Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> If you're not ****ed, why do you insult all the time?

I don't insult ALL the time. Go back and re-read the first several
messages in the thread addressed to you from last weekend. I didn't
insult -- YOU did.

<...>
> I don't think CJS needs to give examples.

Not surprising coming from you, someone who throws out repeated unproven
and unsubstantiated claims.

<...>
>>There's a huge difference between us: I substantiated my claim.
>
> You haven't substantiated anything much

I've substantiated every claim I made.

> except
> stuff that actually proved the meat industry as
> a whole causes way more cds than the plant
> foods that go directly to humans.

No, Skunky, remember when I noted the irony of the examples I offered.
Those were to show that your generalization about grain-finished animals
was off. You never got back to me about how much of that grass upon
which cows, bison, and wild game graze could be used to feed you or
starving Ethiopians. When was the last time you ate grass (not counting
your ganja brownies)?

<...>
> Ah, ain't this sweet. You missed me.

No, I didn't.

> The above is
> to provoke me into posting back to you. Here you
> go sweetie.

Spare me terms of endearment.

> Your nastiness was visible even while you were being polite.

You have a chip on your shoulder because you cannot defend your claims.

> We argued my claims

You argued without evidence.

> such as the fact that the meat
> industry uses at least 3 times the pounds in crops to
> produce only 1 pound in finished product,

Actually, you claimed ratios of 10-16:1. Didn't you. You're also still
comparing apples and oranges. I asked you to get beyond the issue of
grain-finished since Rick and I were advocating *grazed* ruminants. The
grain ratio to beef is 0:1.

> whereas
> plant foods are 1 pound of crops = 1 pound of products.

How much grass and scrub can you eat at one sitting?

> This means that plant foods have less of those cd's
> you go on about. This is a fact you refuse to see.

No, you incessantly insist on comparing apples to oranges. You're
closed-minded and intolerant because you argue even against the
alternatives like wild game, bison, and grass-fed beef which don't fit
into your model (which you've taken from vegan propaganda) and "waste"
grains or legumes. Further, you're a rank hypocrite for raising the
"waste" issue because your own recipes call for processed products like
Yves fake ground Italian sausage. Texturized soy protein, like that used
by Yves, also doesn't yield a 1:1 ratio.

>>she sure as hell was from the start. I didn't exaggerate any claims, I
>>only gave credible and well-documented rebuttals to her exaggerated
>>claims. Search the "silly nectar" thread about omega-6 FAs. I didn't
>>exaggerate the danger of omega3:6 imbalance; she exaggerated the
>>benefits of omega-6 FAs.
>
> I never said that hempseed oil had any IMbalance.

I didn't say you said it did. You were extolling the virtues of omega-6.

> I merely stated that it contains all 3 omega oils.

Yes, and I pointed out the fact that it's healthier to seek out sources
richer in omega-3 to improve your overall ratio between the omega-3 and
omega-6.

> You got all freaked out about omega 6.

Freaked out? No, I was showing that your glee was misplaced.

> Do you remember telling me something about
> the body needing cholesterol? Looks like the same thing.

Not even close. Most people consume too much omega-6, and you were
extolling the virtues of hemp because its oil contains omega-6. You
already get enough from all the oil and margarine you use in your recipes.

> A substance needed in small amounts but bad in large
> amounts.

Ipse dixit. You're making an inaccurate, or at least misleading,
generalization about cholesterol. Large amounts of (serum) HDL are good.
Large amounts of (serum) LDL are "bad." You're screwing up on the whole
notion of RATIOS. One should have a healthful ratio of HDL:LDL. One
should also want a healthful ratio of omega-3mega-6. The foods and
recipes you've offered are deleterious as far as both ratios go. To make
matters worse, you've generalized that all meat is bad and all veg is
good despite the evidence I've shown you. And the evidence I've offered
has been balanced between pro-industry sources and sound medical sources.

> So what's my exaggeration?

That all meat is bad, that all meat is "wasteful," that all veg-n is
good, etc.

<...>
> How about finally admitting that the 3 (at least) to 1
> ratio exists.

Not for grazed animals, which is the standard which I've endorsed.

>>That sounds familiar and it gives me an idea. Maybe you and she can
>>hook up. You seem to be cut from the same cloth.

Well... are you interested in yellow, spineless, rail-thin wussies from PA?