 |
|
|
|
Next: Jonathan Ball accepts the vegan's claims.
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 64
|
(Msg. 31) Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:32 pm
Post subject: Re: collateral damage of organic rice [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>philosophy, others (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:15:06 -0500, "Saerah" <anisaerah RemoveThis @worldlinkisp.com> wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote in message <89ld0014ajb4o7ecnne02t31rn5c0qlinl RemoveThis @4ax.com>...
>>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:47:39 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball RemoveThis @whitehouse.not>wrote:
>>>Saerah wrote:
>>
>>>> not everyone has access to locally produced grass fed beef.
>>>
>>>The location of the producer is irrelevant, as I
>>>suspect you know. A consumer in NYC trying to follow
>>>the least-harm diet, and choosing between (say)
>>>soybeans and grass-fed beef, is going to cause harm due
>>>to transportation no matter which he selects: both
>>>come from far away. However, the death caused by the
>>>beef is undoubtedly less than that caused by the
>>>production of the soybeans.
>>
>
>PLEASE watch your attributions, ok?
You've responded to my post, snipped all I wrote, but
directed your comment toward Jonathan Ball again,
or am I mistaken? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jul 10, 2003
Posts: 869
|
(Msg. 32) Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:04 pm
Post subject: Re: collateral damage of Karen Winter's reflexive dishonesty [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> Saerah wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> i guess, but you sure arent going to convince anyone of the obvous
>> flaws in
>> their arguments by using the most offensive (to them at least)
>> rhetoric you
>> can.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> One major problem with jon's rhetoric (among others) is that it
> relies on attacks on others' motives.
No, it doesn't rely on that at all, and you know it.
You get so much else wrong, it is unsurprising you get
the direction of causation wrong as well.
I observe three things, and from them I infer,
CORRECTLY, you motive. The correct inference comes as
a result of a prior analysis. What I look at are:
- the fundamental, fatal flaw in the "vegan"/"ara" yarn
- your insistence that the flaw isn't there, when it
irrefutably is
- your laughably obvious sophistry in defense of the yarn
From your insistence you are right, which can only be
described as conscious stubbornness, and from the
risibly dishonest sophistry you use to try to preserve
the yarn, I THEN conclude that you are a lying,
hypocritical, sanctimonious cunt. I am right.
> As you see, he cares nothing
> for the ethics of the argument,
No, she and you can't see that at all, because it is a
blatantly false statement. Since you are KNOWN to be a
lying sophist, we know that the lie is deliberate.
I do care about the ethics of the argument, as is plain
to any honest observer. Among other things, I believe
it is important to be honest and open minded, and a
dispassionate observation of your behavior reveals you
are neither. You have a deep-seated belief in a
pernicious political dogma, and it leads you to commit
evil.
> I have been vegetarian for close to 25 years, vegan for a number of
> those years. I believe strongly that subject-of-a-life animals (to
> use Regan's term) do have a moral standing which makes it unethical
> for us to use them as objects
This belief is something you have never been able to
support; not even close.
> I would not eat meat, even "grass-fed" beef, because of this.
But you *claim* to be following some kind of least-harm
diet in your "veganism", and that is plainly seen to be
a lie.
[snip remaining excruciating blarney]
The modification of the thread subject is very apt.
The collateral damage of your reflexive dishonesty is
that your entire position is demolished. You have no
credibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 26, 2003
Posts: 313
|
(Msg. 33) Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:04 pm
Post subject: As I pointed out: [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
The whole focus of jonnie's argument is an attack on the
character of vegetarians and vegans. This makes his position here
useless in terms of any real discussion of the ethical issues involved
in Animal Rights and/or vegetarian/vegan philosophy.
<snip>
Rat >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 10, 2003
Posts: 869
|
(Msg. 34) Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:02 pm
Post subject: Re: As I pointed out: [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> The whole focus of jon's argument is
The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental
flaw in "veganism" as an ethical response to a
perceived ethical problem is manifold:
- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
requiring a response
- doesn't solve the alleged problem, even in terms of a
personal response to it, let alone societally -->
"vegans" continue to cause animal death
- is predicated on an invalid *comparative* morality >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 26, 2003
Posts: 313
|
(Msg. 35) Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:02 pm
Post subject: Re: As I pointed out: [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Jonathan Ball wrote:
<snip>
> The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
> "veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
> manifold:
> - no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
> requiring a response
As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.
> - doesn't solve the alleged problem, even in terms of a
> personal response to it, let alone societally -->
> "vegans" continue to cause animal death
Humans continue to cause human deaths also; all humans share
to some degree in the death-dealing of our society toward
humans. Vegans do not usually _cause_ animal deaths, certainly
not directly. At the worst, they provide a limited share of
economic motivation for farmers to avoid their responsibility
for reducing the number of deaths they cause directly. But to
say vegans _cause_ deaths is to cheapen the concept of real
responsibility to a point where it becomes meaningless. This
is a shoddy tactic to allow those truly and directly responsible to
evade responsibility. It is not persuasive to any objective person.
> - is predicated on an invalid *comparative* morality
False. The basic morality of veganism is not comparative: it
states clearly that use of animals as products is wrong;
therefore raising and slaughtering animals for meat is wrong.
The comparative aspect comes within the category of non-animal
products, and is legitimate.
Rat >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 20, 2003
Posts: 280
|
(Msg. 36) Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:12 pm
Post subject: Re: As I pointed out: [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Rat & Swan" <labrat DeleteThis @cybermesa.com> wrote in message
news:bu7eme$gd5$1@reader2.nmix.net...
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
> > "veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
> > manifold:
>
> > - no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
> > requiring a response
>
> As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
> use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
> the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
> believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
> why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.
========================
Yes, why don't you respect, defend, and uphold the rights that *you* believe
animals have? It's obvious that you do not believe your own spew. You
prove that with your lifestyle, and with each and every inane post you make
to usenet, killer.
>
>
> > - doesn't solve the alleged problem, even in terms of a
> > personal response to it, let alone societally -->
> > "vegans" continue to cause animal death
>
> Humans continue to cause human deaths also; all humans share
> to some degree in the death-dealing of our society toward
> humans. Vegans do not usually _cause_ animal deaths, certainly
> not directly.
=======================
Yet they are just as dead, and unlike the accidental deaths that happen to
people, and the consequences that occur for those deaths, you do nothing to
lessen, or punish those that cause animal death and suffering. You
especially do nothing on your own to lessen your impact.
At the worst, they provide a limited share of
> economic motivation for farmers to avoid their responsibility
> for reducing the number of deaths they cause directly. But to
> say vegans _cause_ deaths is to cheapen the concept of real
> responsibility to a point where it becomes meaningless.
==========================
LOL Now you've got it! That's the whole point of veganism, meaningless
delusions and lys! Glad to see you finally understnd that, killer.
This
> is a shoddy tactic to allow those truly and directly responsible to
> evade responsibility. It is not persuasive to any objective person.
>
>
> > - is predicated on an invalid *comparative* morality
>
> False. The basic morality of veganism is not comparative: it
> states clearly that use of animals as products is wrong;
> therefore raising and slaughtering animals for meat is wrong.
=================================
No, the basic statement of veganism is that animals not be exploited for
*any* reason. That you have to try to change it's meaning to better fit
your warped ideas just says that you realize that your impact is far too
great on animals compared to many meat-included diets. Do you need to see
the real meaning again, as it was defined by the guy that actually made uo
the word?
> The comparative aspect comes within the category of non-animal
> products, and is legitimate.
>
> Rat
> >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 26, 2003
Posts: 313
|
(Msg. 37) Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:14 pm
Post subject: basic AR issues [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Jonathan Ball wrote:
> Rat & Swan wrote:
<snip>
>> As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
>> use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
>> the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
>> believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
>> why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.
> ...YOU already
> don't think that animals should be granted rights
> because they are "like" us.
What leads you to that conclusion? I actually do.
> Furthermore,...human felons are EVEN
> MORE like us than any of the non-human animals to whom you...
> think rights should be granted, and we quite rightly deny them many
> basic rights.
Not the most basic rights, and not on the basis of their species,
but on the basis of some crime they have (or supposedly have)
committed. The opposition to the death penalty -- which I
support -- for example, is based on a belief that the State
should not have the right to take human life as a punishment.
The various efforts to improve the status of prisoners is based
on a conviction that they do not lose their basic human rights
because they are prisoners. Again, few people in the modern
west believe that humans may be eaten, turned into lampshades,
or used as subjects of experiments because they are in prison.
>... You still haven't supported
> your point. There has been no persuasive elaboration of a real ethical
> problem.
The fact that you do not see an ethical problem does not mean one
does not exist.
>>> - doesn't solve the alleged problem, even in terms of a
>>> personal response to it, let alone societally -->
>>> "vegans" continue to cause animal death
>> Humans continue to cause human deaths also;
> Not morally comparable.
A matter of opinion, jonnie.
<snip>
>>> - is predicated on an invalid *comparative* morality
>> False. The basic morality of veganism is not comparative:
> That's a lie. The basic morality of "veganism" very much is
> comparative. It is filthy hypocrites proclaiming their virtue solely in
> comparison with those who don't behave as they do.
Generalize much?
Rat >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 38) Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:08 am
Post subject: Re: collateral damage of organic rice [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:15:06 -0500, "Saerah" <anisaerah.DeleteThis@worldlinkisp.com>
wrote:
>>ipse dixit wrote in message
<89ld0014ajb4o7ecnne02t31rn5c0qlinl.DeleteThis@4ax.com>...
>>>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:47:39 GMT, Jonathan Ball
<jonball.DeleteThis@whitehouse.not>wrote:
>>>>Saerah wrote:
>>>
>>>>> not everyone has access to locally produced grass fed beef.
>>>>
>>>>The location of the producer is irrelevant, as I
>>>>suspect you know. A consumer in NYC trying to follow
>>>>the least-harm diet, and choosing between (say)
>>>>soybeans and grass-fed beef, is going to cause harm due
>>>>to transportation no matter which he selects: both
>>>>come from far away. However, the death caused by the
>>>>beef is undoubtedly less than that caused by the
>>>>production of the soybeans.
>>>
>>
>>PLEASE watch your attributions, ok?
>
>You've responded to my post, snipped all I wrote, but
>directed your comment toward Jonathan Ball again,
>or am I mistaken?
you are mistaken. actually, i shouldnt have been snippy about this one- but
the last one showed what jonathan said on the same quote level as my name,
therefore implying that i said it.
--
Saerah
TANSTAAFL
"We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like
cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the
ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How
silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell." - Cassie from THE THREE >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 10, 2003
Posts: 869
|
(Msg. 39) Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:12 am
Post subject: The whole focus of my argument is [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 21:02:05 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball DeleteThis @whitehouse.not> wrote:
>Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>>
>> The whole focus of jon's argument is
>
The whole focus of my argument is that they
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its
natural and logical conclusion."
[That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination
of domestic animals.]
"vegans" are interested in their influence on animals . . .
They want everyone to be "vegan", which would mean
no animals raised for food and other products. That's an
influence . . . ¹
"Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm
animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm
animals would live in bad conditions. ²
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. ³ If they never live in the first place, there is no
moral loss to humans, animals or the universe.
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration
OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising
any farm animals.
¹ 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
² 2001-09-17 From: Jonathan Ball
³ 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 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 10, 2003
Posts: 869
|
(Msg. 40) Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 3:18 am
Post subject: Forgery: Re: The whole focus of my argument is [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: talk>politics>animals, others (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 64
|
(Msg. 41) Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 9:33 am
Post subject: Re: collateral damage of organic rice [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>philosophy, others (more info?)
|
|
|
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:08:20 -0500, "Saerah" <anisaerah.RemoveThis@worldlinkisp.com> wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:15:06 -0500, "Saerah" <anisaerah.RemoveThis@worldlinkisp.com> wrote:
>>>ipse dixit wrote in message <89ld0014ajb4o7ecnne02t31rn5c0qlinl.RemoveThis@4ax.com>...
>>>>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:47:39 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball.RemoveThis@whitehouse.not>wrote:
>>>>>Saerah wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> not everyone has access to locally produced grass fed beef.
>>>>>
>>>>>The location of the producer is irrelevant, as I
>>>>>suspect you know. A consumer in NYC trying to follow
>>>>>the least-harm diet, and choosing between (say)
>>>>>soybeans and grass-fed beef, is going to cause harm due
>>>>>to transportation no matter which he selects: both
>>>>>come from far away. However, the death caused by the
>>>>>beef is undoubtedly less than that caused by the
>>>>>production of the soybeans.
>>>>
>>>
>>>PLEASE watch your attributions, ok?
>>
>>You've responded to my post, snipped all I wrote, but
>>directed your comment toward Jonathan Ball again,
>>or am I mistaken?
>
>you are mistaken. actually, i shouldnt have been snippy about this one- but
>the last one showed what jonathan said on the same quote level as my name,
>therefore implying that i said it.
I see what you mean. Sorry about that, but
rest assured in the knowledge that we can
all distinguish between your and Jonathan's
paragraphs. Even half a line. >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 64
|
(Msg. 42) Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:12 am
Post subject: Re: collateral damage of organic rice [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:13:57 -0500, "Saerah" <anisaerah.TakeThisOut@worldlinkisp.com> wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:27:52 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball.TakeThisOut@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>>Saerah wrote:
>>>
>>>Let's look again at what "vegans" claim. They all
>>>begin by claiming they aren't causing *any* animal
>>>death, by virtue of not consuming any animal parts.
>>
>
>i didnt say that. watch your quotes.
>
I see what you mean, but if you look again at Jonathan's
post you'll see that your name is already in the same
quote column as his paragraph, making it appear you had
written it. All I did was snip away the [snip] line between
your name and Jon's paragraph. I often find that the names
hardly ever marry-up to what the person wrote.
If you look at this post, the columns show that I wrote, "i
didn't say that, watch your quotes." instead of you, for
example. >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 15, 2003
Posts: 586
|
(Msg. 43) Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:26 pm
Post subject: Re: As I pointed out: [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0700, Rat & Swan <labrat.TakeThisOut@cybermesa.com> wrote:
>
>
>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
><snip>
>> The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
>> "veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
>> manifold:
>
>> - no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
>> requiring a response
>
>As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
>use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
>the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
>believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
>why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.
Which rights are you referring to?
>> - doesn't solve the alleged problem, even in terms of a
>> personal response to it, let alone societally -->
>> "vegans" continue to cause animal death
[...]
>But to
>say vegans _cause_ deaths is to cheapen the concept of real
>responsibility to a point where it becomes meaningless.
No, to say that veg*ns do _not_ cause deaths is to cheapen the
concept of real responsibility to a point where it becomes meaningless.
>This
>is a shoddy tactic to allow those truly and directly responsible to
>evade responsibility.
We agree that's what you are doing. Some types of meat involve
less animal deaths than some types of veggies. If you cared as much
about human influence on animals as you do about promoting veg*nism,
you would point that out yourself. But you only care about promoting
veg*nism regardless of its impact on animals. If you were honest about
that it would be different, but you're not...in fact not any of you veg*ns
are honest about it. >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 26, 2003
Posts: 313
|
(Msg. 44) Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:26 pm
Post subject: Re: As I pointed out: [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
<snip> interesting discussion of responsibility
ipse dixit wrote:
> And some veggies cause even less collateral than that
> grass fed beef you're always trying to push on the vegan.
> If you were honestly interested in advocating a least-harm
> diet you would include crops grown under glass or foraging
> instead of that grass fed beef.
Indeed.
Rat >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 20, 2003
Posts: 280
|
(Msg. 45) Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 4:18 pm
Post subject: Re: Basic AR issues [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Rat & Swan" <labrat.TakeThisOut@cybermesa.com> wrote in message
news:bu9dah$r6g$1@reader2.nmix.net...
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>>> As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
> >>>> use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
> >>>> the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
> >>>> believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
> >>>> why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.
>
> >>> ...YOU
> >>> already don't think that animals should be granted rights because
> >>> they are "like" us.
>
> >> What leads you to that conclusion? I actually do.
>
> >...You believe they are entitled to right because they are..."subject of
a
> > life". They may be "like" us in that regard, but most animals are very
> > much UNLIKE us in most other pertinent regards.
>
> I think the similarity to us in being "subject-of-a-life" is what is
> significant and pertinent. Of course, each individual and each
> species is different, but it is the ability to have interests, to have
> awareness of oneself as an individual, which is basic to the concept of
> moral standing as an individual. A rock or a tree may be _given_ a
> moral value by moral agents (as a work of art, a plant in one's garden,
> a part of a loved landscape or healthy ecology, etc.), but the value
> does not lie within the capacities of the individual itself; the
> individual tree or rock does not have the basic qualities of personhood.
> Many animals do, as most humans do; therefore they should, I believe,
> be seen as having certain basically similar rights.
=============================
But you prove with each inane post that you don't believe this. either
that, or you are the most incredibe hypocrite the world has ever seen,
killer.
If *you* really believed this you wouldn't be waiting for the rest of us to
finally afford these animals their 'rights'. Instead, you would already be
living your life so that you are supporting, defending, and upholding the
rights you claim they have. You don't. You don't even come close. You
live off them, and you entertain yourself with their death and suffering.
snip... >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Rick Etter's denial of the collateral deaths accrued durin.. - On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:48:11 -0500, "rick etter" <retterstop@bright.net> wrote: > >"Ipse dixit" <nospam@email.com> wrote in message news:jlg7rvs58mgn7knbcgjlqgmkghtgdub4l0@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:2...
Chicken or rice, which causes more CDs? - Last night, while enjoying a half a chicken and a bowl of rice, I was wondering whether the rice caused more CDs than the chicken. The chicken ate grain for about six weeks, but it wasn't grain grown in fields that were flooded and drained like rice..
The long-awaited Third Reading of the Government's Hunting.. - Dear Supporter: The long-awaited Third Reading of the Government's Hunting Bill has been announced for 30th June. This is a critical vote for the future of hunting with dogs. The Government's Hunting Bill, bans deer hunting, hare coursing and hare..
Virus Warning - I don't know why I bother, I suppose I'm just that kinda guy. There's a W32 Gibe.B@MM waiting for:- ~~Jonnie~~ Rick Etter Dr. Doody I have receive a couple for the same source KenHedges@insightbb.com , never heard of the guy. It's the usual Microsoft..
"We Have Tried Nipping Her In The Ear Or Back Leg As Mom W.. - HOWEDY sinofabitch, "Sionnach" <rhyfelwr@msn.com> wrote in message news:au22pc$3qfo7$1@ID-45033.news.dfncis.de... > <flabeare@ec.rr.com> wrote: in message > news:6DUM9.39937$Rt1.2190245@twister.southeast.rr.com... > >... |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
