Do you wish to start your own blog about animal rights or about being
vegan?
Are you custom to the net than leave your favorites at the
WebDirectory!
....

Help send the vegan message out!

Start a blog - http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/summary.php
Leave animal rights and veggie friendly bookmarks -
http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/directory/
Join the community - http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/
Leave an AR book review - http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/books.php

This is always quite amusing. Willfully contributing to the contiuned
demand for more and more dead animals for nothing more than selfish
entertainmnet.
Again, there are NO real vegans on usenet. try looking up the meaning of
the word as defined by the guy who coined it, Donald Watson.

Here's what i'm talking about fool. Here's a site that discusses the 3
BILLION animals that die every year from the production of power at just 3
generators.
That's just 3! out of ,more than 13000 in the US alone.
http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm


Now, extrapolate those numbers to 1000s of other generators, and the
estimates that computers/internet usage consumes between 3% to 15%
of generated power, how many billions of animals is that? All killed for
nothing more than your entertainment here on internet.
Hypocrisy run amok. Usenet wannbe vegans are such an ignorant lot.



"ARF" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Do you wish to start your own blog about animal rights or about being
> vegan?
> Are you custom to the net than leave your favorites at the
> WebDirectory!
> ...
>
> Help send the vegan message out!
>
> Start a blog - http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/summary.php
> Leave animal rights and veggie friendly bookmarks -
> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/directory/
> Join the community - http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/
> Leave an AR book review - http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/books.php
>

On 25 Dec 2006 15:51:38 -0800, "ARF" > wrote:

>Do you wish to start your own blog about animal rights or about being
>vegan?

I do like to share.

>Are you custom to the net than leave your favorites at the
>WebDirectory!

Huh?

>...
>
>Help send the vegan message out!

Oh, okay:

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 25 Dec 2006 15:51:38 -0800, "ARF" > wrote:
>
> >Do you wish to start your own blog about animal rights or about being
> >vegan?
>
> I do like to share.
>
> >Are you custom to the net than leave your favorites at the
> >WebDirectory!
>
> Huh?
>
> >...
> >
> >Help send the vegan message out!
>
> Oh, okay:

The answer to the following dumb rant is:

Just because, due to circumstances beyond our control, we cannot be 100%
Vegan, that does not mean that we are in any way wrong in doing the best
that we can.

So there, pratt!

>
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
> in order to be successful:
>
> Tires,

That's 'tyres' BTW! The capital letters following commas are incorrect too.


Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>
> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> as animals do in other habitats.

But the meat industry brings them into the world for one purpose: to be
slaughtered, idiot! You make it sound as if the industry is doing the
animals a favour!

> They also depend on it for
> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
> being vegan.

Vegan is a proper name, so use a damned capital letter you igaroo!

> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat.

Sorry. They feed steers cattle-cake, and it was teh feedstuffs manufacturers
putting ground-up sheeps' carcases in it from sheep that had died from
Scrapey that lead to Mad Cow Disease and to NVCJD in humans! - from which
you seem to be suffering!

> From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings.

And thousands of Migraines and digestive troubles . .

> Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, (nice gimmick) and in
> the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals.

Complete and utter ********!

> Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.

More complete and utter ********!

If the grasslands were planted with Honey Locust Trees, the same land would
produce the protein equivalent of around hundred to five hundred times the
meat yield and consume far less energy as well.

ontheroad wrote:
> This is always quite amusing. Willfully contributing to the contiuned
> demand for more and more dead animals for nothing more than selfish
> entertainmnet.
> Again, there are NO real vegans on usenet. try looking up the meaning of
> the word as defined by the guy who coined it, Donald Watson.

"..abstention from the use of all animal products.."

>
> Here's what i'm talking about fool. Here's a site that discusses the 3
> BILLION animals that die every year from the production of power at just 3
> generators.
> That's just 3! out of ,more than 13000 in the US alone.
> http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm


Electricity is not the use of an animal product per se.

>
>
> Now, extrapolate those numbers to 1000s of other generators,

It is foolish to extrapolate one particular method of cooling / power
generation with all others.

>and the
> estimates that computers/internet usage consumes between 3% to 15%
> of generated power, how many billions of animals is that? All killed for
> nothing more than your entertainment here on internet.
> Hypocrisy run amok. Usenet wannbe vegans are such an ignorant lot.

"The tendency of the casual mind is to pick out or stumble upon a sample
which supports or defines its prejudices, and then to make it
representative of a whole class."

Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) US editor and writer.



>
>
>
> "ARF" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Do you wish to start your own blog about animal rights or about being
>> vegan?
>> Are you custom to the net than leave your favorites at the
>> WebDirectory!
>> ...
>>
>> Help send the vegan message out!
>>
>> Start a blog - http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/summary.php
>> Leave animal rights and veggie friendly bookmarks -
>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/directory/
>> Join the community - http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/
>> Leave an AR book review - http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/books.php
>>
>
>

I thought that in the vegan google group I would only find vegans and
not a bunch of trolls.
Why join a vegan group when you are clearly against veganism?
Very strange indeed.

Anyway if you are not a Vegan or against it than please ignore my
original post. It wasn't addressed to you. And I also think you joined
the wrong google group but that is up to the people who run this group.
Thanks!

ARF wrote:
> Do you wish to start your own blog about animal rights or about being
> vegan?
> Are you custom to the net than leave your favorites at the
> WebDirectory!
> ...
>
> Help send the vegan message out!
>
> Start a blog - http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/summary.php
> Leave animal rights and veggie friendly bookmarks -
> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/directory/
> Join the community - http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/
> Leave an AR book review - http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/books.php

"Jean Clingfilm" > wrote in message
...
> ontheroad wrote:
>> This is always quite amusing. Willfully contributing to the
>> contiuned demand for more and more dead animals for nothing
>> more than selfish entertainmnet.
>> Again, there are NO real vegans on usenet. try looking up the
>> meaning of the word as defined by the guy who coined it,
>> Donald Watson.
>
> "..abstention from the use of all animal products.."
=======================
Not quite. Why leave out the part "excludes all forms of
exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom" That part
doesn't quite fit the vegan brainwashing spew?

Here it is...

"...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
wholly or in part from animals..."

You'll note that diet is not anymore or less important than any
other aspect of a real vegan lifestyle.

>
>>
>> Here's what i'm talking about fool. Here's a site that
>> discusses the 3 BILLION animals that die every year from the
>> production of power at just 3 generators.
>> That's just 3! out of ,more than 13000 in the US alone.
>> http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm
>
>
> Electricity is not the use of an animal product per se.
========================
ROTFLMAO But killing billions of them for unnecessary reasons is
quite alright by you, huh? Like I said, there are no real vegans
on usenet...
I submit that a person that lives on game and grass-fed beef and
ins't online causes far far fewer animal deaths than you even
wet-dream about saving...


>
>>
>>
>> Now, extrapolate those numbers to 1000s of other generators,
>
> It is foolish to extrapolate one particular method of cooling /
> power generation with all others.
======================
No, it is not. There are over 13000 generators in the US alone.
I only said to compare 1000s. The fact is that most power
generators are steam generation plants. All steam generators
use the same method to produce electricity, it's only the source
of the heat that changes. The rest of the steam generation and
dischage is the same.
The tap-dacing around the facts by vegans is what is amusing.
They get caught red-handed with their hands in the dead-animal
cookie jar and they send up strawman after strawman to try to
devert the attention away from their bloody footprints.


>
>>and the estimates that computers/internet usage consumes
>>between 3% to 15%
>> of generated power, how many billions of animals is that?
>> All killed for nothing more than your entertainment here on
>> internet.
>> Hypocrisy run amok. Usenet wannbe vegans are such an ignorant
>> lot.
>
> "The tendency of the casual mind is to pick out or stumble upon
> a sample which supports or defines its prejudices, and then to
> make it representative of a whole class."
============================
The tendancy of the brainwashed vegan mind is to ignore reality
and disregard the bloody footprints they track about. That is
the way of ALL usenet wannbe vegans...
There is NO survival necessity for anyone that wants to claim an
ethical superiority to be on usnet, none. It's completely
unnecessary and an exploitation of animals for no more reason
than their entertainment.


>
> Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) US editor and writer.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> "ARF" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Do you wish to start your own blog about animal rights or
>>> about being
>>> vegan?
>>> Are you custom to the net than leave your favorites at the
>>> WebDirectory!
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Help send the vegan message out!
>>>
>>> Start a blog -
>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/summary.php
>>> Leave animal rights and veggie friendly bookmarks -
>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/directory/
>>> Join the community - http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/
>>> Leave an AR book review -
>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/books.php
>>>
>>

"ARF" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>I thought that in the vegan google group I would only find
>vegans and
> not a bunch of trolls.
> Why join a vegan group when you are clearly against veganism?
> Very strange indeed.
> =========================
Get a clue loser, this is usenet. You posted your stupidity
around the world for all to see. Get used to it...


> Anyway if you are not a Vegan or against it than please ignore
> my
> original post. It wasn't addressed to you. And I also think you
> joined
> the wrong google group but that is up to the people who run
> this group.
> Thanks!
===================
uhh, there is no group to 'join', fool. You just click and read
the stupidity of vegans... Actually, I originally got here
because vegans were spamming the outdoor newsgroups I was on.
Lucky for you we're here to tell the truth, and shine a light on
your delusions...

Again, I still can't get over laughing at wannbe vegans posting
and maintaining web sites. All of which contribute to far more
dead animals than I'll ever eat in my lifetime...
whatta a maroon...


>
> ARF wrote:
>> Do you wish to start your own blog about animal rights or
>> about being
>> vegan?
>> Are you custom to the net than leave your favorites at the
>> WebDirectory!
>> ...
>>
>> Help send the vegan message out!
>>
>> Start a blog -
>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/summary.php
>> Leave animal rights and veggie friendly bookmarks -
>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/directory/
>> Join the community - http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/
>> Leave an AR book review -
>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/books.php
>

rick wrote:
> "Jean Clingfilm" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ontheroad wrote:
>>> This is always quite amusing. Willfully contributing to the
>>> contiuned demand for more and more dead animals for nothing
>>> more than selfish entertainmnet.
>>> Again, there are NO real vegans on usenet. try looking up the
>>> meaning of the word as defined by the guy who coined it,
>>> Donald Watson.
>> "..abstention from the use of all animal products.."
> =======================
> Not quite. Why leave out the part "excludes all forms of
> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom" That part
> doesn't quite fit the vegan brainwashing spew?

'Ontheroad' (or was it you?), asked for Donald Watson's definition. You
for some reason have produced another.

Also electrical generation does not 'exploit', is not 'cruel' to
animals. It is not, on the whole, an animal commodity.


>
> Here it is...
>
> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
> a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
> products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
> fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
> encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
> wholly or in part from animals..."
>
> You'll note that diet is not anymore or less important than any
> other aspect of a real vegan lifestyle.
>
>>> Here's what i'm talking about fool. Here's a site that
>>> discusses the 3 BILLION animals that die every year from the
>>> production of power at just 3 generators.
>>> That's just 3! out of ,more than 13000 in the US alone.
>>> http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm
>>
>> Electricity is not the use of an animal product per se.
> ========================
> ROTFLMAO But killing billions of them for unnecessary reasons is
> quite alright by you, huh? Like I said, there are no real vegans
> on usenet...
> I submit that a person that lives on game and grass-fed beef and
> ins't online causes far far fewer animal deaths than you even
> wet-dream about saving...


You'll need to supply evidence of that claim. For a start, I've made no
claim of saving animals. ask yourself questions like, how much energy
does the production of the meat need, including fertilisers, processing,
transport, water, supplemental nutrition, breeding and releasing 'game'
to the wild etc.

You also need to consider the issue holistically. Rather than apply an
exception, hypothesize the effect of a particular lifestyle may have if
applied generally. Do you really think it a good idea that everyone
start consuming wild game?



>
>
>>>
>>> Now, extrapolate those numbers to 1000s of other generators,
>> It is foolish to extrapolate one particular method of cooling /
>> power generation with all others.
> ======================
> No, it is not. There are over 13000 generators in the US alone.
> I only said to compare 1000s. The fact is that most power
> generators are steam generation plants. All steam generators
> use the same method to produce electricity, it's only the source
> of the heat that changes. The rest of the steam generation and
> dischage is the same.

No it is not. For example; how many animals are killed by cooling
towers? - You quoted one method of cooling by river water, and foolishly
extrapolated it to the whole World's electrical generation systems

> The tap-dacing around the facts by vegans is what is amusing.
> They get caught red-handed with their hands in the dead-animal
> cookie jar and they send up strawman after strawman to try to
> devert the attention away from their bloody footprints.

(An overuse of metaphors BTW).

I'm not a vegan, I was pointing out (your?) fundamental error.

>
>
>>> and the estimates that computers/internet usage consumes
>>> between 3% to 15%
>>> of generated power, how many billions of animals is that?
>>> All killed for nothing more than your entertainment here on
>>> internet.
>>> Hypocrisy run amok. Usenet wannbe vegans are such an ignorant
>>> lot.
>> "The tendency of the casual mind is to pick out or stumble upon
>> a sample which supports or defines its prejudices, and then to
>> make it representative of a whole class."
> ============================
> The tendancy of the brainwashed vegan mind is to ignore reality
> and disregard the bloody footprints they track about. That is
> the way of ALL usenet wannbe vegans...
> There is NO survival necessity for anyone that wants to claim an
> ethical superiority to be on usnet, none. It's completely
> unnecessary and an exploitation of animals for no more reason
> than their entertainment.

Who's claimed moral superiority? It wasn't me. - You seem to be arguing
with yourself or some seemingly non existent 'bogie monster'.

Basically, you've drawn incorrect conclusions from an inaccurate
extrapolation of a non animal product, to support an incoherent and
logically flawed position.




>
>
>> Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) US editor and writer.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "ARF" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>>> Do you wish to start your own blog about animal rights or
>>>> about being
>>>> vegan?
>>>> Are you custom to the net than leave your favorites at the
>>>> WebDirectory!
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Help send the vegan message out!
>>>>
>>>> Start a blog -
>>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/summary.php
>>>> Leave animal rights and veggie friendly bookmarks -
>>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/directory/
>>>> Join the community - http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/
>>>> Leave an AR book review -
>>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/books.php
>>>>
>

"Jean Clingfilm" > wrote in message
...
> rick wrote:
>> "Jean Clingfilm" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> ontheroad wrote:
>>>> This is always quite amusing. Willfully contributing to
>>>> the contiuned demand for more and more dead animals for
>>>> nothing more than selfish entertainmnet.
>>>> Again, there are NO real vegans on usenet. try looking up
>>>> the meaning of the word as defined by the guy who coined it,
>>>> Donald Watson.
>>> "..abstention from the use of all animal products.."
>> =======================
>> Not quite. Why leave out the part "excludes all forms of
>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom" That
>> part doesn't quite fit the vegan brainwashing spew?
>
> 'Ontheroad' (or was it you?), asked for Donald Watson's
> definition. You for some reason have produced another.
===================
That's the computer I use while 'on the road'...

http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm
"...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
wholly or in part from animals ..."
Donald Watson, 1944
Looks to me like you tried to use something different, but it
still says the same thing.


>
> Also electrical generation does not 'exploit', is not 'cruel'
> to animals. It is not, on the whole, an animal commodity.
===========================
ROTFLMAO I bet that billions and billions of dead animals
disagree with you...
I guess you just have different difinitions for all words so that
they fit your propaganda, huh? causing the deaths of billions of
animals for nothing nore than our entertainment is exploitation,
regardless if you like it or not.

>
>
>>
>> Here it is...
>>
>> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and
>> includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of
>> living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion
>> of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its
>> derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all
>> commodities derived wholly or in part from animals..."
>>
>> You'll note that diet is not anymore or less important than
>> any other aspect of a real vegan lifestyle.
>>
>>>> Here's what i'm talking about fool. Here's a site that
>>>> discusses the 3 BILLION animals that die every year from the
>>>> production of power at just 3 generators.
>>>> That's just 3! out of ,more than 13000 in the US alone.
>>>> http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm
>>>
>>> Electricity is not the use of an animal product per se.
>> ========================
>> ROTFLMAO But killing billions of them for unnecessary reasons
>> is quite alright by you, huh? Like I said, there are no real
>> vegans on usenet...
>> I submit that a person that lives on game and grass-fed beef
>> and ins't online causes far far fewer animal deaths than you
>> even wet-dream about saving...
>
>
> You'll need to supply evidence of that claim. For a start, I've
> made no claim of saving animals. ask yourself questions like,
> how much energy does the production of the meat need, including
> fertilisers, processing, transport, water, supplemental
> nutrition, breeding and releasing 'game' to the wild etc.
=================================
None, fool. Gama animals are abundent without ANY help from us.
There is no need for us to transport, suppliment their diets,
breed them or release them..
The fact vthat you are so closed minded that you can't see that
somebody living on game and grass-fed beef without the internet
causes fewer animal deaths than you is quite amazing... Actuall,
it just reenforces what I already know. You're a braindead
prop[agandized fool that wants to remain willfully ignorant of
their impact on animals and the environment.


>
> You also need to consider the issue holistically. Rather than
> apply an exception, hypothesize the effect of a particular
> lifestyle may have if applied generally. Do you really think it
> a good idea that everyone start consuming wild game?
=======================
You might want to reasd for comprehension sometime. No where did
I say that. All I said was that waanbe usenet veganms are just
ignorant hypocrites by claiming that just by not eating animals
tha=ey are somehow 'saving' them. It's just a delusional lie
they all te]ll themselves, right, hypocrite?


>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, extrapolate those numbers to 1000s of other generators,
>>> It is foolish to extrapolate one particular method of cooling
>>> / power generation with all others.
>> ======================
>> No, it is not. There are over 13000 generators in the US
>> alone. I only said to compare 1000s. The fact is that most
>> power generators are steam generation plants. All steam
>> generators use the same method to produce electricity, it's
>> only the source of the heat that changes. The rest of the
>> steam generation and dischage is the same.
>
> No it is not. For example; how many animals are killed by
> cooling towers? - You quoted one method of cooling by river
> water, and foolishly extrapolated it to the whole World's
> electrical generation systems
===============================
No fool, I have not. Steam generating plants are steam
generating plants. But then, you propably don't know what steam
is, right? It is you theat is trying to read what you want to
see in what I write. If you'll notice, I specifically said US
plants.


>
>> The tap-dacing around the facts by vegans is what is amusing.
>> They get caught red-handed with their hands in the dead-animal
>> cookie jar and they send up strawman after strawman to try to
>> devert the attention away from their bloody footprints.
>
> (An overuse of metaphors BTW).
===================
Better than your overuse of stupidity....


>
> I'm not a vegan, I was pointing out (your?) fundamental error.
============================
There was no error. Power production kills billions and billions
of animals. I suggest vyou first refute that by providing
information that disputes the environmental agencys, like New
Yorks department of environmental conservation.

Next you could then start telling us how hydro generators don't
kill animals in their turbines either....





es that computers/internet usage consumes
>>>> between 3% to 15%
>>>> of generated power, how many billions of animals is that?
>>>> All killed for nothing more than your entertainment here on
>>>> internet.
>>>> Hypocrisy run amok. Usenet wannbe vegans are such an
>>>> ignorant lot.
>>> "The tendency of the casual mind is to pick out or stumble
>>> upon a sample which supports or defines its prejudices, and
>>> then to make it representative of a whole class."
>> ============================
>> The tendancy of the brainwashed vegan mind is to ignore
>> reality and disregard the bloody footprints they track about.
>> That is the way of ALL usenet wannbe vegans...
>> There is NO survival necessity for anyone that wants to claim
>> an ethical superiority to be on usnet, none. It's completely
>> unnecessary and an exploitation of animals for no more reason
>> than their entertainment.
>
> Who's claimed moral superiority? It wasn't me. - You seem to be
> arguing with yourself or some seemingly non existent 'bogie
> monster'.
==========================
Same as you, huh fool?



>
> Basically, you've drawn incorrect conclusions from an
> inaccurate extrapolation of a non animal product, to support an
> incoherent and logically flawed position.
> ===================================
Nope, not at all. Dead animals, by the billions, directly
connected to vegan activities is quite relevent, despite your
ignorant protestations...

>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) US editor and writer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "ARF" > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com...
>>>>> Do you wish to start your own blog about animal rights or
>>>>> about being
>>>>> vegan?
>>>>> Are you custom to the net than leave your favorites at the
>>>>> WebDirectory!
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Help send the vegan message out!
>>>>>
>>>>> Start a blog -
>>>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/summary.php
>>>>> Leave animal rights and veggie friendly bookmarks -
>>>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/directory/
>>>>> Join the community - http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/
>>>>> Leave an AR book review -
>>>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/books.php
>>>>>
>>

rick wrote:
> "Jean Clingfilm" > wrote in message
> ...
>> rick wrote:
>>> "Jean Clingfilm" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> ontheroad wrote:
>>>>> This is always quite amusing. Willfully contributing to
>>>>> the contiuned demand for more and more dead animals for
>>>>> nothing more than selfish entertainmnet.
>>>>> Again, there are NO real vegans on usenet. try looking up
>>>>> the meaning of the word as defined by the guy who coined it,
>>>>> Donald Watson.
>>>> "..abstention from the use of all animal products.."
>>> =======================
>>> Not quite. Why leave out the part "excludes all forms of
>>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom" That
>>> part doesn't quite fit the vegan brainwashing spew?
>> 'Ontheroad' (or was it you?), asked for Donald Watson's
>> definition. You for some reason have produced another.
> ===================
> That's the computer I use while 'on the road'...
>
> http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm
> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
> a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
> products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
> fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
> encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
> wholly or in part from animals ..."
> Donald Watson, 1944
> Looks to me like you tried to use something different, but it
> still says the same thing.

No, you stated "..the meaning of the word as defined by the guy who
coined it, Donald Watson" and then quoted another from someone else.
Donald Watson did not define vegan in that way. His main issues was with
vegetarians eating eggs and dairy products.

Donald Watson coined the WORD, in an effort to disassociate himself, and
anybody else that wanted to, from vegetarians who consumed milk and
eggs. The definition has followed in many different guises.


>
>
>> Also electrical generation does not 'exploit', is not 'cruel'
>> to animals. It is not, on the whole, an animal commodity.
> ===========================
> ROTFLMAO I bet that billions and billions of dead animals
> disagree with you...

Nothing dead will disagree with me or anyone else. - It still remains a
fact that electrical generation does not 'exploit', is not 'cruel' to
animals. It is not, on the whole, an animal commodity.

> I guess you just have different difinitions for all words so that
> they fit your propaganda, huh? causing the deaths of billions of
> animals for nothing nore than our entertainment is exploitation,
> regardless if you like it or not.

I suggest you take this argument you have with yourself elsewhere;
perhaps a psychologist.


>
>>
>>> Here it is...
>>>
>>> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and
>>> includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of
>>> living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion
>>> of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its
>>> derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all
>>> commodities derived wholly or in part from animals..."
>>>
>>> You'll note that diet is not anymore or less important than
>>> any other aspect of a real vegan lifestyle.
>>>
>>>>> Here's what i'm talking about fool. Here's a site that
>>>>> discusses the 3 BILLION animals that die every year from the
>>>>> production of power at just 3 generators.
>>>>> That's just 3! out of ,more than 13000 in the US alone.
>>>>> http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm
>>>> Electricity is not the use of an animal product per se.
>>> ========================
>>> ROTFLMAO But killing billions of them for unnecessary reasons
>>> is quite alright by you, huh? Like I said, there are no real
>>> vegans on usenet...
>>> I submit that a person that lives on game and grass-fed beef
>>> and ins't online causes far far fewer animal deaths than you
>>> even wet-dream about saving...
>>
>> You'll need to supply evidence of that claim. For a start, I've
>> made no claim of saving animals. ask yourself questions like,
>> how much energy does the production of the meat need, including
>> fertilisers, processing, transport, water, supplemental
>> nutrition, breeding and releasing 'game' to the wild etc.
> =================================
> None, fool. Gama animals are abundent without ANY help from us.
> There is no need for us to transport, suppliment their diets,
> breed them or release them..

So you were ONLY taking about wild game? ..............

> The fact vthat you are so closed minded that you can't see that
> somebody living on game and grass-fed beef

...........Oh you did include grass fed beef.

1) So all grass fed beef get to the plate without transport, without
supplementing its diet, without fertilizers on the fields, without
water, etc?


>without the internet
> causes fewer animal deaths than you is quite amazing... Actuall,
> it just reenforces what I already know. You're a braindead
> prop[agandized fool that wants to remain willfully ignorant of
> their impact on animals and the environment.

I'm aware that my (non vegan) lifestyle causes damage to the
environment, and ultimately animals and humans, as does virtually
everyone else's lifestyles.

The only person demonstrating foolishness is you.

>
>
>> You also need to consider the issue holistically. Rather than
>> apply an exception, hypothesize the effect of a particular
>> lifestyle may have if applied generally. Do you really think it
>> a good idea that everyone start consuming wild game?
> =======================
> You might want to reasd for comprehension sometime. No where did
> I say that. All I said was that waanbe usenet veganms are just
> ignorant hypocrites by claiming that just by not eating animals
> tha=ey are somehow 'saving' them. It's just a delusional lie
> they all te]ll themselves, right, hypocrite?

You wrote (emphasis added) "I submit that a person that lives on
**game** and grass-fed beef and ins't online causes far far fewer animal
deaths than you even wet-dream about saving..."

If the game is not bred and released as you refute above, it must be
wild. - I'll break this down to make it easier for you:

2)Does your hypothesis include game, as you first postulated or not?

3)If it does, is it wild or bred and released?

4)Should anyone be allowed be allowed to consume this game, or is it
limited to a certain sunset? - How is this subset defined?


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> Now, extrapolate those numbers to 1000s of other generators,
>>>> It is foolish to extrapolate one particular method of cooling
>>>> / power generation with all others.
>>> ======================
>>> No, it is not. There are over 13000 generators in the US
>>> alone. I only said to compare 1000s. The fact is that most
>>> power generators are steam generation plants. All steam
>>> generators use the same method to produce electricity, it's
>>> only the source of the heat that changes. The rest of the
>>> steam generation and dischage is the same.
>> No it is not. For example; how many animals are killed by
>> cooling towers? - You quoted one method of cooling by river
>> water, and foolishly extrapolated it to the whole World's
>> electrical generation systems
> ===============================
> No fool, I have not. Steam generating plants are steam
> generating plants. But then, you propably don't know what steam
> is, right? It is you theat is trying to read what you want to
> see in what I write. If you'll notice, I specifically said US
> plants.
>
>
>>> The tap-dacing around the facts by vegans is what is amusing.
>>> They get caught red-handed with their hands in the dead-animal
>>> cookie jar and they send up strawman after strawman to try to
>>> devert the attention away from their bloody footprints.
>> (An overuse of metaphors BTW).
> ===================
> Better than your overuse of stupidity....
>
>
>> I'm not a vegan, I was pointing out (your?) fundamental error.
> ============================
> There was no error. Power production kills billions and billions
> of animals. I suggest vyou first refute that by providing
> information that disputes the environmental agencys, like New
> Yorks department of environmental conservation.

Power production, a non animal product, kills animals yes. How many I do
not know. Your estimation was based a flawed premise.

>
> Next you could then start telling us how hydro generators don't
> kill animals in their turbines either....

No, I know wind turbines kill birds for example.

>
>
>
>
>
> es that computers/internet usage consumes
>>>>> between 3% to 15%
>>>>> of generated power, how many billions of animals is that?
>>>>> All killed for nothing more than your entertainment here on
>>>>> internet.
>>>>> Hypocrisy run amok. Usenet wannbe vegans are such an
>>>>> ignorant lot.
>>>> "The tendency of the casual mind is to pick out or stumble
>>>> upon a sample which supports or defines its prejudices, and
>>>> then to make it representative of a whole class."
>>> ============================
>>> The tendancy of the brainwashed vegan mind is to ignore
>>> reality and disregard the bloody footprints they track about.
>>> That is the way of ALL usenet wannbe vegans...
>>> There is NO survival necessity for anyone that wants to claim
>>> an ethical superiority to be on usnet, none. It's completely
>>> unnecessary and an exploitation of animals for no more reason
>>> than their entertainment.
>> Who's claimed moral superiority? It wasn't me. - You seem to be
>> arguing with yourself or some seemingly non existent 'bogie
>> monster'.
> ==========================
> Same as you, huh fool?

Clearly not.

>
>
>
>> Basically, you've drawn incorrect conclusions from an
>> inaccurate extrapolation of a non animal product, to support an
>> incoherent and logically flawed position.
>> ===================================
> Nope, not at all. Dead animals, by the billions, directly
> connected to vegan activities is quite relevent, despite your
> ignorant protestations...

I think it safe to conclude that most vegans will cause some animal
deaths, by consuming non animal products like electricity. This does not
preclude them using the term vegan if they wish to.

If you answer the questions above, I may respond, otherwise I'm wasting
my time, a bit like kicking shit about until you lose it.


>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) US editor and writer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "ARF" > wrote in message
>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>> Do you wish to start your own blog about animal rights or
>>>>>> about being
>>>>>> vegan?
>>>>>> Are you custom to the net than leave your favorites at the
>>>>>> WebDirectory!
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Help send the vegan message out!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Start a blog -
>>>>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/summary.php
>>>>>> Leave animal rights and veggie friendly bookmarks -
>>>>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/directory/
>>>>>> Join the community - http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/
>>>>>> Leave an AR book review -
>>>>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/books.php
>>>>>>
>
>

"Jean Clingfilm" > wrote in message
...
> rick wrote:
>> "Jean Clingfilm" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> rick wrote:
>>>> "Jean Clingfilm" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> ontheroad wrote:
>>>>>> This is always quite amusing. Willfully contributing to
>>>>>> the contiuned demand for more and more dead animals for
>>>>>> nothing more than selfish entertainmnet.
>>>>>> Again, there are NO real vegans on usenet. try looking up
>>>>>> the meaning of the word as defined by the guy who coined
>>>>>> it, Donald Watson.
>>>>> "..abstention from the use of all animal products.."
>>>> =======================
>>>> Not quite. Why leave out the part "excludes all forms of
>>>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom" That
>>>> part doesn't quite fit the vegan brainwashing spew?
>>> 'Ontheroad' (or was it you?), asked for Donald Watson's
>>> definition. You for some reason have produced another.
>> ===================
>> That's the computer I use while 'on the road'...
>>
>> http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm
>> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and
>> includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of
>> living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion
>> of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its
>> derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all
>> commodities derived wholly or in part from animals ..."
>> Donald Watson, 1944
>> Looks to me like you tried to use something different, but it
>> still says the same thing.
>
> No, you stated "..the meaning of the word as defined by the guy
> who coined it, Donald Watson" and then quoted another from
> someone else.
==================
No, I did not. I quoted the definition given by watson in 1944.
You have quoted from someone else.

> Donald Watson did not define vegan in that way. His main issues
> was with vegetarians eating eggs and dairy products.
=========================
Then you'd better get a refund on the education you think you
recieved.

>
> Donald Watson coined the WORD, in an effort to disassociate
> himself, and anybody else that wanted to, from vegetarians who
> consumed milk and eggs. The definition has followed in many
> different guises.
============================
But there is only one definition from the man who made up the
term. I gave it. It is not about diet, it is a lifestyle, a
belief. Diet is no more or less important than any other aspect
of ones life.


>
>
>>
>>
>>> Also electrical generation does not 'exploit', is not 'cruel'
>>> to animals. It is not, on the whole, an animal commodity.
>> ===========================
>> ROTFLMAO I bet that billions and billions of dead animals
>> disagree with you...
>
> Nothing dead will disagree with me or anyone else. - It still
> remains a fact that electrical generation does not 'exploit',
> is not 'cruel' to animals. It is not, on the whole, an animal
> commodity.
================================
ROTFLMAO Nice strawman, fool, I didn't say it was an animal
commodity, but to try to insist that being sliced, diced,
shredded and dis-memebered is not cruel is quite amusing. Thanks
for proving your ignorance yet again...


>
>> I guess you just have different difinitions for all words so
>> that they fit your propaganda, huh? causing the deaths of
>> billions of animals for nothing nore than our entertainment is
>> exploitation, regardless if you like it or not.
>
> I suggest you take this argument you have with yourself
> elsewhere; perhaps a psychologist.
> ==============================
LOL I don't have a problem. Maybe you do, with comprehension
and reality.


>
>>
>>>
>>>> Here it is...
>>>>
>>>> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>>>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and
>>>> includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of
>>>> living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion
>>>> of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its
>>>> derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all
>>>> commodities derived wholly or in part from animals..."
>>>>
>>>> You'll note that diet is not anymore or less important than
>>>> any other aspect of a real vegan lifestyle.
>>>>
>>>>>> Here's what i'm talking about fool. Here's a site that
>>>>>> discusses the 3 BILLION animals that die every year from
>>>>>> the production of power at just 3 generators.
>>>>>> That's just 3! out of ,more than 13000 in the US alone.
>>>>>> http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm
>>>>> Electricity is not the use of an animal product per se.
>>>> ========================
>>>> ROTFLMAO But killing billions of them for unnecessary
>>>> reasons is quite alright by you, huh? Like I said, there
>>>> are no real vegans on usenet...
>>>> I submit that a person that lives on game and grass-fed beef
>>>> and ins't online causes far far fewer animal deaths than you
>>>> even wet-dream about saving...
>>>
>>> You'll need to supply evidence of that claim. For a start,
>>> I've made no claim of saving animals. ask yourself questions
>>> like, how much energy does the production of the meat need,
>>> including fertilisers, processing, transport, water,
>>> supplemental nutrition, breeding and releasing 'game' to the
>>> wild etc.
>> =================================
>> None, fool. Gama animals are abundent without ANY help from
>> us. There is no need for us to transport, suppliment their
>> diets, breed them or release them..
>
> So you were ONLY taking about wild game? ..............
========================
No fool, YOU were. Read what you just wrote, dolt. Whatta
maroon...

>
>> The fact vthat you are so closed minded that you can't see
>> that somebody living on game and grass-fed beef
>
> ..........Oh you did include grass fed beef.
>
> 1) So all grass fed beef get to the plate without transport,
> without supplementing its diet, without fertilizers on the
> fields, without water, etc?
======================
Uh, i guess your stupidity knows no bounds, huh? The grass fed
beef I eat gets no suppliments. What suppliments do you have in
mind? The water is what fills the ponds from rain. No pumping
from water sources. What field do you suppose I'd want to spray
and have the cattle eat? Are you thinking about grains being fed
to cattle? Again, fool, the "grass-fed" beef I eat doesn't eat
any grain. Is "grass-fed" too big a word for you? The are born,
raised, slaughtered and eaten withing just a few miles.
care to tell me where your last banana came from?

>
>
>>without the internet causes fewer animal deaths than you is
>>quite amazing... Actuall, it just reenforces what I already
>>know. You're a braindead prop[agandized fool that wants to
>>remain willfully ignorant of their impact on animals and the
>>environment.
>
> I'm aware that my (non vegan) lifestyle causes damage to the
> environment, and ultimately animals and humans, as does
> virtually everyone else's lifestyles.
==========================
Good, then why deny the fact that being killed for our
entertainment by being sliced, diced, shredded and dis-memebered
isn't 'cruel?'


>
> The only person demonstrating foolishness is you.
===============
hardly, fool.
Keep tap dancing away...

>
>>
>>
>>> You also need to consider the issue holistically. Rather than
>>> apply an exception, hypothesize the effect of a particular
>>> lifestyle may have if applied generally. Do you really think
>>> it a good idea that everyone start consuming wild game?
>> =======================
>> You might want to reasd for comprehension sometime. No where
>> did I say that. All I said was that waanbe usenet veganms are
>> just ignorant hypocrites by claiming that just by not eating
>> animals tha=ey are somehow 'saving' them. It's just a
>> delusional lie they all te]ll themselves, right, hypocrite?
>
> You wrote (emphasis added) "I submit that a person that lives
> on **game** and grass-fed beef and ins't online causes far far
> fewer animal deaths than you even wet-dream about saving..."
>
> If the game is not bred and released as you refute above, it
> must be wild. - I'll break this down to make it easier for you:
=====================
What other 'wild game' do you suppose there is, fool? Are you
really this impaired, or just willfully ignorant? Do you really
not know a difference between game and grass-fed beef? The
statement I wrote is quite clear.


>
> 2)Does your hypothesis include game, as you first postulated or
> not?
======================
Sure it can. Why are you so dense? Willfully ignorant or just
naturally stupid?

>
> 3)If it does, is it wild or bred and released?
=====================
I don't know of any deer catch and release programs.

>
> 4)Should anyone be allowed be allowed to consume this game, or
> is it limited to a certain sunset? - How is this subset
> defined?
======================
Why all the strawmen, fool? Who do you want to restrict from
eating it?
Again, for the 2 braincells you're apparently woking with here,
The fact is that vegan loons make the claim that because they are
vegan no/less/fewer animals die. I show quite well how that is
not the case, and that there are meat-included diets that kill
fewer animals than some vegan ones. I know that that is hard for
the mentally challenged to comprehend, but do give it a go, fool.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Now, extrapolate those numbers to 1000s of other
>>>>>> generators,
>>>>> It is foolish to extrapolate one particular method of
>>>>> cooling / power generation with all others.
>>>> ======================
>>>> No, it is not. There are over 13000 generators in the US
>>>> alone. I only said to compare 1000s. The fact is that most
>>>> power generators are steam generation plants. All steam
>>>> generators use the same method to produce electricity, it's
>>>> only the source of the heat that changes. The rest of the
>>>> steam generation and dischage is the same.
>>> No it is not. For example; how many animals are killed by
>>> cooling towers? - You quoted one method of cooling by river
>>> water, and foolishly extrapolated it to the whole World's
>>> electrical generation systems
>> ===============================
>> No fool, I have not. Steam generating plants are steam
>> generating plants. But then, you propably don't know what
>> steam is, right? It is you theat is trying to read what you
>> want to see in what I write. If you'll notice, I specifically
>> said US plants.
>>
>>
>>>> The tap-dacing around the facts by vegans is what is
>>>> amusing. They get caught red-handed with their hands in the
>>>> dead-animal cookie jar and they send up strawman after
>>>> strawman to try to devert the attention away from their
>>>> bloody footprints.
>>> (An overuse of metaphors BTW).
>> ===================
>> Better than your overuse of stupidity....
>>
>>
>>> I'm not a vegan, I was pointing out (your?) fundamental
>>> error.
>> ============================
>> There was no error. Power production kills billions and
>> billions of animals. I suggest vyou first refute that by
>> providing information that disputes the environmental agencys,
>> like New Yorks department of environmental conservation.
>
> Power production, a non animal product, kills animals yes. How
> many I do not know. Your estimation was based a flawed premise.
============================
No it was not. Billions and billions from just 3 power
generators are a known quantity. You may wnat to ignore fact and
reality if you want, but that doesn't make the numbers go away.

>
>>
>> Next you could then start telling us how hydro generators
>> don't kill animals in their turbines either....
>
> No, I know wind turbines kill birds for example.
=====================
Progress. Now, tell me how creating and maintaining new websites
does not increase an already great demand for power generation,
and how that generation is not linked to the entertainment of
said vegans. They have no survival need to be on usenet. It
isn't necessary. So, they are contributing to the unnecessary
deaths of animals for nothing more than their selfish
entertainment.


>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> es that computers/internet usage consumes
>>>>>> between 3% to 15%
>>>>>> of generated power, how many billions of animals is that?
>>>>>> All killed for nothing more than your entertainment here
>>>>>> on internet.
>>>>>> Hypocrisy run amok. Usenet wannbe vegans are such an
>>>>>> ignorant lot.
>>>>> "The tendency of the casual mind is to pick out or stumble
>>>>> upon a sample which supports or defines its prejudices, and
>>>>> then to make it representative of a whole class."
>>>> ============================
>>>> The tendancy of the brainwashed vegan mind is to ignore
>>>> reality and disregard the bloody footprints they track
>>>> about. That is the way of ALL usenet wannbe vegans...
>>>> There is NO survival necessity for anyone that wants to
>>>> claim an ethical superiority to be on usnet, none. It's
>>>> completely unnecessary and an exploitation of animals for no
>>>> more reason than their entertainment.
>>> Who's claimed moral superiority? It wasn't me. - You seem to
>>> be arguing with yourself or some seemingly non existent
>>> 'bogie monster'.
>> ==========================
>> Same as you, huh fool?
>
> Clearly not.
===================
yes, true.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Basically, you've drawn incorrect conclusions from an
>>> inaccurate extrapolation of a non animal product, to support
>>> an incoherent and logically flawed position.
>>> ===================================
>> Nope, not at all. Dead animals, by the billions, directly
>> connected to vegan activities is quite relevent, despite your
>> ignorant protestations...
>
> I think it safe to conclude that most vegans will cause some
> animal deaths, by consuming non animal products like
> electricity. This does not preclude them using the term vegan
> if they wish to.
=======================
man, you really like reading things that aren't there, don't you
fool? Never said they couldn't use the term. I just claim there
are no real vegans on usenet.


>
> If you answer the questions above, I may respond, otherwise I'm
> wasting my time, a bit like kicking shit about until you lose
> it.
==========================
ROTFLMAO You should know all about kicking and spewing shit,
huh? It's all you've come up with so far...



>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) US editor and writer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "ARF" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>> Do you wish to start your own blog about animal rights or
>>>>>>> about being
>>>>>>> vegan?
>>>>>>> Are you custom to the net than leave your favorites at
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> WebDirectory!
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Help send the vegan message out!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Start a blog -
>>>>>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/summary.php
>>>>>>> Leave animal rights and veggie friendly bookmarks -
>>>>>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/directory/
>>>>>>> Join the community -
>>>>>>> http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/
>>>>>>> Leave an AR book review -
>>>>>>> http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/books.php
>>>>>>>
>>

rick wrote:

>
>
>> If you answer the questions above, I may respond, otherwise I'm
>> wasting my time, a bit like kicking shit about until you lose
>> it.
> ==========================
> ROTFLMAO You should know all about kicking and spewing shit,
> huh? It's all you've come up with so far...

I given up kicking this particular turd about.

You have issues that I suggest you take to a psychologist. - It must be
making your life hell, and you're welcome to it.

"Jean Clingfilm" > wrote in message
...
> rick wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> If you answer the questions above, I may respond, otherwise
>>> I'm wasting my time, a bit like kicking shit about until you
>>> lose it.
>> ==========================
>> ROTFLMAO You should know all about kicking and spewing shit,
>> huh? It's all you've come up with so far...
>
> I given up kicking this particular turd about.
>
> You have issues that I suggest you take to a psychologist. - It
> must be making your life hell, and you're welcome to it.
>====================
I suggest you check out reality sometime. You'll be amazed at
what you're missing, fool.

================================================== ================J
Jean, I too went to this web site, looking for help after accidentally
eating meat after years as a vegetarian, and was attacked by this
P-Rick individual. He is woefully ignorant and toxic, I too have
recommended therapy to him. I would just ignore him, he is the wrong
place, not you. Turq

Jean Clingfilm wrote:
> rick wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> If you answer the questions above, I may respond, otherwise I'm
> >> wasting my time, a bit like kicking shit about until you lose
> >> it.
> > ==========================
> > ROTFLMAO You should know all about kicking and spewing shit,
> > huh? It's all you've come up with so far...
>
> I given up kicking this particular turd about.
>
> You have issues that I suggest you take to a psychologist. - It must be
> making your life hell, and you're welcome to it.

"turq" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> ================================================== ================J
> Jean, I too went to this web site,
==========================
This is NOT a website you ignorant fool. It's usenet, a
newsgroup...
Your diet has seriously affected you mental abilities, killer.



looking for help after accidentally
> eating meat after years as a vegetarian, and was attacked by
> this
> P-Rick individual. He is woefully ignorant and toxic, I too
> have
> recommended therapy to him. I would just ignore him, he is the
> wrong
> place, not you. Turq
===============================
ROTFLMAO hardly fool. The only one here that needs an education
is you. The propaganda that you've been brainwashed into
believing has rotted what remains of your braincells. And those
2 remaining ones are going fast, hypocrite...


>
> Jean Clingfilm wrote:
>> rick wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> If you answer the questions above, I may respond, otherwise
>> >> I'm
>> >> wasting my time, a bit like kicking shit about until you
>> >> lose
>> >> it.
>> > ==========================
>> > ROTFLMAO You should know all about kicking and spewing
>> > shit,
>> > huh? It's all you've come up with so far...
>>
>> I given up kicking this particular turd about.
>>
>> You have issues that I suggest you take to a psychologist. -
>> It must be
>> making your life hell, and you're welcome to it.
>

================================================== ======================Little
Dickie, little lost boy, can you get one, just one, or maybe PART of
one thing right? Little tiny man, I don't think so, but I'll try
again.You have yrself a meltdown because I mis-spoke, called it a
website. WWWWWHOOOOOOOO!!!!! I started out saying I was a tyro at
on-line-groups, that this was my first question to cyber space, to a
vegan site, and I'm answered by a nasty little troll like you that has
no business being here in the first place..You've never made a point or
stated a fact, just called names, and they ARE getting boring, at least
get out yr Thesaurus and expand yr venemous tirade.......wait, no ,
just stay in yr old familiar rant. What a horrible little life you must
lead, that forces such hatred out of you to all and any, for no reason
at all. Poor sad, sick little man.Ugh.
=============================================
rick wrote:
> "turq" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > ================================================== ================J
> > Jean, I too went to this web site,
> ==========================
> This is NOT a website you ignorant fool. It's usenet, a
> newsgroup...
> Your diet has seriously affected you mental abilities, killer.
>
>
>
> looking for help after accidentally
> > eating meat after years as a vegetarian, and was attacked by
> > this
> > P-Rick individual. He is woefully ignorant and toxic, I too
> > have
> > recommended therapy to him. I would just ignore him, he is the
> > wrong
> > place, not you. Turq
> ===============================
> ROTFLMAO hardly fool. The only one here that needs an education
> is you. The propaganda that you've been brainwashed into
> believing has rotted what remains of your braincells. And those
> 2 remaining ones are going fast, hypocrite...
>
>
> >
> > Jean Clingfilm wrote:
> >> rick wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> If you answer the questions above, I may respond, otherwise
> >> >> I'm
> >> >> wasting my time, a bit like kicking shit about until you
> >> >> lose
> >> >> it.
> >> > ==========================
> >> > ROTFLMAO You should know all about kicking and spewing
> >> > shit,
> >> > huh? It's all you've come up with so far...
> >>
> >> I given up kicking this particular turd about.
> >>
> >> You have issues that I suggest you take to a psychologist. -
> >> It must be
> >> making your life hell, and you're welcome to it.
> >

turq wrote:
> ================================================== ================J
> Jean, I too went to this web site, looking for help after accidentally
> eating meat after years as a vegetarian, and was attacked by this
> P-Rick individual. He is woefully ignorant and toxic, I too have
> recommended therapy to him. I would just ignore him, he is the wrong
> place, not you. Turq

Thanks for your comments. I agree; he's an ignorant baffoon.

He's like a person who just keeps shouting; after a while nobody listens.

He's the one with the problem, and it's one that is probably harming him.


>
> Jean Clingfilm wrote:
>> rick wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> If you answer the questions above, I may respond, otherwise I'm
>>>> wasting my time, a bit like kicking shit about until you lose
>>>> it.
>>> ==========================
>>> ROTFLMAO You should know all about kicking and spewing shit,
>>> huh? It's all you've come up with so far...
>> I given up kicking this particular turd about.
>>
>> You have issues that I suggest you take to a psychologist. - It must be
>> making your life hell, and you're welcome to it.
>

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 13:01:03 +0000, Jean Clingfilm > wrote:

>rick wrote:
>> "Jean Clingfilm" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> ontheroad wrote:
>>>> This is always quite amusing. Willfully contributing to the
>>>> contiuned demand for more and more dead animals for nothing
>>>> more than selfish entertainmnet.
>>>> Again, there are NO real vegans on usenet. try looking up the
>>>> meaning of the word as defined by the guy who coined it,
>>>> Donald Watson.
>>> "..abstention from the use of all animal products.."
>> =======================
>> Not quite. Why leave out the part "excludes all forms of
>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom" That part
>> doesn't quite fit the vegan brainwashing spew?
>
>'Ontheroad' (or was it you?), asked for Donald Watson's definition. You
>for some reason have produced another.

What do you have against the one he produced?

>Also electrical generation does not 'exploit', is not 'cruel' to
>animals.

Yes it does, but you obviously don't care that it does. Duh!!!

>It is not, on the whole, an animal commodity.

That doesn't have a thing to do with it. You just can't
care about human influence on animals. Some can, you
can't.

>> Here it is...
>>
>> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
>> a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
>> products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
>> fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
>> encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
>> wholly or in part from animals..."
>>
>> You'll note that diet is not anymore or less important than any
>> other aspect of a real vegan lifestyle.
>>
>>>> Here's what i'm talking about fool. Here's a site that
>>>> discusses the 3 BILLION animals that die every year from the
>>>> production of power at just 3 generators.
>>>> That's just 3! out of ,more than 13000 in the US alone.
>>>> http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm
>>>
>>> Electricity is not the use of an animal product per se.
>> ========================
>> ROTFLMAO But killing billions of them for unnecessary reasons is
>> quite alright by you, huh? Like I said, there are no real vegans
>> on usenet...
>> I submit that a person that lives on game and grass-fed beef and
>> ins't online causes far far fewer animal deaths than you even
>> wet-dream about saving...
>
>
>You'll need to supply evidence of that claim. For a start, I've made no
>claim of saving animals. ask yourself questions like, how much energy
>does the production of the meat need, including fertilisers, processing,
>transport, water, supplemental nutrition, breeding and releasing 'game'
>to the wild etc.
>
>You also need to consider the issue holistically. Rather than apply an
>exception, hypothesize the effect of a particular lifestyle may have if
>applied generally. Do you really think it a good idea that everyone
>start consuming wild game?

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:
http://tinyurl.com/k6sku

and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:
http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5

Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:
http://tinyurl.com/otp5l

In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3

and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3

Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·
http://tinyurl.com/q7whm