Dave > wrote:

> According to a new research report, there are two types of meat
> consumption that are getting us into health-related trouble: red meat
> and processed meat. Those who eat more of these appear to have a
> modestly increased risk of death from all causes and also from cancer
> or heart disease over a 10-year period.

Until they start growing humans from strictly controlled, cloned
seed stock and raising them under tightly controlled conditions,
none of these "research reports" will be worth much.

In the meantime, **** off and take your damned blog with you.

-sw

On Mar 23, 2:18*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> Dave > wrote:
> > According to a new research report, there are two types of meat
> > consumption that are getting us into health-related trouble: red meat
> > and processed meat. Those who eat more of these appear to have a
> > modestly increased risk of death from all causes and also from cancer
> > or heart disease over a 10-year period.
>
> Until they start growing humans from strictly controlled, cloned
> seed stock and raising them under tightly controlled conditions,
> none of these "research reports" will be worth much.
>
> In the meantime, **** off and take your damned blog with you.
>
> -sw

Hey SW . . . Much of today's gastronomic society is geared towards
eating healthier. If you don't want to, that's your choice.

I just picked up a copy of a Woman's Day cookbook that my wife has had
for 30 or more years, and some of the incredible things they tell you
to do in there are just shocking by today's standards. Dump in lard
for this recipe, a cup of butter for this recipe, etc. Amazing what
time has done to our sensitivity about healthy eating.

D.

Dave > wrote:

> On Mar 23, 2:18*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>> Until they start growing humans from strictly controlled, cloned
>> seed stock and raising them under tightly controlled conditions,
>> none of these "research reports" will be worth much.
>>
>> In the meantime, **** off and take your damned blog with you.
>
> Hey SW . . . Much of today's gastronomic society is geared towards
> eating healthier. If you don't want to, that's your choice.
> ...
> Amazing what time has done to our sensitivity about healthy eating.

Yeah - and it's amazing what a few hundred thousand people
advertising their blogs on Usenet groups can do liven up the groups.
I mean, heck, you don't have financial interest in any of this,
right?

-sw

On Mar 23, 7:23*pm, Goomba > wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > I just picked up a copy of a Woman's Day cookbook that my wife has had
> > for 30 or more years, and some of the incredible things they tell you
> > to do in there are just shocking by today's standards. Dump in lard
> > for this recipe, a cup of butter for this recipe, etc. Amazing what
> > time has done to our sensitivity about healthy eating.
>
> > D.
>
> Lard isn't horribly unhealthy as fats go, and the French certainly seem
> to have figured out how to use a cup of butter and live to tell about it.

When we think about how long our parents and grandparents lived,
things must not have been as bad as they look in those old cookbooks,

Dave

On Mar 23, 8:34*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Dave the spammer wrote:
>
> > Read the blog or don't read the blog, makes no matter to me, because I
> > posted the whole article here, not some teaser. My blog is just a
> > gathering of such opinion pieces, without one single ad. Plenty of my
> > own editorial comments, however!
>
> The ads are in the content of the articles themselves.
> They promote products that the spammer is "affiliated"
> with, hence has a commercial interest in pimping.
>
> Make no mistake -- it is a commercial spam site,
> despite the spammer's attempt to spin it as otherwise.

Mark, you go yammering on with the same things all the time, no matter
what forum you post to. You seem to be quite mild mannered on this
forum, but in most you are known as a terrible troll, wasting far more
space in your "Masked Avenger of the Usenet" role than any real
spammers, anywhere!

D.

On Mar 23, 5:44*pm, Dave > wrote:

> Hey SW . . . Much of today's gastronomic society is geared towards
> eating healthier. If you don't want to, that's your choice.
>
> I just picked up a copy of a Woman's Day cookbook that my wife has had
> for 30 or more years, and some of the incredible things they tell you
> to do in there are just shocking by today's standards. Dump in lard
> for this recipe, a cup of butter for this recipe, etc. Amazing what
> time has done to our sensitivity about healthy eating.
>
> D.

Nothing wrong with a cup of butter. Just don't do it every day.
By the way, how many servings was that? A cup of butter for
8 servings is only a couple of tablespoons per serving. If it
was a dessert, you might get 16 servings out of it.

Cindy Hamilton

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 5:38 pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> Dave > wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 2:18 pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
>
> >> Until they start growing humans from strictly controlled, cloned
> >> seed stock and raising them under tightly controlled conditions,
> >> none of these "research reports" will be worth much.
>
> >> In the meantime, **** off and take your damned blog with you.
>
> > Hey SW . . . Much of today's gastronomic society is geared towards
> > eating healthier. If you don't want to, that's your choice.
> > ...
> > Amazing what time has done to our sensitivity about healthy eating.
>
> Yeah - and it's amazing what a few hundred thousand people
> advertising their blogs on Usenet groups can do liven up the groups.
> I mean, heck, you don't have financial interest in any of this,
> right?
>
> -sw

>Read the blog or don't read the blog, makes no matter to me, because I
>posted the whole article here, not some teaser.

Worry not. Steve will be fine after his time of the month is over. Then
he'll still be a pussy, just a lot less irritable.

Dave the spammer wrote:
>
> On Mar 23, 8:34 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> > Dave the spammer wrote:
> >
> > > Read the blog or don't read the blog, makes no matter to me, because I
> > > posted the whole article here, not some teaser. My blog is just a
> > > gathering of such opinion pieces, without one single ad. Plenty of my
> > > own editorial comments, however!
> >
> > The ads are in the content of the articles themselves.
> > They promote products that the spammer is "affiliated"
> > with, hence has a commercial interest in pimping.
> >
> > Make no mistake -- it is a commercial spam site,
> > despite the spammer's attempt to spin it as otherwise.
>
> Mark, you go yammering on with the same things all the time, no matter
> what forum you post to. You seem to be quite mild mannered on this
> forum, but in most you are known as a terrible troll, wasting far more
> space in your "Masked Avenger of the Usenet" role than any real
> spammers, anywhere!

It only seems like the same thing to you, because I correctly
identify you as a spammer posting in non-commercial
discussion newsgroups where advertising is explicitly
forbidden. Your Internet-get-rich-quick scheme has
gone over like a lead balloon, and that has you bouncing
off the walls with rage. Too bad, spammer.

On Mar 24, 4:14*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Dave the spammer wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 8:34 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> > > Dave the spammer wrote:
>
> > > > Read the blog or don't read the blog, makes no matter to me, because I
> > > > posted the whole article here, not some teaser. My blog is just a
> > > > gathering of such opinion pieces, without one single ad. Plenty of my
> > > > own editorial comments, however!
>
> > > The ads are in the content of the articles themselves.
> > > They promote products that the spammer is "affiliated"
> > > with, hence has a commercial interest in pimping.
>
> > > Make no mistake -- it is a commercial spam site,
> > > despite the spammer's attempt to spin it as otherwise.
>
> > Mark, you go yammering on with the same things all the time, no matter
> > what forum you post to. You seem to be quite mild mannered on this
> > forum, but in most you are known as a terrible troll, wasting far more
> > space in your "Masked Avenger of the Usenet" role than any real
> > spammers, anywhere!
>
> It only seems like the same thing to you, because I correctly
> identify you as a spammer posting in non-commercial
> discussion newsgroups where advertising is explicitly
> forbidden. *Your Internet-get-rich-quick scheme has
> gone over like a lead balloon, and that has you bouncing
> off the walls with rage. *Too bad, spammer.

This is hilarious. Mark, I just saw this same post, REPEATED 32 times.
YOUR EXACT WORDS, over and over again. (Can't you at least be
creative?) You've used up far more "space" with your attacks than
anyone you've attacked did. I posted a full text article about a topic
that is obviously on target in this forum (see the discussion above)
and it is no different than if I had printed CNN's version of the same
information. Full text, no ads, nothing but a link to the source. (And
in the blog, as in most of my comments on the science, there's a link
back to the original journal article.) You've got nothing to stand on,
and it is infuriating to you. My suggestion is to go find a real
spammer, and then write that person emails as opposed to littering up
the usenet. You should be ashamed of yourself.

D.

cybercat > wrote:

> "Dave" > wrote in message
>
>>Read the blog or don't read the blog, makes no matter to me, because I
>>posted the whole article here, not some teaser.
>
> Worry not. Steve will be fine after his time of the month is over. Then
> he'll still be a pussy, just a lot less irritable.

This "pussy" will kick your little barking chihuahua ass. Are you
my new stalker, Greg?

-sw

Dave the spammer, liar, and plagiarist wrote:
>
> This is hilarious. Mark, I just saw this same post, REPEATED 32 times.
> YOUR EXACT WORDS, over and over again. (Can't you at least be

Baloney. Another of your ridiculous lies. Like when
you said this quoting from:

http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/...ve-Individuals

> Hey Pharma Boy,
>
> You are the single worst internet troll I've ever seen, bar none.
> Keep up the good work supporting those pharmaceutical chemicals you
> like to push.
>
> Pharma Boy, you are a complete liar and you know it. You use alternate
> personalities on usenet forums to promote your viewpoint and add
> "stars" to your Google rating. Pharma Boy, you should be ashamed of
> yourself. As you say, "you are amoral."
>
> Dave

Whenever you are confronted on your spamming activities,
you lash out with name-calling and lies. You are truly
one of the nastiest spammers to ever soil this newsgroup.

> creative?) You've used up far more "space" with your attacks than
> anyone you've attacked did. I posted a full text article about a topic
> that is obviously on target in this forum (see the discussion above)
> and it is no different than if I had printed CNN's version of the same
> information. Full text, no ads, nothing but a link to the source. (And

The link being to a commercial web site packed with
advertising disguised as "articles".

> in the blog, as in most of my comments on the science, there's a link
> back to the original journal article.) You've got nothing to stand on,
> and it is infuriating to you. My suggestion is to go find a real
> spammer, and then write that person emails as opposed to littering up
> the usenet. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You are a real spammer, and not very good at it.
You plagiarize material and claim it as your own.
Here is a typical example, interspersed with my comments.
Quotes from your plagiarized posting are preceded with "> ".
My comments are in square brackets [ ].

The original source article that was plagiarized is he

http://news.emory.edu/Releases/dolph...198011396.html

The remaining quotes without the "> " are from that web page.


Dave the spammer wrote in a posting on 12/19/07:
>
> There are some really weird therapies out there on the nutty
> side of alternative healthcare. One of these strange alternative
> therapies is "Dolphin therapy," and it has recently been
> called a dangerous fad by Emery researchers who warn us that
> not only is this a fraud being perpetrated on people who are
> often quite ill, the practice mistreats these animals who have
> no desire to be rounded up and used as "therapy" for humans.

[That's Emory University, of course.]

> These Emery scientsts say that people suffering from chronic
> mental or physical disabilities should NOT resort to a
> dolphin-assisted therapy experience, or what is often
> referred to as DAT. "Dolphin-assisted therapy is not
> a valid treatment for any disorder," says Lori Marino,
> a leading dolphin and whale researcher. "We want to get
> the word out that it's a lose-lose situation, both
> for people and for dolphins."

People suffering from chronic mental or physical disabilities
should not resort to a dolphin "healing" experience, warn two
researchers from Emory University.

"Dolphin-assisted therapy is not a valid treatment for any
disorder," says Marino, a leading dolphin and whale researcher.
"We want to get the word out that it's a lose-lose situation
-- for people and for dolphins."

> Doesn't swimming with dolphins sound like a great thing
> to do, and possiblly even therapeutic? However, no scientific
> evidence exists for any benefit from DAT. People who spend
> thousands of dollars for DAT don't just lose out financially,
> they put themselves, and the dolphin, at risk of injury or
> infection. And they are supporting an industry that takes
> dolphins from the wild in a brutal process that often
> leaves several dolphins dead for every surviving captive.

While swimming with dolphins may be a fun, novel experience,
no scientific evidence exists for any long-term benefit from
DAT, Marino says. She adds that people who spend thousands
of dollars for DAT don't just lose out financially - they put
themselves, and the dolphin, at risk of injury or infection.
And they are supporting an industry that - outside of the
United States - takes dolphins from the wild in a brutal
process that often leaves several dolphins dead for every
surviving captive.

> Marino her colleagues at Emery reviewed five studies
> published during the past eight years and found that
> the claims for efficacy for DAT were invalid. Their
> conclusions were published recently in Anthrozoology,
> the journal of the International Society for
> Anthrozoology, in a paper entitled "Dolphin-Assisted
> Therapy: More Flawed Data and More Flawed Conclusions."

Marino and Lilienfeld [at Emory University] reviewed
five studies published during the past eight years and
found that the claims for efficacy for DAT were invalid.
Their conclusions were published recently in Anthrozoology,
the journal of the International Society for Anthrozoology,
in a paper entitled "Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: More Flawed
Data and More Flawed Conclusions."

> While Marino is against taking dolphins from
> the wild and holding them captive for any purpose,
> she finds DAT especially egregious, because
> the people who are being exploited are the most
> vulnerable--including desperate parents who are
> willing to try anything to help a child with
> a disability. Many people are under the impression
> that dolphins would never harm a human. "In reality,
> injury is a very real possibility when you place
> a child in a tank with a 400-pound wild animal that
> may be traumatized from being captured," Marino says.

While Marino is against taking dolphins from the wild
and holding them captive for any purpose, she finds DAT
especially egregious, because the people who are being
exploited are the most vulnerable - including desperate
parents who are willing to try anything to help a child
with a disability.

Many people are under the impression that dolphins would
never harm a human. "In reality, injury is a very real
possibility when you place a child in a tank with a
400-pound wild animal that may be traumatized from
being captured," Marino says.

> In some countries dolphins are often taken from
> the wild. "If people knew how these animals were
> captured, I don't think they would want swim with
> them in a tank or participate in DAT," Marino says,
> referring to an annual "dolphin drive" in Japan.

Dolphins are bred in captivity in U.S. marine parks,
but in other countries they are often taken from the wild.
"If people knew how these animals were captured, I don't
think they would want to swim with them in a tank or
participate in DAT," Marino says, referring to an annual
"dolphin drive" in Japan.

> "During the Japanese dolphin drives, hundreds
> of animals are killed, or panicked and die of
> heart attacks, in water that's red with their
> blood, while trainers from facilities around
> the world pick out young animals for their
> marine parks. They hoist them out of the water,
> sometimes by their tail flukes, and take them
> away." Each live dolphin can bring a fisherman
> $50,000 or more.

"During the dolphin drives hundreds of animals are killed,
or panicked and die of heart attacks, in water that's red
with their blood, while trainers from facilities around
the world pick out young animals for their marine parks.
They hoist them out of the water, sometimes by their
tail flukes, and take them away." Each live dolphin can
bring a fisherman $50,000 or more, she says.

> Dolphins appear to be one of the most loved
> --and most exploited-- animals in the world.

[Exploited by a spammer trying to drive traffic to his
commercial blogspot web site, yes.]

Emory University is one of the nation's leading private
research universities and a member of the Association
of American Universities. Known for its demanding
academics, outstanding undergraduate college of arts
and sciences, highly ranked professional schools and
state-of-the-art research facilities, Emory is ranked
as one of the country's top 20 national universities
by U.S. News & World Report. In addition to its nine
schools, the university encompasses The Carter Center,
Yerkes National Primate Research Center and Emory
Healthcare, the state's largest and most comprehensive
health care system.

On Mar 24, 5:40*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> cybercat > wrote:
> > "Dave" > wrote in message
>
> >>Read the blog or don't read the blog, makes no matter to me, because I
> >>posted the whole article here, not some teaser.
>
> > Worry not. Steve will be fine after his time of the month is over. Then
> > he'll still be a pussy, just a lot less irritable.
>
> This "pussy" will kick your little barking chihuahua ass. *Are you
> my new stalker, Greg?
>
> -sw

SW,

May I ask what newsreader you use that allows you to have your posts
disappear after six days? I don't have that option on my Mac. Perhaps
there is a way to do this that I am not familiar with. I like the idea
for many of these nonsense posts, such as dealing with flame wars,
etc. Thanks,

Dave

There you go, Mark, posting another 1,000 words that you simply pull
out of some file you keep there, most of it total BS and all of it
consuming far more of the Internet than the post you didn't like that
proceeded it. Man, you have got to be one of the Internet's largest
trolls . . .

(See, Mark, I responded in less than a hundred or two words, and got
just as much bang for my buck as you did, except I didn't have to
throw bullshit in along the way . . . )

Dave

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:13:37 -0700 (PDT), Dave >
wrote:

>There you go, Mark, posting another 1,000 words that you simply pull
>out of some file you keep there, most of it total BS and all of it
>consuming far more of the Internet than the post you didn't like that
>proceeded it. Man, you have got to be one of the Internet's largest
>trolls . . .
>
>(See, Mark, I responded in less than a hundred or two words, and got
>just as much bang for my buck as you did, except I didn't have to
>throw bullshit in along the way . . . )

That's it. You're both getting a time-out. I'll let you know when
you can come back and play with the other kids.

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

Dave the spammer and plagiarist wrote:
>
> There you go, Mark, posting another 1,000 words that you simply pull
> out of some file you keep there, most of it total BS and all of it

You did post the text which I reproduced in its entirety,
even though you deleted it from Google archives later after
I exposed your plagiarism.

It's not BS at all to expose you as a spammer, plagiarist,
and liar. You are all of these things. No wonder that
you asked SW how to keep your posts from being archived.
You want to be able to trash your critics without a record
being kept.

I don't do that because I don't need to. I stand by what
I say. Once again, you Dave Jensen are a spammer,
plagiarist, and liar unworthy of respect by anybody.

On Mar 24, 7:47*pm, Damsel in dis Dress >
wrote:

> That's it. *You're both getting a time-out. *I'll let you know when
> you can come back and play with the other kids.
>
> Carol

Thanks Carol, good idea,

Dave

Dave > wrote:

> SW,
>
> May I ask what newsreader you use that allows you to have your posts
> disappear after six days?

You just did.

-sw

Dave wrote:


> SW,
>
> May I ask what newsreader you use that allows you to have your posts
> disappear after six days? I don't have that option on my Mac. Perhaps
> there is a way to do this that I am not familiar with. I like the idea
> for many of these nonsense posts, such as dealing with flame wars,
> etc. Thanks,

Any that allows one to set the header line: X-No-Archive.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive>





Brian

--
Day 50 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

Sqwertz wrote:

> cybercat > wrote:
>
> > "Dave" > wrote in message
> >
> >>Read the blog or don't read the blog, makes no matter to me, because I
> >>posted the whole article here, not some teaser.
> >
> > Worry not. Steve will be fine after his time of the month is over. Then
> > he'll still be a pussy, just a lot less irritable.
>
> This "pussy" will kick your little barking chihuahua ass. Are you
> my new stalker, Greg?


Steve, why are you so obsessively neurotic, when you get in these silly
"moods" it's no wonder some of us like to "toy" with you...IOW you bring it
on all by yerself. Surely you are self - aware enuf to understand that...

Believe it or not, I get somewhat concerned about some of these "states" of
yours, you are good poster and therefore I want to see you enjoy life a
little...


[ ===>>> not just saying this because I want Steve to give me a hand job,
either, lol... ;-) ]


--
Best
Greg