can explain to Nash the meaning of the word 'Earn', he will be
scrounging off the state for the rest of his miserable council house life.
>
 >> Stay informed about: NASH 'in absentia' 

"Jonathan Ball" <jonball.RemoveThis@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:gDVpb.8715$qh2.3446@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> usual suspect wrote:
>
> > Ray wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not crying Derek, if anything I feel a bit of a prat. In fact I am
a
> >> prat.
> >>
> >> Only a prat would believe all the garbage you have posted over the
years.
> >> But you are the real loser Derek, you have lost *any* credibility you
> >> had on
> >> the Groups.
> >> When tackled in a straight forward manner you are absolutely nothing.
You
> >> have nothing, you are about as genuine as a five bob note.
> >> You have lost Derek, don't take my word for it, see how much support
you
> >> receive from posters over the coming few weeks.
> >> I can not solit any answers from you, you have none to give
> >> You are a fake.
> >>
> >> BTW.
> >> The next time you refer to me as 'pisshead' have the decency to call
> >> me Mr.
> >> Pisshead, remember my taxes help pay your wages.
> >
> >
> > In fairness, the dole isn't exactly a wage. Wages are *earned*.
>
> But Dump *is* a bit of a prat, anyway.

In this instance a lot of a prat ~~jonnie~~ I openly admit when I am wrong,
this pillock is the lowest of the low.
>
 >> Stay informed about: NASH 'in absentia' 

Dutch wrote:

<snip>

>>"I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to farm and eat them."

>>Derek 03/11/03 13:14

> Far it be from me to support Derek Nash, but I believe his statment meant
> that assuming animals were allowed to live idyllic (happy) lives and die of
> old age or other natural causes, then he could see no ethical objection to
> such a system. I don't think that goes against a reasonable vegan point of
> view,

In the short run, as I think Derek meant, since he did mention
the abridgement of freedom involved in any such system.


> although it does violate the basic vegan so-called principle of "using
> animals for our benefit".

There is no such "basic vegan principle". The basic principle is: not
treating animals in unjust ways, or using animal-derived products
which are obtained in ways which exploit animals unjustly or violate
their rights.

> Meanwhile, your concession that it would be acceptable that one rabbit die
> to save a thousand humans violates that principle also.

> Guess what? Ethics are not all black and white.

Golly Gee, Dutch -- when ARists say this you jump all over them as
hypocrites.

Rat
 >> Stay informed about: NASH 'in absentia' 

"Ray" <camcompany RemoveThis @ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<r5Tpb.2568


> Admit it's the biggest mistake you have ever made on 'Usenet'
> Following your twisting fabrications of this afternoon, nobody will ever
> take you seriously. You have proved yourself to be a liar, fraud, hypocrite
> and certainly mentally unstable.


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Talk about the pot an the kettle! Here's Mr.
Impotent Bluster himself accusing somebody else of being off-kilter.
That's absolutely hilarious.



> In view of your evasion I also think you are a meat eater and animal abuser.
>
> IMO The only honourable thing you can do is "Fuck off" this Newsgroup for
> good.
> You are 'persona non grata'
>
> (I've got my book out)

What book, Ray? Seriously, I'll bet you do have a book. Probably
several, by this point. Every one of them filled with the name of very
person who's ever slighted you with infractions included in miniscule
detail. How long have you had this obsession, Ray? It's actually not a
laughing matter. Small, fragile ego, obsession with revenge, limited
capacity for self expression in conventional ways... you've got all
the makings of a first class apeshit. I'd be surprised if you didn't
just completely snap one day and go after your neighbors with a
machete.

Doc
 >> Stay informed about: NASH 'in absentia' 

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> "I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to farm and eat them."
>
>
>>> Derek 03/11/03 13:14
>
>
>> Far it be from me to support Derek Nash, but I believe his statment meant
>> that assuming animals were allowed to live idyllic (happy) lives and
>> die of
>> old age or other natural causes, then he could see no ethical
>> objection to
>> such a system. I don't think that goes against a reasonable vegan
>> point of
>> view,
>
>
> In the short run, as I think Derek meant, since he did mention
> the abridgement of freedom involved in any such system.
>
>
>> although it does violate the basic vegan so-called principle of "using
>> animals for our benefit".
>
>
> There is no such "basic vegan principle". The basic principle is: not
> treating animals in unjust ways, or using animal-derived products
> which are obtained in ways which exploit animals unjustly or violate
> their rights.
>
>> Meanwhile, your concession that it would be acceptable that one rabbit
>> die
>> to save a thousand humans violates that principle also.
>
>
>> Guess what? Ethics are not all black and white.
>
>
> Golly Gee, Dutch -- when ARists say this you jump all over them as
> hypocrites.

Wrong.

You lie as an autonomic reflex.
 >> Stay informed about: NASH 'in absentia' 

"Rat & Swan" <labrat DeleteThis @cybermesa.com> wrote
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>"I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to farm and eat them."
>
> >>Derek 03/11/03 13:14
>
> > Far it be from me to support Derek Nash, but I believe his statment
meant
> > that assuming animals were allowed to live idyllic (happy) lives and die
of
> > old age or other natural causes, then he could see no ethical objection
to
> > such a system. I don't think that goes against a reasonable vegan point
of
> > view,
>
> In the short run, as I think Derek meant, since he did mention
> the abridgement of freedom involved in any such system.

I don't recall anything about it being a short term thing, I believe you're
reading what you believe into his comments, which is that animals must not
be *used* for human benefit.. There is a stipulation that the animals are
completely happy, which presumes that they have all the freedom they need..

> > although it does violate the basic vegan so-called principle of "using
> > animals for our benefit".
>
> There is no such "basic vegan principle". The basic principle is: not
> treating animals in unjust ways, or using animal-derived products
> which are obtained in ways which exploit animals unjustly or violate
> their rights.

That's plainly false. Killing animals in the course of farming for fruit and
vegetables does not register on the radar of any AR group or publication,
yet surely killing them should be considered a violation of their rights.
>
> > Meanwhile, your concession that it would be acceptable that one rabbit
die
> > to save a thousand humans violates that principle also.
>
> > Guess what? Ethics are not all black and white.
>
> Golly Gee, Dutch -- when ARists say this you jump all over them as
> hypocrites.

Depends on the context, usually they are.. "ARists" only say it to cover up
inconsistencies between what they do and what they demand of others.
 >> Stay informed about: NASH 'in absentia'