VEG DIET CUTS COLON CANCER RISK

NEW YORK - Eating a meat-free, vegetarian diet may reduce the risk of
colorectal cancer, new research suggests. After following more than 10,000
people for 17 years, investigators found that vegetarians were 15 percent
less likely to develop colorectal cancer than meat-eaters.

This study adds to the "increasing scientific evidence" that a diet rich in
fruit, vegetables and fiber and low in meat--especially red and processed
meat--can prevent colorectal cancer, study author Dr. Miguel Sanjoaquin of
the University of Oxford, UK, told Reuters Health.

However, Sanjoaquin cautioned that only a small number of study
participants--95--developed colorectal cancer, making it impossible to
determine if fewer vegetarians developed cancer simply due to chance.
However, Sanjoaquin noted that a previous study featuring more cases of
colorectal cancer confirmed these findings, and he added that it makes
sense that eating vegetarian could cut cancer risk. The fat in red meat
increases the excretion of substances called bile acids, he explained,
which in turn produce other substances that encourage tumor growth.

Furthermore, meat contains natural compounds and substances formed
during processing and high-temperature cooking that can disrupt the
normal balance of cell growth in the colon, potentially triggering the
cancer, Sanjoaquin noted. Alternatively, substances in fruits and
vegetables--staples of the vegetarian diet--"may inhibit these adverse
effects," he added.

Full story:
www.nlm.nih.gov

"Curt Nelson" > wrote in message
...
>
> VEG DIET CUTS COLON CANCER RISK
>
> NEW YORK - Eating a meat-free, vegetarian diet may reduce the risk of
> colorectal cancer, new research suggests. After following more than 10,000
> people for 17 years, investigators found that vegetarians were 15 percent
> less likely to develop colorectal cancer than meat-eaters.
>
> This study adds to the "increasing scientific evidence" that a diet rich
in
> fruit, vegetables and fiber and low in meat--especially red and processed
> meat--can prevent colorectal cancer, study author Dr. Miguel Sanjoaquin of
> the University of Oxford, UK, told Reuters Health.
>
> However, Sanjoaquin cautioned that only a small number of study
> participants--95--developed colorectal cancer, making it impossible to
> determine if fewer vegetarians developed cancer simply due to chance.
> However, Sanjoaquin noted that a previous study featuring more cases of
> colorectal cancer confirmed these findings, and he added that it makes
> sense that eating vegetarian could cut cancer risk. The fat in red meat
> increases the excretion of substances called bile acids, he explained,
> which in turn produce other substances that encourage tumor growth.
>
> Furthermore, meat contains natural compounds and substances formed
> during processing and high-temperature cooking that can disrupt the
> normal balance of cell growth in the colon, potentially triggering the
> cancer, Sanjoaquin noted. Alternatively, substances in fruits and
> vegetables--staples of the vegetarian diet--"may inhibit these adverse
> effects," he added.
>
> Full story:
> www.nlm.nih.gov

I don't find this particularly persuasive. The author himself says that the
small incidence of colorectal cancer in the group means that any conclusions
are suspect. If the results are typical, which may well be the case as this
cancer accounts for 13% of all cancers diagnosed in the US, and even if the
conclusions are valid, then a meat-eater in the group had about a 1% chance
of getting it and a vegan about a 0.85% chance. But a vegan is likely to
have a number of lifestyle differences with a meat eater, any of which might
be part of the driving factor. Colo-rectal cancer is highly curable when
diagnosed early, and deadly when not. Rather that fussing about diet people
would do better to have regular colonoscopies.

>Eating a meat-free, vegetarian diet may reduce the risk of
>colorectal cancer, new research suggests.

No surprise to learn that vegans are perfect ass-holes.

WardNA wrote:

> No surprise to learn that vegans are perfect ass-holes.


LOL.

~john


ps - lolololololol

Curt Nelson wrote:
> Eating a meat-free, vegetarian diet may reduce the risk of
> colorectal cancer, new research suggests.

Oh well, I guess I'll just be at risk for cancer. Tough shit ;-)

--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/

"Curt Nelson" > wrote in message
...
>
> VEG DIET CUTS COLON CANCER RISK
>
> NEW YORK - Eating a meat-free, vegetarian diet may reduce the risk of
> colorectal cancer, new research suggests. After following more than 10,000
> people for 17 years, investigators found that vegetarians were 15 percent
> less likely to develop colorectal cancer than meat-eaters.
>
> This study adds to the "increasing scientific evidence" that a diet rich
in
> fruit, vegetables and fiber and low in meat--especially red and processed
> meat--can prevent colorectal cancer, study author Dr. Miguel Sanjoaquin of
> the University of Oxford, UK, told Reuters Health.
>
> However, Sanjoaquin cautioned that only a small number of study
> participants--95--developed colorectal cancer, making it impossible to
> determine if fewer vegetarians developed cancer simply due to chance.
> However, Sanjoaquin noted that a previous study featuring more cases of
> colorectal cancer confirmed these findings, and he added that it makes
> sense that eating vegetarian could cut cancer risk. The fat in red meat
> increases the excretion of substances called bile acids, he explained,
> which in turn produce other substances that encourage tumor growth.
>
> Furthermore, meat contains natural compounds and substances formed
> during processing and high-temperature cooking that can disrupt the
> normal balance of cell growth in the colon, potentially triggering the
> cancer, Sanjoaquin noted. Alternatively, substances in fruits and
> vegetables--staples of the vegetarian diet--"may inhibit these adverse
> effects," he added.
>
> Full story:
> www.nlm.nih.gov

So I won't live quite as long-fine. BUT I'll enjoy it more.
Who wants to suffer their whole lives just to live a bit longer, eh?

"Curt Nelson" > wrote in message
...
>
> VEG DIET CUTS COLON CANCER RISK
>

But is this due to the lack of meat or the higher fibre and overall volume
of a vegetarian diet? There is considerable evidence that lack of bulk in
the diet is a cause, or at least a contributing factor, in many disorders of
the bowel, not just the big C.

David

In article >,
"David Hare-Scott" > wrote:

> "Curt Nelson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > VEG DIET CUTS COLON CANCER RISK
> >
>
> But is this due to the lack of meat or the higher fibre and overall volume
> of a vegetarian diet? There is considerable evidence that lack of bulk in
> the diet is a cause, or at least a contributing factor, in many disorders of
> the bowel, not just the big C.
>
> David
>
>

You know that you can prove anything that you want with statistics. ;-)

I think you hit the nail on the head.

You can have all the meat you want, just eat a lot of high fiber veggies
with it. I personally prefer to eat that way anyway!

K.

--
Sprout the Mung Bean to reply...

"There are many intelligent species in the universe, and they are all owned by cats! -- Asimov

>,,<Cat's Haven Hobby Farm>,,<Katraatcenturyteldotnet>,,<

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...user id=katra

"Katra" > wrote in message
...

> You know that you can prove anything that you
> want with statistics. ;-)

Just about, anyway, particularly when you start talking about *one*
medical study. For those interested in a good explanation of why this
is true, I recommend:
http://www.multiplesclerosissucks.com/math.html -- actually, the whole
site is worth reading.

-j

Mark Preston wrote:

><snip>
>
>As always with these type of post, the original poster, posts and
>flees. That leaves the rest of us (actually interested) posters with
>nothing to do but to comment within our "own" group.
>
>Humbug to these "cowards" that post and run; they won't actually
>defend their ideas there "right" without question. (Politically
>correct thought)
>
>I am posting my usual response to the "vegan" who started this thread.
>The last time I posted this, a gang of vegans wrote to Google asking
>to have me barred from posting further. I had to promise them I would
>not make offending posts. Those of you here, who have read the first
>post in the thread, please read mine, and see who's more "correct".
>
>A Book of Food
>by Morton P. Shand
>(NY : Knopf, 1928)
>
> Sentimental Vegetarianism (page 160)
>
>The Sentimental Vegetarians are the most numerous and illogical of the
>different sects of dietetic vegetarians, quasi-vegetarians,
>frutarians,
>nutarians and the raw vegetable nourishment stalwarts. If the
>pretensions of the sentimental vegetarians are to be taken seriously,
>not only must humanity forgo all animal foods, including milk and
>eggs, from ethical motives, but true to the essentially democratic
>principal of "sois mon frere, ou je te tu," every single race of
>mankind should be constrained -- by force of arms failing peaceful
>persuasion, since the offence is greater in the eating than in the
>killing -- to abstain from meat nourishment for all eternity.
>
>After making the world safe for vegetarianism, the next step would be
>the organization of armed, vegetarianized, humanity (or vegetarianized
>armed humanity - it does not matter which, but propagandists would
>declare there was a world of difference) to prevent non-carnivorous
>animals being devoured by carnivorous, and to put a stop to the
>outrage
>of carnivorous animals preying on each other.
>

There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.

These are not ORDINARY TIMES.

The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
industry. Fresh water and arable land become more scarce every year.

Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.

Just to grow the plants to feed the animals needed to provide the average
American with their food, it takes about 3 and 1/2 acres of land. The same
amount of calories and protein can be produced on 1/10 acre of plants and
consumed directly.

The freshwater requirements for the animal product consumer are staggeringly
higher than those of a plant product consumer, and fresh water shortages
are becoming more widespread and persistent every year.

AC

Alan Connor wrote:

> Mark Preston wrote:
>
>
>><snip>
>>
>>As always with these type of post, the original poster, posts and
>>flees. That leaves the rest of us (actually interested) posters with
>>nothing to do but to comment within our "own" group.
>>
>>Humbug to these "cowards" that post and run; they won't actually
>>defend their ideas there "right" without question. (Politically
>>correct thought)
>>
>>I am posting my usual response to the "vegan" who started this thread.
>>The last time I posted this, a gang of vegans wrote to Google asking
>>to have me barred from posting further. I had to promise them I would
>>not make offending posts. Those of you here, who have read the first
>>post in the thread, please read mine, and see who's more "correct".
>>
>>A Book of Food
>>by Morton P. Shand
>>(NY : Knopf, 1928)
>>
>> Sentimental Vegetarianism (page 160)
>>
>>The Sentimental Vegetarians are the most numerous and illogical of the
>>different sects of dietetic vegetarians, quasi-vegetarians,
>>frutarians,
>>nutarians and the raw vegetable nourishment stalwarts. If the
>>pretensions of the sentimental vegetarians are to be taken seriously,
>>not only must humanity forgo all animal foods, including milk and
>>eggs, from ethical motives, but true to the essentially democratic
>>principal of "sois mon frere, ou je te tu," every single race of
>>mankind should be constrained -- by force of arms failing peaceful
>>persuasion, since the offence is greater in the eating than in the
>>killing -- to abstain from meat nourishment for all eternity.
>>
>>After making the world safe for vegetarianism, the next step would be
>>the organization of armed, vegetarianized, humanity (or vegetarianized
>>armed humanity - it does not matter which, but propagandists would
>>declare there was a world of difference) to prevent non-carnivorous
>>animals being devoured by carnivorous, and to put a stop to the
>>outrage
>>of carnivorous animals preying on each other.
>>
>
>
> There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
> a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> These are not ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
> industry. Fresh water and arable land become more scarce every year.
>
> Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
> than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.
>
> Just to grow the plants to feed the animals needed to provide the average
> American with their food, it takes about 3 and 1/2 acres of land. The same
> amount of calories and protein can be produced on 1/10 acre of plants and
> consumed directly.
>
> The freshwater requirements for the animal product consumer are staggeringly
> higher than those of a plant product consumer, and fresh water shortages
> are becoming more widespread and persistent every year.

Yadda yadda...

Talk to your DNA and see if it agrees.

Pastorio

In article >,
"Bob (this one)" > wrote:

> Alan Connor wrote:
>
<snipped>
> >
> > Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
> > than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.
> >
> > Just to grow the plants to feed the animals needed to provide the average
> > American with their food, it takes about 3 and 1/2 acres of land. The same
> > amount of calories and protein can be produced on 1/10 acre of plants and
> > consumed directly.
> >
> > The freshwater requirements for the animal product consumer are
> > staggeringly
> > higher than those of a plant product consumer, and fresh water shortages
> > are becoming more widespread and persistent every year.
>
> Yadda yadda...
>
> Talk to your DNA and see if it agrees.
>
> Pastorio

<lol>

K.

>

--
Sprout the Mung Bean to reply...

>,,<Cat's Haven Hobby Farm>,,<Katraatcenturyteldotnet>,,<

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...user id=katra

In article >,
"Bob (this one)" > wrote:

> Alan Connor wrote:
>
<snipped>
> >
> > Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
> > than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.
> >
> > Just to grow the plants to feed the animals needed to provide the average
> > American with their food, it takes about 3 and 1/2 acres of land. The same
> > amount of calories and protein can be produced on 1/10 acre of plants and
> > consumed directly.
> >
> > The freshwater requirements for the animal product consumer are
> > staggeringly
> > higher than those of a plant product consumer, and fresh water shortages
> > are becoming more widespread and persistent every year.
>
> Yadda yadda...
>
> Talk to your DNA and see if it agrees.
>
> Pastorio

<lol>

K.

>

--
Sprout the Mung Bean to reply...

>,,<Cat's Haven Hobby Farm>,,<Katraatcenturyteldotnet>,,<

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...user id=katra

"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
> There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
> a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> These are not ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
> industry.

Okey Dokey If the world is over populated, why don't the people that think
so just leave?

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> Okey Dokey If the world is over populated, why don't the people that think
> so just leave?

Or take up cannibalism, either as a consumer or a volunteer.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_01_05_04td.html

Our pal "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "Alan Connor" > wrote in message

> > There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
> > a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
> >
> > These are not ORDINARY TIMES.

What are "ORDINARY TIMES"? Define your terms.

> > The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
> > industry.
>
> Okey Dokey If the world is over populated, why don't the people that think
> so just leave?

All sillyness aside, the cure for overpopulation is quite simple;
responsible reproduction.

ObFood: I don't recommend consumption of human beings -- look at all
the crap they eat!


--
J.J. in WA ~ mom, vid gamer, novice cook ~
"I rule you!" - Travis of the Cosmos, ATHF
(COLD to HOT for e-mail)

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:08:40 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
>> There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
>> a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
>>
>> These are not ORDINARY TIMES.
>>
>> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
>> industry.
>
>Okey Dokey If the world is over populated, why don't the people that think
>so just leave?
>

I tried.


modom

"Dallas is a rich man with a death wish in his eyes."
-- Jimmie Dale Gilmore

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:08:40 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
>> There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
>> a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
>>
>> These are not ORDINARY TIMES.
>>
>> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
>> industry.
>
>Okey Dokey If the world is over populated, why don't the people that think
>so just leave?
>

I tried.


modom

"Dallas is a rich man with a death wish in his eyes."
-- Jimmie Dale Gilmore

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> Okey Dokey If the world is over populated, why don't the people that think
> so just leave?

Or take up cannibalism, either as a consumer or a volunteer.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_01_05_04td.html

Our pal "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "Alan Connor" > wrote in message

> > There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
> > a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
> >
> > These are not ORDINARY TIMES.

What are "ORDINARY TIMES"? Define your terms.

> > The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
> > industry.
>
> Okey Dokey If the world is over populated, why don't the people that think
> so just leave?

All sillyness aside, the cure for overpopulation is quite simple;
responsible reproduction.

ObFood: I don't recommend consumption of human beings -- look at all
the crap they eat!


--
J.J. in WA ~ mom, vid gamer, novice cook ~
"I rule you!" - Travis of the Cosmos, ATHF
(COLD to HOT for e-mail)

Our pal "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "Alan Connor" > wrote in message

> > There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
> > a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
> >
> > These are not ORDINARY TIMES.

What are "ORDINARY TIMES"? Define your terms.

> > The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
> > industry.
>
> Okey Dokey If the world is over populated, why don't the people that think
> so just leave?

All sillyness aside, the cure for overpopulation is quite simple;
responsible reproduction.

ObFood: I don't recommend consumption of human beings -- look at all
the crap they eat!


--
J.J. in WA ~ mom, vid gamer, novice cook ~
"I rule you!" - Travis of the Cosmos, ATHF
(COLD to HOT for e-mail)

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:08:40 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
>> There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
>> a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
>>
>> These are not ORDINARY TIMES.
>>
>> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
>> industry.
>
>Okey Dokey If the world is over populated, why don't the people that think
>so just leave?
>

I tried.


modom

"Dallas is a rich man with a death wish in his eyes."
-- Jimmie Dale Gilmore

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:33:10 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>
>
> Mark Preston wrote:
>
>

<snip>

> There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
> a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> These are not ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
> industry. Fresh water and arable land become more scarce every year.
>
> Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
> than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.
>
> Just to grow the plants to feed the animals needed to provide the average
> American with their food, it takes about 3 and 1/2 acres of land. The same
> amount of calories and protein can be produced on 1/10 acre of plants and
> consumed directly.
>
> The freshwater requirements for the animal product consumer are staggeringly
> higher than those of a plant product consumer, and fresh water shortages
> are becoming more widespread and persistent every year.
>
> AC
>
>

I only respond to intelligent posts.

AC

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:30:25 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:33:10 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mark Preston wrote:
>>
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
>> a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
>>
>> These are not ORDINARY TIMES.
>>
>> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
>> industry. Fresh water and arable land become more scarce every year.
>>
>> Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
>> than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.
>>
>> Just to grow the plants to feed the animals needed to provide the average
>> American with their food, it takes about 3 and 1/2 acres of land. The same
>> amount of calories and protein can be produced on 1/10 acre of plants and
>> consumed directly.
>>
>> The freshwater requirements for the animal product consumer are staggeringly
>> higher than those of a plant product consumer, and fresh water shortages
>> are becoming more widespread and persistent every year.
>>
>> AC
>>
>>
>
> I only respond to intelligent posts.
>
> AC
>
>

Okay. We've established that this group harbors a bunch of animal product
addicts with the requisite big mouths and understandably guilty consciences.

Is there anyone here capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation
on the subject?

Not that it matters. Most of the people who will read my article don't post
on the group and many of them just read from the Archives.

www.madcowboy.com

www.earthsave.org



AC

"Alan Connor"
> I only respond to intelligent posts.

I figured there'd been a mistake.

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:30:25 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:33:10 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mark Preston wrote:
>>
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
>> a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
>>
>> These are not ORDINARY TIMES.
>>
>> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
>> industry. Fresh water and arable land become more scarce every year.
>>
>> Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
>> than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.
>>
>> Just to grow the plants to feed the animals needed to provide the average
>> American with their food, it takes about 3 and 1/2 acres of land. The same
>> amount of calories and protein can be produced on 1/10 acre of plants and
>> consumed directly.
>>
>> The freshwater requirements for the animal product consumer are staggeringly
>> higher than those of a plant product consumer, and fresh water shortages
>> are becoming more widespread and persistent every year.
>>
>> AC
>>
>>
>
> I only respond to intelligent posts.
>
> AC
>
>

Okay. We've established that this group harbors a bunch of animal product
addicts with the requisite big mouths and understandably guilty consciences.

Is there anyone here capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation
on the subject?

Not that it matters. Most of the people who will read my article don't post
on the group and many of them just read from the Archives.

www.madcowboy.com

www.earthsave.org



AC

"Alan Connor"
> I only respond to intelligent posts.

I figured there'd been a mistake.

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:30:25 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:33:10 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mark Preston wrote:
>>
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
>> a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
>>
>> These are not ORDINARY TIMES.
>>
>> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
>> industry. Fresh water and arable land become more scarce every year.
>>
>> Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
>> than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.
>>
>> Just to grow the plants to feed the animals needed to provide the average
>> American with their food, it takes about 3 and 1/2 acres of land. The same
>> amount of calories and protein can be produced on 1/10 acre of plants and
>> consumed directly.
>>
>> The freshwater requirements for the animal product consumer are staggeringly
>> higher than those of a plant product consumer, and fresh water shortages
>> are becoming more widespread and persistent every year.
>>
>> AC
>>
>>
>
> I only respond to intelligent posts.
>
> AC
>
>

Okay. We've established that this group harbors a bunch of animal product
addicts with the requisite big mouths and understandably guilty consciences.

Is there anyone here capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation
on the subject?

Not that it matters. Most of the people who will read my article don't post
on the group and many of them just read from the Archives.

www.madcowboy.com

www.earthsave.org



AC

"Alan Connor"
> I only respond to intelligent posts.

I figured there'd been a mistake.

In article t>,
says...

> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
> industry. Fresh water and arable land become more scarce every year.
>
> Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
> than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.
>
..
>
> AC


Let the meat eaters broil up the vegans and viola'...both problems
solved!

"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
> There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
> a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> These are not ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
> industry.

Okey Dokey If the world is over populated, why don't the people that think
so just leave?

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:33:10 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>
>
> Mark Preston wrote:
>
>

<snip>

> There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
> a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> These are not ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
> industry. Fresh water and arable land become more scarce every year.
>
> Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
> than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.
>
> Just to grow the plants to feed the animals needed to provide the average
> American with their food, it takes about 3 and 1/2 acres of land. The same
> amount of calories and protein can be produced on 1/10 acre of plants and
> consumed directly.
>
> The freshwater requirements for the animal product consumer are staggeringly
> higher than those of a plant product consumer, and fresh water shortages
> are becoming more widespread and persistent every year.
>
> AC
>
>

I only respond to intelligent posts.

AC

Alan Connor wrote:

> Mark Preston wrote:
>
>
>><snip>
>>
>>As always with these type of post, the original poster, posts and
>>flees. That leaves the rest of us (actually interested) posters with
>>nothing to do but to comment within our "own" group.
>>
>>Humbug to these "cowards" that post and run; they won't actually
>>defend their ideas there "right" without question. (Politically
>>correct thought)
>>
>>I am posting my usual response to the "vegan" who started this thread.
>>The last time I posted this, a gang of vegans wrote to Google asking
>>to have me barred from posting further. I had to promise them I would
>>not make offending posts. Those of you here, who have read the first
>>post in the thread, please read mine, and see who's more "correct".
>>
>>A Book of Food
>>by Morton P. Shand
>>(NY : Knopf, 1928)
>>
>> Sentimental Vegetarianism (page 160)
>>
>>The Sentimental Vegetarians are the most numerous and illogical of the
>>different sects of dietetic vegetarians, quasi-vegetarians,
>>frutarians,
>>nutarians and the raw vegetable nourishment stalwarts. If the
>>pretensions of the sentimental vegetarians are to be taken seriously,
>>not only must humanity forgo all animal foods, including milk and
>>eggs, from ethical motives, but true to the essentially democratic
>>principal of "sois mon frere, ou je te tu," every single race of
>>mankind should be constrained -- by force of arms failing peaceful
>>persuasion, since the offence is greater in the eating than in the
>>killing -- to abstain from meat nourishment for all eternity.
>>
>>After making the world safe for vegetarianism, the next step would be
>>the organization of armed, vegetarianized, humanity (or vegetarianized
>>armed humanity - it does not matter which, but propagandists would
>>declare there was a world of difference) to prevent non-carnivorous
>>animals being devoured by carnivorous, and to put a stop to the
>>outrage
>>of carnivorous animals preying on each other.
>>
>
>
> There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
> a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> These are not ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
> industry. Fresh water and arable land become more scarce every year.
>
> Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
> than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.
>
> Just to grow the plants to feed the animals needed to provide the average
> American with their food, it takes about 3 and 1/2 acres of land. The same
> amount of calories and protein can be produced on 1/10 acre of plants and
> consumed directly.
>
> The freshwater requirements for the animal product consumer are staggeringly
> higher than those of a plant product consumer, and fresh water shortages
> are becoming more widespread and persistent every year.

Yadda yadda...

Talk to your DNA and see if it agrees.

Pastorio

"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
> There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
> a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> These are not ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
> industry.

Okey Dokey If the world is over populated, why don't the people that think
so just leave?

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:33:10 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>
>
> Mark Preston wrote:
>
>

<snip>

> There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
> a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> These are not ORDINARY TIMES.
>
> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
> industry. Fresh water and arable land become more scarce every year.
>
> Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
> than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.
>
> Just to grow the plants to feed the animals needed to provide the average
> American with their food, it takes about 3 and 1/2 acres of land. The same
> amount of calories and protein can be produced on 1/10 acre of plants and
> consumed directly.
>
> The freshwater requirements for the animal product consumer are staggeringly
> higher than those of a plant product consumer, and fresh water shortages
> are becoming more widespread and persistent every year.
>
> AC
>
>

I only respond to intelligent posts.

AC

In article t>,
says...

> The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
> industry. Fresh water and arable land become more scarce every year.
>
> Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
> than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.
>
..
>
> AC


Let the meat eaters broil up the vegans and viola'...both problems
solved!

Mark Preston wrote:

><snip>
>
>As always with these type of post, the original poster, posts and
>flees. That leaves the rest of us (actually interested) posters with
>nothing to do but to comment within our "own" group.
>
>Humbug to these "cowards" that post and run; they won't actually
>defend their ideas there "right" without question. (Politically
>correct thought)
>
>I am posting my usual response to the "vegan" who started this thread.
>The last time I posted this, a gang of vegans wrote to Google asking
>to have me barred from posting further. I had to promise them I would
>not make offending posts. Those of you here, who have read the first
>post in the thread, please read mine, and see who's more "correct".
>
>A Book of Food
>by Morton P. Shand
>(NY : Knopf, 1928)
>
> Sentimental Vegetarianism (page 160)
>
>The Sentimental Vegetarians are the most numerous and illogical of the
>different sects of dietetic vegetarians, quasi-vegetarians,
>frutarians,
>nutarians and the raw vegetable nourishment stalwarts. If the
>pretensions of the sentimental vegetarians are to be taken seriously,
>not only must humanity forgo all animal foods, including milk and
>eggs, from ethical motives, but true to the essentially democratic
>principal of "sois mon frere, ou je te tu," every single race of
>mankind should be constrained -- by force of arms failing peaceful
>persuasion, since the offence is greater in the eating than in the
>killing -- to abstain from meat nourishment for all eternity.
>
>After making the world safe for vegetarianism, the next step would be
>the organization of armed, vegetarianized, humanity (or vegetarianized
>armed humanity - it does not matter which, but propagandists would
>declare there was a world of difference) to prevent non-carnivorous
>animals being devoured by carnivorous, and to put a stop to the
>outrage
>of carnivorous animals preying on each other.
>

There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.

These are not ORDINARY TIMES.

The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
industry. Fresh water and arable land become more scarce every year.

Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.

Just to grow the plants to feed the animals needed to provide the average
American with their food, it takes about 3 and 1/2 acres of land. The same
amount of calories and protein can be produced on 1/10 acre of plants and
consumed directly.

The freshwater requirements for the animal product consumer are staggeringly
higher than those of a plant product consumer, and fresh water shortages
are becoming more widespread and persistent every year.

AC

Mark Preston wrote:

><snip>
>
>As always with these type of post, the original poster, posts and
>flees. That leaves the rest of us (actually interested) posters with
>nothing to do but to comment within our "own" group.
>
>Humbug to these "cowards" that post and run; they won't actually
>defend their ideas there "right" without question. (Politically
>correct thought)
>
>I am posting my usual response to the "vegan" who started this thread.
>The last time I posted this, a gang of vegans wrote to Google asking
>to have me barred from posting further. I had to promise them I would
>not make offending posts. Those of you here, who have read the first
>post in the thread, please read mine, and see who's more "correct".
>
>A Book of Food
>by Morton P. Shand
>(NY : Knopf, 1928)
>
> Sentimental Vegetarianism (page 160)
>
>The Sentimental Vegetarians are the most numerous and illogical of the
>different sects of dietetic vegetarians, quasi-vegetarians,
>frutarians,
>nutarians and the raw vegetable nourishment stalwarts. If the
>pretensions of the sentimental vegetarians are to be taken seriously,
>not only must humanity forgo all animal foods, including milk and
>eggs, from ethical motives, but true to the essentially democratic
>principal of "sois mon frere, ou je te tu," every single race of
>mankind should be constrained -- by force of arms failing peaceful
>persuasion, since the offence is greater in the eating than in the
>killing -- to abstain from meat nourishment for all eternity.
>
>After making the world safe for vegetarianism, the next step would be
>the organization of armed, vegetarianized, humanity (or vegetarianized
>armed humanity - it does not matter which, but propagandists would
>declare there was a world of difference) to prevent non-carnivorous
>animals being devoured by carnivorous, and to put a stop to the
>outrage
>of carnivorous animals preying on each other.
>

There isn't anything wrong with humanely killing animals that have had
a decent life and eating them in ORDINARY TIMES.

These are not ORDINARY TIMES.

The world is radically over-populated and has been seriously harmed by
industry. Fresh water and arable land become more scarce every year.

Eating animal products is many, many times more environmentally destructive
than eating plant products, all other things being equal and in most cases.

Just to grow the plants to feed the animals needed to provide the average
American with their food, it takes about 3 and 1/2 acres of land. The same
amount of calories and protein can be produced on 1/10 acre of plants and
consumed directly.

The freshwater requirements for the animal product consumer are staggeringly
higher than those of a plant product consumer, and fresh water shortages
are becoming more widespread and persistent every year.

AC

It's official. I've finally been terrorized on the Internet by a vegetarian.

--

Hasta,
Curt Nelson

"Curt Nelson" > wrote in message
...
> It's official. I've finally been terrorized on the Internet by a
vegetarian.


Sorry to respond to my own post, but I really do find it amusing that
someone would take the time to spoof me over meat...

Hasta,
Curt Nelson