I wrote http://ecologos.org/times.htm as a response to your Times
article.
I hereby challenge Amanda to an informal public debate on any
topic in
human-relevant nutrition, biochemistry, physiology, anatomy,
evolution, and
especially to specific issues I raised in my above critique.
Please come to my newsgroup: news:alt.food.vegan.science to accept
and start the discussion.
Hope to hear from you soon.

Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

"Laurie" > wrote
> I wrote http://ecologos.org/times.htm as a response to your Times
> article.
> I hereby challenge Amanda to an informal public debate on any topic in
> human-relevant nutrition, biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, evolution,
> and
> especially to specific issues I raised in my above critique.
> Please come to my newsgroup: news:alt.food.vegan.science to accept
> and start the discussion.
> Hope to hear from you soon.
>
> Laurie

She won't reply. You come across as an arrogant, ill-mannered, poorly
educated nutcase on that page, why would anyone credible debate you?

On Jul 21, 6:25*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Laurie" > wrote
>
> > * * I wrotehttp://ecologos.org/times.htmas a response to your Times
> > article.
> > * * I hereby challenge Amanda to an informal public debate on any topic in
> > human-relevant nutrition, biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, evolution,
> > and
> > especially to specific issues I raised in my above critique.
> > * * Please come to my newsgroup: news:alt.food.vegan.science to accept
> > and start the discussion.
> > * * Hope to hear from you soon.
>
> > * * Laurie
>
> She won't reply. You come across as an arrogant, ill-mannered, poorly
> educated nutcase on that page, why would anyone credible debate you?


Sounds like Boobs and Dutch are in "panic mode."

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> more pseudo-scientific horseshit.
Rudy, now the thinly-disguised Jon-a-thug noBalls, does not have the
intellectual capacity to write even one polite,
scientifically-credible sentence.
He is a great, continuing example of the intellectual degeneracy of
the typical meat-eater. A pathetic, helpless victim of his own cortisol,
created by his own dietary ignorance and compulsive animal-eating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol
noBalls is violent, vulgar, consumed by negative emotions,
self-destructive, self-aggrandizing, and totally intellectually
disabled. He has NEVER been able to refute ANYTHING I
have said, either in ng's or on my web site, in over a decade.
Thanks for your continuing support, noBalls; you are a perfect
example of the intellectual degeneracy typical to your meat-head
ilk.
http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

Rudy Canoza, *FAILED* economics dropout, wrote:

>>> more pseudo-scientific horseshit.
>> Rudy does not have the
>> intellectual capacity to write even one polite,
>> scientifically-credible sentence.
>
> That's exactly what I did when I called your pseudo-scientific horseshit
> site "more pseudo-scientific horseshit", larry.
Thanks for demonstrating, once again, that you do not have any intellect.
Thanks for your continuing support.
http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt

Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

Rudy Canoza, FAILED economics DROPOUT wrote:

> ...that you're a pseudo-science-peddling FRAUD.
Fraud may be EASILY REFUTED with facts and logic; yet YOU have NOT been
able to refute ANY concept I have espoused in over a decade!
So, WHO is the real FRAUD; someone like you who hides his REAL
identity and msg headers because he is so ashamed of his own public
behavior?

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

On Jul 20, 6:43*pm, Laurie > wrote:
> * * *I wrotehttp://ecologos.org/times.htmas a response to your Times
> article.
> * * *I hereby challenge Amanda to an informal public debate on any
> topic in
> human-relevant nutrition, biochemistry, physiology, anatomy,
> evolution, and
> especially to specific issues I raised in my above critique.
> * * *Please come to my newsgroup: news:alt.food.vegan.science to accept
> and start the discussion.
> * * *Hope to hear from you soon.
>
> * * *Laurie
> --
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science



but, you're no challenge.


just the same shit different day.




or in short:


blah blah blah.



folks, not all vegans are like laura.

"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 6:25 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Laurie" > wrote
>
> > I wrotehttp://ecologos.org/times.htmas a response to your Times
> > article.
> > I hereby challenge Amanda to an informal public debate on any topic in
> > human-relevant nutrition, biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, evolution,
> > and
> > especially to specific issues I raised in my above critique.
> > Please come to my newsgroup: news:alt.food.vegan.science to accept
> > and start the discussion.
> > Hope to hear from you soon.
>
> > Laurie
>
> She won't reply. You come across as an arrogant, ill-mannered, poorly
> educated nutcase on that page, why would anyone credible debate you?


> Sounds like Boobs and Dutch are in "panic mode."


About what? Nobody demonstrates the lunacy of veganism better than Larry
Fruity.

On Jul 22, 6:53*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
> ....
> > On Jul 21, 6:25 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Laurie" > wrote
>
> >> > I wrotehttp://ecologos.org/times.htmasa response to your Times
> >> > article.
> >> > I hereby challenge Amanda to an informal public debate on any topic in
> >> > human-relevant nutrition, biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, evolution,
> >> > and
> >> > especially to specific issues I raised in my above critique.
> >> > Please come to my newsgroup: news:alt.food.vegan.science to accept
> >> > and start the discussion.
> >> > Hope to hear from you soon.
>
> >> > Laurie
>
> >> She won't reply. You come across as an arrogant, ill-mannered, poorly
> >> educated nutcase on that page, why would anyone credible debate you?
>
> >> Sounds like Boobs and Dutch are in "panic mode."
>
> > About what? Nobody demonstrates the lunacy of veganism better than Larry
> > Fruity.
>
> You ever nosed around his web pages? *The guy openly is trying to commit
> internet fraud. *On some page he talks about some wacky money-making
> flim-flam he wants to do, then solicits "investors". *I don't know if
> it's still up, but on another page he used to have his CV, and it
> becomes clear why he can't function in the business world. *He makes a
> bunch of unjustified demands of potential employers, and basically he
> thinks employers are going to go poking around the internet hoping they
> stumble on larry's CV, and offer him a mid six-figure salary. *He's a
> thoroughgoing goof.-



About those degrees you pretend you have, Boobs.............any chance
we'll ever get any proof they exist?

On Jul 21, 4:01*am, "Mr.Smartypants" >
wrote:

> Sounds like Boobs and Dutch are in "panic mode."

Looks like it.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Jul 21, 6:25 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> "Laurie" > wrote
>>>
>>> > I wrotehttp://ecologos.org/times.htmas a response to your Times
>>> > article.
>>> > I hereby challenge Amanda to an informal public debate on any topic in
>>> > human-relevant nutrition, biochemistry, physiology, anatomy,
>>> evolution,
>>> > and
>>> > especially to specific issues I raised in my above critique.
>>> > Please come to my newsgroup: news:alt.food.vegan.science to accept
>>> > and start the discussion.
>>> > Hope to hear from you soon.
>>>
>>> > Laurie
>>>
>>> She won't reply. You come across as an arrogant, ill-mannered, poorly
>>> educated nutcase on that page, why would anyone credible debate you?
>>
>>
>>> Sounds like Boobs and Dutch are in "panic mode."
>>
>>
>> About what? Nobody demonstrates the lunacy of veganism better than
>> Larry Fruity.
>
> You ever nosed around his web pages? The guy openly is trying to commit
> internet fraud. On some page he talks about some wacky money-making
> flim-flam he wants to do, then solicits "investors". I don't know if
> it's still up, but on another page he used to have his CV, and it
> becomes clear why he can't function in the business world. He makes a
> bunch of unjustified demands of potential employers, and basically he
> thinks employers are going to go poking around the internet hoping they
> stumble on larry's CV, and offer him a mid six-figure salary. He's a
> thoroughgoing goof.

I haven't bothered to dig very deep into his site, but none of that
surprises me. His site is completely unscientific, from the complete
lack of citations, the I say so therefore it's so attitude right down to
his goofy choice of fonts.

Laurie wrote:
> Rudy Canoza, FAILED economics DROPOUT wrote:
>
>> ...that you're a pseudo-science-peddling FRAUD.
> Fraud may be EASILY REFUTED with facts and logic; yet YOU have NOT been
> able to refute ANY concept I have espoused in over a decade!
> So, WHO is the real FRAUD; someone like you who hides his REAL
> identity and msg headers because he is so ashamed of his own public
> behavior?
>
> Laurie
>

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:20:50 -0400, Laurie > wrote:

>Goo pointed out:
>
>> more pseudo-scientific horseshit.
>
> Rudy [Goo], now the thinly-disguised Jon-a-thug noBalls, does
>not have the intellectual capacity to write even one polite,
>scientifically-credible sentence.
> He is a great, continuing example of the intellectual degeneracy
>of the typical meat-eater. A pathetic, helpless victim of his own cortisol,
>created by his own dietary ignorance and compulsive animal-eating.

There's no reason to believe the Goober consumes the flesh
of animals. He may be a lacto-veg*n or something, but we only
have reason to believe Goo is very much against the raising of
animals for food. We can see that cleary just by reading some
quotes from Goo:

"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing
them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might
derive from "decent lives", then logically one MUST
conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo

We know for a fact the Goober MUST conclude that not
raising them in the first place is the ethically superior choice,
because he clearly believes very strongly that the moral harm
caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY
benefit they might derive from decent lives since he insists
that life is never a benefit":

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"when it moves from "pre-existence" into the life we
can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a benefit
to it." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or
even to humans" - Goo

"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other
animals." - Goo

""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is
not a benefit at all" - Goo

"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo

"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was before." - Goo

"Life is not a gain" - Goo

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
to experience life" deserves no consideration when
asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"existence is not benefit to farm animals." - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"First of all, life itself - life per se - has no value to any
animal, including humans. " - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to an entity." - Goo

"An entity's life _per se_ is not a benefit to it." - Goo

3/19/05
Life is not a benefit for farm animals. . . .
Life is not a benefit for farm animals. . . .
Life is not a benefit for farm animals. . . .
Life is not a benefit for farm animals. - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none" - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever" - Goo

""getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol
> noBalls is violent, vulgar, consumed by negative emotions,
>self-destructive, self-aggrandizing, and totally intellectually
>disabled.

True.

>He has NEVER been able to refute ANYTHING

Goo can very rarely if ever even make an attempt to
back up his own idiocy, no doubt.

>I
>have said, either in ng's or on my web site, in over a decade.
> Thanks for your continuing support, noBalls; you are a perfect
>example of the intellectual degeneracy typical to your meat-head
>ilk.

All evidence suggests that Goo is some sort of veg*n who
strongly and maniacally supports the elimination objective:

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
ever wrote." - Goo

"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

On Jul 21, 7:01 am, "Mr.Smartypants" >
wrote:
> On Jul 21, 6:25 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> Sounds like Boobs and Dutch are in "panic mode."

Like constipated poodles who just heard a clap of thunder and
retreated to a dirty pile of something..

If they feel so threatened by the fact Amanda's information is
inherited from anti-health nuts & sponsored by opportunistic meat/
agribusinesses, they could at least attempt to explain some issues on
Amanda's page. Instead, they instantly imagine excuses to conceal
Amanda's irrational fear of protein deficiency & heme iron hysteria,
thus promoting her "false body image" (& theirs).

And afraid of being archived w/multiple screen names...

Chris

crisology wrote:
> On Jul 21, 7:01 am, "Mr.Smartypants" >
> wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 6:25 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like Boobs and Dutch are in "panic mode."
>
> Like constipated poodles who just heard a clap of thunder and
> retreated to a dirty pile of something..

That stilted analogy rings of panic if anything ever did.

> If they feel so threatened by the fact Amanda's information is
> inherited from anti-health nuts & sponsored by opportunistic meat/
> agribusinesses,

Those aren't "facts", it's wild-eyed rhetoric.

they could at least attempt to explain some issues on
> Amanda's page. Instead, they instantly imagine excuses to conceal
> Amanda's irrational fear of protein deficiency & heme iron hysteria,
> thus promoting her "false body image" (& theirs).
>
> And afraid of being archived w/multiple screen names...

Raging denial and conspiracy theories, what a way to live.

On Jul 23, 5:39*am, Dutch > wrote:
> crisology wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 7:01 am, "Mr.Smartypants" >
> > wrote:
> >> On Jul 21, 6:25 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> Sounds like Boobs and Dutch are in "panic mode."
>
> > Like constipated poodles who just heard a clap of thunder and
> > retreated to a dirty pile of something..
>
> That stilted analogy rings of panic if anything ever did.


LOL!

And your pathetic bleating sounds like desperation.




>
> > If they feel so threatened by the fact Amanda's information is
> > inherited from anti-health nuts & sponsored by opportunistic meat/
> > agribusinesses,
>
> Those aren't "facts", it's wild-eyed rhetoric.
>
> * they could at least attempt to explain some issues on
>
> > Amanda's page. Instead, they instantly imagine excuses to conceal
> > Amanda's irrational fear of protein deficiency & heme iron hysteria,
> > thus promoting her "false body image" (& theirs).
>
> > And afraid of being archived w/multiple screen names...
>
> Raging denial and conspiracy theories, what a way to live.


That's how you and Boobs live every day of your lives.

Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Jul 23, 5:39 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> crisology wrote:
>>> On Jul 21, 7:01 am, "Mr.Smartypants" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 21, 6:25 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> Sounds like Boobs and Dutch are in "panic mode."
>>> Like constipated poodles who just heard a clap of thunder and
>>> retreated to a dirty pile of something..
>> That stilted analogy rings of panic if anything ever did.
>
>
> LOL!
>
> And your pathetic bleating sounds like desperation.

You describe yourself so well it's scary.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:47:42 -0700 (PDT), crisology > wrote:

>On Jul 21, 7:01 am, "Mr.Smartypants" >
>wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 6:25 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like Boobs and Dutch are in "panic mode."
>
>Like constipated poodles who just heard a clap of thunder and
>retreated to a dirty pile of something..
>
>If they feel so threatened by the fact Amanda's information is
>inherited from anti-health nuts & sponsored by opportunistic meat/
>agribusinesses, they could at least attempt to explain some issues on
>Amanda's page. Instead, they instantly imagine excuses to conceal
>Amanda's irrational fear of protein deficiency & heme iron hysteria,
>thus promoting her "false body image" (& theirs).
>
>And afraid of being archived w/multiple screen names...
>
>Chris

Goo and Dutch are very likely to be the same individual,
since it makes no sense that someone would enter these
ngs to deliberately try supporting Goo's idiocy. We know
that Goo has dishonestly posted as a number of characters
in order to support himselves, congratulate himselves and
praise himselves. The Goober has posted as all of the
following "different" people, and mo

Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog

elvira
Dieter
"Dieter "
>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
****tard
Apoo
Ted Bell

Jay Santos

Rudy Canoza
Trappist

Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
Eden
Sylvia Stevens
chico chupacabra

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Goo blatantly and desperately lied:

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:42:44 -0100, dh@. pointed out:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:20:50 -0400, Laurie > wrote:
>>
>>>Goo pointed out:
>>>
>>>> more pseudo-scientific horseshit.
>>>
>>> Rudy [Goo], now the thinly-disguised Jon-a-thug noBalls, does
>>>not have the intellectual capacity to write even one polite,
>>>scientifically-credible sentence.
>>> He is a great, continuing example of the intellectual degeneracy
>>>of the typical meat-eater. A pathetic, helpless victim of his own cortisol,
>>>created by his own dietary ignorance and compulsive animal-eating.
>>
>> There's no reason to believe the Goober consumes the flesh
>>of animals.
>
>There is, and I do.

We have LOTS of reasons to believe you don't...

>>He may be a lacto-veg*n or something, but we only
>>have reason to believe Goo is very much against the raising of
>>animals for food. We can see that cleary just by reading some
>>quotes from Goo:
>>
>>"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing
>>them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might
>>derive from "decent lives", then logically one MUST
>>conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>We know for a fact the Goober MUST conclude that not
>>raising them in the first place is the ethically superior choice,
>>because he clearly believes very strongly that the moral harm
>>caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY
>>benefit they might derive from decent lives since he insists
>>that life is never a benefit":
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"when it moves from "pre-existence" into the life we
>>can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a benefit
>>to it." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or
>>even to humans" - Goo
>>
>>"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other
>>animals." - Goo
>>
>>""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is
>>not a benefit at all" - Goo
>>
>>"I have examined the question at length, and feel
>>there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
>>is not a benefit." - Goo
>>
>>"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
>>I was before." - Goo
>>
>>"Life is not a gain" - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
>>
>>"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
>>to experience life" deserves no consideration when
>>asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>
>>"existence is not benefit to farm animals." - Goo
>>
>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
>>
>>"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>>
>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>benefits from coming into existence." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"First of all, life itself - life per se - has no value to any
>>animal, including humans. " - Goo
>>
>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to an entity." - Goo
>>
>>"An entity's life _per se_ is not a benefit to it." - Goo
>>
>>3/19/05
>>Life is not a benefit for farm animals. . . .
>>Life is not a benefit for farm animals. . . .
>>Life is not a benefit for farm animals. . . .
>>Life is not a benefit for farm animals. - Goo
>>
>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>consideration, and is given none" - Goo
>>
>>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>
>>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>whatever" - Goo
>>
>>""getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>
>>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>ZERO importance to it." - Goo
.. . .
>> All evidence suggests that Goo is some sort of veg*n who
>>strongly and maniacally supports the elimination objective:
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>>ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>>"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
>>words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
>>in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>
>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>
>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

.... and absolutely NO reason to believe you do, Goo.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:27:50 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:

>On Jul 23, 5:39*am, Dutch > wrote:
>> crisology wrote:
>> > On Jul 21, 7:01 am, "Mr.Smartypants" >
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Jul 21, 6:25 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> Sounds like Boobs and Dutch are in "panic mode."
>>
>> > Like constipated poodles who just heard a clap of thunder and
>> > retreated to a dirty pile of something..
>>
>> That stilted analogy rings of panic if anything ever did.
>
>
>LOL!
>
>And your pathetic bleating sounds like desperation.

It always seems to with "Dutch"/Goo.

>> > If they feel so threatened by the fact Amanda's information is
>> > inherited from anti-health nuts & sponsored by opportunistic meat/
>> > agribusinesses,
>>
>> Those aren't "facts", it's wild-eyed rhetoric.
>>
>> * they could at least attempt to explain some issues on
>>
>> > Amanda's page. Instead, they instantly imagine excuses to conceal
>> > Amanda's irrational fear of protein deficiency & heme iron hysteria,
>> > thus promoting her "false body image" (& theirs).
>>
>> > And afraid of being archived w/multiple screen names...
>>
>> Raging denial and conspiracy theories, what a way to live.
>
>
>That's how you and Boobs live every day of your lives.

There is always similarity and familiarity. I don't even know
what the issue here is, but some things are always the same
with "Dutch"/Goo:

"they could at least attempt to explain some issues"

What, other than pointing out lies in general, is a more
common reply to "Dutch"/Goo than trying to get him
to attempt providing some explanation(s) to back up his
absurdity, idiocy, dishonesty...?

"Instead, they instantly imagine . . . "

Yes, there is that, but it has always been a grey area as to
when "Dutch"/Goo wants people to believe he's really stupid
enough to believe his own absurdity, idiocy, dishonesty etc,
and when he wants them to believe he's not really that stupid
but is deliberately lying about it.

dh@. wrote:

> Goo and Dutch are very likely to be the same individual,

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of computers can disprove such nonsense.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Goo lied:

>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:24:37 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Goo blatantly and desperately lied:
>>
>>>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:42:44 -0100, dh@. pointed out:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:20:50 -0400, Laurie > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Goo pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>> more pseudo-scientific horseshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rudy [Goo], now the thinly-disguised Jon-a-thug noBalls, does
>>>>>not have the intellectual capacity to write even one polite,
>>>>>scientifically-credible sentence.
>>>>> He is a great, continuing example of the intellectual degeneracy
>>>>>of the typical meat-eater. A pathetic, helpless victim of his own cortisol,
>>>>>created by his own dietary ignorance and compulsive animal-eating.
>>>>
>>>> There's no reason to believe the Goober consumes the flesh
>>>>of animals.
>>>
>>>There is, and I do.
>>
>> We have LOTS of reasons to believe you don't...
>
>No

"killing the animals needlessly and merely for human convenience
is the worst violation of their rights." - Goo

>>>>He may be a lacto-veg*n or something, but we only
>>>>have reason to believe Goo is very much against the raising of
>>>>animals for food. We can see that cleary just by reading some
>>>>quotes from Goo:
>>>>
>>>>"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing
>>>>them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might
>>>>derive from "decent lives", then logically one MUST
>>>>conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>We know for a fact the Goober MUST conclude that not
>>>>raising them in the first place is the ethically superior choice,
>>>>because he clearly believes very strongly that the moral harm
>>>>caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY
>>>>benefit they might derive from decent lives since he insists
>>>>that life is never a benefit":
>>>>
>>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"when it moves from "pre-existence" into the life we
>>>>can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a benefit
>>>>to it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or
>>>>even to humans" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other
>>>>animals." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is
>>>>not a benefit at all" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"I have examined the question at length, and feel
>>>>there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
>>>>is not a benefit." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
>>>>I was before." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Life is not a gain" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
>>>>to experience life" deserves no consideration when
>>>>asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"existence is not benefit to farm animals." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>>>benefits from coming into existence." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"First of all, life itself - life per se - has no value to any
>>>>animal, including humans. " - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to an entity." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"An entity's life _per se_ is not a benefit to it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>3/19/05
>>>>Life is not a benefit for farm animals. . . .
>>>>Life is not a benefit for farm animals. . . .
>>>>Life is not a benefit for farm animals. . . .
>>>>Life is not a benefit for farm animals. - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>>>consideration, and is given none" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>>>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>>>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>>>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>>>whatever" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>>>of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>>>ZERO importance to it." - Goo
>>. . .
>>>> All evidence suggests that Goo is some sort of veg*n who
>>>>strongly and maniacally supports the elimination objective:
>>>>
>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>their deaths" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>>>>ever wrote." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
>>>>words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
>>>>in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>>
>>... and absolutely NO reason to believe you do, Goo.






>Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in existence
>- blabbered and presented no challenge:
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Rudy V. Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in existence - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:20:50 -0400, Laurie > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> more pseudo-scientific horseshit.
>>>>> Rudy [Goo], now the thinly-disguised Jon-a-thug noBalls, does
>>>>> not have the intellectual capacity to write even one polite,
>>>>> scientifically-credible sentence.
>>>>> He is a great, continuing example of the intellectual degeneracy
>>>>> of the typical meat-eater. A pathetic, helpless victim of his own cortisol,
>>>>> created by his own dietary ignorance and compulsive animal-eating.
>>>> There's no reason to believe the Goober consumes the flesh
>>>> of animals.
>>> There is, and I do.
>>
>> We have LOTS of reasons to believe you don't...
>
>No, you have *NO* reasons to believe that, Goo - none at all. I eat
>meat, I have always eaten meat. I wear leather and wool, consume all
>kinds of animal products.

Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Jul 22, 6:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
PLEASE do not cross-post your playing with noBalls to
alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE

Thanks
Laurie Forti
-

alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE.
ALL other issues are OFF TOPIC here.
Please cooperate.

NO SPAMMING.
NO NONSENSE ABOUT "ANIMAL RIGHTS"
NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Laurie Forti, Moderator

alt.food.vegan.science

Pinnochio Mojo wrote:

> Looks like it.
PLEASE do not cross-post your trolling to alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE

--

alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE.
ALL other issues are OFF TOPIC here.
Please cooperate.

NO SPAMMING.
NO NONSENSE ABOUT "ANIMAL RIGHTS"
NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Laurie Forti, Moderator

alt.food.vegan.science

Rudy Canoza (the failed economist) wrote:
Hey, noBalls, you forgot to introduce yourself:
http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt

> *EVERYTHING* you
> write regarding diet is hyperemotional anti-intellectual bullshit.
Yet, strangely, YOU have NOT been able to refute ANYthing I have
written in well over a decade.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science