On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:34:05 GMT, Peter Aitken > wrote:
>
>
> "Alan Connor" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 18:35:06 GMT, Peter Aitken >
> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > "Susan Fleming" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >> J.J. in WA wrote:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> AC
>> >
>> > How about you blithering pinheads - yes all of you - take your "I'm
> smarter
>> > than you are" contest to email.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Well. If you've read this thread and concluded that it is an "I'm smarter
>> than you are" contest....
>>
>> Then I am indeed smarter than you are.
>>
>> I guess you don't want people to discuss the grievous environmental harm
>> done by people who eat a lot of animal products.
>>
>
><snipped>
>
> You just don't get it. My comment has nothing to do with the topic, which I
> agree is important. It has nothing to do with your position about
> environmental harm, which I tend to support (although not mindlessly). It
> has nothing to do with the (supposed) facts you present, which I suspect are
> accurate. It has everything to do with the juvenile way you and others have
> conducted the discussion, flinging "facts," insults, bad logic, and comments
> about one another's intelligence back and forth like 5 year olds having a
> food fight. It is clear from this that you are not at all interested in
> convincing others of your opinions or of making them at least think about
> the subject - you are interested in winning the argument (others are just as
> guilty as you). Hence it's an I'm smarter
> than you are" contest. And, quite frankly, the whole bunch of you are dumber
> than dirt.
>
> Peter Aitken
>
>


I hate to tell you this, you arrogant twit, but I don't really care what
you think about how I conduct myself. I didn't ask you and can't imagine
why I ever would.

If you want to participate in the discussion, then do so.

If not, shut your ****ing punk mouth and get a life.

This is your second, completely off-topic and pompous post on this thread.

I won't be reading anything else you have to say here.

If you think there is an audience for bitchy meddlers with big egos
who will read your subsequent posts, then go for it.

AC

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:34:05 GMT, Peter Aitken > wrote:
>
>
> "Alan Connor" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 18:35:06 GMT, Peter Aitken >
> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > "Susan Fleming" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >> J.J. in WA wrote:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> AC
>> >
>> > How about you blithering pinheads - yes all of you - take your "I'm
> smarter
>> > than you are" contest to email.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Well. If you've read this thread and concluded that it is an "I'm smarter
>> than you are" contest....
>>
>> Then I am indeed smarter than you are.
>>
>> I guess you don't want people to discuss the grievous environmental harm
>> done by people who eat a lot of animal products.
>>
>
><snipped>
>
> You just don't get it. My comment has nothing to do with the topic, which I
> agree is important. It has nothing to do with your position about
> environmental harm, which I tend to support (although not mindlessly). It
> has nothing to do with the (supposed) facts you present, which I suspect are
> accurate. It has everything to do with the juvenile way you and others have
> conducted the discussion, flinging "facts," insults, bad logic, and comments
> about one another's intelligence back and forth like 5 year olds having a
> food fight. It is clear from this that you are not at all interested in
> convincing others of your opinions or of making them at least think about
> the subject - you are interested in winning the argument (others are just as
> guilty as you). Hence it's an I'm smarter
> than you are" contest. And, quite frankly, the whole bunch of you are dumber
> than dirt.
>
> Peter Aitken
>
>


I hate to tell you this, you arrogant twit, but I don't really care what
you think about how I conduct myself. I didn't ask you and can't imagine
why I ever would.

If you want to participate in the discussion, then do so.

If not, shut your ****ing punk mouth and get a life.

This is your second, completely off-topic and pompous post on this thread.

I won't be reading anything else you have to say here.

If you think there is an audience for bitchy meddlers with big egos
who will read your subsequent posts, then go for it.

AC

"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:34:49 GMT, Peter Aitken >
wrote:
> >
> > Ah, it must be so nice to be totally unencumbered by any knowledge of
> > history. You can just make it up as you go along.
> >
>
> Right. Because you say so, it must be true. You saw it on the TV, right?

You are astonishingly ignorant. Perhaps you get your information from TV but
I get it from books.

> Where do all these ignorant and arrogant fools come from?

You prove my point. You are quick with the insults and self-aggrandizing
comments but exceptionally short on facts.

> Europe was an over-populated and resource-depleted ******** at the time
> the colonization of the New World began. The forests had largely been
> chopped down for firewood and building materials, to clear land for
> crops, and to make charcoal to make steel to make weapons and other steel
> tools to sell.

Steel was invented in 1856 by Henry Bessimer. According to you the
colonization of the new world came after that.. Riiiiight.

> The cities were over-crowded stinking, festering pits of disease and
> abject poverty and crime, with open sewers and rampant crime, infested
> with rats.
>

And so...?

> What else could possibly make 10's of thousands of women with children
> risk the trip across the Atlantic, a trip that was so gruesome that
> even if it went perfectly, you knew that some of you were going to die?
> And that the rest would often wish they were dead?
>

Your severaly limited knowledge and imagination hardly constitute evidence.
What else? A desire to better themselves and families. Political and
religious persecution. Poverty. A sense of adventure. A desire to get rich.

> I suppose that you believe that they all came to achieve freedom from
> religious persecution? Nope. That was a tiny fraction.

True. So?

> I'd like to say that Google is your friend, but since you aren't
interested
> in facts, then that's not the case, is it?

Using Google to find facts is the last resort of the lazy and unenlightened.
There is so much bullshit on the web that anyone with some wacky theory -
that's you! - can fnd support for their claims. If you want real knowledge
then you need to read dozens if not hundreds of books, explore university
libraries, get an education, and have an open mind. All of these I have
done - none of them have you done. And you lecture me about facts?

> Anyone else can find out which one of us is telling the truth in a very
> short time.

Not short - it requires some effort and intelligence.

> Ignorant bigots like you, who are determined to stay ignorant, won't.
>
> You think I am posting this for your benefit, but you are wrong.

More name calling - the one sure sign of someone being wrong.

>
> There's no point at all in talking to someone like you. So I address
> the others who will read this post, and others I have made, in the hope
> that they will move over to a plant-based diet.

Yet more name calling, and a protestation of noble motives. You could not be
more pitiful if you tried. If I didn't have many bright vegetarian friends,
your posts would make me suspect that a plant-based diet causes mental
feebleness.

> All they have to do is realize that it is people like you, that obviously
> have no integrity at all, that are telling them that they have to eat
> animal products to be healthy. '

Yet more name calling. Anyone who disagrees with you has no integrity? And I
never said that you have to eat animal products to be healthy, so why do you
bring it up? Straw man obviously.

>
> I wouldn't let a mean and arrogant bigot like you on my property and
> wouldn't turn my back on you if you were within a hundred yards.
>

Yet more name calling. You could not admit that your arguments are empty
more effectively if you tried.

> I certainly don't believe a single word you post.

Yet another 5th grade level insult.

You surely do not understand how much damage you do to the cause you claim
to promote. Environmental degradation is a very serious problem. When people
like you spout their ignorant, ill-informed, illogical drivel all you do is
give the other side, the polluters and clear-cutters, more ammunition.
"Look," they will say, "the enviromentalists are a bunch of half-witted
nincompoops." And in your case they would be 100% correct.

I will not read or respond to further posts in this thread.

--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:34:49 GMT, Peter Aitken >
wrote:
> >
> > Ah, it must be so nice to be totally unencumbered by any knowledge of
> > history. You can just make it up as you go along.
> >
>
> Right. Because you say so, it must be true. You saw it on the TV, right?

You are astonishingly ignorant. Perhaps you get your information from TV but
I get it from books.

> Where do all these ignorant and arrogant fools come from?

You prove my point. You are quick with the insults and self-aggrandizing
comments but exceptionally short on facts.

> Europe was an over-populated and resource-depleted ******** at the time
> the colonization of the New World began. The forests had largely been
> chopped down for firewood and building materials, to clear land for
> crops, and to make charcoal to make steel to make weapons and other steel
> tools to sell.

Steel was invented in 1856 by Henry Bessimer. According to you the
colonization of the new world came after that.. Riiiiight.

> The cities were over-crowded stinking, festering pits of disease and
> abject poverty and crime, with open sewers and rampant crime, infested
> with rats.
>

And so...?

> What else could possibly make 10's of thousands of women with children
> risk the trip across the Atlantic, a trip that was so gruesome that
> even if it went perfectly, you knew that some of you were going to die?
> And that the rest would often wish they were dead?
>

Your severaly limited knowledge and imagination hardly constitute evidence.
What else? A desire to better themselves and families. Political and
religious persecution. Poverty. A sense of adventure. A desire to get rich.

> I suppose that you believe that they all came to achieve freedom from
> religious persecution? Nope. That was a tiny fraction.

True. So?

> I'd like to say that Google is your friend, but since you aren't
interested
> in facts, then that's not the case, is it?

Using Google to find facts is the last resort of the lazy and unenlightened.
There is so much bullshit on the web that anyone with some wacky theory -
that's you! - can fnd support for their claims. If you want real knowledge
then you need to read dozens if not hundreds of books, explore university
libraries, get an education, and have an open mind. All of these I have
done - none of them have you done. And you lecture me about facts?

> Anyone else can find out which one of us is telling the truth in a very
> short time.

Not short - it requires some effort and intelligence.

> Ignorant bigots like you, who are determined to stay ignorant, won't.
>
> You think I am posting this for your benefit, but you are wrong.

More name calling - the one sure sign of someone being wrong.

>
> There's no point at all in talking to someone like you. So I address
> the others who will read this post, and others I have made, in the hope
> that they will move over to a plant-based diet.

Yet more name calling, and a protestation of noble motives. You could not be
more pitiful if you tried. If I didn't have many bright vegetarian friends,
your posts would make me suspect that a plant-based diet causes mental
feebleness.

> All they have to do is realize that it is people like you, that obviously
> have no integrity at all, that are telling them that they have to eat
> animal products to be healthy. '

Yet more name calling. Anyone who disagrees with you has no integrity? And I
never said that you have to eat animal products to be healthy, so why do you
bring it up? Straw man obviously.

>
> I wouldn't let a mean and arrogant bigot like you on my property and
> wouldn't turn my back on you if you were within a hundred yards.
>

Yet more name calling. You could not admit that your arguments are empty
more effectively if you tried.

> I certainly don't believe a single word you post.

Yet another 5th grade level insult.

You surely do not understand how much damage you do to the cause you claim
to promote. Environmental degradation is a very serious problem. When people
like you spout their ignorant, ill-informed, illogical drivel all you do is
give the other side, the polluters and clear-cutters, more ammunition.
"Look," they will say, "the enviromentalists are a bunch of half-witted
nincompoops." And in your case they would be 100% correct.

I will not read or respond to further posts in this thread.

--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:38:09 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>
>

Anyone who finds trolling entertaining can read the posts of Peter Aitken
and zxcvbob.

(they *really* don't like thinking about their diets)

--------------------

Anyone wishing to learn the facts about herbivorous diets and their
benefits for body and planet and pocketbook, can see these links:

www.madcowboy.com

www.earthsave.org

<snip>

I've been a pure vegetarian (easier than going partway, oddly enough) for
about 25 years and haven't been to the doctor in that period.


AC

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:38:09 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>
>

Anyone who finds trolling entertaining can read the posts of Peter Aitken
and zxcvbob.

(they *really* don't like thinking about their diets)

--------------------

Anyone wishing to learn the facts about herbivorous diets and their
benefits for body and planet and pocketbook, can see these links:

www.madcowboy.com

www.earthsave.org

<snip>

I've been a pure vegetarian (easier than going partway, oddly enough) for
about 25 years and haven't been to the doctor in that period.


AC

Alan Connor > wrote in message nk.net>...
>
> I've been a pure vegetarian (easier than going partway, oddly enough) for
> about 25 years and haven't been to the doctor in that period.
>
> AC

I eat Ice Cream at least four times a week, and have had neither
Cancer or a Heart Attack. Or impotence. Ice cream is nature's most
pure and healthful food.

Greg Zywicki
Plus, I rarely suffer from menstrual cramps. Not directly, anyway.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message om>...
> "Alan Connor" > wrote in message
> news
> > Europe was an over-populated and resource-depleted ******** at the time
> > the colonization of the New World began. The forests had largely been
> > chopped down for firewood and building materials, to clear land for
> > crops, and to make charcoal to make steel to make weapons and other steel
> > tools to sell.
>
> Steel was invented in 1856 by Henry Bessimer. According to you the
> colonization of the new world came after that.. Riiiiight.
>

To paraphrase Alton Brown; "Are you an metallurgical antropoligist?"

Me either, but I'm enough of a metallurgist to know that steel goes
back at least to Rome, even Greece, in the west. India and China also
had ancient steel. Google "ancient steel" and you'll find several
abstracts from scientific journals (peer reviewed, no doubt) on the
subject.

Bessimer's open hearth process wasn't the first commercial process for
structural steel, but it was the one that set off the modern age.

It made skyscrapers and intercontinental rail transport much more
viable. The later was a boon at relieving population pressure on
several continents. Also, it brought chinese laborers to the US, and
took the British through India. Steel ships had a hand in our
engagement with Japan.

I love Chinese, Indian and Japanese food.

Consumption of all types of foods leads to a waste product that you
both seem to be full of.

I eat meat.

Greg Zywicki

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message om>...
> "Alan Connor" > wrote in message
> news
> > Europe was an over-populated and resource-depleted ******** at the time
> > the colonization of the New World began. The forests had largely been
> > chopped down for firewood and building materials, to clear land for
> > crops, and to make charcoal to make steel to make weapons and other steel
> > tools to sell.
>
> Steel was invented in 1856 by Henry Bessimer. According to you the
> colonization of the new world came after that.. Riiiiight.
>

To paraphrase Alton Brown; "Are you an metallurgical antropoligist?"

Me either, but I'm enough of a metallurgist to know that steel goes
back at least to Rome, even Greece, in the west. India and China also
had ancient steel. Google "ancient steel" and you'll find several
abstracts from scientific journals (peer reviewed, no doubt) on the
subject.

Bessimer's open hearth process wasn't the first commercial process for
structural steel, but it was the one that set off the modern age.

It made skyscrapers and intercontinental rail transport much more
viable. The later was a boon at relieving population pressure on
several continents. Also, it brought chinese laborers to the US, and
took the British through India. Steel ships had a hand in our
engagement with Japan.

I love Chinese, Indian and Japanese food.

Consumption of all types of foods leads to a waste product that you
both seem to be full of.

I eat meat.

Greg Zywicki

"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Bob: We are talking about the environment. The Natural environment.

Yes, but we are also implicitly talking about the quality of
life for the humans within that environment. You appear to be
considering some fantasy, whch never truly existed on the face
of this planet, in which human beings enjoy something akin to
the sort of lives we have now (if not far, far better) and yet live
in a "natural environment" resembling the Garden of Eden.

Such a thing has never existed.

Bob M.


> Europe and the United Kingdom, a small percentage of the Earth's surface,
> were an environmental mess at that time.
>
> That's the main reason people fled there and came to America.

Not at all, and that statement shows a woeful ignorance of the
history of the period. I defy you to point to one significant case
of emigration from Europe to North America which was driven
primarily by concerns over the environmental conditions in Europe,
as opposed to those who left for reasons of religious persecution,
economic opportunity, or involuntarily as indentured servants, during
the period from 1500 - 1800.

You, sir, continue to post nothing but examples of your own
historical ignorance, coupled with a raving, almost-religious
fanaticism. Good-bye.


Bob M.

"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Bob: We are talking about the environment. The Natural environment.

Yes, but we are also implicitly talking about the quality of
life for the humans within that environment. You appear to be
considering some fantasy, whch never truly existed on the face
of this planet, in which human beings enjoy something akin to
the sort of lives we have now (if not far, far better) and yet live
in a "natural environment" resembling the Garden of Eden.

Such a thing has never existed.

Bob M.


> Europe and the United Kingdom, a small percentage of the Earth's surface,
> were an environmental mess at that time.
>
> That's the main reason people fled there and came to America.

Not at all, and that statement shows a woeful ignorance of the
history of the period. I defy you to point to one significant case
of emigration from Europe to North America which was driven
primarily by concerns over the environmental conditions in Europe,
as opposed to those who left for reasons of religious persecution,
economic opportunity, or involuntarily as indentured servants, during
the period from 1500 - 1800.

You, sir, continue to post nothing but examples of your own
historical ignorance, coupled with a raving, almost-religious
fanaticism. Good-bye.


Bob M.

"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I hate to tell you this, you arrogant twit, but I don't really care what
> you think about how I conduct myself. I didn't ask you and can't imagine
> why I ever would.
>
> If you want to participate in the discussion, then do so.

Alan, you have no discussion going on here. You are merely
providing us with an example of a raving, uninformed fanatic
conducting a monologue. As evidenced by:

>
> If not, shut your ****ing punk mouth and get a life.

Yes, THAT is certainly a clear and well-reasoned contribution
to a civil discussion on the topic, isn't it?

>
> This is your second, completely off-topic and pompous post on this thread.
>

In which case, you are still far, far in the lead in that category.


> I won't be reading anything else you have to say here.

Ah, the last refuge of one who actually has nothing significant
to say: "I'm not LISTENING!!!!! Nyahhh-nyahhh-nyahhh!!!!"


Bob M.

"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I hate to tell you this, you arrogant twit, but I don't really care what
> you think about how I conduct myself. I didn't ask you and can't imagine
> why I ever would.
>
> If you want to participate in the discussion, then do so.

Alan, you have no discussion going on here. You are merely
providing us with an example of a raving, uninformed fanatic
conducting a monologue. As evidenced by:

>
> If not, shut your ****ing punk mouth and get a life.

Yes, THAT is certainly a clear and well-reasoned contribution
to a civil discussion on the topic, isn't it?

>
> This is your second, completely off-topic and pompous post on this thread.
>

In which case, you are still far, far in the lead in that category.


> I won't be reading anything else you have to say here.

Ah, the last refuge of one who actually has nothing significant
to say: "I'm not LISTENING!!!!! Nyahhh-nyahhh-nyahhh!!!!"


Bob M.

"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I guess all that meat fat is plugging up the vessels in your brain.

By the way, you continue to make totally unwarranted and
completely incorrect assumptions regarding the nature of
my diet. Please get a clue as soon as you possibly can.


Bob M.

>Bob Myers wrote:

>> Alan Connor wrote:

> > I guess all that meat fat is plugging up the vessels in your brain.

> By the way, you continue to make totally unwarranted and
> completely incorrect assumptions regarding the nature of
> my diet. Please get a clue as soon as you possibly can.
>
>
> Bob M.
>
i've got clues for sale cheap ;-)

A.C. (but not alan connor)

>Bob Myers wrote:

>> Alan Connor wrote:

> > I guess all that meat fat is plugging up the vessels in your brain.

> By the way, you continue to make totally unwarranted and
> completely incorrect assumptions regarding the nature of
> my diet. Please get a clue as soon as you possibly can.
>
>
> Bob M.
>
i've got clues for sale cheap ;-)

A.C. (but not alan connor)

On 8 Sep 2004 06:14:36 -0700, (Greg
Zywicki) wrote:

> have had neither <snip really bad stuff>
> Or impotence.

I didn't think you were THAT young.



sf
Practice safe eating - always use condiments

On 8 Sep 2004 06:14:36 -0700, (Greg
Zywicki) wrote:

> have had neither <snip really bad stuff>
> Or impotence.

I didn't think you were THAT young.



sf
Practice safe eating - always use condiments

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:27:57 GMT, "Bob Myers"
> wrote:

>
>"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
link.net...
>> I guess all that meat fat is plugging up the vessels in your brain.
>
>By the way, you continue to make totally unwarranted and
>completely incorrect assumptions regarding the nature of
>my diet. Please get a clue as soon as you possibly can.
>
>
>Bob M.
>
jeez, you don't want al rummaging through your trash cans, do you?

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:27:57 GMT, "Bob Myers"
> wrote:

>
>"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
link.net...
>> I guess all that meat fat is plugging up the vessels in your brain.
>
>By the way, you continue to make totally unwarranted and
>completely incorrect assumptions regarding the nature of
>my diet. Please get a clue as soon as you possibly can.
>
>
>Bob M.
>
jeez, you don't want al rummaging through your trash cans, do you?

your pal,
blake

sf > wrote in message >. ..
> On 8 Sep 2004 06:14:36 -0700, (Greg
> Zywicki) wrote:
>
> > have had neither <snip really bad stuff>
> > Or impotence.
>
> I didn't think you were THAT young.
>
>
>
> sf
> Practice safe eating - always use condiments

You're as young as you feel. Unfortunately, I'm not availlable for
feeling-up at the moment.

Greg Zywicki