b5c7215a   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
      
   On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:33:02 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Nov 14, 7:26 pm, Derek  wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:19:22 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >> wrote:   
   >> >On Nov 14, 6:57 pm, Derek  wrote:   
   >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:34:00 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >> >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> []   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >So what you're saying is that you think that Ball probably   
   >> >> >> >deliberately pissed on his floor and then posted to usenet about it?   
   >>   
   >> >> >>     If he did the pissing he was probably so wasted when he did it   
   the first few   
   >> >> >> times that he didn't realise what he was doing, and later figured it   
   out but   
   >> >> >> kept doing it since it had already been done several times.... Then   
   he got in   
   >> >> >> the habit of it for a while until one day the smell got so bad that   
   he decided   
   >> >> >> to finally quit doing it, and then later found out how much trouble   
   he set   
   >> >> >> himself up for trying to get it to quit stinking. It makes more sense   
   than that   
   >> >> >> cats had done it years ago or whatever and Goo just noticed it one   
   day after   
   >> >> >> having lived there for however long. We know Goo lies about his own   
   quotes as or   
   >> >> >> more often than not...at least I'm aware of it even if you honestly   
   aren't. We   
   >> >> >> know Goo lied about it not taking a while for him to respond, Goo   
   lied about   
   >> >> >> having been asked about the issue in the past, and Goo lied about me   
   having told   
   >> >> >> you I knew Slater forged what he presented. Why would Goo lie about   
   those things   
   >> >> >> if he's not lying about the cats? Why???   
   >>   
   >> >> >First of all   
   >>   
   >> >> How can you waste a single moment responding to that nonsense and not   
   feel   
   >> >> debased in some small way, Rupert? What the fuck's the matter with you?   
   >>   
   >> >Good question, really. I agree with you.   
   >>   
   >> Well, if it's any consolation to you, I've found myself involved in a lot   
   >> worse.   
   >   
   >Well, responding to David Harrison is a pretty silly habit, but I   
   >suppose one could think of habits that are more harmful.   
      
       You "could" improve from my influence, but all I could do is regress from   
   yours. Regress to a fourth or fifth grade level or below to drop down where you   
   are. You're on the bottom, so all there is for you is up...or over. You can't   
   appreciate the lives of any creatures on the planet and don't comprehend what a   
   life of positive value is, meaning you certainly can't appreciate any   
   distinction between "good" lives and those which aren't good but are still of   
   positive value. Since you can't appreciate the positive value of your own life   
   that means it's almost certainly not what a person could call good, but since   
   you haven't killed yourself yet it shows that so far it's still of positive   
   value TO YOU even though you're not mentally capable of comprehending much much   
   less appreciating the fact. Much MUCH much less can you appreciate it, and   
   sadly   
   you probably never will be able to until it's too late IF then. After it   
   becomes   
   too late and it's no longer of positive value to you maybe then you'll finally   
   understand, and at that point you may wish you had been able to appreciate it   
   while it was still of positive value instead of negative. Or maybe you'll   
   somehow remain clueless even then, and if so you might be better off for your   
   own incredible ignorance than you would be if you could comprehend. Ask your   
   dad   
   and see what he says about it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)