Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- From: Jim Webster <Jim.Webster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:54:41 +0100
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:49:25 -0700, "John M." a sock who also posts as
PHart and others <john_howard_morgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 9, 12:19 am, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 22:27:27 +0100, Robert Seago
<rjse...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <2pgj639mcu5tmaohat9ang0co3jumik...@xxxxxxx>,
<amacmil...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
As I have told you many times, I am not a conservationist or an
environmentalist. But I oppose the dishonesty of those who say they
are but indulge in and encourage environmental damage
But you say you oppose the production of veal.
Of course I am.
But you are prepared to
eat dairy products
Milk production is not a product of the veal industry. And milk would
still be produced if veal was not.
Oh, really. So tell us what would happen to the millions of unsed
calves under these circumstances.
Wouldn't you be better of quoting libel law? what sock of yours would
you use. J Morgan or PHart or one of your other sock puppets?
Give us your real name and address and we'll give you some ammo.
.
- References:
- Yet another "expert's" opinion
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- From: Robert Seago
- Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- From: amacmil304
- Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- From: John M.
- Yet another "expert's" opinion
- Prev by Date: Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- Next by Date: Re: More fake conservation rubbish from the Woodland Trust
- Previous by thread: Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- Next by thread: Re: Yet another "expert's" opinion
- Index(es):