"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Rubystars" wrote in message
.. .

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Rubystars" wrote in message
. ..

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Rubystars" wrote in message
om...

Humans are natural omnivores.

"Evidence suggests that eating even small amounts of
animal- based foods is linked at least for many individuals
to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular
diseases typically found in the United States."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/...ramid.ssl.html
- were humans *natural* omnivores, that is, adapted to efficiently
digest and derive nutrients from animal flesh without adverse
effects,
the above wouldn't be the case.

I think you're wrong there.

Where?

Humans are natural omnivores, not frugivores or herbivores.

- were humans *natural* omnivores, that is, adapted to efficiently
digest and derive nutrients from animal flesh without adverse effects,
the above wouldn't be the case.
==================
Because the above isn't really fact. Try reading it for once...
Besides, even they aren't recommending a vegan diet you ignorant fool.
Man, you really are terminally stupid, aren't you, killer?



snippage...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
snip
- were humans *natural* omnivores, that is, adapted to efficiently
digest and derive nutrients from animal flesh without adverse effects,
the above wouldn't be the case.

It's not. Reasonable amounts of meat are not harmful.

In hunter-gatherer societies, which humans were
for most of our history, most of the food is of plant origin, but
meat is
still consumed at regular intervals.

Your evidence that meat was always consumed at regular intervals?

The skins that they wore, the antler and bone tools they used, the bones
with scraper marks and bones cracked open with tools to reveal the
marrow.

Could have been taken from (true) predator kill. Certainly not evidence
that (all) humans consumed meat at regular intervals.

There was of course some scavenging going on but humans also hunted. An
intact skin isn't that easy to get from an animal that's already been ripped
up by carnivores and scavengers.

The intelligence of humans may have been, at least in part, related to
the
fact that you have to be intelligent to hunt, and you have to consume a
lot
of nutrients to maintain a large brain, and meat is one way to do that.
Lifelong vegetarians don't have underdeveloped brains.

When did I ever claim they did?

snip
Some humans may well have eaten meat to augment plant-foods
where and when plant-foods were scarce, but behavioural adaptation
is not the same thing as anatomical and physiological adaptation.

We are physically adapted to eat an omnivorous diet.

She may
have been referring to ape-like proto-humans such as Australopithecines
(which possibly were frugivores, but probably still scavenged meat when
they
could).

Why 'probably'? Have you ever scavenged roadkill? .. Why not?

From everything I've read its likely that Australopithecines scavenged some
meat. They probably didn't hunt much, if at all. However, I don't see what
the problem is with that in relation to us, because even though they were
"proto human" they were not humans. If people could travel back in time and
look at a living one, most people would see them as an ape, not a human.

That roadkill comment is irrelevant.

Paleolithic humans had some tools to hunt with, but they were not
as useful as tools used by the modern hunter-gatherer. Professor
Jared Diamond explains how the diet of early humans depended on
their tools. He describes how he was invited on a hunt by a tribe in
New Guinea that retained Stone Age "technology" and habits.
Surprisingly, after an entire day of hunting, the tribe returned with
only two baby birds, a few frogs, and mushrooms.

They also hunt tree kangaroos and other animals in New Guinea.

Although the men of the tribe frequently boasted of the large animals
they had killed, when pressed for details, they admitted that large
animals were killed only a few times in a hunter's career.

Tree kangaroos are not large animals.

Large animals are dangerous and hard to spot in the jungle environment
of
New Guinea.

Do *natural* predators find those large animals dangerous and hard to
spot?
(smell)

Humans have more of their brains going to thought and much less going to
smell than most other mammals, be they herbivore, omnivore, or carnivore.

Also the use of camoflauge does hide animals from other natural predators.

snip
so Professor Diamond thinks it unlikely
that prehistoric hunters could have enjoyed a much higher success
rate than present day hunter-gatherer tribes

In some parts of Africa it was a rite of passage to kill a lion when a boy
became a man. They must have had pretty good tools for that kind of thing. I
think they could handle an antelope (btw, humans can kill animals with more
than just weapons, think of pit traps, snares, etc.).

Some Native Americans drove bison off cliffs. Anywhere else?

Well since you agree with me that's one possible way of hunting that's been
used at least once, I think that's pretty much the point I was trying to
make. That humans are capable of taking down large game (Even many at once).
They don't have to jump on the back of an antelope and rip it apart with
bare teeth and fingernails to be hunters.

Snip
When 'whole herds were driven off cliffs'?

Possibly some milk came from there, or they could've killed a mother animal
other times as well.

snip
For many individuals, yes. For humans as a whole, no. Some people do
need to
watch their diets more closely than others.

But we're omnivores, says you. So why would eating even small
amounts of animal-based foods be linked at least for many individuals
to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular diseases?

Because some individuals are prone to cancers and cardiovascular disease, be
it through a family history of those diseases, or other exposures to
carcinogens. You're the one making the extraordinary claim, that humans are
not omnivores, even though I've never seeen a purely vegetarian or vegan
society any time I've ever seen a tribe on National Geographic.

I've also never read or heard of one anywhere or any time. If they existed
in the far past, they were rare.

It's no surprise that Americans and other people in the West eat too
much
meat, but that doesn't mean meat itself is unhealthy, just that it's
over-consumed and forms too high of a proportion of the diet.

Not a problem for true omnivores.

Omnivores need both meat and plants to be healthy. At least, the nutrients
that can be found in meat.

Yes, that makes sense. I'm sure they ate both at all times,

You're *sure*? At all times? You don't know that for sure.

All that claimed is that the proportions changed, it never said that there
was ever a vegetarian or vegan society.

snip?
If humans are omnivores, why are hospitals bursting at the seams,
and pharm'crap a multi-billion dollar business (con). Why are diseases
associated with meat-eating, like heart disease, diabetes, stroke and
some cancers the leading causes of death, beside iatrogenic deaths?

Hospitals are overworked because we have a large aging population. Diseases
associated with meat eating tend to be associated with over consumption of
high fat meats, in every study I've ever read. Think pork chops, fried
chicken, etc.

Sliced very thin, or torn of off a slab?

Humans have had tools to cut meat for their entire existence. Your question
therefore doesn't make a lot of sense. Knives pre-date humanity. However to
be specific I ate sushi in fairly big pieces, and the steak I ate was very
tender.

snip
If the choice were eat bone marrow or starve, I'd probably do the
same.

Of course, but it undermines your argument that they didn't eat it, when
there is clear evidence they did.

Strawman. My argument is that it was eaten due to necessity, not nature.

All right. I think it's eaten by necessity because people need the nutrients
in meat (though these can be gotten, in modern times, from other sources).

snip
Because they indicate animal use/hunting.

Still not evidence that humans are *natural* omnivores.

I'm probably getting confused on what you mean because we're using two
different definitions of natural.

In fact, try killing and butchering an animal without tools.
(in your mind .

Humans have had tools for their entire existence.

These links explain things a lot better than I ever could:
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.html
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-1a.shtml

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" wrote in message
igy.com...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
snip
- were humans *natural* omnivores, that is, adapted to efficiently
digest and derive nutrients from animal flesh without adverse effects,
the above wouldn't be the case.

It's not. Reasonable amounts of meat are not harmful.

"Evidence suggests that eating even small amounts of
animal- based foods is linked at least for many individuals
to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular
diseases typically found in the United States."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/...ramid.ssl.html

In hunter-gatherer societies, which humans were
for most of our history, most of the food is of plant origin, but meat is
still consumed at regular intervals.

Your evidence that meat was always consumed at regular intervals?

The skins that they wore, the antler and bone tools they used, the bones
with scraper marks and bones cracked open with tools to reveal the marrow.

Could have been taken from (true) predator kill. Certainly not evidence
that (all) humans consumed meat at regular intervals.

There was of course some scavenging going on but humans also hunted. An
intact skin isn't that easy to get from an animal that's already been ripped
up by carnivores and scavengers.

Black Bears
...
Often "skins out" the carcass and leave the hide intact
http://www.imok.ufl.edu/wild/coyote/pred_id.htm

Other predators may do the same. Entry is usually through the
soft underbelly.

The intelligence of humans may have been, at least in part, related to the
fact that you have to be intelligent to hunt, and you have to consume a lot
of nutrients to maintain a large brain, and meat is one way to do that.

Lifelong vegetarians don't have underdeveloped brains.

When did I ever claim they did?

When did I ever claim you claimed they did?

snip
Some humans may well have eaten meat to augment plant-foods
where and when plant-foods were scarce, but behavioural adaptation
is not the same thing as anatomical and physiological adaptation.

We are physically adapted to eat an omnivorous diet.

In what way? Where's your evidence for that?

..
For many individuals, yes. For humans as a whole, no. Some people do need to
watch their diets more closely than others.

But we're omnivores, says you. So why would eating even small
amounts of animal-based foods be linked at least for many individuals
to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular diseases?

Because some individuals are prone to cancers and cardiovascular disease, be
it through a family history of those diseases, or other exposures to
carcinogens.

'The Cornell-China-Oxford Project is a massive survey
of more than 10,000 families in mainland China and Taiwan
designed to study diet, lifestyle and disease across the far
reaches of China. By investigating simultaneously more
diseases and more dietary characteristics than any other
study to date, the project has generated the most
comprehensive database in the world on the multiple causes
of disease. Much of the research behind the pyramid is based
on the China project's research findings.
...
"This pyramid reflects the growing body of research that
suggests that Americans will not reduce their rate of cancers,
cardiovascular disease and other chronic, degenerative
diseases until they shift their diets away from animal-based
foods to plant-based foods," Campbell said. "Evidence
suggests that eating even small amounts of animal- based
foods is linked at least for many individuals to significantly
higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular diseases typically
found in the United States." Further, he reported last year,
merely eating some low-fat foods or complying with current
U.S. dietary recommendations is unlikely to prevent much
disease. The dietary recommendations, Campbell said, do
not go far enough in reducing the total fat content of the
diet, or, more to the point, in advocating the exchange of
foods of animal origin for foods of plant origin.
...
"The nutrient composition of the traditional rural Asian diet
is very similar to the Mediterranean diet in that both are
largely plant-based and both pyramids recommend that
meat be consumed no more than once a month or more
often in very small amounts," said T. Colin Campbell,
Cornell professor of nutritional biochemistry, co-chair of
the conference and director of the Cornell-China-Oxford
Project. "However, the Asian diet, which is significantly
lower in total fat, may prove to be an even more healthful
diet," he added. '
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/...ramid.ssl.html

You're the one making the extraordinary claim, that humans are
not omnivores, even though I've never seeen a purely vegetarian or vegan
society any time I've ever seen a tribe on National Geographic.

I've also never read or heard of one anywhere or any time. If they existed
in the far past, they were rare.

Traditionally, nearly, if not wholly vegetarian- Mediterranean
countries, China, India, Caucasus, Georgia, some Native American
tribes, Hunzas in Pakistan, the Vilcambians in Ecuador ..

It's no surprise that Americans and other people in the West eat too much
meat, but that doesn't mean meat itself is unhealthy, just that it's
over-consumed and forms too high of a proportion of the diet.

Not a problem for true omnivores.

Omnivores need both meat and plants to be healthy. At least, the nutrients
that can be found in meat.

Humans don't need meat, as long as adequate plant-foods are available.

Yes, that makes sense. I'm sure they ate both at all times,

You're *sure*? At all times? You don't know that for sure.

All that claimed is that the proportions changed, it never said that there
was ever a vegetarian or vegan society.

'it'? What would you expect to find as evidence for purely vegetarian
nomadic tribes?

snip?
If humans are omnivores, why are hospitals bursting at the seams,
and pharm'crap a multi-billion dollar business (con). Why are diseases
associated with meat-eating, like heart disease, diabetes, stroke and
some cancers the leading causes of death, beside iatrogenic deaths?

Hospitals are overworked because we have a large aging population. Diseases
associated with meat eating tend to be associated with over consumption of
high fat meats, in every study I've ever read. Think pork chops, fried
chicken, etc.

Maybe you should read this then;

'The Cornell-China-Oxford Project is a massive survey
of more than 10,000 families in mainland China and Taiwan
designed to study diet, lifestyle and disease across the far
reaches of China. By investigating simultaneously more
diseases and more dietary characteristics than any other
study to date, the project has generated the most
comprehensive database in the world on the multiple causes
of disease. Much of the research behind the pyramid is based
on the China project's research findings.
...
"This pyramid reflects the growing body of research that
suggests that Americans will not reduce their rate of cancers,
cardiovascular disease and other chronic, degenerative
diseases until they shift their diets away from animal-based
foods to plant-based foods," Campbell said. "Evidence
suggests that eating even small amounts of animal- based
foods is linked at least for many individuals to significantly
higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular diseases typically
found in the United States." Further, he reported last year,
merely eating some low-fat foods or complying with current
U.S. dietary recommendations is unlikely to prevent much
disease. The dietary recommendations, Campbell said, do
not go far enough in reducing the total fat content of the
diet, or, more to the point, in advocating the exchange of
foods of animal origin for foods of plant origin.
...
"The nutrient composition of the traditional rural Asian diet
is very similar to the Mediterranean diet in that both are
largely plant-based and both pyramids recommend that
meat be consumed no more than once a month or more
often in very small amounts," said T. Colin Campbell,
Cornell professor of nutritional biochemistry, co-chair of
the conference and director of the Cornell-China-Oxford
Project. "However, the Asian diet, which is significantly
lower in total fat, may prove to be an even more healthful
diet," he added. '
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/...ramid.ssl.html

Sliced very thin, or torn of off a slab?

Humans have had tools to cut meat for their entire existence. Your question
therefore doesn't make a lot of sense. Knives pre-date humanity. However to
be specific I ate sushi in fairly big pieces, and the steak I ate was very
tender.

Think you could get to grips with a raw haunch of lamb?

snip
If the choice were eat bone marrow or starve, I'd probably do the same.

Of course, but it undermines your argument that they didn't eat it, when
there is clear evidence they did.

Strawman. My argument is that it was eaten due to necessity, not nature.

All right. I think it's eaten by necessity because people need the nutrients
in meat (though these can be gotten, in modern times, from other sources).

SOME people needed to augment their diet with meat, - when plant foods
were scarce.

snip
Because they indicate animal use/hunting.

Still not evidence that humans are *natural* omnivores.

I'm probably getting confused on what you mean because we're using two
different definitions of natural.

Naturally equipped, anatomically and physiologically, to catch,
kill and consume animals, like real predators do.

In fact, try killing and butchering an animal without tools.
(in your mind .

Humans have had tools for their entire existence.

Would you classify us as an aquatic creature because we
can scuba dive?

These links explain things a lot better than I ever could:
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

Where you'll find this;

"the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain
ecological, ethical, and health concerns. "
_health concerns_? ... uhuh..

and;

Quoted from an editorial by William Clifford Roberts, M.d.,
Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Cardiology:
"When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us
because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat,
was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-1a.shtml

Ahh yes, ye ole billings, who says; "humans might be frugivores"

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Rubystars" wrote in message
igy.com...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
snip
- were humans *natural* omnivores, that is, adapted to efficiently
digest and derive nutrients from animal flesh without adverse effects,
the above wouldn't be the case.

It's not. Reasonable amounts of meat are not harmful.

"Evidence suggests that eating even small amounts of
animal- based foods is linked at least for many individuals
to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular
diseases typically found in the United States."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/...ramid.ssl.html
==================
Not fact, stupid... Try reading it for once...
Besides, even they aren't recommending a vegan diet you ignorant fool.
Man, you really are terminally stupid, aren't you, killer?





snippage...

to do that.

Lifelong vegetarians don't have underdeveloped brains.

When did I ever claim they did?

When did I ever claim you claimed they did?
====================
You, twits, ****ant, expository and many other vegans here make that
conclusion
pretty well determined.



snip
Some humans may well have eaten meat to augment plant-foods
where and when plant-foods were scarce, but behavioural adaptation
is not the same thing as anatomical and physiological adaptation.

We are physically adapted to eat an omnivorous diet.

In what way? Where's your evidence for that?
=====================
Because we aren't frugivores, you dolt.




snippage of the same lys told over again....

"rick etter" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Rubystars" wrote in message
igy.com...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
snip
- were humans *natural* omnivores, that is, adapted to efficiently
digest and derive nutrients from animal flesh without adverse
effects,
the above wouldn't be the case.

It's not. Reasonable amounts of meat are not harmful.

"Evidence suggests that eating even small amounts of
animal- based foods is linked at least for many individuals
to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular
diseases typically found in the United States."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/...ramid.ssl.html
==================
Not fact, stupid... Try reading it for once...
Besides, even they aren't recommending a vegan diet you ignorant fool.
Man, you really are terminally stupid, aren't you, killer?





snippage...

to do that.

Lifelong vegetarians don't have underdeveloped brains.

When did I ever claim they did?

When did I ever claim you claimed they did?
====================
You, twits, ****ant, expository and many other vegans here make that
conclusion
pretty well determined.



snip
Some humans may well have eaten meat to augment plant-foods
where and when plant-foods were scarce, but behavioural adaptation
is not the same thing as anatomical and physiological adaptation.

We are physically adapted to eat an omnivorous diet.

In what way? Where's your evidence for that?
=====================
Because we aren't frugivores, you dolt.

Sorry to interrupt. As a health care provider, I follow a vegan diet with
the exception of chicken and fish. One can use butter rather than oleo
(same calories and fats) to get animal protein and vitiamins/minerals.
There are so many. Personally I prefer beans, lentils, and nuts. I have
come through chemotherapy and it left me pitifully thin. Today I keep fit
and appreciate what I do have. So far, so good. There is no reason not to
have flavor and to enjoy food. Norma

PS Eating 6 times a day (small feedings) also helps the waistline.

"pearl" wrote in message
...
snip entire post

You know I don't know where to begin with you pearl. If you want to deny
humanity's entire natural history, along with the fact that we can use
tools, and always have used tools, and that nearly every society on earth
consumes meat, and there's evidence that goes far back into the past, then I
don't know what to say to you.

A purely vegetarian society would not leave behind bone piles and stone
tools crafted to cut meat. They wouldn't have needed fires to dry and cook
meat. They wouldn't have worn animal skins that would've been ripped apart
by predators. There would've been no reason why dogs would've hung around
our garbage piles and gotten domesticated if all we had to offer them was
veggie scraps.

I tried to talk to you but every time I say anything you copy and paste the
same garbage you put in other posts. I don't understand what the problem is
with that.

The health benefits of vegetarianism come around because most people
over-consume meat and don't get enough fiber or other benefits of plant
foods.

You seem to be as misguided as a creationist or holocaust denier.

We have a natural tendency toward eating foods that are nutrient dense when
they're available. Now that meat is constantly available in the Western
World, people have naturally made it a part of every meal.

Here's a test. Take a toddler and place a piece of steamed broccoli in front
of them, and a small bowl of ice cream. Which one are they going to eat more
of after the first taste?

Second test. Place a piece of tender steak in front of a young child and a
piece of steamed broccoli. The child will want more steak, not more
broccoli.

Why is this?

On second thought, just stay away from kids.

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" wrote in message .. .

"pearl" wrote in message
...
snip entire post

You know I don't know where to begin with you pearl.

Try addressing what I've posted.

If you want to deny
humanity's entire natural history, along with the fact that we can use
tools, and always have used tools, and that nearly every society on earth
consumes meat, and there's evidence that goes far back into the past, then I
don't know what to say to you.

You're ignoring the evidence I posted.

A purely vegetarian society would not leave behind bone piles and stone
tools crafted to cut meat. They wouldn't have needed fires to dry and cook
meat. They wouldn't have worn animal skins that would've been ripped apart
by predators. There would've been no reason why dogs would've hung around
our garbage piles and gotten domesticated if all we had to offer them was
veggie scraps.

I tried to talk to you but every time I say anything you copy and paste the
same garbage you put in other posts. I don't understand what the problem is
with that.

I don't understand why you die-hard meatarians keep ignoring the evidence.

Must be your addiction.

The health benefits of vegetarianism come around because most people
over-consume meat and don't get enough fiber or other benefits of plant
foods.

You've ignored the evidence showing otherwise.

You seem to be as misguided as a creationist or holocaust denier.

You're the one ignoring the evidence.

We have a natural tendency toward eating foods that are nutrient dense when
they're available. Now that meat is constantly available in the Western
World, people have naturally made it a part of every meal.

Saturated fat is addictive, dear.

Here's a test. Take a toddler and place a piece of steamed broccoli in front
of them, and a small bowl of ice cream. Which one are they going to eat more
of after the first taste?

Humans naturally prefer sweet tasting foods. Like fruits.

Second test. Place a piece of tender steak in front of a young child and a
piece of steamed broccoli. The child will want more steak, not more
broccoli.

Young children savage their pets all the time, yeah?

Why is this?

On second thought, just stay away from kids.

FOB.

-Rubystars

squirrely pearly wrote:
You know I don't know where to begin with you pearl.

Try addressing what I've posted.

She has but you resort to pasting the same boring crap over and over again.

snip
We have a natural tendency toward eating foods that are nutrient dense when
they're available. Now that meat is constantly available in the Western
World, people have naturally made it a part of every meal.

Saturated fat is addictive, dear.

*Why*? Ever consider that one, nitwit? Could it have something to do
with our evolution?

Here's a test. Take a toddler and place a piece of steamed broccoli in front
of them, and a small bowl of ice cream. Which one are they going to eat more
of after the first taste?

Humans naturally prefer sweet tasting foods. Like fruits.

And ice cream, and Popsicles, and candy bars.

Second test. Place a piece of tender steak in front of a young child and a
piece of steamed broccoli. The child will want more steak, not more
broccoli.

Young children savage their pets all the time, yeah?

Evasion. Answer her question.

Why is this?

On second thought, just stay away from kids.

FOB.

Gee whiz, no need to get so nasty.

Don't worry, Rubystars, Lesley doesn't have kids and doesn't seem to
have *any* contact with young'uns. That became apparent several months
ago when she attempted to theorize about children and food and what kids
stick in their mouths (especially at certain ages). She thought children
would be too repulsed by worms and such to put them in their mouths, or
that their mommies would ALWAYS stop them (despite the fact that worms
and grubs are delicacies in some cultures, so mommy might eat them).

LOL! In searching for the thread, I found her first mention of the IQ
test. Imagine that!

I'd written (about her):
She has the attention span of a severely hyperactive two
year-old and the IQ of a malnourished and retarded squirrel,
so asking her to read or pay attention is futile. You
should've seen her brazen lunacy about polar holes and ion
fountains a couple months back.

snip

She responded with:

Addressing the issues head-on as usual, aren't ya, suspect.
sarcasm

An IQ test I took recently gave me a score of 135.
Stick that up yer nose and inhale sharply.
http://tinyurl.com/vksl

"pearl" wrote in message ...

FOB.

What on Earth can you do though, girl? I've been
following this from the sart, of course, and to tell
you truth, judging from Rube's replies I'm not even
sure Rube read a single article you brought here.

"pearl" wrote in message
snip
Try addressing what I've posted.

All I've seen you post is some article about meat being bad for people. And
when I tried to have a conversation with you about it, or express a
different opinion, all you did was copy and paste.

You're ignoring the evidence I posted.

You've given no evidence that humans are frugivores.

snip
We have a natural tendency toward eating foods that are nutrient dense
when
they're available. Now that meat is constantly available in the Western
World, people have naturally made it a part of every meal.

Saturated fat is addictive, dear.

People need the nutrients in meat,. It's possible to get those nutrients
from other sources, of course.

Here's a test. Take a toddler and place a piece of steamed broccoli in
front
of them, and a small bowl of ice cream. Which one are they going to eat
more
of after the first taste?

Humans naturally prefer sweet tasting foods. Like fruits.

That still doesn't explain the meat. That also doesn't explain why many
vegetables taste to one degree or another, bitter and unpleasant, while meat
tastes good.

Second test. Place a piece of tender steak in front of a young child and
a
piece of steamed broccoli. The child will want more steak, not more
broccoli.

Young children savage their pets all the time, yeah?

Kids do put bugs in their mouth.

-Rubystars

"usual suspect" wrote in message
snip
Don't worry, Rubystars, Lesley doesn't have kids and doesn't seem to
have *any* contact with young'uns. That became apparent several months
ago when she attempted to theorize about children and food and what kids
stick in their mouths (especially at certain ages). She thought children
would be too repulsed by worms and such to put them in their mouths, or
that their mommies would ALWAYS stop them (despite the fact that worms
and grubs are delicacies in some cultures, so mommy might eat them).

Insects and grubs and worms are highly nutritious, even if most people in
Western cultures think of them as disgusting.

-Rubystars

Dreck Trash, the unethical editor of posts wrote in message .. .
"pearl" wrote in message ...

FOB.

What on Earth can you do though, girl? I've been
following this from the sart, of course, and to tell
you truth, judging from Rube's replies I'm not even
sure Rube read a single article you brought here.


Spending your pocket change again? Should I quote some of your
replies to "Lieslie" from earlier this year?

Kevin

"K D B" wrote in message om...
Dreck Trash, the unethical editor of posts wrote in message .. .
"pearl" wrote in message ...

FOB.

What on Earth can you do though, girl? I've been
following this from the sart, of course, and to tell
you truth, judging from Rube's replies I'm not even
sure Rube read a single article you brought here.


Spending your pocket change again? Should I quote some of your
replies to "Lieslie" from earlier this year?

Go right ahead, pimp. Tell me, are you still pimping
out your wife every weekend to old blokes in rain
macs at that place where she works as a slut?