Are there ANY serious anti-ARAs in these related groups?

Dutch wrote:
> "Derek" <dereknash DeleteThis @btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:bjuomf$ndkjp$1@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>"Radical Moderate" is an older participant of aaev,
>>posting here behind a new identity. A quick search
>>through Google shows that his first post through the
>>host 67.75.112.112 at alt.test was made only at the
>>beginning of this month, and from there he came
>>directly here to troll old ground.
>>
>>Message-ID: <3F57FCEC.4020604 DeleteThis @home.com>
>>From: Radical Moderate <nobody DeleteThis @home.com>
>>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1)
>
> Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2
>
>>X-Accept-Language: en-us
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Newsgroups: alt.test
>>Subject: Test
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>Lines: 2
>>Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 03:04:41 GMT
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.75.112.112
>>
>>Are there ANY serious anti-ARAs in these related
>>groups, or are we at a stage where we have only a
>>handful of trolls, each using up to half a dozen different
>>identities and posting hosts? At times like these when
>>trolls such as Jonathan Ball are forging posts using their
>>opponent's identities, changing names up to three times
>>in an evening to respond to their own posts, and worst
>>of all, rewriting their opponent's paragraphs before making
>>their replies to them, it's worth keeping in mind that if AR
>>principles were so easily refuted, then the anti-AR side
>>wouldn't need to resort to such spoiling tactics in the first
>>place.
>>
>>The argument is won, and the behaviour of those trying
>>to refute it proves there is no valid opposition or genuine
>>objection to it.
>
>
> You remind me of the Iraqi minister of defense.

Heh heh heh...I *knew* al-Sahaf would resurface.
 >> Stay informed about: Are there ANY serious anti-ARAs in these related groups? 

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 10:40:40 +0100, "Derek" <dereknash.DeleteThis@btopenworld.com> wrote:

>"Radical Moderate" is an older participant of aaev,
>posting here behind a new identity. A quick search
>through Google shows that his first post through the
>host 67.75.112.112 at alt.test was made only at the
>beginning of this month, and from there he came
>directly here to troll old ground.
>
>Message-ID: <3F57FCEC.4020604.DeleteThis@home.com>
>From: Radical Moderate <nobody.DeleteThis@home.com>
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2
>X-Accept-Language: en-us
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Newsgroups: alt.test
>Subject: Test
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 2
>Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 03:04:41 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.75.112.112
>
>Are there ANY serious anti-ARAs in these related
>groups, or are we at a stage where we have only a
>handful of trolls, each using up to half a dozen different
>identities and posting hosts? At times like these when
>trolls such as Jonathan Ball are forging posts using their
>opponent's identities, changing names up to three times
>in an evening to respond to their own posts, and worst
>of all, rewriting their opponent's paragraphs before making
>their replies to them,

The Gonad which you so generously refer to as
Jonathan Ball is an "ARA", who poses very poorly
as an opponent. His character is intended to
portray "AR" opponents as dishonest, childish,
and lacking in basic human consideration of other
humans and animals.

>it's worth keeping in mind that if AR
>principles were so easily refuted, then the anti-AR side
>wouldn't need to resort to such spoiling tactics in the first
>place.

The Gonad never presents any real opposition
to "AR" or alternatives to veg*nism, because those
are the things his dishonest character is intended
to support.

>The argument is won, and the behaviour of those trying
>to refute it proves there is no valid opposition or genuine
>objection to it.

There are genuine objections to it. For one thing
the name itself is a lie. It's a sad joke to refer to the
objective of eliminating domestic animals as "Animal
Rights", but the name brings in more $$$ than they
would get if they referred to it as Domestic Animal
Extinction (DAE).
_________________________________________________________
09 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball
there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct.

11 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball
So far, the "debate" (huh!) has been David reposting his
observation - that billions of animals will not get to
experience life - and me pointing out that this is of no
moral importance

19 Oct 2000 by Jonathan Ball
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration

02 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
if domestic animals were to go extinct, there would be
no moral loss

2001-09-17 From: Jonathan Ball
"Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm
animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm
animals would live in bad conditions.

27 Jan 2002 by Jonathan Ball
his basic rationale for opposing "animal rights" and
"vegans" is nonsense (that it prevents animals from
"getting to experience life")

02 Oct 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If there is no moral loss, which he coyly has hinted at
before, then he has no grounds for bashing "vegans" for
wanting domestic farm animals to disappear

27 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If they never live in the first place, there is no moral
loss to humans, animals or the universe.

05 Sep 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If no farm animals are born...then so be it. There's no
moral loss.

04 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
I said that their experiencing of life is of no moral
significance: if domestic animals were to go extinct,
there would be no moral loss

13 Nov 2000 by Jonathan Ball
"They follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its
natural and logical conclusion."
[That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination
of domestic animals.]
"You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself."
[That other bizarre direction being to improve the animals'
welfare instead of to eliminate them.]

28 Mar 2002 by Jonathan Ball
It doesn't matter if the animals know our intent, Fuckwit.
We know it.

30 Apr 2002 by Jonathan Ball
The fact they're going to be killed "anyway" is an enormous
factor in the quality of their lives

22 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
dh_ld.DeleteThis@nomail.com wrote:

> Meat eaters promote life for the animals they eat,

No, they don't.

From: Jonathan Ball <jonball.DeleteThis@netscape.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 09:22:55 -0700
dh_ld.DeleteThis@nomail.com wrote:

> ...they aren't simply "killed". Some of those animals
> have decent lives, and others don't. Those are facts which veg*ns/"ARAs",
> and at least some of their supposed opponents, want to disregard when making
> their ethical evaluation of our relationship with animals.

No, Fuckwit. It is a "fact" that has no moral
importance, and need be given no consideration in
making a moral judgment about humans' relationship with
and use of animals.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jonball.DeleteThis@earthlink.NS.net>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: Burger King Uncowed
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700

"vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products.
That's an influence, whether you like it or not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: jonball52.DeleteThis@altavista.com (Jonathan Ball)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
Subject: Re: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, Fuckwith
Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700

People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans"
aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm
animals: they don't want there to be farm animals.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
 >> Stay informed about: Are there ANY serious anti-ARAs in these related groups? 

Derek wrote:

> "Radical Moderate" is an older participant of aaev,
> posting here behind a new identity. A quick search
> through Google shows that his first post through the
> host 67.75.112.112 at alt.test was made only at the
> beginning of this month, and from there he came
> directly here to troll old ground.
>

Hmmm, let's examine some implied hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Derek alleges a 'test' occurs only before someone's first
arrival onto a forum.

Observation: It is possible to 'lurk' for a considerable period of time
without needing to post.

Conclusion: There is no reason to conclude a 'test' message marks the
first arrival of a new person.
=================================================================================
Hypothesis 2: Derek alleges that the use of a pseudonym must indicate a
known person operating under false identity.

Observation: Certain persons around here (*ahem*) make a regular habit
of posting people's home address, phone #, and email - all with the
clear purpose of inciting harassment of persons whom they cannot 'get'
any other way. (This is a federal crime, incidentally.)

Conclusion: The sensible thing for any person dealing with the kind of
malicious malcontents that hang around here is to be anonymous.
=================================================================================
Hypothesis 3: Derek alleges that the new arrival is simply the latest
incarnation of a specific regular who (so Derek claims) regularly does so.

Observation: After one or two go-rounds, a person shifting identities
would have the system down and know whether it was working or not.

Observation: There is no evidence that other claimed alternate
identities of the 'older participant' have been tested in the same
manner, let alone from the same server.

Conclusion: There is no reason to think an 'older participant' using
multiple identities would suddenly feel the need to test a new one.
=================================================================================
Observation: The new arrival and the 'older participant' use completely
different hosts based simultaneously on opposite coasts of the US, 3500
miles apart.

Observation: ISP's invariably use the server closest to the subscriber.

Conclusion: Either the new arrival and 'older participant' live on
opposite coasts, or one of them has router technology that would make
the CIA green with envy.
=================================================================================
Observation: The new arrival and 'older participant' use distinctly
different diction, patterns of speech, and demonstrate differing areas
of expertise.

Observation: The overlap in posting times of the two identities in
question exceeds the amount of time any person could remain awake and
functional, particularly while 'switching identities three times in an
evening.'

Conclusion: Any intelligent person not blinded by preconceived notions
would figure out pretty quickly that these are two different people.
=================================================================================
Observation: Derek has an established pattern of jumping to conclusions,
ignoring contrary evidence, frivolous accusations with no supporting
evidence whatsoever, and resorting to simple denial and non-sequiturs
when he cannot refute points honestly.

Observation: Derek is appealing to the gallery in a pre-emptory attempt
at poisoning the well, a distinctly malicious and dishonest substitute
for actual discussion.

Conclusion: Derek is not a serious poster, just a serious poser.
 >> Stay informed about: Are there ANY serious anti-ARAs in these related groups?