On May 6, 11:37 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On May 5, 4:57 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >> Jon Enslin wrote:
> >>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
> >>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
> >>>> How exactly - force feeding?
> >>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are dying.
> >>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just like
> >>>> Santa once gave you presents.
> >>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us animals
> >>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
> >> Spelling's not a notable feature of r.s.f.c.
>
> > Children's lives are at steak and your worrying about grammar.
> > Typical vegan.
>
> I think you mean "at STAKE", and YOU'RE.
>
> Typical r.s.f.c.

Another grammer/speeling flame from a loony vegan. Thank you
for confirming my point.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> You don't understand the basics, so it's not worth pursuing. (I'm sure
> >> you think God is a old white man with beard, just like Santa and uncle Sam).
>
> >>> Jon- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Quiet, -- I'm transmitting rage.

> On May 6, 11:37 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > On May 5, 4:57 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> >> Jon Enslin wrote:
>> >>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> >>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>> >>>>>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>> >>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
>> >>>> How exactly - force feeding?
>> >>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now
>> >>>>> babies are dying.
>> >>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just
>> >>>> like Santa once gave you presents.
>> >>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us
>> >>> animals if not to eat them? They taste good and they are
>> >>> nutriious!
>> >> Spelling's not a notable feature of r.s.f.c.
>>
>> > Children's lives are at steak and your worrying about grammar.
>> > Typical vegan.
>>
>> I think you mean "at STAKE", and YOU'RE.
>>
>> Typical r.s.f.c.
>
> Another grammer/speeling flame from a loony vegan. Thank you
> for confirming my point.
>

You misplet "spelling".

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

Play like your couch is on fire!

wrote:
> On May 6, 11:37 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On May 5, 4:57 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>>>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>>>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
>>>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
>>>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are dying.
>>>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just like
>>>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
>>>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us animals
>>>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
>>>> Spelling's not a notable feature of r.s.f.c.
>>> Children's lives are at steak and your worrying about grammar.
>>> Typical vegan.
>> I think you mean "at STAKE", and YOU'RE.
>>
>> Typical r.s.f.c.
>
> Another grammer/speeling flame from a loony vegan. Thank you
> for confirming my point.

Not a flame. I'm not a vegan. I'm not a loony. - You really must try
harder, but I guess you're used to people telling you that.

(BTW your purposeful use of bad spelling to camouflage your penultimate
set of errors was noted, but dismissed.)

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> You don't understand the basics, so it's not worth pursuing. (I'm sure
>>>> you think God is a old white man with beard, just like Santa and uncle Sam).
>>>>> Jon- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>

On May 6, 11:51 am, James Schrumpf
> wrote:
> Quiet, -- I'm transmitting rage.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 11:37 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> > On May 5, 4:57 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >> >> Jon Enslin wrote:
> >> >>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >> >>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
> >> >>>>>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
> >> >>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
> >> >>>> How exactly - force feeding?
> >> >>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now
> >> >>>>> babies are dying.
> >> >>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just
> >> >>>> like Santa once gave you presents.
> >> >>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us
> >> >>> animals if not to eat them? They taste good and they are
> >> >>> nutriious!
> >> >> Spelling's not a notable feature of r.s.f.c.
>
> >> > Children's lives are at steak and your worrying about grammar.
> >> > Typical vegan.
>
> >> I think you mean "at STAKE", and YOU'RE.
>
> >> Typical r.s.f.c.
>
> > Another grammer/speeling flame from a loony vegan. Thank you
> > for confirming my point.
>
> You misplet "spelling".

Like a hick from West Virginnie can lecture me on speeling.....

>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
>
> Play like your couch is on fire!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On May 6, 11:59 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On May 6, 11:37 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> On May 5, 4:57 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
> >>>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
> >>>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
> >>>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
> >>>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are dying.
> >>>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just like
> >>>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
> >>>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us animals
> >>>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
> >>>> Spelling's not a notable feature of r.s.f.c.
> >>> Children's lives are at steak and your worrying about grammar.
> >>> Typical vegan.
> >> I think you mean "at STAKE", and YOU'RE.
>
> >> Typical r.s.f.c.
>
> > Another grammer/speeling flame from a loony vegan. Thank you
> > for confirming my point.
>
> Not a flame. I'm not a vegan. I'm not a loony. - You really must try
> harder, but I guess you're used to people telling you that.
>
> (BTW your purposeful use of bad spelling to camouflage your penultimate
> set of errors was noted, but dismissed.)

I guess my errors become penultimate after you poast.

>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> You don't understand the basics, so it's not worth pursuing. (I'm sure
> >>>> you think God is a old white man with beard, just like Santa and uncle Sam).
> >>>>> Jon- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Swage Polymer > wrote:

>
>So animals, have no cognisant thought, no emotion, no ability to reason?
>If you think that, then again you are wrong. Just have look for the
>animal studies that show animals have emotion, thought and can reason.
>
>You have been culturally conditioned to believe in things that have no
>factual basis, and continue to adapt and reinterpret those beliefs to
>suit your lifestyle at the cost of other beings.

Anybody who uses the phrase "culturally conditioned" obviously watches
too much NPR, and has a high probability of having teh ghey.

Archie Leach wrote:
> Swage Polymer > wrote:
>
>> So animals, have no cognisant thought, no emotion, no ability to reason?
>> If you think that, then again you are wrong. Just have look for the
>> animal studies that show animals have emotion, thought and can reason.
>>
>> You have been culturally conditioned to believe in things that have no
>> factual basis, and continue to adapt and reinterpret those beliefs to
>> suit your lifestyle at the cost of other beings.
>
> Anybody who uses the phrase "culturally conditioned" obviously watches
> too much NPR, and has a high probability of having teh ghey.
>
>

Argumentum ad hominem

>
>

On Sat, 05 May 2007 20:24:54 +0100, Swage Polymer > wrote:

>Jon Enslin wrote:
>> On May 5, 3:57 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
>>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
>>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are dying.
>>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just like
>>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
>>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us animals
>>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
>>> Spelling's not a notable feature of r.s.f.c.
>>>
>>> You don't understand the basics, so it's not worth pursuing. (I'm sure
>>> you think God is a old white man with beard, just like Santa and uncle Sam).
>>
>>
>> If you ca'nt answer the question, why bother responding at all?
>
>The 'question' makes no sense, as it's based on fallacies and incorrect
>preconceptions.
>
>Perhaps (as a starting point) you should read a book like "Dominion: The
>Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy" by
>Matthew Scully.

Read this instead...it's shorter but still informative:

· 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

On May 7, 9:03 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2007 20:24:54 +0100, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >JonEnslinwrote:
> >> On May 5, 3:57 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >>> JonEnslinwrote:
> >>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >>>>> JonEnslinwrote:
> >>>>>>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
> >>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
> >>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
> >>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are dying.
> >>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just like
> >>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
> >>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us animals
> >>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
> >>> Spelling's not a notable feature of r.s.f.c.
>
> >>> You don't understand the basics, so it's not worth pursuing. (I'm sure
> >>> you think God is a old white man with beard, just like Santa and uncle Sam).
>
> >> If you ca'nt answer the question, why bother responding at all?
>
> >The 'question' makes no sense, as it's based on fallacies and incorrect
> >preconceptions.
>
> >Perhaps (as a starting point) you should read a book like "Dominion: The
> >Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy" by
> >Matthew Scully.
>
> Read this instead...it's shorter but still informative:
>
> · 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


I think you are worrying way too much about this. Have a beer and
burger and relax a little.

Jon

On May 6, 10:21 am, "Jim Weeks" > wrote:
> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>
> > Feel the Christian love.
>
> Love has nothing to do with you chosing a blind eye to your own prejudice
> and me calling you on it.. if I didn't love, I wouldn't care and if I didn't
> care, we aren't having this conversation. I can't tell you if my God looks
> like a gray headed old man or shetland pony.. thats of little consequence, I
> believe that he made me in his own image, therefore I have to assume he has
> human characteristics.. but those could be the non-physical traits,
> cognicant thought, emotion, the ability to reason...etc..those things that
> seperate us from the tastier beings that share this orb.

Indeed. Two words: "Rudy's"

I love that place big time

With love,
--Jeff

Soon to be on RSFC Classic.

Well done, I say. Well done!

Cheers,
--Jeff

On May 4, 11:35 pm, Jon Enslin > wrote:
> http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>
> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further. God gave us
> animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are dying.
>
> BEWARE! This is clearly one of the signs of the APOCALYPSE!!!
>
> Jon

Babies raised on soy formula are perfectly healthy, although
breastfeeding is preferable. The problem was they fed him soy milk
rather than soy formula. In Australia there is a warning label saying
that soy milk is not suitable as a complete food for children under 2.
I don't know whether this is the case in the US. Obviously if you're
going to raise a baby vegan you should get advice from a qualified
nutritionist, particularly if you're not going to breastfeed.

This is nothing to do with veganism, it is child neglect.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 4, 11:35 pm, Jon Enslin > wrote:
>> http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>>
>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further. God gave us
>> animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are dying.
>>
>> BEWARE! This is clearly one of the signs of the APOCALYPSE!!!
>>
>> Jon
>
> Babies raised on soy formula are perfectly healthy, although
> breastfeeding is preferable. The problem was they fed him soy milk
> rather than soy formula. In Australia there is a warning label saying
> that soy milk is not suitable as a complete food for children under 2.
> I don't know whether this is the case in the US. Obviously if you're
> going to raise a baby vegan you should get advice from a qualified
> nutritionist, particularly if you're not going to breastfeed.
>
> This is nothing to do with veganism, it is child neglect.
>

But for the want of a hamburger...

On May 11, 1:10 pm, "TimV" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 11:35 pm, Jon Enslin > wrote:
> >>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>
> >> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further. God gave us
> >> animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are dying.
>
> >> BEWARE! This is clearly one of the signs of the APOCALYPSE!!!
>
> >> Jon
>
> > Babies raised on soy formula are perfectly healthy, although
> > breastfeeding is preferable. The problem was they fed him soy milk
> > rather than soy formula. In Australia there is a warning label saying
> > that soy milk is not suitable as a complete food for children under 2.
> > I don't know whether this is the case in the US. Obviously if you're
> > going to raise a baby vegan you should get advice from a qualified
> > nutritionist, particularly if you're not going to breastfeed.
>
> > This is nothing to do with veganism, it is child neglect.
>
> But for the want of a hamburger...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is this a joke, is it? A newborn infant can't eat hamburgers. Soy
formula or breast milk would have done just fine. I just heard they
have those warning labels in the US as well. If you're so stupid that
you can't understanding a warning label indicating that a food is not
nutritionally sufficient for a child under 2, then being a meat-eater
isn't going to help you. This case is about extraordinary stupidity,
or deliberate malice, or possibly mental illness. It has nothing to do
with veganism.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 11, 1:10 pm, "TimV" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 4, 11:35 pm, Jon Enslin > wrote:
>> >>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>>
>> >> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further. God gave us
>> >> animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are dying.
>>
>> >> BEWARE! This is clearly one of the signs of the APOCALYPSE!!!
>>
>> >> Jon
>>
>> > Babies raised on soy formula are perfectly healthy, although
>> > breastfeeding is preferable. The problem was they fed him soy milk
>> > rather than soy formula. In Australia there is a warning label saying
>> > that soy milk is not suitable as a complete food for children under 2.
>> > I don't know whether this is the case in the US. Obviously if you're
>> > going to raise a baby vegan you should get advice from a qualified
>> > nutritionist, particularly if you're not going to breastfeed.
>>
>> > This is nothing to do with veganism, it is child neglect.
>>
>> But for the want of a hamburger...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Is this a joke, is it? A newborn infant can't eat hamburgers. Soy
> formula or breast milk would have done just fine. I just heard they
> have those warning labels in the US as well. If you're so stupid that
> you can't understanding a warning label indicating that a food is not
> nutritionally sufficient for a child under 2, then being a meat-eater
> isn't going to help you. This case is about extraordinary stupidity,
> or deliberate malice, or possibly mental illness. It has nothing to do
> with veganism.
>

Then, for the want of a hotdog...

On May 11, 1:26 pm, "TimV" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 1:10 pm, "TimV" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> groups.com...
>
> >> > On May 4, 11:35 pm, Jon Enslin > wrote:
> >> >>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>
> >> >> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further. God gave us
> >> >> animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are dying.
>
> >> >> BEWARE! This is clearly one of the signs of the APOCALYPSE!!!
>
> >> >> Jon
>
> >> > Babies raised on soy formula are perfectly healthy, although
> >> > breastfeeding is preferable. The problem was they fed him soy milk
> >> > rather than soy formula. In Australia there is a warning label saying
> >> > that soy milk is not suitable as a complete food for children under 2.
> >> > I don't know whether this is the case in the US. Obviously if you're
> >> > going to raise a baby vegan you should get advice from a qualified
> >> > nutritionist, particularly if you're not going to breastfeed.
>
> >> > This is nothing to do with veganism, it is child neglect.
>
> >> But for the want of a hamburger...- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Is this a joke, is it? A newborn infant can't eat hamburgers. Soy
> > formula or breast milk would have done just fine. I just heard they
> > have those warning labels in the US as well. If you're so stupid that
> > you can't understanding a warning label indicating that a food is not
> > nutritionally sufficient for a child under 2, then being a meat-eater
> > isn't going to help you. This case is about extraordinary stupidity,
> > or deliberate malice, or possibly mental illness. It has nothing to do
> > with veganism.
>
> Then, for the want of a hotdog...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ever tried vegan hot dogs?

This case is about extraordinary stupidity,
> or deliberate malice, or possibly mental illness. It has nothing to do
> with veganism.
>=============
Hey, you just defined veganism perfectly, Thanks....

On May 11, 1:26 pm, "TimV" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 1:10 pm, "TimV" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> groups.com...
>
> >> > On May 4, 11:35 pm, Jon Enslin > wrote:
> >> >>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>
> >> >> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further. God gave us
> >> >> animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are dying.
>
> >> >> BEWARE! This is clearly one of the signs of the APOCALYPSE!!!
>
> >> >> Jon
>
> >> > Babies raised on soy formula are perfectly healthy, although
> >> > breastfeeding is preferable. The problem was they fed him soy milk
> >> > rather than soy formula. In Australia there is a warning label saying
> >> > that soy milk is not suitable as a complete food for children under 2.
> >> > I don't know whether this is the case in the US. Obviously if you're
> >> > going to raise a baby vegan you should get advice from a qualified
> >> > nutritionist, particularly if you're not going to breastfeed.
>
> >> > This is nothing to do with veganism, it is child neglect.
>
> >> But for the want of a hamburger...- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Is this a joke, is it? A newborn infant can't eat hamburgers. Soy
> > formula or breast milk would have done just fine. I just heard they
> > have those warning labels in the US as well. If you're so stupid that
> > you can't understanding a warning label indicating that a food is not
> > nutritionally sufficient for a child under 2, then being a meat-eater
> > isn't going to help you. This case is about extraordinary stupidity,
> > or deliberate malice, or possibly mental illness. It has nothing to do
> > with veganism.
>
> Then, for the want of a hotdog...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

One thing is certain in this case. If the parents were a bit more
moronic than they showed themselves to be, i.e. like you, and gace the
baby a hotdog there is no doubt the baby would have died much sooner.

On May 11, 2:20 pm, "ontheroad" > wrote:
> This case is about extraordinary stupidity,> or deliberate malice, or possibly mental illness. It has nothing to do
> > with veganism.
> >=============
>
> Hey, you just defined veganism perfectly, Thanks....

Hey, you have just defined 'moron' for me. Thanks

On May 6, 6:03 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> Jim Weeks wrote:
> > "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Jim Weeks wrote:
> >>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
> >>>>> On May 4, 9:46 pm, John Rogers > wrote:
> >>>>>> Jon Enslin >... by Grabthar's hammer, by the Sons
> >>>>>> of Warvan, you shall be avenged!
>
> >>>>>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
> >>>>>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
> >>>>>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
> >>>>>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now
> >>>>>>>>> babies are dying.
> >>>>>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just like
> >>>>>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
> >>>>>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us animals
> >>>>>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
> >>>>>> I've got a definite feeling that the idot your responding to doesn't
> >>>>>> have Bibel.
> >>>>> So he is a vegan atheist? That's pretty much beyond hope.
> >>>> I'm not a vegan and I'm not an atheist. - You're not doing very well are
> >>>> you?
> >>> well what are you then?
> >> I can not prove or disprove the existence of the deity quoted; therefore
> >> the nearest classification, if you need one would be an agnostic.
>
> > can you prove the existence of Julius Cesaer or Atilla the Hun?
>
> I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to say that these
> people did exist. This evidence could be used to prove they existed, but
> I'm not going to waste my time with that.
>
> I quite content that you believe in imaginary old white bearded men that
> 'say' you can eat animals. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
>
>

That's not correct--it's
"IF ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."


Peach

On May 11, 1:14 am, wrote:
> On May 11, 2:20 pm, "ontheroad" > wrote:
>
> > This case is about extraordinary stupidity,> or deliberate malice, or possibly mental illness. It has nothing to do
> > > with veganism.
> > >=============
>
> > Hey, you just defined veganism perfectly, Thanks....
>
> Hey, you have just defined 'moron' for me. Thanks

So.....you're saying that vegans are morons?

They might be killers, but morons is a little harsh isn't it?

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 11, 1:26 pm, "TimV" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 11, 1:10 pm, "TimV" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> groups.com...
>>
>> >> > On May 4, 11:35 pm, Jon Enslin > wrote:
>> >> >>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>>
>> >> >> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further. God gave us
>> >> >> animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are
>> >> >> dying.
>>
>> >> >> BEWARE! This is clearly one of the signs of the APOCALYPSE!!!
>>
>> >> >> Jon
>>
>> >> > Babies raised on soy formula are perfectly healthy, although
>> >> > breastfeeding is preferable. The problem was they fed him soy milk
>> >> > rather than soy formula. In Australia there is a warning label
>> >> > saying
>> >> > that soy milk is not suitable as a complete food for children under
>> >> > 2.
>> >> > I don't know whether this is the case in the US. Obviously if you're
>> >> > going to raise a baby vegan you should get advice from a qualified
>> >> > nutritionist, particularly if you're not going to breastfeed.
>>
>> >> > This is nothing to do with veganism, it is child neglect.
>>
>> >> But for the want of a hamburger...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Is this a joke, is it? A newborn infant can't eat hamburgers. Soy
>> > formula or breast milk would have done just fine. I just heard they
>> > have those warning labels in the US as well. If you're so stupid that
>> > you can't understanding a warning label indicating that a food is not
>> > nutritionally sufficient for a child under 2, then being a meat-eater
>> > isn't going to help you. This case is about extraordinary stupidity,
>> > or deliberate malice, or possibly mental illness. It has nothing to do
>> > with veganism.
>>
>> Then, for the want of a hotdog...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> One thing is certain in this case. If the parents were a bit more
> moronic than they showed themselves to be, i.e. like you, and gace the
> baby a hotdog there is no doubt the baby would have died much sooner.
>

Ok, for the want of bacon. Even turkey bacon since that isn't really meat.

T

In rec.sport.football.college TimV > sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On May 11, 1:26 pm, "TimV" > wrote:
>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On May 11, 1:10 pm, "TimV" > wrote:
>>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> groups.com...
>>>
>>> >> > On May 4, 11:35 pm, Jon Enslin > wrote:
>>> >> >>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>>>
>>> >> >> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further. God gave us
>>> >> >> animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are
>>> >> >> dying.
>>>
>>> >> >> BEWARE! This is clearly one of the signs of the APOCALYPSE!!!
>>>
>>> >> >> Jon
>>>
>>> >> > Babies raised on soy formula are perfectly healthy, although
>>> >> > breastfeeding is preferable. The problem was they fed him soy milk
>>> >> > rather than soy formula. In Australia there is a warning label
>>> >> > saying
>>> >> > that soy milk is not suitable as a complete food for children under
>>> >> > 2.
>>> >> > I don't know whether this is the case in the US. Obviously if you're
>>> >> > going to raise a baby vegan you should get advice from a qualified
>>> >> > nutritionist, particularly if you're not going to breastfeed.
>>>
>>> >> > This is nothing to do with veganism, it is child neglect.
>>>
>>> >> But for the want of a hamburger...- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> > Is this a joke, is it? A newborn infant can't eat hamburgers. Soy
>>> > formula or breast milk would have done just fine. I just heard they
>>> > have those warning labels in the US as well. If you're so stupid that
>>> > you can't understanding a warning label indicating that a food is not
>>> > nutritionally sufficient for a child under 2, then being a meat-eater
>>> > isn't going to help you. This case is about extraordinary stupidity,
>>> > or deliberate malice, or possibly mental illness. It has nothing to do
>>> > with veganism.
>>>
>>> Then, for the want of a hotdog...- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> One thing is certain in this case. If the parents were a bit more
>> moronic than they showed themselves to be, i.e. like you, and gace the
>> baby a hotdog there is no doubt the baby would have died much sooner.

> Ok, for the want of bacon. Even turkey bacon since that isn't really meat.

I don't remember how old my kids were when they first ate bacon, but
it was fairly young. They get hot dogs as part of their lunch several
times a month. Do vegans allow their under-5 children to eat hot dogs
regularly?

rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ --I am sick of the self-absorbed city of New York.

Peach wrote:
> On May 6, 6:03 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 4, 9:46 pm, John Rogers > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin >... by Grabthar's hammer, by the Sons
>>>>>>>> of Warvan, you shall be avenged!
>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>>>>>>>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
>>>>>>>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
>>>>>>>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now
>>>>>>>>>>> babies are dying.
>>>>>>>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just like
>>>>>>>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
>>>>>>>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us animals
>>>>>>>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
>>>>>>>> I've got a definite feeling that the idot your responding to doesn't
>>>>>>>> have Bibel.
>>>>>>> So he is a vegan atheist? That's pretty much beyond hope.
>>>>>> I'm not a vegan and I'm not an atheist. - You're not doing very well are
>>>>>> you?
>>>>> well what are you then?
>>>> I can not prove or disprove the existence of the deity quoted; therefore
>>>> the nearest classification, if you need one would be an agnostic.
>>> can you prove the existence of Julius Cesaer or Atilla the Hun?
>> I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to say that these
>> people did exist. This evidence could be used to prove they existed, but
>> I'm not going to waste my time with that.
>>
>> I quite content that you believe in imaginary old white bearded men that
>> 'say' you can eat animals. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
>>
>>
>
> That's not correct--it's
> "IF ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."
>
>
> Peach

Thanks; I did not know the root of the commonly used phrase "Ignorance
is bliss".

"Every day is a school day" as *some* people say.


>

On May 10, 8:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On May 11, 1:26 pm, "TimV" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > > On May 11, 1:10 pm, "TimV" > wrote:
> > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> > groups.com...
>
> > >> > On May 4, 11:35 pm, Jon Enslin > wrote:
> > >> >>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>
> > >> >> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further. God gave us
> > >> >> animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are dying.
>
> > >> >> BEWARE! This is clearly one of the signs of the APOCALYPSE!!!
>
> > >> >> Jon
>
> > >> > Babies raised on soy formula are perfectly healthy, although
> > >> > breastfeeding is preferable. The problem was they fed him soy milk
> > >> > rather than soy formula. In Australia there is a warning label saying
> > >> > that soy milk is not suitable as a complete food for children under 2.
> > >> > I don't know whether this is the case in the US. Obviously if you're
> > >> > going to raise a baby vegan you should get advice from a qualified
> > >> > nutritionist, particularly if you're not going to breastfeed.
>
> > >> > This is nothing to do with veganism, it is child neglect.
>
> > >> But for the want of a hamburger...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Is this a joke, is it? A newborn infant can't eat hamburgers. Soy
> > > formula or breast milk would have done just fine. I just heard they
> > > have those warning labels in the US as well. If you're so stupid that
> > > you can't understanding a warning label indicating that a food is not
> > > nutritionally sufficient for a child under 2, then being a meat-eater
> > > isn't going to help you. This case is about extraordinary stupidity,
> > > or deliberate malice, or possibly mental illness. It has nothing to do
> > > with veganism.
>
> > Then, for the want of a hotdog...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ever tried vegan hot dogs?

Why do vegans make their food look like meat? Do they feel like they
are missing out on something? Afterall, you don't see anyone making a
veal cutlet look like a bananna.

On May 6, 8:33 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> Jim Weeks wrote:
> > "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Jim Weeks wrote:
> >>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
> >>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On May 4, 9:46 pm, John Rogers > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin >... by Grabthar's hammer, by the
> >>>>>>>>>> Sons
> >>>>>>>>>> of Warvan, you shall be avenged!
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> babies are dying.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just
> >>>>>>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
> >>>>>>>>>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us
> >>>>>>>>>>> animals
> >>>>>>>>>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
> >>>>>>>>>> I've got a definite feeling that the idot your responding to
> >>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>> have Bibel.
> >>>>>>>>> So he is a vegan atheist? That's pretty much beyond hope.
> >>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan and I'm not an atheist. - You're not doing very well
> >>>>>>>> are you?
> >>>>>>> well what are you then?
> >>>>>> I can not prove or disprove the existence of the deity quoted;
> >>>>>> therefore the nearest classification, if you need one would be an
> >>>>>> agnostic.
> >>>>> can you prove the existence of Julius Cesaer or Atilla the Hun?
> >>>> I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to say that these
> >>>> people did exist. This evidence could be used to prove they existed, but
> >>>> I'm not going to waste my time with that.
>
> >>> yet there are hundreds upon thousands more points of evidence that God
> >>> exists.. you just choose what evidence you want to believe.. how
> >>> convienent.
>
> >>> so this your world..you obviously made it, you gave yourself life and
> >>> you control when your heart beats and when it stops then.. good luck with
> >>> that.
> >> Feel the Christian love.
>
> > Love has nothing to do with you chosing a blind eye to your own prejudice
> > and me calling you on it..
>
> Nothing prejudiced, just facts. You have 'called me' on nothing. I have
> my eyes wide open, you blindly follow others, and a very old book.
>
> >if I didn't love, I wouldn't care and if I didn't
> > care, we aren't having this conversation.
>
> What are saying; you love me? Steady on, we've only just met.
>
> >I can't tell you if my God looks
> > like a gray headed old man or shetland pony.. thats of little consequence, I
> > believe that he made me in his own image, therefore I have to assume he has
> > human characteristics.. but those could be the non-physical traits,
> > cognicant thought, emotion, the ability to reason...etc..those things that
> > seperate us from the tastier beings that share this orb.
>
> Are you saying that 'image' is a 'non visible representation' of
> thoughts, emotions and the ability to reason to suit your argument? If
> you are, then you are wrong. - The definition of image is a 'visible
> representation'.
>
> So animals, have no cognisant thought, no emotion, no ability to reason?
> If you think that, then again you are wrong. Just have look for the
> animal studies that show animals have emotion, thought and can reason.


Or listen to the Pope, who said dogs have a sole. Pigs have baby back
ribs.

>
> You have been culturally conditioned to believe in things that have no
> factual basis, and continue to adapt and reinterpret those beliefs to
> suit your lifestyle at the cost of other beings.


They were given to us by God for our use.

lein wrote:
> On May 6, 8:33 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 9:46 pm, John Rogers > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin >... by Grabthar's hammer, by the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sons
>>>>>>>>>>>> of Warvan, you shall be avenged!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> babies are dying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us
>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've got a definite feeling that the idot your responding to
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> have Bibel.
>>>>>>>>>>> So he is a vegan atheist? That's pretty much beyond hope.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan and I'm not an atheist. - You're not doing very well
>>>>>>>>>> are you?
>>>>>>>>> well what are you then?
>>>>>>>> I can not prove or disprove the existence of the deity quoted;
>>>>>>>> therefore the nearest classification, if you need one would be an
>>>>>>>> agnostic.
>>>>>>> can you prove the existence of Julius Cesaer or Atilla the Hun?
>>>>>> I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to say that these
>>>>>> people did exist. This evidence could be used to prove they existed, but
>>>>>> I'm not going to waste my time with that.
>>>>> yet there are hundreds upon thousands more points of evidence that God
>>>>> exists.. you just choose what evidence you want to believe.. how
>>>>> convienent.
>>>>> so this your world..you obviously made it, you gave yourself life and
>>>>> you control when your heart beats and when it stops then.. good luck with
>>>>> that.
>>>> Feel the Christian love.
>>> Love has nothing to do with you chosing a blind eye to your own prejudice
>>> and me calling you on it..
>> Nothing prejudiced, just facts. You have 'called me' on nothing. I have
>> my eyes wide open, you blindly follow others, and a very old book.
>>
>>> if I didn't love, I wouldn't care and if I didn't
>>> care, we aren't having this conversation.
>> What are saying; you love me? Steady on, we've only just met.
>>
>>> I can't tell you if my God looks
>>> like a gray headed old man or shetland pony.. thats of little consequence, I
>>> believe that he made me in his own image, therefore I have to assume he has
>>> human characteristics.. but those could be the non-physical traits,
>>> cognicant thought, emotion, the ability to reason...etc..those things that
>>> seperate us from the tastier beings that share this orb.
>> Are you saying that 'image' is a 'non visible representation' of
>> thoughts, emotions and the ability to reason to suit your argument? If
>> you are, then you are wrong. - The definition of image is a 'visible
>> representation'.
>>
>> So animals, have no cognisant thought, no emotion, no ability to reason?
>> If you think that, then again you are wrong. Just have look for the
>> animal studies that show animals have emotion, thought and can reason.
>
>
> Or listen to the Pope, who said dogs have a sole. Pigs have baby back
> ribs.

Dogs have soles; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paw . - However, I
guess you meant 'soul' but that sort of error is expected in RSFC.


>
>> You have been culturally conditioned to believe in things that have no
>> factual basis, and continue to adapt and reinterpret those beliefs to
>> suit your lifestyle at the cost of other beings.
>
>
> They were given to us by God for our use.

Just like Santa gave you presents, another non existent old white man
with a beard hands out things that seem to keep you happy.

>
>

On May 13, 1:23 am, lein > wrote:
> On May 10, 8:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 1:26 pm, "TimV" > wrote:
>
> > > "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> > oups.com...
>
> > > > On May 11, 1:10 pm, "TimV" > wrote:
> > > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> > > groups.com...
>
> > > >> > On May 4, 11:35 pm, Jon Enslin > wrote:
> > > >> >>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>
> > > >> >> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further. God gave us
> > > >> >> animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are dying.
>
> > > >> >> BEWARE! This is clearly one of the signs of the APOCALYPSE!!!
>
> > > >> >> Jon
>
> > > >> > Babies raised on soy formula are perfectly healthy, although
> > > >> > breastfeeding is preferable. The problem was they fed him soy milk
> > > >> > rather than soy formula. In Australia there is a warning label saying
> > > >> > that soy milk is not suitable as a complete food for children under 2.
> > > >> > I don't know whether this is the case in the US. Obviously if you're
> > > >> > going to raise a baby vegan you should get advice from a qualified
> > > >> > nutritionist, particularly if you're not going to breastfeed.
>
> > > >> > This is nothing to do with veganism, it is child neglect.
>
> > > >> But for the want of a hamburger...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Is this a joke, is it? A newborn infant can't eat hamburgers. Soy
> > > > formula or breast milk would have done just fine. I just heard they
> > > > have those warning labels in the US as well. If you're so stupid that
> > > > you can't understanding a warning label indicating that a food is not
> > > > nutritionally sufficient for a child under 2, then being a meat-eater
> > > > isn't going to help you. This case is about extraordinary stupidity,
> > > > or deliberate malice, or possibly mental illness. It has nothing to do
> > > > with veganism.
>
> > > Then, for the want of a hotdog...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ever tried vegan hot dogs?
>
> Why do vegans make their food look like meat? Do they feel like they
> are missing out on something? Afterall, you don't see anyone making a
> veal cutlet look like a bananna.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, only some vegans eat meat substitutes, and there's a limit to
how much they resemble actual meat. But, anyway, why shouldn't they
eat food that looks like meat?

On 7 May 2007 19:55:06 -0700, Jon Enslin > wrote:

>On May 7, 9:03 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 May 2007 20:24:54 +0100, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> >JonEnslinwrote:
>> >> On May 5, 3:57 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> >>> JonEnslinwrote:
>> >>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> >>>>> JonEnslinwrote:
>> >>>>>>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>> >>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
>> >>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
>> >>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now babies are dying.
>> >>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just like
>> >>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
>> >>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us animals
>> >>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
>> >>> Spelling's not a notable feature of r.s.f.c.
>>
>> >>> You don't understand the basics, so it's not worth pursuing. (I'm sure
>> >>> you think God is a old white man with beard, just like Santa and uncle Sam).
>>
>> >> If you ca'nt answer the question, why bother responding at all?
>>
>> >The 'question' makes no sense, as it's based on fallacies and incorrect
>> >preconceptions.
>>
>> >Perhaps (as a starting point) you should read a book like "Dominion: The
>> >Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy" by
>> >Matthew Scully.
>>
>> Read this instead...it's shorter but still informative:
>>
>> · 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
>
>
>I think you are worrying way too much about this.

You can't tell how worried I am about it. What I posted above
is something I regularly present because it's an aspect of human
influence on animals that veg*n/"ar" type people do *not* want
everyone to think about, and I do want everyone to think about.

>Have a beer and burger and relax a little.

I'll have some beer in a few hours, but will probably have fish
or chicken instead of a burger.

>dh@. wrote in message ...

Genesis 4:3-5
Genesis 9:3
Exodus 12:5-14
Leviticus 1:5-9
Leviticus 12:6-8
Deuteronomy 12:15
Deuteronomy 14:4-20
1 Kings 8:5, 8:63
Mark 7:18-19
Mark 14:12-14
Luke 2:22-24
Luke 24:42-43
Acts 10:13-15
Romans 14:2-6
1 Corinthians 10:25-26

On May 12, 9:41 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> lein wrote:
> > On May 6, 8:33 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >> Jim Weeks wrote:
> >>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
> >>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >>>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 9:46 pm, John Rogers > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin >... by Grabthar's hammer, by the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sons
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of Warvan, you shall be avenged!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> babies are dying.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> animals
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I've got a definite feeling that the idot your responding to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have Bibel.
> >>>>>>>>>>> So he is a vegan atheist? That's pretty much beyond hope.
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan and I'm not an atheist. - You're not doing very well
> >>>>>>>>>> are you?
> >>>>>>>>> well what are you then?
> >>>>>>>> I can not prove or disprove the existence of the deity quoted;
> >>>>>>>> therefore the nearest classification, if you need one would be an
> >>>>>>>> agnostic.
> >>>>>>> can you prove the existence of Julius Cesaer or Atilla the Hun?
> >>>>>> I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to say that these
> >>>>>> people did exist. This evidence could be used to prove they existed, but
> >>>>>> I'm not going to waste my time with that.
> >>>>> yet there are hundreds upon thousands more points of evidence that God
> >>>>> exists.. you just choose what evidence you want to believe.. how
> >>>>> convienent.
> >>>>> so this your world..you obviously made it, you gave yourself life and
> >>>>> you control when your heart beats and when it stops then.. good luck with
> >>>>> that.
> >>>> Feel the Christian love.
> >>> Love has nothing to do with you chosing a blind eye to your own prejudice
> >>> and me calling you on it..
> >> Nothing prejudiced, just facts. You have 'called me' on nothing. I have
> >> my eyes wide open, you blindly follow others, and a very old book.
>
> >>> if I didn't love, I wouldn't care and if I didn't
> >>> care, we aren't having this conversation.
> >> What are saying; you love me? Steady on, we've only just met.
>
> >>> I can't tell you if my God looks
> >>> like a gray headed old man or shetland pony.. thats of little consequence, I
> >>> believe that he made me in his own image, therefore I have to assume he has
> >>> human characteristics.. but those could be the non-physical traits,
> >>> cognicant thought, emotion, the ability to reason...etc..those things that
> >>> seperate us from the tastier beings that share this orb.
> >> Are you saying that 'image' is a 'non visible representation' of
> >> thoughts, emotions and the ability to reason to suit your argument? If
> >> you are, then you are wrong. - The definition of image is a 'visible
> >> representation'.
>
> >> So animals, have no cognisant thought, no emotion, no ability to reason?
> >> If you think that, then again you are wrong. Just have look for the
> >> animal studies that show animals have emotion, thought and can reason.
>
> > Or listen to the Pope, who said dogs have a sole. Pigs have baby back
> > ribs.
>
> Dogs have soles; seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paw. - However, I
> guess you meant 'soul' but that sort of error is expected in RSFC.
>
>
>
> >> You have been culturally conditioned to believe in things that have no
> >> factual basis, and continue to adapt and reinterpret those beliefs to
> >> suit your lifestyle at the cost of other beings.
>
> > They were given to us by God for our use.
>
> Just like Santa gave you presents, another non existent old white man
> with a beard hands out things that seem to keep you happy.
>
>

but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that animals were
killed and consumed in order to make the computer you are posting from

On May 13, 10:41 pm, lein > wrote:
> On May 12, 9:41 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>
> > lein wrote:
> > > On May 6, 8:33 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> > >> Jim Weeks wrote:
> > >>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
> > >>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
> > >>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >>>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 9:46 pm, John Rogers > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin >... by Grabthar's hammer, by the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sons
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> of Warvan, you shall be avenged!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> babies are dying.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> animals
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I've got a definite feeling that the idot your responding to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> have Bibel.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> So he is a vegan atheist? That's pretty much beyond hope.
> > >>>>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan and I'm not an atheist. - You're not doing very well
> > >>>>>>>>>> are you?
> > >>>>>>>>> well what are you then?
> > >>>>>>>> I can not prove or disprove the existence of the deity quoted;
> > >>>>>>>> therefore the nearest classification, if you need one would be an
> > >>>>>>>> agnostic.
> > >>>>>>> can you prove the existence of Julius Cesaer or Atilla the Hun?
> > >>>>>> I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to say that these
> > >>>>>> people did exist. This evidence could be used to prove they existed, but
> > >>>>>> I'm not going to waste my time with that.
> > >>>>> yet there are hundreds upon thousands more points of evidence that God
> > >>>>> exists.. you just choose what evidence you want to believe.. how
> > >>>>> convienent.
> > >>>>> so this your world..you obviously made it, you gave yourself life and
> > >>>>> you control when your heart beats and when it stops then.. good luck with
> > >>>>> that.
> > >>>> Feel the Christian love.
> > >>> Love has nothing to do with you chosing a blind eye to your own prejudice
> > >>> and me calling you on it..
> > >> Nothing prejudiced, just facts. You have 'called me' on nothing. I have
> > >> my eyes wide open, you blindly follow others, and a very old book.
>
> > >>> if I didn't love, I wouldn't care and if I didn't
> > >>> care, we aren't having this conversation.
> > >> What are saying; you love me? Steady on, we've only just met.
>
> > >>> I can't tell you if my God looks
> > >>> like a gray headed old man or shetland pony.. thats of little consequence, I
> > >>> believe that he made me in his own image, therefore I have to assume he has
> > >>> human characteristics.. but those could be the non-physical traits,
> > >>> cognicant thought, emotion, the ability to reason...etc..those things that
> > >>> seperate us from the tastier beings that share this orb.
> > >> Are you saying that 'image' is a 'non visible representation' of
> > >> thoughts, emotions and the ability to reason to suit your argument? If
> > >> you are, then you are wrong. - The definition of image is a 'visible
> > >> representation'.
>
> > >> So animals, have no cognisant thought, no emotion, no ability to reason?
> > >> If you think that, then again you are wrong. Just have look for the
> > >> animal studies that show animals have emotion, thought and can reason.
>
> > > Or listen to the Pope, who said dogs have a sole. Pigs have baby back
> > > ribs.
>
> > Dogs have soles; seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paw. - However, I
> > guess you meant 'soul' but that sort of error is expected in RSFC.
>
> > >> You have been culturally conditioned to believe in things that have no
> > >> factual basis, and continue to adapt and reinterpret those beliefs to
> > >> suit your lifestyle at the cost of other beings.
>
> > > They were given to us by God for our use.
>
> > Just like Santa gave you presents, another non existent old white man
> > with a beard hands out things that seem to keep you happy.
>
> but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that animals were
> killed and consumed in order to make the computer you are posting from


eat meat occurs in 35 verses in the KJV

Gen 24:33
Gen 27:4
Gen 27:7
Gen 27:31
Lev 10:12
Lev 22:11
Lev 22:13
Deu 2:6
Deu 2:28
1Sa 20:24
1Sa 20:34
2Sa 3:35
2Sa 12:3
2Sa 13:5
2Sa 13:10
1Ki 19:8
Psa 78:25
Isa 65:25
Eze 4:10
Eze 42:13
Eze 44:29
Dan 1:13
Dan 1:15
Mat 6:25
Mat 15:37
Mar 8:8
Luk 7:36
Luk 9:13
Luk 14:15
Jhn 4:32
Act 2:46
1Cr 8:8
1Cr 8:10
1Cr 8:13
1Cr 10:3
HUH who would have thunk it .

lein wrote:
> On May 12, 9:41 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> lein wrote:
>>> On May 6, 8:33 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 9:46 pm, John Rogers > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin >... by Grabthar's hammer, by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Warvan, you shall be avenged!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> babies are dying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've got a definite feeling that the idot your responding to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have Bibel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So he is a vegan atheist? That's pretty much beyond hope.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan and I'm not an atheist. - You're not doing very well
>>>>>>>>>>>> are you?
>>>>>>>>>>> well what are you then?
>>>>>>>>>> I can not prove or disprove the existence of the deity quoted;
>>>>>>>>>> therefore the nearest classification, if you need one would be an
>>>>>>>>>> agnostic.
>>>>>>>>> can you prove the existence of Julius Cesaer or Atilla the Hun?
>>>>>>>> I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to say that these
>>>>>>>> people did exist. This evidence could be used to prove they existed, but
>>>>>>>> I'm not going to waste my time with that.
>>>>>>> yet there are hundreds upon thousands more points of evidence that God
>>>>>>> exists.. you just choose what evidence you want to believe.. how
>>>>>>> convienent.
>>>>>>> so this your world..you obviously made it, you gave yourself life and
>>>>>>> you control when your heart beats and when it stops then.. good luck with
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>> Feel the Christian love.
>>>>> Love has nothing to do with you chosing a blind eye to your own prejudice
>>>>> and me calling you on it..
>>>> Nothing prejudiced, just facts. You have 'called me' on nothing. I have
>>>> my eyes wide open, you blindly follow others, and a very old book.
>>>>> if I didn't love, I wouldn't care and if I didn't
>>>>> care, we aren't having this conversation.
>>>> What are saying; you love me? Steady on, we've only just met.
>>>>> I can't tell you if my God looks
>>>>> like a gray headed old man or shetland pony.. thats of little consequence, I
>>>>> believe that he made me in his own image, therefore I have to assume he has
>>>>> human characteristics.. but those could be the non-physical traits,
>>>>> cognicant thought, emotion, the ability to reason...etc..those things that
>>>>> seperate us from the tastier beings that share this orb.
>>>> Are you saying that 'image' is a 'non visible representation' of
>>>> thoughts, emotions and the ability to reason to suit your argument? If
>>>> you are, then you are wrong. - The definition of image is a 'visible
>>>> representation'.
>>>> So animals, have no cognisant thought, no emotion, no ability to reason?
>>>> If you think that, then again you are wrong. Just have look for the
>>>> animal studies that show animals have emotion, thought and can reason.
>>> Or listen to the Pope, who said dogs have a sole. Pigs have baby back
>>> ribs.
>> Dogs have soles; seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paw. - However, I
>> guess you meant 'soul' but that sort of error is expected in RSFC.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> You have been culturally conditioned to believe in things that have no
>>>> factual basis, and continue to adapt and reinterpret those beliefs to
>>>> suit your lifestyle at the cost of other beings.
>>> They were given to us by God for our use.
>> Just like Santa gave you presents, another non existent old white man
>> with a beard hands out things that seem to keep you happy.
>>
>>
>
> but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that animals were
> killed and consumed in order to make the computer you are posting from

Why would killing animals for my computer give you satisfaction?


>

In rec.sport.football.college lein > sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:

> but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that animals were
> killed and consumed in order to make the computer you are posting from

You are a really, really sick person, if you enjoy knowing
animals were killed.

Computers must also be really weird where you live. They are not
actually made out of feces here in the south.

rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ --I am sick of the self-absorbed city of New York.

"rich hammett" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.sport.football.college lein > sanoi,
> hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>
>> but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that animals were
>> killed and consumed in order to make the computer you are posting from
>
> You are a really, really sick person, if you enjoy knowing
> animals were killed.
>
> Computers must also be really weird where you live. They are not
> actually made out of feces here in the south.
>
> rich
> --

Clearly you never owned a Packard Bell.


T
--
Remove _yourknickers_ to reply

In rec.sport.football.college TimV > sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:

> "rich hammett" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In rec.sport.football.college lein > sanoi,
>> hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>
>>> but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that animals were
>>> killed and consumed in order to make the computer you are posting from
>>
>> You are a really, really sick person, if you enjoy knowing
>> animals were killed.
>>
>> Computers must also be really weird where you live. They are not
>> actually made out of feces here in the south.

> Clearly you never owned a Packard Bell.

I bought a Packard-Bell 486 several years ago, when some Tandy
store (Video Concepts?) was going out of business and had one
really, really cheap, and I and my wife were college students.

I only had one small problem with it in five years, and I was
able to solve it with a short call to Packard-Bell customer
service to help me through a technical procedure.

It was a great computer the whole time we used it. I knew of
Packard-Bell's well-deserved reputation for bad products and
for mistreating customers, and I felt that I had dropped through
a wormhole into another universe.

rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ --I am sick of the self-absorbed city of New York.

On May 14, 10:46 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> lein wrote:
> > On May 12, 9:41 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >> lein wrote:
> >>> On May 6, 8:33 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
> >>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >>>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >>>>>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 9:46 pm, John Rogers > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin >... by Grabthar's hammer, by the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sons
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Warvan, you shall be avenged!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> babies are dying.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've got a definite feeling that the idot your responding to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have Bibel.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So he is a vegan atheist? That's pretty much beyond hope.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan and I'm not an atheist. - You're not doing very well
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are you?
> >>>>>>>>>>> well what are you then?
> >>>>>>>>>> I can not prove or disprove the existence of the deity quoted;
> >>>>>>>>>> therefore the nearest classification, if you need one would be an
> >>>>>>>>>> agnostic.
> >>>>>>>>> can you prove the existence of Julius Cesaer or Atilla the Hun?
> >>>>>>>> I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to say that these
> >>>>>>>> people did exist. This evidence could be used to prove they existed, but
> >>>>>>>> I'm not going to waste my time with that.
> >>>>>>> yet there are hundreds upon thousands more points of evidence that God
> >>>>>>> exists.. you just choose what evidence you want to believe.. how
> >>>>>>> convienent.
> >>>>>>> so this your world..you obviously made it, you gave yourself life and
> >>>>>>> you control when your heart beats and when it stops then.. good luck with
> >>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>> Feel the Christian love.
> >>>>> Love has nothing to do with you chosing a blind eye to your own prejudice
> >>>>> and me calling you on it..
> >>>> Nothing prejudiced, just facts. You have 'called me' on nothing. I have
> >>>> my eyes wide open, you blindly follow others, and a very old book.
> >>>>> if I didn't love, I wouldn't care and if I didn't
> >>>>> care, we aren't having this conversation.
> >>>> What are saying; you love me? Steady on, we've only just met.
> >>>>> I can't tell you if my God looks
> >>>>> like a gray headed old man or shetland pony.. thats of little consequence, I
> >>>>> believe that he made me in his own image, therefore I have to assume he has
> >>>>> human characteristics.. but those could be the non-physical traits,
> >>>>> cognicant thought, emotion, the ability to reason...etc..those things that
> >>>>> seperate us from the tastier beings that share this orb.
> >>>> Are you saying that 'image' is a 'non visible representation' of
> >>>> thoughts, emotions and the ability to reason to suit your argument? If
> >>>> you are, then you are wrong. - The definition of image is a 'visible
> >>>> representation'.
> >>>> So animals, have no cognisant thought, no emotion, no ability to reason?
> >>>> If you think that, then again you are wrong. Just have look for the
> >>>> animal studies that show animals have emotion, thought and can reason.
> >>> Or listen to the Pope, who said dogs have a sole. Pigs have baby back
> >>> ribs.
> >> Dogs have soles; seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paw. - However, I
> >> guess you meant 'soul' but that sort of error is expected in RSFC.
>
> >>>> You have been culturally conditioned to believe in things that have no
> >>>> factual basis, and continue to adapt and reinterpret those beliefs to
> >>>> suit your lifestyle at the cost of other beings.
> >>> They were given to us by God for our use.
> >> Just like Santa gave you presents, another non existent old white man
> >> with a beard hands out things that seem to keep you happy.
>
> > but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that animals were
> > killed and consumed in order to make the computer you are posting from
>
> Why would killing animals for my computer give you satisfaction?


Are you a Vegan?

In rec.sport.football.college lein > sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> On May 14, 10:46 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> lein wrote:
>> > On May 12, 9:41 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> >> lein wrote:
>> >>> On May 6, 8:33 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> >>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>> >>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>> >>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >>>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >>>>>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 9:46 pm, John Rogers > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin >... by Grabthar's hammer, by the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sons
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Warvan, you shall be avenged!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> babies are dying.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've got a definite feeling that the idot your responding to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have Bibel.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So he is a vegan atheist? That's pretty much beyond hope.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan and I'm not an atheist. - You're not doing very well
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> are you?
>> >>>>>>>>>>> well what are you then?
>> >>>>>>>>>> I can not prove or disprove the existence of the deity quoted;
>> >>>>>>>>>> therefore the nearest classification, if you need one would be an
>> >>>>>>>>>> agnostic.
>> >>>>>>>>> can you prove the existence of Julius Cesaer or Atilla the Hun?
>> >>>>>>>> I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to say that these
>> >>>>>>>> people did exist. This evidence could be used to prove they existed, but
>> >>>>>>>> I'm not going to waste my time with that.
>> >>>>>>> yet there are hundreds upon thousands more points of evidence that God
>> >>>>>>> exists.. you just choose what evidence you want to believe.. how
>> >>>>>>> convienent.
>> >>>>>>> so this your world..you obviously made it, you gave yourself life and
>> >>>>>>> you control when your heart beats and when it stops then.. good luck with
>> >>>>>>> that.
>> >>>>>> Feel the Christian love.
>> >>>>> Love has nothing to do with you chosing a blind eye to your own prejudice
>> >>>>> and me calling you on it..
>> >>>> Nothing prejudiced, just facts. You have 'called me' on nothing. I have
>> >>>> my eyes wide open, you blindly follow others, and a very old book.
>> >>>>> if I didn't love, I wouldn't care and if I didn't
>> >>>>> care, we aren't having this conversation.
>> >>>> What are saying; you love me? Steady on, we've only just met.
>> >>>>> I can't tell you if my God looks
>> >>>>> like a gray headed old man or shetland pony.. thats of little consequence, I
>> >>>>> believe that he made me in his own image, therefore I have to assume he has
>> >>>>> human characteristics.. but those could be the non-physical traits,
>> >>>>> cognicant thought, emotion, the ability to reason...etc..those things that
>> >>>>> seperate us from the tastier beings that share this orb.
>> >>>> Are you saying that 'image' is a 'non visible representation' of
>> >>>> thoughts, emotions and the ability to reason to suit your argument? If
>> >>>> you are, then you are wrong. - The definition of image is a 'visible
>> >>>> representation'.
>> >>>> So animals, have no cognisant thought, no emotion, no ability to reason?
>> >>>> If you think that, then again you are wrong. Just have look for the
>> >>>> animal studies that show animals have emotion, thought and can reason.
>> >>> Or listen to the Pope, who said dogs have a sole. Pigs have baby back
>> >>> ribs.
>> >> Dogs have soles; seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paw. - However, I
>> >> guess you meant 'soul' but that sort of error is expected in RSFC.
>>
>> >>>> You have been culturally conditioned to believe in things that have no
>> >>>> factual basis, and continue to adapt and reinterpret those beliefs to
>> >>>> suit your lifestyle at the cost of other beings.
>> >>> They were given to us by God for our use.
>> >> Just like Santa gave you presents, another non existent old white man
>> >> with a beard hands out things that seem to keep you happy.
>>
>> > but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that animals were
>> > killed and consumed in order to make the computer you are posting from
>>
>> Why would killing animals for my computer give you satisfaction?

> Are you a Vegan?

Not if you would get some sort of sick satisfaction from that, too.

rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ --I am sick of the self-absorbed city of New York.

lein wrote:
> On May 14, 10:46 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>> lein wrote:
>>> On May 12, 9:41 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>>>> lein wrote:
>>>>> On May 6, 8:33 am, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim Weeks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Swage Polymer" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 9:46 pm, John Rogers > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin >... by Grabthar's hammer, by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Warvan, you shall be avenged!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 4, 4:16 pm, Swage Polymer > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jon Enslin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to stop this cult before it goes any further.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly - force feeding?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God gave us animals to eat but people ignore His wisdom and now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> babies are dying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient for you that God gives you animals to eat, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Santa once gave you presents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, if you are so smrat, answer me this...why did God give us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if not to eat them? They taste good and they are nutriious!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've got a definite feeling that the idot your responding to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have Bibel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So he is a vegan atheist? That's pretty much beyond hope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan and I'm not an atheist. - You're not doing very well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> well what are you then?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can not prove or disprove the existence of the deity quoted;
>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore the nearest classification, if you need one would be an
>>>>>>>>>>>> agnostic.
>>>>>>>>>>> can you prove the existence of Julius Cesaer or Atilla the Hun?
>>>>>>>>>> I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to say that these
>>>>>>>>>> people did exist. This evidence could be used to prove they existed, but
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not going to waste my time with that.
>>>>>>>>> yet there are hundreds upon thousands more points of evidence that God
>>>>>>>>> exists.. you just choose what evidence you want to believe.. how
>>>>>>>>> convienent.
>>>>>>>>> so this your world..you obviously made it, you gave yourself life and
>>>>>>>>> you control when your heart beats and when it stops then.. good luck with
>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>> Feel the Christian love.
>>>>>>> Love has nothing to do with you chosing a blind eye to your own prejudice
>>>>>>> and me calling you on it..
>>>>>> Nothing prejudiced, just facts. You have 'called me' on nothing. I have
>>>>>> my eyes wide open, you blindly follow others, and a very old book.
>>>>>>> if I didn't love, I wouldn't care and if I didn't
>>>>>>> care, we aren't having this conversation.
>>>>>> What are saying; you love me? Steady on, we've only just met.
>>>>>>> I can't tell you if my God looks
>>>>>>> like a gray headed old man or shetland pony.. thats of little consequence, I
>>>>>>> believe that he made me in his own image, therefore I have to assume he has
>>>>>>> human characteristics.. but those could be the non-physical traits,
>>>>>>> cognicant thought, emotion, the ability to reason...etc..those things that
>>>>>>> seperate us from the tastier beings that share this orb.
>>>>>> Are you saying that 'image' is a 'non visible representation' of
>>>>>> thoughts, emotions and the ability to reason to suit your argument? If
>>>>>> you are, then you are wrong. - The definition of image is a 'visible
>>>>>> representation'.
>>>>>> So animals, have no cognisant thought, no emotion, no ability to reason?
>>>>>> If you think that, then again you are wrong. Just have look for the
>>>>>> animal studies that show animals have emotion, thought and can reason.
>>>>> Or listen to the Pope, who said dogs have a sole. Pigs have baby back
>>>>> ribs.
>>>> Dogs have soles; seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paw. - However, I
>>>> guess you meant 'soul' but that sort of error is expected in RSFC.
>>>>>> You have been culturally conditioned to believe in things that have no
>>>>>> factual basis, and continue to adapt and reinterpret those beliefs to
>>>>>> suit your lifestyle at the cost of other beings.
>>>>> They were given to us by God for our use.
>>>> Just like Santa gave you presents, another non existent old white man
>>>> with a beard hands out things that seem to keep you happy.
>>> but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that animals were
>>> killed and consumed in order to make the computer you are posting from
>> Why would killing animals for my computer give you satisfaction?
>
>
> Are you a Vegan?

No. Can you answer my question please.

>