Vegetarian Discussion: Would You Like To Be Eaten?

Would You Like To Be Eaten?
Posts: 174

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Martin Willett
2005-12-23 05:09:59 EST
What can we do to stop aliens from eating us? How about swearing off
from eating meat?

There seems to be a common bit of vegetarian propaganda that goes
something like “if you eat animals how can you expect intelligent aliens
not to eat you?”

Let's think about this for a moment. We detect the sin of hypocrisy,
which for our species seems to be the ultimate sin. Eating animals and
yet asking not to be eaten ourselves on the grounds that we are sentient
animals strikes us as in some way a form of hypocrisy. It probably is.
So what? Is hypocrisy the ultimate sin recognized by all sentient
lifeforms everywhere? If if it then surely acting like hypocrites would
make us less attractive dinner table fare, wouldn't it? We would be less
likely to eat a “sinful” species that ate dung and its own young than
one that just ate grass, hung around in fields and went moo. Acting like
hypocrites would make us appear less tasty and nutritious. Acting like
hypocrites is probably a good survival strategy. Do we eat “wicked”
weasels, hyaenas, snakes and tapeworms in preference to “noble” animals
like deer and salmon?
Which species do we refuse to eat on moral grounds?

Do we avoid eating all peaceful herbivores? Hardly! In fact if we can
see any patterns at all here it is that the more animals an animal eats
the less likely it is we will want to eat it ourselves. The only
carnivorous species that we eat on a regular basis are fish, animals
that some people who call themselves vegetarians even try to redefine as
some sort of vegetable. I've news for you veggies, haddock are animals
that eat other animals, being cold bloodied, small-eyed and ugly doesn't
change anything, fish are not vegetables. If you eat fish you cannot be
a vegetarian.

We prefer to eat peaceful herbivores, we actively give preference to
those animals that eat a 100% pure vegetarian diet of grass. Why do we
assume that aliens will prefer to eat old, evil, bitter, twisted and
hypocritical animals like us rather than the nice innocent tender baa
lambs that we like to eat? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Why don't we eat carnivorous animals?

There is no reason why we don't eat carnivorous animals apart from the
fact that they are too expensive to farm economically. When dogs are
raised to be eaten they are not fed on meat, they are given the cheapest
food that will do the job, usually grain, vegetables and kitchen scraps,
just like pigs.

I read in a newspaper recently (or was it The Sun?) about a man who
regularly dines off roadkill. He made no distinction between herbivore
or carnivore and enjoyed stoats and weasels quite as much as squirrels
and badgers. His finest meal was roast labrador, which apparently tastes
just like lamb.

The only problem with eating carnivores is you have to avoid their
livers, which can contain dangerously high concentrations of vitamin A.
The higher an animal (and yes fish are animals) is up the food chain the
higher the concentration of poisons such as heavy metals the flesh may
contain. Certain chemicals such as DDT and PCBs also build up in bodies
and accumulate as you go up the food chain, the most effective way of
riding them from the body is to breastfeed...

If aliens did have a desire to eat people which people would they want
to eat?

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out. Or a fully
qualified butcher. The best cuts would come from young people raised on
a pure Vegan diet, especially if they could be certified as Organic.
Aliens would give preference to young hippie and Goth chicks raised on
beansprouts, lentils and tofu not McDonalds and KFC. Card-carrying
members of PETA would fetch a premium price.

If you really want to avoid being eaten by aliens the best thing you can
do to ensure they don't fancy the idea of eating you is to eat meat,
ideally the meat and offal of diseased, evil, old, poor and hypocritical
aliens. Or failing that, sausages.

Being a vegetarian is as effective a remedy against hungry aliens as is
being a conscientious objector in the face of hordes of Nazis.

What does this aliens eating hypocrites argument remind you of? God?
Yes, we seem to be very good at inventing fictional entities which can
make the evil ones among us feel bad if only we can get them to swallow
a line of bull.

Are aliens likely to be able to eat us?

There is a fair chance that we will actually be poisonous to aliens, and
they could be poisonous to us. Elements that are rare on our planet tend
to be poisonous to us, for example heavy metals such as lead, uranium,
arsenic, cadmium, mercury and so on. They are poisonous largely because
we have not evolved to cope with them. There is a reasonable chance that
to aliens we will contain unacceptably high levels of elements that they
are not able to cope with even if they find our alien proteins and fats
attractive. We may be protected by traces of selenium, copper, chromium
or zinc which could be absent from their biological systems and so be
poisonous to them. Likewise they may have a biological system that
requires an element that we cannot tolerate such as arsenic or lead as a
nutrient. Perhaps alien children are told to eat up their vegetables
because they contain lots of healthy cadmium (essential for healthy
tentacles) while they would look on a Whooper, Big Mac or indeed a
McHuman with Cheese as loaded with quite deadly levels of poisonous
calcium and zinc and enough sodium to kill the Bugblatter Beast of Traal.


First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
posted by the author

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

Ant And Dec
2005-12-23 08:39:48 EST
Martin Willett wrote:

>
> First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
> posted by the author
>

A factually incorrect diatribe attempting to justify the consumption of
meat.

A troll.

Martin Willett
2005-12-23 14:19:11 EST
ant and dec wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote:
>
>>
>> First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
>> posted by the author
>>
>
> A factually incorrect diatribe attempting to justify the consumption of
> meat.
>
> A troll.

How do you make that out? It strikes me you simply haven't got an answer
to the points I made.

I get accused of many things, writing stuff full of facts is rarely one
of them. What was incorrect?

Do veg*ns never use the hypocrisy of eating meat and not wanting to be
eaten as a claim to a higher moral stance? Do you think I *couldn't*
find evidence of such an argument being deployed if I could be arsed to
do so?

Was I wrong in my analysis that more people eat "noble" salmon and deer
than "nasty" hyaenas and tapeworms?

In what way did I justify the consumption of meat? I didn't. I simply
took apart one of the arguments sometimes used against meat eating and
showed it to be rather farcical.

I posted this here because I was looking to see if anybody could come up
with any good case against me. Of course the original piece was designed
to be humorous (do veg*ns do humour?) and was not intended to win any
debate. I run a website that tackles dozens of issues, I don't have a
single-issue agenda. I've been doing this kind of stuff for six years
now and I've never been hounded out of any newsgroup and neither has any
newsgroup ever disbanded because they've been blown away by the power of
my analysis and rapier-like wit (with the possible exception of
alt.religion.christian.amish, but I think they had a few philosophical
difficulties before I showed up). I am here to stimulate a conversation,
not a conversion. I haven't insulted you so I'd appreciate it if you
didn't insult me. If you don't want to engage with me then fine, don't
do it. But please don't do other people's thinking for them by hanging a
ready-made hate label round my neck.

I've just re-read your post. Is "A Troll" your usual signature? I
apologize if I misinterpreted the nature of your post.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

Dutch
2005-12-23 15:50:51 EST

"ant and dec" <ant@dec.itv.com> wrote
> Martin Willett wrote:
>
>>
>> First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
>> posted by the author
>>
>
> A factually incorrect

You mean the part about the aliens? <LOL>

> diatribe attempting to justify the consumption of meat.

Eating meat doesn't demand justification.

> A troll.

You didn't actually take it seriously did you??



Ant And Dec
2005-12-24 10:59:27 EST
Martin Willett wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
>>> posted by the author
>>>
>>
>> A factually incorrect diatribe attempting to justify the consumption
>> of meat.
>>
>> A troll.
>
> How do you make that out?

It was wrong. It is a diatribe. Humour is often used as a mollifying
device for mental conflict, perhaps caused by your recognition of your
own hypocrisy.


>>
It strikes me you simply haven't got an answer
> to the points I made.

Does a diatribe have a point?

>
> I get accused of many things, writing stuff full of facts is rarely one
> of them. What was incorrect?

Salmon, as *one* example is a carnivorous species that we eat as a
common food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon

>
> Do veg*ns never use the hypocrisy of eating meat and not wanting to be
> eaten as a claim to a higher moral stance?

What higher moral stance? Different morals perhaps. Why do you feel they
claim a higher moral stance and why? Perhaps it's your perception of
your own morality.


>Do you think I *couldn't*
> find evidence of such an argument being deployed if I could be arsed to
> do so?

It is used by some.

>
> Was I wrong in my analysis that more people eat "noble" salmon and deer
> than "nasty" hyaenas and tapeworms?

More people eat salmon than tapeworms, none are more "noble" or "nasty"
than each other.

>
> In what way did I justify the consumption of meat? I didn't. I simply
> took apart one of the arguments sometimes used against meat eating and
> showed it to be rather farcical.

You've recognised your own hypocrisy, and have attempted to make joke
out of it.

>
> I posted this here because I was looking to see if anybody could come up
> with any good case against me. Of course the original piece was designed
> to be humorous (do veg*ns do humour?) and was not intended to win any
> debate. I run a website that tackles dozens of issues, I don't have a
> single-issue agenda. I've been doing this kind of stuff for six years
> now and I've never been hounded out of any newsgroup and neither has any
> newsgroup ever disbanded because they've been blown away by the power of
> my analysis and rapier-like wit (with the possible exception of
> alt.religion.christian.amish, but I think they had a few philosophical
> difficulties before I showed up). I am here to stimulate a conversation,
> not a conversion. I haven't insulted you so I'd appreciate it if you
> didn't insult me. If you don't want to engage with me then fine, don't
> do it. But please don't do other people's thinking for them by hanging a
> ready-made hate label round my neck.

I don't hate you. From what I can see you seem a quite a nice guy!


>
> I've just re-read your post. Is "A Troll" your usual signature? I
> apologize if I misinterpreted the nature of your post.

If you were looking for a good case against you, perhaps you should have
written something for that purpose.

Your response has made me reconsider your troll status!

>

Ant And Dec
2005-12-24 11:17:16 EST
Dutch wrote:
> "ant and dec" <ant@dec.itv.com> wrote
>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>
>>> First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
>>> posted by the author
>>>
>> A factually incorrect
>
> You mean the part about the aliens? <LOL>

No.

>
>> diatribe attempting to justify the consumption of meat.
>
> Eating meat doesn't demand justification.

I never said it did. I read it that he was attempting albeit in a light
hearted way, to give an adequate reason or grounds for (in other words
justify) his decision to eat meat.

Anybody can be asked to show adequate an reason or grounds for a decision.

>
>
>> A troll.
>
> You didn't actually take it seriously did you??


He expected a serious comment. Should I have just written <LOL> "What a
wag."?

>
>

Martin Willett
2005-12-24 11:44:08 EST
ant and dec wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote:
>
>> ant and dec wrote:
>>
>>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
>>>> posted by the author
>>>>
>>>
>>> A factually incorrect diatribe attempting to justify the consumption
>>> of meat.
>>>
>>> A troll.
>>
>>
>> How do you make that out?
>
>
> It was wrong. It is a diatribe. Humour is often used as a mollifying
> device for mental conflict, perhaps caused by your recognition of your
> own hypocrisy.
>
>

I don't have a problem with hypocrisy, I make a rule not to eat anything
smarter than a pig, unless I really have to. Fortunately that rule
doesn't restrict my diet very much. I have a lot of respect for the
intelligence of pigs. Chimp chops? No thanks!

> >>
> It strikes me you simply haven't got an answer
>
>> to the points I made.
>
>
> Does a diatribe have a point?

Why restrict yourself to one?

>
>>
>> I get accused of many things, writing stuff full of facts is rarely
>> one of them. What was incorrect?
>
>
> Salmon, as *one* example is a carnivorous species that we eat as a
> common food.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon

How is this a contradiction?

"The only carnivorous species that we eat on a regular basis are fish,
animals that some people who call themselves vegetarians even try to
redefine as some sort of vegetable. I've news for you veggies, haddock
are animals that eat other animals, being cold bloodied, small-eyed and
ugly doesn't change anything, fish are not vegetables. If you eat fish
you cannot be a vegetarian."

>
>>
>> Do veg*ns never use the hypocrisy of eating meat and not wanting to be
>> eaten as a claim to a higher moral stance?
>
>
> What higher moral stance? Different morals perhaps. Why do you feel they
> claim a higher moral stance and why? Perhaps it's your perception of
> your own morality.

Oh come on. Veg*ns ooze their sense of moral superiority like Christians
and Buddhists, they use it as part of their locomotion, like slugs. Of
course they make a point of not *claiming* moral superiority while doing
all they can to ensure that other people get the message loud and clear.
Their entire bearing says "we're not claiming to be superior to you, oh
no, that would be rude and arrogant and not *nice*, but you do know that
you are inferior to us, don't you? You don't? Here, take a pamphlet,
it's all in there."

>
>
>> Do you think I *couldn't* find evidence of such an argument being
>> deployed if I could be arsed to do so?
>
>
> It is used by some.

Quite. If the cap fits, wear it.

>
>>
>> Was I wrong in my analysis that more people eat "noble" salmon and
>> deer than "nasty" hyaenas and tapeworms?
>
>
> More people eat salmon than tapeworms, none are more "noble" or "nasty"
> than each other.

People do not eat nasty animals. At least they don't like to think that
they do. Muslims for example are taught to vilify pigs as well as not to
eat them. I am not suggesting that species are objectively noble or
nasty, that isn't the point, but the perceptions vary. We don't eat rats
and cockroaches but we do eat prawns, which in turn eat marine carrion
and excrement, but we put that image from our minds, even to the point
of calling the alimentary canal of a prawn "just a vein", when in fact
it clearly is scum sucker shit.

>
>>
>> In what way did I justify the consumption of meat? I didn't. I simply
>> took apart one of the arguments sometimes used against meat eating and
>> showed it to be rather farcical.
>
>
> You've recognised your own hypocrisy, and have attempted to make joke
> out of it.

I endeavour to make a joke out of most things.

Sometimes I even succeed.

>
>>
>> I posted this here because I was looking to see if anybody could come
>> up with any good case against me. Of course the original piece was
>> designed to be humorous (do veg*ns do humour?) and was not intended to
>> win any debate. I run a website that tackles dozens of issues, I don't
>> have a single-issue agenda. I've been doing this kind of stuff for six
>> years now and I've never been hounded out of any newsgroup and neither
>> has any newsgroup ever disbanded because they've been blown away by
>> the power of my analysis and rapier-like wit (with the possible
>> exception of alt.religion.christian.amish, but I think they had a few
>> philosophical difficulties before I showed up). I am here to stimulate
>> a conversation, not a conversion. I haven't insulted you so I'd
>> appreciate it if you didn't insult me. If you don't want to engage
>> with me then fine, don't do it. But please don't do other people's
>> thinking for them by hanging a ready-made hate label round my neck.
>
>
> I don't hate you. From what I can see you seem a quite a nice guy!

Thanks, but it does annoy me when people are so quick to hang the
ready-made labels around people's necks. "He's just a troll." I am much
more than that.

>
>
>>
>> I've just re-read your post. Is "A Troll" your usual signature? I
>> apologize if I misinterpreted the nature of your post.
>
>
> If you were looking for a good case against you, perhaps you should have
> written something for that purpose.
>
> Your response has made me reconsider your troll status!
>

Good. My troll status is something I am very proud of. I am not your
common or garden troll. http://www.mwillett.org/troll.htm


--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

Ant And Dec
2005-12-24 12:27:32 EST
Martin Willett wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>
>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>
>>>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
>>>>> posted by the author
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A factually incorrect diatribe attempting to justify the consumption
>>>> of meat.
>>>>
>>>> A troll.
>>>
>>>
>>> How do you make that out?
>>
>>
>> It was wrong. It is a diatribe. Humour is often used as a mollifying
>> device for mental conflict, perhaps caused by your recognition of your
>> own hypocrisy.
>>
>>
>
> I don't have a problem with hypocrisy, I make a rule not to eat anything
> smarter than a pig,

How convenient for you, and inconvenient for the pig. Why have you drawn
this seemingly arbitrary line at pigs?

unless I really have to. Fortunately that rule
> doesn't restrict my diet very much. I have a lot of respect for the
> intelligence of pigs.

But not much respect for the pig?


>Chimp chops? No thanks!
>
>> >>
>> It strikes me you simply haven't got an answer
>>
>>> to the points I made.
>>
>>
>> Does a diatribe have a point?
>
> Why restrict yourself to one?

We can move on, as the points are coming out.

>
>>
>>>
>>> I get accused of many things, writing stuff full of facts is rarely
>>> one of them. What was incorrect?
>>
>>
>> Salmon, as *one* example is a carnivorous species that we eat as a
>> common food.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon
>
> How is this a contradiction?
>
> "The only carnivorous species that we eat on a regular basis are fish,
> animals that some people who call themselves vegetarians even try to
> redefine as some sort of vegetable. I've news for you veggies, haddock
> are animals that eat other animals, being cold bloodied, small-eyed and
> ugly doesn't change anything, fish are not vegetables. If you eat fish
> you cannot be a vegetarian."

Sorry I missed that caveat. The article focused on not eating
carnivores, we eat carnivorous fish (and other things to a lesser
extent)what stops these hypothetical aliens 'fishing' for carnivorous
humans?

>
>>
>>>
>>> Do veg*ns never use the hypocrisy of eating meat and not wanting to
>>> be eaten as a claim to a higher moral stance?
>>
>>
>> What higher moral stance? Different morals perhaps. Why do you feel
>> they claim a higher moral stance and why? Perhaps it's your perception
>> of your own morality.
>
> Oh come on. Veg*ns ooze their sense of moral superiority like Christians
> and Buddhists, they use it as part of their locomotion, like slugs.

I think this is a problem of your perception. Do you think I ooze moral
superiority like a slug, and why? Can you could give some examples of
personal experience as evidence?

> Of
> course they make a point of not *claiming* moral superiority while doing
> all they can to ensure that other people get the message loud and clear.

They don't claim it, because most don't feel (in my experience) or have
a higher moral position.

> Their entire bearing says "we're not claiming to be superior to you, oh
> no, that would be rude and arrogant and not *nice*, but you do know that
> you are inferior to us, don't you? You don't? Here, take a pamphlet,
> it's all in there."

Again this is your misguided (self?) perception.


>
>>
>>
>>> Do you think I *couldn't* find evidence of such an argument being
>>> deployed if I could be arsed to do so?
>>
>>
>> It is used by some.
>
> Quite. If the cap fits, wear it.

There's nothing wrong with asking that particular hypothetical question.

What "cap"?

>
>>
>>>
>>> Was I wrong in my analysis that more people eat "noble" salmon and
>>> deer than "nasty" hyaenas and tapeworms?
>>
>>
>> More people eat salmon than tapeworms, none are more "noble" or
>> "nasty" than each other.
>
> People do not eat nasty animals. At least they don't like to think that
> they do. Muslims for example are taught to vilify pigs as well as not to
> eat them. I am not suggesting that species are objectively noble or
> nasty, that isn't the point, but the perceptions vary. We don't eat rats
> and cockroaches but we do eat prawns, which in turn eat marine carrion
> and excrement, but we put that image from our minds, even to the point
> of calling the alimentary canal of a prawn "just a vein", when in fact
> it clearly is scum sucker shit.

I'm sure an alien wouldn't mind cleaning your "vein".

>
>>
>>>
>>> In what way did I justify the consumption of meat? I didn't. I simply
>>> took apart one of the arguments sometimes used against meat eating
>>> and showed it to be rather farcical.
>>
>>
>> You've recognised your own hypocrisy, and have attempted to make joke
>> out of it.
>
> I endeavour to make a joke out of most things.
>
> Sometimes I even succeed.
>
>>
>>>
>>> I posted this here because I was looking to see if anybody could come
>>> up with any good case against me. Of course the original piece was
>>> designed to be humorous (do veg*ns do humour?) and was not intended
>>> to win any debate. I run a website that tackles dozens of issues, I
>>> don't have a single-issue agenda. I've been doing this kind of stuff
>>> for six years now and I've never been hounded out of any newsgroup
>>> and neither has any newsgroup ever disbanded because they've been
>>> blown away by the power of my analysis and rapier-like wit (with the
>>> possible exception of alt.religion.christian.amish, but I think they
>>> had a few philosophical difficulties before I showed up). I am here
>>> to stimulate a conversation, not a conversion. I haven't insulted you
>>> so I'd appreciate it if you didn't insult me. If you don't want to
>>> engage with me then fine, don't do it. But please don't do other
>>> people's thinking for them by hanging a ready-made hate label round
>>> my neck.
>>
>>
>> I don't hate you. From what I can see you seem a quite a nice guy!
>
> Thanks, but it does annoy me when people are so quick to hang the
> ready-made labels around people's necks. "He's just a troll." I am much
> more than that.

Agreed.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I've just re-read your post. Is "A Troll" your usual signature? I
>>> apologize if I misinterpreted the nature of your post.
>>
>>
>> If you were looking for a good case against you, perhaps you should
>> have written something for that purpose.
>>
>> Your response has made me reconsider your troll status!
>>
>
> Good. My troll status is something I am very proud of. I am not your
> common or garden troll. http://www.mwillett.org/troll.htm


Perhaps a positive novelty troll?

PS. I may be away for a day or two. - Apparently there's a Christian
(traditionally meat centric) festival going on that I'm expected to take
part in!

>
>

Rick
2005-12-24 12:44:14 EST

"ant and dec" <ant@dec.itv.com> wrote in message
news:415akaF1d45j6U1@individual.net...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "ant and dec" <ant@dec.itv.com> wrote
>>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>>
>>>> First published on
>>>> http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
>>>> posted by the author
>>>>
>>> A factually incorrect
>>
>> You mean the part about the aliens? <LOL>
>
> No.
>
>>
>>> diatribe attempting to justify the consumption of meat.
>>
>> Eating meat doesn't demand justification.
>
> I never said it did. I read it that he was attempting albeit in
> a light hearted way, to give an adequate reason or grounds for
> (in other words justify) his decision to eat meat.
=================
And, his reasons are just as viable as the reasons usenet vegans
give for not eating meat. Usenet vegan reasons are just as much
fantasy and delusion, eh?



>
> Anybody can be asked to show adequate an reason or grounds for
> a decision.
>
> >
>>
>>> A troll.
>>
>> You didn't actually take it seriously did you??
>
>
> He expected a serious comment. Should I have just written <LOL>
> "What a wag."?
>
>>


Dutch
2005-12-24 16:23:14 EST

"ant and dec" <ant@dec.itv.com> wrote in message
news:415akaF1d45j6U1@individual.net...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "ant and dec" <ant@dec.itv.com> wrote
>>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>>
>>>> First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
>>>> posted by the author
>>>>
>>> A factually incorrect
>>
>> You mean the part about the aliens? <LOL>
>
> No.

Which part did you find to be "factually incorrect"?

>>> diatribe attempting to justify the consumption of meat.
>>
>> Eating meat doesn't demand justification.
>
> I never said it did. I read it that he was attempting albeit in a light
> hearted way, to give an adequate reason or grounds for (in other words
> justify) his decision to eat meat.
>
> Anybody can be asked to show adequate an reason or grounds for a decision.

I didn't interpret it that way. He was attempting to make light of the
emotional 'To Serve Mankind' argument contained in the admonishment "How
would you feel if aliens came to earth and saw *you* as food?"

>>> A troll.
>>
>> You didn't actually take it seriously did you??
>
>
> He expected a serious comment. Should I have just written <LOL> "What a
> wag."?

I didn't consider simply asserting that it was "factually incorrect" to be a
serious comment.


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron