Not intelligent enough to be taken seriously, not funny enough for a worthwhile joke.(No, not even with the badly drawn cartoons on the link) Not very creative either. (A purely subjective view of course).

I suppose these comments will automatically be stamped as the classic response of an insecure hetero bigot who's had his very core beliefs challenged (in the minds of the witless drones who stuck this up). If the production of mild annoyance (without direction or purpose) counts as an achievement for you philosophers, then I suggest that you resemble nothing so much as the screeching infants whom you wish to spare entry into the world.

Can't you see that it is an animal rights website. We wouldn't dream of neutering humans yet we subject millions of pets to this barbaric practice every year. So called concerned people claim that this is to control the pet population. But if animals can't be allowed to live natural lives, then don't have them as pets. Animals are not ours to do with as we like not even to have as pets unless we can allow them to live free and natural lives!

No, "Animal Lover", I must admit I couldn't see that on the first perusal. And in fact, looking again, I argue that this wouldn't become apparent to an "outsider" until hundreds of words into the text. One gets the genuine impression that it's really about negligence in respect of children - morally laid at the door of Joe-hetero (or just a less serious dig at the same, but too dull to be funny). There simply isn't enough wit in it for one to "get it" (unless one points it out as you have) without a lot of tiresome, laborious enquiry; which I for one thought not worth the candle after the first 300 words or so. I suspect that this project will appeal only to the "converted"; which calls up the same point I made earlier - that when narrow-minded fanatics (like yourselves) become so isolated and insular for so long, there arises a tendency to reinforce the insularity, to make in-jokes and produce propaganda that only those who are "up-to-speed" can be expected to understand. Dissapointed that ordinary people won't immediately drop everything and follow you down the twisted and tortuous labyrinths of your own idiosyncratic thinking, you find a stubborn pride in your obscurity: "We're in the know and they're just dumb. Hooray for us!!!"

Fine. But why do it here?

No, "Animal Lover", I must admit I couldn't see that on the first perusal. And in fact, looking again, I argue that this wouldn't become apparent to an "outsider" until hundreds of words into the text. One gets the genuine impression that it's really about negligence in respect of children - morally laid at the door of Joe-hetero (or just a less serious dig at the same, but too dull to be funny). There simply isn't enough wit in it for one to "get it" (unless one points it out as you have) without a lot of tiresome, laborious enquiry; which I for one thought not worth the candle after the first 300 words or so. I suspect that this project will appeal only to the "converted"; which calls up the same point I made earlier - that when narrow-minded fanatics (like yourselves) become so isolated and insular for so long, there arises a tendency to reinforce the insularity, to make in-jokes and produce propaganda that only those who are "up-to-speed" can be expected to understand. Dissapointed that ordinary people won't immediately drop everything and follow you down the twisted and tortuous labyrinths of your own idiosyncratic thinking, you find a stubborn pride in your obscurity: "We're in the know and they're just dumb. Hooray for us!!!"

Fine. But why do it here?

SORRY IF THIS COMMENT GETS REPEATED; HAVING PROBLEMS HERE. No, "Animal Lover", I must admit I couldn't see that on the first perusal. And in fact, looking again, I argue that this wouldn't become apparent to an "outsider" until hundreds of words into the text. One gets the genuine impression that it's really about negligence in respect of children - morally laid at the door of Joe-hetero (or just a less serious dig at the same, but too dull to be funny). There simply isn't enough wit in it for one to "get it" (unless one points it out as you have) without a lot of tiresome, laborious enquiry; which I for one thought not worth the candle after the first 300 words or so. I suspect that this project will appeal only to the "converted"; which calls up the same point I made earlier - that when narrow-minded fanatics (like yourselves) become so isolated and insular for so long, there arises a tendency to reinforce the insularity, to make in-jokes and produce propaganda that only those who are "up-to-speed" can be expected to understand. Dissapointed that ordinary people won't immediately drop everything and follow you down the twisted and tortuous labyrinths of your own idiosyncratic thinking, you find a stubborn pride in your obscurity: "We're in the know and they're just dumb. Hooray for us!!!"

Fine. But why do it here?

It is quite simple, the proposed policy will not be adopted, and Life on Earth will become extinct to the point of starting evolution all over again.

The policy is proposed far too late. It should have been part implemented in about 1905. It was not, so there is not much point now of arguing with the soggy do gooders, if the whole human population were exterminated today, the changes caused by their activities are probably unstoppable from culminating in total catastrophe for all EarthLife..

Go on VOTE LABOUR!!!! Or Tory, or Lib Dem, or BNP, or CP, or even do not vote. Nothing changes.

Did you understand what it said in "Global Dimming"?

Well Jim, if you look at the top of the original post that gives the link to the site it says:

"Queer Planet | 14.01.2005 04:08 | Animal Liberation"

So it's quite clearly got something to do with animals.

Well Ozzy, you're half right. Yes, it does say "animal liberation" but as it also says "queer planet", (and, as I've already argued, proceeds therefrom through hundreds of witless, wasted words which presumably intend satire but give little clue of it besides their perverse resistance to sense or logic)I'd say that you're overshooting somewhat with your use of "quite clearly".

Bury your head back in the desolate sands, old chum. It was left there for a reason.