pearl wrote:
> Another ignorant troll.

Yes you are.

> > You would if you understood your own words.
>
> Show where.

I did.

> > Yes.
>
> Show where.

Do you even know what a tautology is, or are you but a troll?

> > You proven liar, dogs are omnivores; cats are carnivores.
>
> No. You're a proven ignoramus.
>
> 'The order Carnivora includes the cat, hyena, bear,
> weasel, seal, mongoose, civet and dog families ..'
> http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm

You're a proven sofist shithead: "Carnivora" is only a name. It
doesn't make them carnivores (a word): "Moreover, canids have a broader
appetite than is commonly realized; most include a substantial
proportion of vegetable and insect matter in their diet1."

> > And bones
> > and marrow are a meat, so your blurb is irrelevant.
>
> You're making up definitions to suit yourself.

No, I'm a comprehensive literalist. Look up the original meaning of
"meat".

> meat
> n.
> 1. The edible flesh of animals, especially that of
> mammals as opposed to that of fish or poultry.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=meat
>
> flesh ( P ) Pronunciation Key (flsh)
> n.
> 1. The soft tissue of the body of a vertebrate, covering the
> bones and consisting mainly of skeletal muscle and fat.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=flesh
>
> Bone marrow is not 'flesh', it is called 'bone marrow'.
> Likewise for bones. Bones are not referred to as 'meat'.

Boil bones and they become soft tissue. Bone covers bone, so I win.

Marrow, meat, and pith are akin: http://dictionary.com/search?q=pith.
I win again.

> > This one suffers from my later comment about fat and milk. Go away
> > whither you get a brain. I don't uphold Atkins's diet either.
>
> Your later later comment is "Saturated fat is good". Cretin.

It's not to Atkins's, cretinose fiend. This is fat, not protein.

> > Then why don't some humans eat fruits? Are they not humans, retard?
>
> Which humans don't eat any fruits? Make sure you
> back up your inane claims with verifiable evidence.

Those who like food that comes in boxes, bags, and cans; those worthles
bodybuilders who can't afford to eat sugar; those meat-fans...

> > Humans are omnivorous.
>
> Ipse dixit and false.

Yes you are.

> > Worts would be more digestible if we still had wisdom teeth and
> > appendix, but we don't. We moved on from ruminants.
>
> We're on a 60 million year-old branch of frugivorous adaptation.

Children who drink much juice get fat and I would guess more diabetic.

> > Stomach acid is good for killing germs; it's part of immunity to
> > botulism and the ilk.
>
> Not all, and putrefactive bacteria are already in the intestines.

"digestion"

> > Humans not having ready fangs or spades must deal with less and fewer
> > food.
>
> '"less and fewer". -That's- a tautology. It's also nonsense.

No it's not.

> > Putrefaction is done away with by drinking less to have greater acid.
>
> No it isn't. There are many billions of bacteria in the small
> intestine and trillions upon trillions in the large intestine.

The more and manier there are, the better the digestion.

> > Of course, one needn't eat as much flesh as worts to get the same
> > nutrition, so gutly backup happens in the overgrown. Inner germs wreak
> > many cancers; kill them early and most will be fine.
>
> 'The most common species of putrefactive bacteria is
> 'Escherichia coli'. In the words of Bernard Jensen,
> 'Escherichia coli likes protein for breakfast, lunch and dinner.'
> http://www.wholisticresearch.com/inf....php3?artid=57

Where is your research for the other side? What fixes the
putrefaction?

> > > > See the "variety" argument of yours and apply it to meats.
>
> The above is from regular meat consumption.

yes, /meat/ (beef), not /meats/

> > > > The diseases come from milk and fat,
>
> But now you say that "Saturated fat is good".

Yes.

> > > There is at least 6% saturated fat content in lean meat.
> >
> > Saturated fat is good:
>
> "The diseases come from milk and fat,".
>
> > The Truth About Saturated Fat,
> > http://www.mercola.com/2002/aug/17/saturated_fat1.htm.

Read it, print it, copy it, send it.

> 'The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
> associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic
> heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest
> third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior
> disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13)
> for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol;
> P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. In contrast, no
[snip]
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S

"but these effects were reduced when subjects with a history of
cardiovascular disease or diabetes were excluded [death rate ratios
(and 95% CIs): 0.83 (0.48, 1.43) for ischemic heart disease and 1.02
(0.82, 1.27) for all causes of death]."

My link is more comprehensive, and its samples outlot and outweih
yours. I wouldn't go by the British fare, with its mineral
deficiencies and toxicities. It's a shame that your study said
/nothing/ about the cuts (any organs?), cooking, combinations (with
starches and oils?), or even the fitness of the nonvegetarians:

"When the first 5 y of follow-up were excluded from the analysis, the
death rate ratios became closer to unity and were no longer
statistically significant, partly because the smaller number of deaths
meant that the CIs were much wider [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for
non-meat-eaters compared with meat eaters: 0.99 (0.76, 1.30) for all
causes of death, 0.89 (0.51, 1.54) for ischemic heart disease, and 0.89
(0.60, 1.32) for all malignant neoplasms]. These large reductions in
the apparent effect of diet group may be because the healthy volunteer
effect was more pronounced in the vegetarian subjects, who were likely
to have been more strongly motivated and, therefore, generally
healthier than the nonvegetarian subjects at recruitment. It is also
likely that there was some crossover among diet groups during the first
5 y of the study, which would dilute the apparent benefits of a
meatless diet. The largest benefit noted, for mortality from all
malignant neoplasms, is not in accord with the results of a recent
meta-analysis of vegetarian cohort studies (11)."

Your sample and land are a fluke: The vegetarians volunteered for the
study, who then grabbed nonvegetarians. It's a performer's effect.
Use the studies from my link of samples who didn't take a test, or
didn't know. Experiments are to be blind, dumbass. None of the
parties were--not the cancer crowd nor the vegetarian "society" and
obsociety (their friends).

> > The health problems most have happen in the poor, who thrive on cheap
> > starches and fats (oils in this case). There are pricier but better
> > choices in both the fleshly and wortly.
>
> People with health problems thrive?

It means "grow or get by quickly". They get fat and big, fast.

> Meat consumption is associated with disease, period.

No, half-arsing of meat is associate with disease:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/vol70/is...ge/052502.jpeg.
(And a period is an interval of time.) The body doesn't do well with
wavering or jumbling of foods: bran and wheat kill; greens kill; or
those who were already near death who ate only these died more. As for
fat from meat, come back when you get the details I wanted.

> > > > and not from /fleshes/.
> > >
> > > And you call others illiterate? The word is 'flesh'.
> >
> > The many is "fleshes", dolt.
>
> 'Mass nouns are those that cannot be semantically indefinitized
> or pluralized (that is, that cannot be used with the indefinite article,
> and for which there is no plural form). "Flesh," is a mass term -
> we would not say "a flesh," nor "fleshes." A "count" noun, on
> the other hand, is a noun that can be used with the indefinite article
> and for which there is a plural form. "Dog" is a count noun - we
> can say "a dog," or "dogs." Simply put, a count noun is
> something that can be counted; a mass term is one that cannot.
> We can count dogs but not flesh. '
> http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

That's another "we" that I am not of. And it's descriptive, not
prescriptive or constructive.

> > (snipped robotic output)
> Predictable evasion.

evasion of irrelevant Aspergian puke, yes

-Aut