Mark South wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:59:59 -0500, G wrote:
>
> > What is the technical term for "horse meat"? Is there a term akin to "mutton"
> > or "beef" which applies to horse flesh?!!
>
> Yes. Cheval. To give the cavalier reply.

Are you aware of any place that horses have been bred primarily for
meat production?

Alan Truism > wrote:
>Mark South wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:59:59 -0500, G wrote:
>>
>> > What is the technical term for "horse meat"? Is there a term akin to "mutton"
>> > or "beef" which applies to horse flesh?!!
>>
>> Yes. Cheval. To give the cavalier reply.
>
>Are you aware of any place that horses have been bred primarily for
>meat production?

That's getting to be the case in France these days. Used to be the
meat from your local Societe Hippophage would be from working horses,
but these days there aren't so many working horses around and the demand
for meat remains steady.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...4204-1179r.htm

I wish more people would do the minimal amount of research before
arguing things on the Internet (or the Tower of Babble if you prefer)...

Some of us eat like horses. But few would actually eat a horse, which is
why animal rights activists, celebrities and members of Congress from
both parties are joining forces to stop the practice of selling horses
for food.
In a vote last year on the Department of Agriculture's annual
budget, 249 House members and 68 senators approved an amendment blocking
USDA funds from being used to inspect horse food processing plants.
Although it passed with broad support, the amendment is being challenged
by the USDA.
With the support of a Belgian horse food distributor, the USDA is
attempting to make use of a loophole that allows private companies to
pay for inspections.
"There's a culture of arrogance at the USDA," said Jeff Miles,
spokesman for Rep. Ed Whitfield, Kentucky Republican. "They are
disregarding a vote in Congress to help three foreign-based companies."
The three slaughtering plants include two in Texas and one in
Illinois. All of the meat from the plants is shipped out of the country,
with France, Belgium, Japan and Italy as the main consumers of horse meat.

Not having sampled horse meat personally, I'm now wondering if I
can get a tasty horse burger packed in dry ice in much the same way I
get hamburgers from Omaha Steaks.



Scott Dorsey wrote On 08/16/06 12:28,:
> Alan Truism > wrote:
>
>>Mark South wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:59:59 -0500, G wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What is the technical term for "horse meat"? Is there a term akin to "mutton"
>>>>or "beef" which applies to horse flesh?!!
>>>
>>>Yes. Cheval. To give the cavalier reply.
>>
>>Are you aware of any place that horses have been bred primarily for
>>meat production?
>
>
> That's getting to be the case in France these days. Used to be the
> meat from your local Societe Hippophage would be from working horses,
> but these days there aren't so many working horses around and the demand
> for meat remains steady.
> --scott
>

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:12:32 -0700, Kris Kontos
> wrote:

>http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...4204-1179r.htm
>
>I wish more people would do the minimal amount of research before
>arguing things on the Internet (or the Tower of Babble if you prefer)...
>
Some people are just too lazy to check their facts before posting
nonsense to the Usernet (tm). I know I always do.

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:12:32 -0700, Kris Kontos
> > wrote:
>
>>http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...4204-1179r.htm
>>
>>I wish more people would do the minimal amount of research before
>>arguing things on the Internet (or the Tower of Babble if you
>>prefer)...
>>
> Some people are just too lazy to check their facts before posting
> nonsense to the Usernet (tm). I know I always do.

Oh, really? Can you PROVE your claim that "some people are just too lazy
to check their facts before posting nonsense to the Usenet?" (Just
kidding.)