Rudy Canoza
Aug 5, 3:07 pm

> It doesn't answer the question, foot-rubbing whore. *WHY* would
> "supplements" be necessary if a "raw 'vegan'" diet is the "natural" diet
> for humans?

This is the message Pearl originally responded to. She explained why
supplements were now necessary to restore B12 that has been depleted.
Ancestors adapted to B12 readily available in natural plant diet. You
later switched the subject"


Aug 6, 7:55 am

> The question is where humans tap into this cycle.

And from there it was academic, you didn't really quibble about
whether the universal bacteria- B12 was naturally obtained in diet or
even whether ancestors adapted to this B12 availability. You both just
described different ways B12 has been available. You later went on to
complain about "minor quibblers" before introducing cultural/
financial concerns about eating plants/meat.

B12 pills restore B12 to food sources that have been processed and
would otherwise provide B12 naturally. So humans adapted to dirty
plants by synthesizing very low levels of B12. Nature is not wasteful
so there was no need to synthesize large amounts of B12 since it was
naturally obtained in diet.

It doesn't matter that oxygen is obtained from plants that convert CO2
to oxygen. Oxygen, nonetheless has been naturally available.

Filtering water is a way to restore safe drinking water that has been
unnaturally polluted. Drinking water was widely obtained before
pollution requiring filtration.

Chris

"This is the message Pearl originally responded to. She explained why
supplements were now necessary to restore B12 that has been depleted.
Ancestors adapted to B12 readily available in natural plant diet. You"

Prehumans had access to animal based vit b12 for some millions of years.
No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods only. By the
time of modern humans, 100 k years ago, humans had been fully engaged in
eating anything they could get their hands on for a long long time.

> wrote in message ...
"crisology" > wrote in message ...
> "This is the message Pearl originally responded to. She explained why
> supplements were now necessary to restore B12 that has been depleted.
> Ancestors adapted to B12 readily available in natural plant diet. You"
>
> Prehumans had access to animal based vit b12 for some millions of years.
> No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods only.

'Male strategies and Plio-Pleistocene archaeology
Authors: O'Connell J.F.1; Hawkes K.2; Lupo K.D.3; Blurton Jones
N.G.4 Source: Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 43, Number 6,
December 2002 , pp. 831-872(42) Publisher: Academic Press

Abstract

Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that
big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through
its role in offspring provisioning. This argument has been disputed
on two grounds: (1) ethnographic observations on modern foragers
show that although hunting may contribute a large fraction of the
overall diet, it is an unreliable day-to-day food source, pursued
more for status than subsistence; (2) archaeological evidence from
the Plio-Pleistocene, coincident with the emergence of Homo can
be read to reflect low-yield scavenging, *not* hunting. Our review
of the archaeology yields results consistent with these critiques: (1)
early humans acquired large-bodied ungulates primarily by
aggressive scavenging, not hunting; (2) meat was consumed at or
near the point of acquisition, not at home bases, as the hunting
hypothesis requires; (3) carcasses were taken at highly variable rates
and in varying degrees of completeness, making meat from big game
an even less reliable food source than it is among modern foragers.
Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage
composition are consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses
were taken *not* for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of
competitive male displays. Even if meat were acquired more reliably
than the archaeology indicates, its consumption cannot account for
the significant changes in life history now seen to distinguish early
humans from ancestral australopiths. The coincidence between the
earliest dates for Homo ergaster and an increase in the archaeological
visibility of meat eating that many find so provocative instead reflects:
(1) changes in the structure of the environment that concentrated
scavenging opportunities in space, making evidence of their pursuit
more obvious to archaeologists; (2) H. ergaster's larger body size
(itself a consequence of other factors), which improved its ability at
interference competition.

Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1006/jhev.2002.0604
Affiliations: 1: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah,
270 South 1400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, U.S.A.
2: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, 270 South
1400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, U.S.A.
3: Department of Anthropology, Washington State University,
Pullman, Washington, 99164, U.S.A. 4: Departments of
Anthropology and Psychiatry, and Graduate School of Education,
University of California, Los Angeles, California, 90095, U.S.A.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00006/art00604

> By the
> time of modern humans, 100 k years ago, humans had been fully engaged in
> eating anything they could get their hands on for a long long time.

'Gut Morphology and the Avoidance of Carrion among
Chimpanzees, Baboons, and Early Hominids
Sonia Ragir, Martin Rosenberg, Philip Tierno
Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 56, No. 4
(Winter, 2000), pp. 477-512

Abstract

Meat-eating primates avoid scavenging for dietary protein and
micronutrients even when carrion is relatively fresh. Chimpanzees,
baboons, and modern hunter-gatherers supplement their diets of
high-energy, low-protein fruit with protein obtained from leaves,
insects, and animal prey. Most primates, especially leaf-eating
primates, digest the cellulose cell walls of ingested plant material in
a well developed caecum and/or large intestine through fermentation
caused by enzymes released by their normal gut flora. The primate
digestive strategy combines a rapid passage through the stomach and
prolonged digestion in the ileum of the small intestine and caecum,
and this combination increases the likelihood of colonization of the
small intestine by ingested bacteria that are the cause of
gastrointestinal disease. Carrion is very quickly contaminated with a
high bacterial load because the process of dismemberment of a
carcass exposes the meat to the bacteria from the saliva of the
predator, from the digestive tracts of insects, and from the carcasses'
own gut. Thus, the opportunistic eating of uncooked carrion or even
unusually large quantities of fresh-killed meat by nonhuman primates
or humans is likely to result in gastrointestinal illness. We propose
that among meat-eating primates, carrion avoidance is a dietary
strategy that develops during their lifetime as a response to the
association of gastrointestinal illness with the ingestion of
contaminated meat from scavenged carcasses. This has important
implications for our understanding of early hominid behavior.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=009...3E2.0.CO%3B2-M

Excuse me, the material posted is irrelevant to my original remarks and in
fact supports them. Please read them again:

Prehumans had access to animal based vit b12 for some millions of years.
No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods only. By the
time of modern humans, 100 k years ago, humans had been fully engaged in
eating anything they could get their hands on for a long long time.

To the best of my knowledge this is factual in all respects. Especially
the idea that we need have no compelling reason to project into the
distant past some plant only diet for the human line, recalling that
modern (us) humans by 100 k were in all places fully omnivores by all the
evidence we have. The evidence points to them eating anything they could
get their hands on as a function of what was available in a given
environment and the ratio of plant to animal products varied accordingly.

> wrote in message ...
> Excuse me, the material posted is irrelevant to my original remarks and in
> fact supports them. Please read them again:
>
> Prehumans had access to animal based vit b12 for some millions of years.

"archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene, coincident with the
emergence of Homo can be read to reflect low-yield scavenging, *not*
hunting. [...] *not* for purposes of provisioning, but in the context
of competitive male displays."

So excluding females and children. Were they deficient in B12?

> No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods only. By the
> time of modern humans, 100 k years ago, humans had been fully engaged in
> eating anything they could get their hands on for a long long time.

After 60 million years of a frugivorous diet - comprised virtually
exclusively of plant foods, there's no need to speculate about
the diets of modern humans in various environmental conditions.

> Excuse me, the material posted is irrelevant to my original remarks and
in
> fact supports them. Please read them again:
>
> Prehumans had access to animal based vit b12 for some millions of years.

""archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene, coincident with the
emergence of Homo can be read to reflect low-yield scavenging, *not*
hunting. [...] *not* for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of
competitive male displays.""

Yes indeed the first above is the concensus understanding,
the first supports my remarks completely, the second unsupportable by any
evidence to be found as ""archaeological evidence. When an attempt is
made to speculate about the distant past current primate behavior is used
as a model. Even among current primate behavior examples the second
remark finds no traction. Such fanciful just so stories are too often
invented to "explain" something but always fail for lack of evidence.

"So excluding females and children. Were they deficient in B12?"

Given the second above is not established but as a just so story in
evolution, the question has no meaning.

> No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods only. By
the
> time of modern humans, 100 k years ago, humans had been fully engaged in
> eating anything they could get their hands on for a long long time.

After 60 million years of a frugivorous diet - comprised virtually
"exclusively of plant foods, there's no need to speculate about the diets
of modern humans in various environmental conditions."

Right you are, humans of various species for the last 1 million years or
so show by supporting evidence of eating all they can get their hands on.
No speculation required. Evoking a prehuman epoch about remotely related
species that were thought to eat plant foods only is irrelevant but to
show that evolution works apace.

Because eating whatever one can get their hands on is environment defined,
the diet of our closest biological cousins the chimps shows them eating
everything in their environment also. Their tropical rain forest provides
mostly plant foods for them but they do not hesitate to eat what few
insects and small animals they can catch even if a smaller part of the
diet.


They are a better analogy then fruit eating not closely related plant only
species from the distant past.

Even then humans and apes took seperate evolutionary paths 6 million years
ago and humans unlike apes can and do inhabit all parts of the globe
eating anything their place of occupation provides.

> Excuse me, the material posted is irrelevant to my original remarks and
in
> fact supports them. Please read them again:
>
> Prehumans had access to animal based vit b12 for some millions of years.

""archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene, coincident with the
emergence of Homo can be read to reflect low-yield scavenging, *not*
hunting. [...] *not* for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of
competitive male displays.""

Yes indeed the first above is the concensus understanding,
the first supports my remarks completely, the second unsupportable by any
evidence to be found as ""archaeological evidence. When an attempt is
made to speculate about the distant past current primate behavior is used
as a model. Even among current primate behavior examples the second
remark finds no traction. Such fanciful just so stories are too often
invented to "explain" something but always fail for lack of evidence.

"So excluding females and children. Were they deficient in B12?"

Given the second above is not established but as a just so story in
evolution, the question has no meaning.

> No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods only. By
the
> time of modern humans, 100 k years ago, humans had been fully engaged in
> eating anything they could get their hands on for a long long time.

After 60 million years of a frugivorous diet - comprised virtually
"exclusively of plant foods, there's no need to speculate about the diets
of modern humans in various environmental conditions."

Right you are, humans of various species for the last 1 million years or
so show by supporting evidence of eating all they can get their hands on.
No speculation required. Evoking a prehuman epoch about remotely related
species that were thought to eat plant foods only is irrelevant but to
show that evolution works apace.

Because eating whatever one can get their hands on is environment defined,
the diet of our closest biological cousins the chimps shows them eating
everything in their environment also. Their tropical rain forest provides
mostly plant foods for them but they do not hesitate to eat what few
insects and small animals they can catch even if a smaller part of the
diet.


They are a better analogy then fruit eating not closely related plant only
species from the distant past.

Even then humans and apes took seperate evolutionary paths 6 million years
ago and humans unlike apes can and do inhabit all parts of the globe
eating anything their place of occupation provides.

> wrote in message ...
> > Excuse me, the material posted is irrelevant to my original remarks and in
> > fact supports them. Please read them again:
> >
> > Prehumans had access to animal based vit b12 for some millions of years.
>
> ""archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene, coincident with the
> emergence of Homo can be read to reflect low-yield scavenging, *not*
> hunting. [...] *not* for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of
> competitive male displays.""
>
> Yes indeed the first above is the concensus understanding,
> the first supports my remarks completely,

So you agree with yourself, hari/archaea. That's nice.

> the second unsupportable by any
> evidence to be found as ""archaeological evidence.

Those are the findings of (eminent) researchers in the field.

> When an attempt is
> made to speculate about the distant past current primate behavior is used
> as a model.

So all those engaged in archaeology are just wasting their time..

Have you really no idea at all how desperate you appear?

> Even among current primate behavior examples the second
> remark finds no traction.

'Most forest primates have a frugivorous diet, with a supplement
of protein provided either by young vegetable shoots and leaves,
or by animal matter (mostly invertebrates). This is a most flexible
dietary adaptation that allows them to switch between the various
categories of food items available in different habitats throughout
the seasons of the year (Hladik, 1988). The ambiguous term
omnivore is used either to describe such flexibility or to emphasize
a supplement of meat included from time to time in a mainly
frugivorous diet. However, it is noticeable that the largest primate
species, especially anthropoids, consume mainly vegetable matter
to provide their protein requirements. Chimpanzees, that occasionally
eat the meat of small mammals, do not receive all their protein
requirements from this source, which is anyway rarely available to
females and never exploited by the youngest animals (Hladik, 1981).
...'
http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.m...om19/21-31.pdf

> Such fanciful just so stories are too often
> invented to "explain" something but always fail for lack of evidence.

The evidence is in front of you, hari, and you keep ignoring it.

> "So excluding females and children. Were they deficient in B12?"
>
> Given the second above is not established but as a just so story in
> evolution, the question has no meaning.

It's what researchers have discovered looking at hard evidence.

The real "just so" story is finding a few cut marks on bones and
concluding that hominids were eating any animals they could get.

> > No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods only. By the
> > time of modern humans, 100 k years ago, humans had been fully engaged in
> > eating anything they could get their hands on for a long long time.
>
> After 60 million years of a frugivorous diet - comprised virtually
> "exclusively of plant foods, there's no need to speculate about the diets
> of modern humans in various environmental conditions."
>
> Right you are, humans of various species for the last 1 million years or
> so show by supporting evidence of eating all they can get their hands on.

Like that. Yet you've just seen evidence that primates avoid carrion.

> No speculation required. Evoking a prehuman epoch about remotely related
> species that were thought to eat plant foods only is irrelevant but to
> show that evolution works apace.

Seems like everything is "irrelevant" bar your re-re-re-stated myths.

The point is that those frugivorous primates weren't B12-deficient.

> Because eating whatever one can get their hands on is environment defined,
> the diet of our closest biological cousins the chimps shows them eating
> everything in their environment also. Their tropical rain forest provides
> mostly plant foods for them but they do not hesitate to eat what few
> insects and small animals they can catch even if a smaller part of the
> diet.

Again:

'Most forest primates have a frugivorous diet, with a supplement
of protein provided either by young vegetable shoots and leaves,
or by animal matter (mostly invertebrates). This is a most flexible
dietary adaptation that allows them to switch between the various
categories of food items available in different habitats throughout
the seasons of the year (Hladik, 1988). The ambiguous term
omnivore is used either to describe such flexibility or to emphasize
a supplement of meat included from time to time in a mainly
frugivorous diet. However, it is noticeable that the largest primate
species, especially anthropoids, consume mainly vegetable matter
to provide their protein requirements. Chimpanzees, that occasionally
eat the meat of small mammals, do not receive all their protein
requirements from this source, which is anyway rarely available to
females and never exploited by the youngest animals (Hladik, 1981).
...'
http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.m...om19/21-31.pdf

So you're left with the idea that a minimal amount of insects supplied
all the B12 that primates and early hominids required. If that were the
case shouldn't all humans worldwide instinctively relish eating insects?

> They are a better analogy then fruit eating not closely related plant only
> species from the distant past.
>
> Even then humans and apes took seperate evolutionary paths 6 million years
> ago and humans unlike apes can and do inhabit all parts of the globe
> eating anything their place of occupation provides.

We've been over this before, hari - ad nauseum. If your claim was
true, then in India, for one example, people wouldn't be vegetarian.

> > wrote in message ...
"pearl" > wrote in message ...
...
> > ""archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene, coincident with the
> > emergence of Homo can be read to reflect low-yield scavenging, *not*
> > hunting. [...] *not* for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of
> > competitive male displays.""
...
> > the second unsupportable by any
> > evidence to be found as ""archaeological evidence.

'Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage
composition are consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses
were taken *not* for purposes of provisioning, but in the context
of competitive male displays.
...
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00006/art00604

> > When an attempt is
> > made to speculate about the distant past current primate behavior is used
> > as a model.

'Among the Tanzanian Hadza, for example, men armed with bows
and poisoned arrows operating in a game-rich habitat acquire large
animal prey only about once every thirty hunter-days, not nearly
often enough to feed their children effectively. They could do
better as provisioners by taking small game or plant foods, yet
choose not to, which suggests that big game hunting serves some
other purpose unrelated to offspring survivorship (Hawkes et al.
1991). Whatever it is, reliable support for children must come
from elsewhere.

The importance of women's foraging and food sharing

Recent research on Hadza time allocation and foraging returns
shows that at least among these low latitude foragers, women's
gathering is the source (Hawkes et al. 1997). The most difficult
time of the year for the Hadza is the dry season, when foods
younger children can procure for themselves are unavailable.
Mothers respond by provisioning youngsters with foods they
themselves can procure daily and at relatively high rates, but that
their children cannot, largely because of handling requirements.
Tubers, which require substantial upper body strength and
endurance to collect and the ability to control fire in processing,
are a good example.

Provisioning of this sort has at least two important implications:
1) it allows the Hadza to operate in times and places where they
otherwise could not if, as among other primates, weaned offspring
were responsible for feeding themselves; 2) it lets another adult
assist in the process allowing mother to turn her attention to the
next pregnancy that much sooner. Quantitative data on time
allocation, foraging returns, and changes in children's nutritional
status indicate that, among the Hadza, that other adult is typically
grandmother. Senior Hadza women forage long hours every day,
enjoy high returns for effort, and provision their grandchildren
effectively, especially when their daughters are nursing new
infants (Hawkes et al. 1989, 1997). Their support is crucial to
both daughters' fecundity and grandchildren's survivorship,
with important implications for grandmothers' own fitness.
....'
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes.../oconnell.html

> > ""archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene, coincident with
the
> > emergence of Homo can be read to reflect low-yield scavenging, *not*
> > hunting. [...] *not* for purposes of provisioning, but in the context
of
> > competitive male displays.""
...
> > the second unsupportable by any
> > evidence to be found as ""archaeological evidence.

'Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage
composition are consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses
were taken *not* for purposes of provisioning, but in the context
of competitive male displays.
...
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00006/art00604

> > When an attempt is
> > made to speculate about the distant past current primate behavior is
used
> > as a model.

To replace the snipped part, there are no primate models which exipit this
behavior.

"Among the Tanzanian Hadza, for example, men armed with bows and poisoned
arrows operating in a game-rich habitat acquire large animal prey only
about once every thirty hunter-days, not nearly often enough to feed their
children effectively. They could do better as provisioners by taking small
game or plant foods, yet choose not to, which suggests that big game
hunting serves some other purpose unrelated to offspring survivorship
(Hawkes et al. 1991). Whatever it is, reliable support for children must
come from elsewhere."

There is a contridiction in the above. If it is large animal rich and
they choose not to catch small animals, why should they?

The meat that is found is shared equally among all people down to the last
person. Among hunter and gathers the above pattern is common. What the
hunters are really trying to find is animals with large amounts of fat.
Fat above all other foods is the most craved and cherished. Small animals
do not provide this in anything like the ratio it is found in large
animals. Fat has twice the calories by weight as do protein and carbs.
The protein of the animal is also of very high quality and the organ meats
are a source of vitamins and minerals not easily stored in enough quanity
in smaller animals.

Children and to some extent women catch the smaller animals and eggs and
insects etc. as they gather. The men consume them as the food supply
while they are away from camp hunting.

There is a calculus of other feeding factors which need to be taken into
the equation and not just gross number of possible animals found. Some of
the above seems to assume an ethnocentric view of gender politics about
how men should be behaving and are not. Consider about the same group:

"the foods that men acquire contribute less to the diet than women's
foods, are acquired with less regularity, and are shared more widely
outside the household. This forces us to ask what benefits forager women
gain from being married. Here, I present data suggesting that Hadza women
benefit from a husband's provisioning when they have young nurslings.
During this critical period, women have lower foraging returns and return
rates, while their husbands have higher returns. These higher returns are
not due to more meat, but to less widely shared foods, like honey. Even if
women are "subsidizing husbands much of the time, provisioning by husbands
during this critical period of lactation could be enough to favor pair
bonding.

> ""archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene, coincident with the
> emergence of Homo can be read to reflect low-yield scavenging, *not* >
hunting. [...] *not* for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of >
competitive male displays.""
> > Yes indeed the first above is the concensus understanding,
> the first supports my remarks completely,

"So you agree with yourself, hari/archaea. That's nice."

No, the point you make about the first use of animals agrees with my
remarks about long term access and is the standard view.

> the second unsupportable by any
> evidence to be found as ""archaeological evidence.

"Those are the findings of (eminent) researchers in the field."

They present no evidence dug from the ground. It is alone their personal
specualation about some proposed could be of what happened. These kind of
think pieces about such speculation are common but no expert takes them as
evidence. They were thinking out loud. What possible physical evideence
could be found in support?

> When an attempt is
> made to speculate about the distant past current primate behavior is
used
> as a model.

"So all those engaged in archaeology are just wasting their time..
Have you really no idea at all how desperate you appear?"

They exactly as I said project current primate behavior and see if it
appears in hard physical evidence. The folk in the article do neither.

> Even among current primate behavior examples the second
> remark finds no traction.

"'Most forest primates have a frugivorous diet, with a supplement of
protein provided either by young vegetable shoots and leaves, or by animal
matter (mostly invertebrates). This is a most flexible dietary adaptation
that allows them to switch between the various categories of food items
available in different habitats throughout the seasons of the year
(Hladik, 1988). The ambiguous term omnivore is used either to describe
such flexibility or to emphasize a supplement of meat included from time
to time in a mainly frugivorous diet. However, it is noticeable that the
largest primate species, especially anthropoids, consume mainly vegetable
matter to provide their protein requirements. Chimpanzees, that
occasionally eat the meat of small mammals, do not receive all their
protein requirements from this source, which is anyway rarely available to
females and never exploited by the youngest animals (Hladik, 1981)."

Quite so, again supporting my first point. Prehumans, and as also
illustrated by chimps, had access to animal products for a long time.

> Such fanciful just so stories are too often
> invented to "explain" something but always fail for lack of evidence.

"The evidence is in front of you, hari, and you keep ignoring it."

No, the only evidence shown was a think aloud speculation about what might
have been, no hard physical evidence from that time in sight for you or me
to see.

> "So excluding females and children. Were they deficient in B12?"
>
> Given the second above is not established but as a just so story in
> evolution, the question has no meaning.

"It's what researchers have discovered looking at hard evidence."

Yu take a snip of a think piece and call it evidence from researchers in
the plural? What others but those authors express same?

"The real "just so" story is finding a few cut marks on bones and
concluding that hominids were eating any animals they could get."

In addition to cut marks made by the specificstone tools found in
association with hard physical evidence with animal bone butchering sites.
At the same sites we find bones broken by hammer stones to extract marrow.
They are smashed and not broken by gnawing as other animals would do.

we find also teeth wear patterns consistant with meat eating and chemical
changes recorded in the bones from at least some meat in the diet.

> > No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods only. By
the
> > time of modern humans, 100 k years ago, humans had been fully engaged
in
> > eating anything they could get their hands on for a long long time.

While it is good to dispell urban myths regardless of source, I would
continue to be concerned about insecticide levels in human food
consumption.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-net080708.php

Many people pay more than a third more for organic food in the belief that
it has more nutritional content than food grown with pesticides and
chemicals.

But the research by Dr Susanne Bügel and colleagues from the Department of
Human Nutrition, University of Copenhagen, shows there is no clear
evidence to back this up.

In the first study ever to look at retention of minerals and trace
elements, animals were fed a diet consisting of crops grown using three
different cultivation methods in two seasons.

The study looked at the following crops carrots, kale, mature peas, apples
and potatoes staple ingredients that can be found in most families'
shopping list.

The first cultivation method consisted of growing the vegetables on soil
which had a low input of nutrients using animal manure and no pesticides
except for one organically approved product on kale only.

The second method involved applying a low input of nutrients using animal
manure, combined with use of pesticides, as much as allowed by regulation.

Finally, the third method comprised a combination of a high input of
nutrients through mineral fertilisers and pesticides as legally allowed.

The crops were grown on the same or similar soil on adjacent fields at the
same time and so experienced the same weather conditions. All were
harvested and treated at the same time. In the case of the organically
grown vegetables, all were grown on established organic soil.

After harvest, results showed that there were no differences in the levels
of major and trace contents in the fruit and vegetables grown using the
three different methods.

Produce from the organically and conventionally grown crops were then fed
to animals over a two year period and intake and excretion of various
minerals and trace elements were measured. Once again, the results showed
there was no difference in retention of the elements regardless of how the
crops were grown.

On Aug 8, 7:12 pm, wrote:
> "This is the message Pearl originally responded to. She explained why
> supplements were now necessary to restore B12 that has been depleted.
> Ancestors adapted to B12 readily available in natural plant diet. You"
>
> Prehumans had access to animal based vit b12 for some millions of years.
> No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods only. By the
> time of modern humans, 100 k years ago, humans had been fully engaged in
> eating anything they could get their hands on for a long long time.

"A long long time" is very very misleading without anatomical
adaptations that would allow humans to digest meat as well as fruit or
a ratio for context. Before fire kindling meat was rarely eaten, if at
all. And definitely not for nutritional reasons. No nutritional
requirements for meat have been established for chimps or humans to
this day. On the contrary, meat makes humans & chimps sick.

100,000 yrs of meat supplemented diet/63,000,000 yrs of herbivorous/
frugivorous adaptation = .1587% of primate evolution. There, that's
not so long to supplement a diet w/meat until the weather changes
again.

"long long time" is only cheer leading.

Chris

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:07:55 -0700 (PDT), crisology > wrote:

>On Aug 8, 7:12 pm, wrote:
>> "This is the message Pearl originally responded to. She explained why
>> supplements were now necessary to restore B12 that has been depleted.
>> Ancestors adapted to B12 readily available in natural plant diet. You"
>>
>> Prehumans had access to animal based vit b12 for some millions of years.
>> No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods only. By the
>> time of modern humans, 100 k years ago, humans had been fully engaged in
>> eating anything they could get their hands on for a long long time.
>
>"A long long time" is very very misleading without anatomical
>adaptations that would allow humans to digest meat as well as fruit or
>a ratio for context. Before fire kindling meat was rarely eaten, if at
>all. And definitely not for nutritional reasons. No nutritional
>requirements for meat have been established for chimps or humans to
>this day. On the contrary, meat makes humans & chimps sick.
>
>100,000 yrs of meat supplemented diet/63,000,000 yrs of herbivorous/
>frugivorous adaptation = .1587% of primate evolution. There, that's
>not so long to supplement a diet w/meat until the weather changes
>again.
>
>"long long time" is only cheer leading.
>
>Chris

"Pearl" is from Ireland and therefore would not exist
if humans didn't eat meat. I seriously doubt that any of us
would, meaning that not only are we *capable* of eating
meat, but that meat eating was NECESSARY in order for
us to even exist.

"This is the message Pearl originally responded to. She explained why
supplements were now necessary to restore B12 that has been depleted.
Ancestors adapted to B12 readily available in natural plant diet. You"

No, she asserted that plants could be a source and the "depletion"
explained why they are no longer. This is called in logic begging the
question and special pleading.

> Prehumans had access to animal based vit b12 for some millions of years.
> No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods only. By
the
> time of modern humans, 100 k years ago, humans had been fully engaged in
> eating anything they could get their hands on for a long long time.

""A long long time" is very very misleading without anatomical
adaptations that would allow humans to digest meat as well as fruit or
a ratio for context. Before fire kindling meat was rarely eaten, if at
all. And definitely not for nutritional reasons. No nutritional
requirements for meat have been established for chimps or humans to
this day. On the contrary, meat makes humans & chimps sick."

When you eat a hamburger does chewed undigested meat appear in your feces?
Humans even today eat raw animal products, evidence from the distant past
shows butchering sites long long before fire was used. The basic amino
acids and fats of meat are critical but need not be sourced from meat
alone. For the most part once metabolized those meat substances do not
appear to the body any different then similar found in plant and other
sources. Does meat make cats sick or will they die without it?

"100,000 yrs of meat supplemented diet/63,000,000 yrs of herbivorous/
frugivorous adaptation = .1587% of primate evolution. There, that's not so
long to supplement a diet w/meat until the weather changes again."

In that smaller latter period of human evolution all parts of the globe
were occupied in all climates. Meat usage has been suggested as a primary
reason humans can easily occupy any place on earth, weather
notwithstanding. A fruit only diet would find a great part of the globe
off limits to humans.

""long long time" is only cheer leading.""

Huh?

> wrote in message ...
"crisology" > wrote in message ...
> "100,000 yrs of meat supplemented diet/63,000,000 yrs of herbivorous/
> frugivorous adaptation = .1587% of primate evolution. There, that's not so
> long to supplement a diet w/meat until the weather changes again."
>
> In that smaller latter period of human evolution all parts of the globe
> were occupied in all climates. Meat usage has been suggested as a primary
> reason humans can easily occupy any place on earth, weather
> notwithstanding. A fruit only diet would find a great part of the globe
> off limits to humans.

"Flesh foods are not the best nourishment for human beings and were
not the food of our primitive ancestors," observes Dr. Kellogg. "There
is nothing necessary or desirable for human nutrition to be found in
meats or flesh foods which is not found in and derived from vegetable
products."

Although writing in 1923, Dr. Kellogg's words confirm a recent statement
by the American Dietetic Association, that, "most of mankind for most
of human history has lived on vegetarian or near vegetarian diets."

"The human race in general has never really adopted flesh as a staple food,"
explains Dr. Kellogg. "The Anglo-Saxons and a few savage tribes are about
the only flesh-eating people. The people of other nations use meat only as
a luxury or an emergency diet. According to Mori, the Japanese peasant of
the interior is almost an exclusive vegetarian. He eats fish once or twice a
month and meat once or twice a year."

Dr. Kellogg writes that in 1899, the Emperor of Japan appointed a
commission to determine whether it was necessary to add meat to the
nation's diet to improve the people's strength and stature. The
commission concluded that as far as meat was concerned, "the Japanese
had always managed to do without it, and that their powers of endurance
and their athletic prowess exceeded that of any of the Caucasian races.
Japan's diet stands on a foundation of rice."

According to Dr. Kellogg, "the rice diet of the Japanese is supplemented
by the free use of peanuts, soy beans, and greens, which...constitute a
wholly sufficient bill of fare. Throughout the Island Empire, rice is largely
used, together with buckwheat, barley, wheat, and millet. Turnips and
radishes, yams and sweet potatos are frequently used, also cucumbers,
pumpkins and squashes. The soy bean is held in high esteem and used
largely in the form of miso, a puree prepared from the bean and fermented;
also to-fu, a sort of cheese; and cho-yu, which is prepared by mixing the
pulverized beans with wheat flour, salt, and water and fermenting from
one and a half to five years.

"The Chinese peasant lives on essentially the same diet, as do also the
Siamese, the Koreans, and most other Oriental peoples. Three-fourths
of the world's population eat so little meat that it cannot be regarded as
anything more than an incidental factor in their bill of fare. The countless
millions of China," writes Dr. Kellogg, "are for the most part flesh-
abstainers. In fact, at least two-thirds of the inhabitants of the world
make so little use of flesh that it can hardly be considered an essential
part of their dietary...The ancient vegetarian races of Mexico and Peru
had attained to a high degree of civilization when discovered by Cortez,
and were certainly far more gentle and amiable in character than were
their flesh-eating conquerors, whose treachery and cold-blooded
atrocities so nearly resulted in the complete extinction of a noble race."

Dr. Kellogg reports that the South American bark-gatherers live
"almost wholly upon bananas and other equally simple vegetable food...
Certain tribes of South American Indians who subsist wholly upon a
non-flesh dietary, are remarkable for vigor and endurance...the natives
of the great plateau of the Andes subsist almost wholly upon corn and
potatos...the old Peruvians...were practically vegetarians." Dr. Kellogg
quotes Charles Darwin as having described the laborers in the mines of
Chile living "exclusively on vegetable food, including many seeds of
leguminous plants."

Concerning Central Africa, Dr. Kellogg admits, "It is true that practically
all the natives eat meat on occasion, but...the chief sustenance of the
naive is obtained from the products of the earth, which are most abundant
in this fertile region. Maize, yuma, manioc, coconuts, palm cabbage,
bananas, and a great number of fruits and nuts afford ample variety and
sufficient nourishment without flesh foods."

Dr. Kellogg cites a Mr. Sarvis of the Boston Transcript, who wrote:
"The Bantu race, who inhabit the great part of Central Africa, are almost
entirely vegetarian... Generally, their food consists largely of a kind of
millet, which is almost tasteless... Bananas and sweet potatos also form
a very important part of the diet of the African races of the central parts
....The natives also eat vegetables and salads of many kinds. In a few
districts cattle are kept for the milk and butter, but the natives do not
kill the animals for food...The Kavirondos wear no clothing whatever,
and they are absolute vegetarians, the banana forming the base of their
food."

The Ladrone Islands were discovered by the Spaniards around 1620.
There were no animals on the islands except birds, which the natives
did not eat. The natives had never seen fire, and they lived entirely on
plant foods-fruits and roots in their natural state. They were found
to be vigorous, active, and of good longevity.

Dr. Kellogg gives an account of the "Silesians, Roumanians, and many
Oriental people," all of whom he says "are almost exclusively vegetarians,
and enjoy a degree of vigor, vitality, and longevity not found among
flesh-eating nations."

In his 1583 text, Anatomy of Abuses, Stubbes wrote that previous
generations "fed upon graine, corne, roots, pulse, hearbes, weedes,
and such other baggage; and yet lived longer than we, were healthfuller
than we, of better complexion than we, and much stronger than we in
every respect." A century later, Macauley noted that, "meat was so
dear in price that hundreds of thousands of families scarcely knew the
taste of it," while half the population of England, "ate it not at all or
not more often than once a week."

Writing in the 1840s, Sylvester Graham observed: "The peasantry of
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Turkey, Greece, Italy,
Switzerland, France, Spain, England, Scotland, Ireland, a considerable
portion of Russia and other parts of Europe subsist mainly on non-flesh
foods. The peasantry of modern Greece...subsist on coarse brown bread
and fruits. The peasantry in many parts of Russia live on very coarse
bread, with garlic and other vegetables; and like the same class in Greece,
Italy, etc., they are obliged to be extremely frugal even in this kind of food.
Yet they are (for the most part) healthy, vigorous, and active. Many of the
inhabitants of Germany live mainly on rye and barley, in the form of coarse
bread.

"The potato is the principle food of the Irish peasantry, and few portions
of the human family are more healthy, athletic, and active...That portion of
the peasantry of England and Scotland who subsist on their barley and
oatmeal bread, porridge, potatos, and other vegetables, with temperate,
cleanly habits (and surroundings) are able to endure more fatigue and
exposure than any other class of people in the same countries.
Three-fourths of the whole human family, in all periods of time...have
subsisted on non-flesh foods; and when their supplies have been abundant
and their habits in other respects correct, they have been well nourished."

Dr. Kellogg also found a vegetarian lifestyle to be the norm in much of
Europe: "An official report shows that the diet of the Swiss peasant
includes little or no meat. 'In the Schwyz canton, the people have long
lived on plant food, without flesh. They are a fine set of independent
mountaineers, and from this canton the freedom of the Swiss was born.'
The peasants of northern Italy eat meat twice a year. They are remarkably
robust and hearty.

"The hardy Scotch have never been great meat eaters. In the remote districts
kailbrose, shredded greens and oatmeal over which hot water is poured, is
eaten with or without milk...According to Douglas, writing in 1782, the diet
of the Scotch of the East Coast was then oatmeal and milk with vegetables.
He says: 'Flesh is never seen in the houses of the common farmers, except
at a baptism, a wedding, Christmas, or Shrovetide.'"
....'
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html

> "100,000 yrs of meat supplemented diet/63,000,000 yrs of herbivorous/
> frugivorous adaptation = .1587% of primate evolution. There, that's not
so
> long to supplement a diet w/meat until the weather changes again."
>
> In that smaller latter period of human evolution all parts of the globe
> were occupied in all climates. Meat usage has been suggested as a
primary
> reason humans can easily occupy any place on earth, weather
> notwithstanding. A fruit only diet would find a great part of the globe
> off limits to humans.

""Flesh foods are not the best nourishment for human beings and were not
the food of our primitive ancestors," observes Dr. Kellogg. "There is
nothing necessary or desirable for human nutrition to be found in meats or
flesh foods which is not found in and derived from vegetable products.""

Smile, I found dear dr. kellogg's remarks amusing. More so because they
remind me of another food cultist writing in about the same period dr.
weston price. What is amusing is that both looked at many of the same
parts of the world and came to the exact oppisite conclusion about the
merits of the diet there. Kellogg, of breakfast cereal fame, and price
whos mantra was eating animal flesh especially fat is critical to health
are in fact both wrong. Both are the radical ends of the dietary range of
opinion that selectively sees what they want to see.

Dr. kellogg got most of his dietary remarks muddled about the parts of the
world he mentions. Consider just one. Japan decided not to add "flesh"
to the diet which one assumes means that of large domesticated animals or
what is commonly called "red meat". Of course at the many dinners at
which this might have been discussed a ton of seafood was consumed. Also
he mentions several places with little or no "flesh". What he fails to
mention that makes all clear is that the people mentioned would love to
eat "flesh" but were barely surviving on diets consisting of rice or other
grains.

In the case of price, he would remark in places he visited about the
contrast between people there with the traditional diets and those who had
adopted a more western diet with more grain and sugar. He found the
traditional contained sources of animal fat. He attributed many of the
same attributes of health as did kellogg to the fat.

If someone would like to see price's food cult disciples today::

http://www.westonaprice.org

> wrote in message ...
> > "100,000 yrs of meat supplemented diet/63,000,000 yrs of herbivorous/
> > frugivorous adaptation = .1587% of primate evolution. There, that's not
> > so long to supplement a diet w/meat until the weather changes again."
> >
> > In that smaller latter period of human evolution all parts of the globe
> > were occupied in all climates. Meat usage has been suggested as a
> > primary reason humans can easily occupy any place on earth, weather
> > notwithstanding. A fruit only diet would find a great part of the globe
> > off limits to humans.
>
> ""Flesh foods are not the best nourishment for human beings and were not
> the food of our primitive ancestors," observes Dr. Kellogg. "There is
> nothing necessary or desirable for human nutrition to be found in meats or
> flesh foods which is not found in and derived from vegetable products.""
...
> Dr. kellogg got most of his dietary remarks muddled about the parts of the
> world he mentions.

Ipse dixit. As per usual.

> Consider just one. Japan decided not to add "flesh"
> to the diet which one assumes means that of large domesticated animals or
> what is commonly called "red meat". Of course at the many dinners at
> which this might have been discussed a ton of seafood was consumed.

'From 676 to 737 A.D., under the Japanese emperor Tenmu, the eating of
all meat, including fish, was outlawed in Japan. From 737 A.D. until the late
19th century the eating of all meat other than seafood was not permitted.
But even then, fish was generally only eaten by most people on special
occasions. Dogen, the founder of the Soto Zen school of Buddhism, the
main sect of Zen Buddhism, in the 12th century, instituted the requirements
of a vegan diet for all his students, and that practice is still followed by
observant Zen practitioners.
Dr. Mitsuru Kakimoto, (Professor at Osaka Shin-Ai College, Osaka, Japan)
...'
http://www.animalliberationfront.com...VegnQuotes.htm

> Also
> he mentions several places with little or no "flesh". What he fails to
> mention that makes all clear is that the people mentioned would love to
> eat "flesh" but were barely surviving on diets consisting of rice or other
> grains.

What was stopping everyone from hunting/fishing/eating insects, or, as
you're forever chanting: "eating anything they could get their hands on"?

> Consider just one. Japan decided not to add "flesh"
> to the diet which one assumes means that of large domesticated animals
or
> what is commonly called "red meat". Of course at the many dinners at
> which this might have been discussed a ton of seafood was consumed.

"'From 676 to 737 A.D., under the Japanese emperor Tenmu, the eating of
all meat, including fish, was outlawed in Japan. From 737 A.D. until the
late 19th century the eating of all meat other than seafood was not
permitted. But even then, fish was generally only eaten by most people on
special occasions. Dogen, the founder of the Soto Zen school of Buddhism,
the main sect of Zen Buddhism, in the 12th century, instituted the
requirements of a vegan diet for all his students, and that practice is
still followed by observant Zen practitioners. Dr. Mitsuru Kakimoto,
(Professor at Osaka Shin-Ai College, Osaka, Japan) ..'
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Quotes/ARandVegnQuotes.htm"

Making most of the above irrelevant to kellogg's remarks. The japanese
like many asians modified buddhism as they liked. In s.e. asia there are
groups who eat meat. The stricture is about taking life not eating meat
per sey. Those groups eat meat because there is a class of non-buddhists
who do the actual butchering so the buddhists are home free in their eyes.

Also like many asians, poverty was the reason animal products are not
consumed in greater amounts and then on special events as funds permitted.
Those leaders who were considering dietary changes whold have no such
limitations and their shintoism has no such religious limitations.

> Also
> he mentions several places with little or no "flesh". What he fails to
> mention that makes all clear is that the people mentioned would love to
> eat "flesh" but were barely surviving on diets consisting of rice or
other
> grains.

"What was stopping everyone from hunting/fishing/eating insects, or, as
you're forever chanting: "eating anything they could get their hands on"?"

The chinese in s. china have a traditional saying. They eat everything
with legs but the table and they eat every thing that flies but planes.
It is poverty alone that dictates to what degree this can be followed.
Insects and rats and snakes and anything else they do get their hands on
is eaten. Their meat of choice pork and to a less degree poultry are
strictly eaten to the degree funds permit.

> wrote in message ...
> > Consider just one. Japan decided not to add "flesh"
> > to the diet which one assumes means that of large domesticated animals or
> > what is commonly called "red meat". Of course at the many dinners at
> > which this might have been discussed a ton of seafood was consumed.
>
> "'From 676 to 737 A.D., under the Japanese emperor Tenmu, the eating of
> all meat, including fish, was outlawed in Japan. From 737 A.D. until the
> late 19th century the eating of all meat other than seafood was not
> permitted. But even then, fish was generally only eaten by most people on
> special occasions. Dogen, the founder of the Soto Zen school of Buddhism,
> the main sect of Zen Buddhism, in the 12th century, instituted the
> requirements of a vegan diet for all his students, and that practice is
> still followed by observant Zen practitioners. Dr. Mitsuru Kakimoto,
> (Professor at Osaka Shin-Ai College, Osaka, Japan) ..'
> http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Quotes/ARandVegnQuotes.htm"
>
> Making most of the above irrelevant to kellogg's remarks.

'When Emperor Tenmu established Buddhism as the nation's official
religion back in 676 AD, he issued a nikushoku kinshirei banning the
consumption of meat and fish. Since meat was never a part of the
Japanese diet and only coastal residents had regular access to fish, it
was a pretty token decree; vegetables were and remained the staple
food. Six centuries later, Zen monk Dogen returned from a trip to
China with a set of precepts that beefed up Tenmu's (long forgotten)
original ruling to create shojin ryori, a vegetarian diet based on key
Buddhist themes of compassion and self denial.
...'
http://metropolis.co.jp/tokyo/437/dining.asp

"The human race in general has never really adopted flesh as a staple food,"
explains Dr. Kellogg. "The Anglo-Saxons and a few savage tribes are about
the only flesh-eating people. The people of other nations use meat only as
a luxury or an emergency diet. According to Mori, the Japanese peasant of
the interior is almost an exclusive vegetarian. He eats fish once or twice a
month and meat once or twice a year."

Dr. Kellogg writes that in 1899, the Emperor of Japan appointed a
commission to determine whether it was necessary to add meat to the
nation's diet to improve the people's strength and stature. The
commission concluded that as far as meat was concerned, "the Japanese
had always managed to do without it, and that their powers of endurance
and their athletic prowess exceeded that of any of the Caucasian races.
Japan's diet stands on a foundation of rice."

According to Dr. Kellogg, "the rice diet of the Japanese is supplemented
by the free use of peanuts, soy beans, and greens, which...constitute a
wholly sufficient bill of fare. Throughout the Island Empire, rice is largely
used, together with buckwheat, barley, wheat, and millet. Turnips and
radishes, yams and sweet potatos are frequently used, also cucumbers,
pumpkins and squashes. The soy bean is held in high esteem and used
largely in the form of miso, a puree prepared from the bean and fermented;
also to-fu, a sort of cheese; and cho-yu, which is prepared by mixing the
pulverized beans with wheat flour, salt, and water and fermenting from
one and a half to five years.
.....'
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
> pearl wrote:
...
> > 'When Emperor Tenmu established Buddhism as the nation's official
> > religion back in 676 AD, he issued a nikushoku kinshirei banning the
> > consumption of meat and fish.
>
> Bullshit. Just another example of "vegan" viral bullshit propagation.

In a Japanese publication, written by a meat-eater. Ridiculous Ball.

'Metropolis Japan

International Dining: Divine dining

Nicholas Coldicott eats his way to happiness with Japan's
ancient Zen cuisine, shojin ryori.

When Emperor Tenmu established Buddhism as the nation's official
religion back in 676 AD, he issued a nikushoku kinshirei banning the
consumption of meat and fish. Since meat was never a part of the
Japanese diet and only coastal residents had regular access to fish,
it was a pretty token decree; vegetables were and remained the staple
food. Six centuries later, Zen monk Dogen returned from a trip to
China with a set of precepts that beefed up Tenmu's (long forgotten)
original ruling to create shojin ryori, a vegetarian diet based on key
Buddhist themes of compassion and self denial.

The theory, at its most pious, is that we grease loving heathens know
only temporary fulfillment. A big slab of pizza can plug our bellies,
but will soon leave us feeling empty, both physically and spiritually.
The Zen meal goes deeper. Instead of rocking up to a fancy restaurant
and ordering whatever their taste buds crave, Zen disciples take an
ascetic approach and forgo extravagance and instant gratification.
The fat laden, heavy flavored grub of most Western dishes are deemed
poisons for the body and spirit. Food in Zen theology is no more than
a medicine to stave off disease. This medicine is delivered kaiseki style-
one tiny dish at a time, spread over two or three hours, with ingredients
carefully chosen to deliver the essential life sustaining nutrients without
excess. The aim is not to fill but to fulfill.
.....'
http://metropolis.co.jp/tokyo/437/dining.asp

> > "The human race in general has never really adopted flesh as a staple food,"
> > explains Dr. Kellogg.
>
> More bullshit.

From you, always. Ad hominem isn't and never was a valid argument.

> leslie the foot-rubbing whore is spouting pseudo-science, yet again.

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:16:51 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

>Japan's diet stands on a foundation of rice."

Rice is starch. Starch is just complex sugar, so they
could do just as well or better by living on Captain Crunch.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:16:51 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> >Japan's diet stands on a foundation of rice."
>
> Rice is starch. Starch is just complex sugar, so they
> could do just as well or better by living on Captain Crunch.

'Brown rice is often referred to as Natures most perfect food.
It is the least processed rice and highest in nutritional value. Rich
in magnesium, copper, fiber, iron, niacin, phosphorus, thiamine,
Vit B6, Folate, B1, B2, B3, B6, Vitamin E, potassium, selenium and
zinc. Brown Rice is rich in Carbohydrates, Protein and Enzymes.
...'
http://www.probioticsforhealth.com/s...85/page/796242

'Why Brown-But Not White-Rice is One of the World's Healthiest Foods

The difference between brown rice and white rice is not just color! A
whole grain of rice has several layers. Only the outermost layer, the hull,
is removed to produce what we call brown rice. This process is the least
damaging to the nutritional value of the rice and avoids the unnecessary
loss of nutrients that occurs with further processing. If brown rice is
further milled to remove the bran and most of the germ layer, the result
is a whiter rice, but also a rice that has lost many more nutrients. At this
point, however, the rice is still unpolished, and it takes polishing to
produce the white rice we are used to seeing. Polishing removes the
aleurone layer of the grain-a layer filled with health-supportive, essential
fats. Because these fats, once exposed to air by the refining process, are
highly susceptible to oxidation, this layer is removed to extend the shelf
life of the product. The resulting white rice is simply a refined starch that
is largely bereft of its original nutrients.

Our food ranking system qualified brown rice as an excellent source
of manganese, and a good source of the minerals selenium and
magnesium. The complete milling and polishing that converts brown
rice into white rice destroys 67% of the vitamin B3, 80% of the vitamin
B1, 90% of the vitamin B6, half of the manganese, half of the
phosphorus, 60% of the iron, and all of the dietary fiber and essential
fatty acids. By law in the United States, fully milled and polished white
rice must be "enriched" with vitamins B1, B3, and iron. But the form
of these nutrients when added back into the processed rice is not the
same as in the original unprocessed version, and at least 11 lost
nutrients are not replaced in any form even with rice "enrichment."

Here are some of the ways in which the nutrients supplied by brown
rice can make an important difference in your health:
..........'
http://www.peertrainer.com/DFcalorie...B.aspx?id=5914

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:16:51 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >
> > >Japan's diet stands on a foundation of rice."
> >
> > Rice is starch. Starch is just complex sugar, so they
> > could do just as well or better by living on Captain Crunch.
>
> 'Brown rice is often referred to as Natures most perfect food.
> It is the least processed rice and highest in nutritional value. Rich
> in magnesium, copper, fiber, iron, niacin, phosphorus, thiamine,
> Vit B6, Folate, B1, B2, B3, B6, Vitamin E, potassium, selenium and
> zinc. Brown Rice is rich in Carbohydrates, Protein and Enzymes.
> ..'
> http://www.probioticsforhealth.com/s...85/page/796242

(niacin - B3, thiamine - B1)...

> 'Why Brown-But Not White-Rice is One of the World's Healthiest Foods
>
> The difference between brown rice and white rice is not just color! A
> whole grain of rice has several layers. Only the outermost layer, the hull,
> is removed to produce what we call brown rice. This process is the least
> damaging to the nutritional value of the rice and avoids the unnecessary
> loss of nutrients that occurs with further processing. If brown rice is
> further milled to remove the bran and most of the germ layer, the result
> is a whiter rice, but also a rice that has lost many more nutrients. At this
> point, however, the rice is still unpolished, and it takes polishing to
> produce the white rice we are used to seeing. Polishing removes the
> aleurone layer of the grain-a layer filled with health-supportive, essential
> fats. Because these fats, once exposed to air by the refining process, are
> highly susceptible to oxidation, this layer is removed to extend the shelf
> life of the product. The resulting white rice is simply a refined starch that
> is largely bereft of its original nutrients.
>
> Our food ranking system qualified brown rice as an excellent source
> of manganese, and a good source of the minerals selenium and
> magnesium. The complete milling and polishing that converts brown
> rice into white rice destroys 67% of the vitamin B3, 80% of the vitamin
> B1, 90% of the vitamin B6, half of the manganese, half of the
> phosphorus, 60% of the iron, and all of the dietary fiber and essential
> fatty acids. By law in the United States, fully milled and polished white
> rice must be "enriched" with vitamins B1, B3, and iron. But the form
> of these nutrients when added back into the processed rice is not the
> same as in the original unprocessed version, and at least 11 lost
> nutrients are not replaced in any form even with rice "enrichment."
>
> Here are some of the ways in which the nutrients supplied by brown
> rice can make an important difference in your health:
> .........'
> http://www.peertrainer.com/DFcalorie...B.aspx?id=5914

This is a very informative and interesting article. Worth a read.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
> pearl wrote:
> > <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:16:51 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Japan's diet stands on a foundation of rice."
> >> Rice is starch. Starch is just complex sugar, so they
> >> could do just as well or better by living on Captain Crunch.
> >
> > 'Brown rice is often referred to as Natures most perfect food.
>
> *Only* by lying "vegan" extremists who don't know ****-all about
> nutrition and are willing to lie about it in furtherance of their
> extremist ideological agenda.
>
> Rice is starch, and starch is sugar, and that is *INADEQUATE* for human
> nutrition.

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc
onto other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing
something about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to
distract and divert attention away from themselves and their
inadequacies. Projection is achieved through blame, criticism and
allegation; once you realise this, every criticism, allegation etc
that the bully makes about their target is actually an admission or
revelation about themselves.
...'
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm

"'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc onto
other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing something
about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to distract and
divert attention away from themselves and their inadequacies. Projection
is achieved through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise
this, every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves."

And this is not limited to any one group nor side of a question and it can
be expressed in many guises.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
...
> >> Rice is starch, and starch is sugar, and that is *INADEQUATE* for human
> >> nutrition.
> >
> > 'Bullies project
>
> Stick it

No one's interested in your vile fantasies, you sick jerk.

> Rice is *not* a "perfect" food in
> anyway - virtually no protein, seriously lacking in many important vitamins.

Not just starch then, as you stated above. You're as clueless as dh@.

'Rice is a staple food for nearly one-half of the world's population.
...
For laboring adults, milled rice alone could meet the daily carbohydrate
and protein needs for sustenance although it is low in riboflavin and
thiamine content.
...'
http://www.cambridge.org/us/books/kiple/rice.htm

'Why Brown-But Not White-Rice is One of the World's Healthiest Foods

The difference between brown rice and white rice is not just color! A
whole grain of rice has several layers. Only the outermost layer, the hull,
is removed to produce what we call brown rice. This process is the least
damaging to the nutritional value of the rice and avoids the unnecessary
loss of nutrients that occurs with further processing. If brown rice is
further milled to remove the bran and most of the germ layer, the result
is a whiter rice, but also a rice that has lost many more nutrients. At this
point, however, the rice is still unpolished, and it takes polishing to
produce the white rice we are used to seeing. Polishing removes the
aleurone layer of the grain-a layer filled with health-supportive, essential
fats. Because these fats, once exposed to air by the refining process, are
highly susceptible to oxidation, this layer is removed to extend the shelf
life of the product. The resulting white rice is simply a refined starch that
is largely bereft of its original nutrients.

Our food ranking system qualified brown rice as an excellent source
of manganese, and a good source of the minerals selenium and
magnesium. The complete milling and polishing that converts brown
rice into white rice destroys 67% of the vitamin B3, 80% of the
vitamin B1, 90% of the vitamin B6, half of the manganese, half of the
phosphorus, 60% of the iron, and all of the dietary fiber and essential
fatty acids. By law in the United States, fully milled and polished white
rice must be "enriched" with vitamins B1, B3, and iron. But the form
of these nutrients when added back into the processed rice is not the
same as in the original unprocessed version, and at least 11 lost
nutrients are not replaced in any form even with rice "enrichment."

Here are some of the ways in which the nutrients supplied by brown
rice can make an important difference in your health:
..........'
http://www.peertrainer.com/DFcalorie...B.aspx?id=5914

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ..> >> pearl
wrote:> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
> > ..
> >>>> Rice is starch, and starch is sugar, and that is *INADEQUATE* for human
> >>>> nutrition.
> >>> 'Bullies project
> >> Stick it up your gaping flue, you stupid bitch.

... said a representative of the meatarian contingent - abusive pervert.

> >> Rice is *not* a "perfect" food in
> >> anyway - virtually no protein, seriously lacking in many important vitamins.
> >
> > Not just starch then, as you stated above. You're as clueless as dh@.
> >
> > 'Rice is a staple food for nearly one-half of the world's population.
>
> "Staple" does not mean "perfect" food.
>
> You'll quickly become ill if you eat nothing but rice. That would not
> be the case if rice were "perfect".

It's often referred to as "nature's perfect food" and widely used as
a staple because it's a good source of minerals and trace minerals,
B vitamins, essential fatty acids and protein. It's not just "starch".

> You know nothing about nutrition. All you know is irrational "vegan" dogma.

Ball$hit. All you know is what the voices in your sick head tell you.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ..> >> pearl
> > wrote:> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
> >>> ..
> >>>>>> Rice is starch, and starch is sugar, and that is *INADEQUATE* for human
> >>>>>> nutrition.
> >>>>> 'Bullies project
> >>>> Stick it up your gaping flue, you stupid bitch.
> >
> > .. said a representative of the meatarian contingent. Abusive pervert.
>
> No such thing.

What then? The meat industry? Who pays you, whore?

> >>>> Rice is *not* a "perfect" food in
> >>>> anyway - virtually no protein, seriously lacking in many important vitamins.
> >>> Not just starch then, as you stated above. You're as clueless as dh@.
> >>>
> >>> 'Rice is a staple food for nearly one-half of the world's population.
> >> "Staple" does not mean "perfect" food.
> >>
> >> You'll quickly become ill if you eat nothing but rice. That would not
> >> be the case if rice were "perfect".
> >
> > It's often referred to as "nature's perfect food"
>
> *ONLY* by irrational "vegan" extremists.

No such thing.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ..> >> pearl
> >>> wrote:> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
m...
> >>>>> ..
> >>>>>>>> Rice is starch, and starch is sugar, and that is *INADEQUATE* for human
> >>>>>>>> nutrition.
> >>>>>>> 'Bullies project
> >>>>>> Stick it up your gaping flue, you stupid bitch.
> >>> .. said a representative of the meatarian contingent. Abusive pervert.
> >> No such thing.
> >
> > What then? The meat industry? Who pays you, whore Ball?
>
> No one, ****. Why would anyone need to pay me to trash your goofy
> bullshit? I do it as a public service. I'm a very public-spirited person.

From: Rudy Canoza >
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:18:22 -0700
[..]

> Who pays you Shitstain?
> Why do your posts hop through NORWAY?

Heh heh heh...you stupid, STUPID pudgy queer. If only
you knew...

--------------------------

From: Rudy Canoza >
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:27:05 -0700
[..]

As to who pays me, that's not something you need to
know. You'll just have to speculate in your usual
uninformed manner.

------------------------

From: Rudy Canoza >
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:32:03 -0700
[..]

> On Oct 17, 4:16 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Heh heh heh...pays me for what?
[..]
> and who pays you

That isn't anything you need to know, and you're not
going to know it. Deal with it, ronnnnnnnie.

-------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, misc.rural
From: Rudy Canoza >
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:24:55 -0700
[..]

> Who pays you?

Lots of people. "When you're hot, you're hot!"

------------------------

Your Google profile used to say "Occupation: agriculture"
which could only mean the 'beef industry', you stupid filth.

> >>>>>> Rice is *not* a "perfect" food in
> >>>>>> anyway - virtually no protein, seriously lacking in many important vitamins.
> >>>>> Not just starch then, as you stated above. You're as clueless as dh@.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 'Rice is a staple food for nearly one-half of the world's population.
> >>>> "Staple" does not mean "perfect" food.
> >>>>
> >>>> You'll quickly become ill if you eat nothing but rice. That would not
> >>>> be the case if rice were "perfect".
> >>> It's often referred to as "nature's perfect food"
> >> *ONLY* by irrational "vegan" extremists.
> >
> > No such thing.
>
> Yes, you are the walking embodiment of it. You don't know ****-ALL
> about nutrition; not one ****ing legitimate thing. You are completely
> and irrevocably full of shit.

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:06:19 +0200 (CEST), wrote:

>"'When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave,
>the bully instinctively exhibits this recognisable behavioural response:
>
>a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include Trivialization
>..
>b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly and
>seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of
>counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion
>or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are
>the hallmarks of this stage.

They are the hallmarks of Goo's life. If Goo were somehow
restricted to the truth, he would have very little if anything at
all left to post.

>The purpose is to avoid answering the
>question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour."

"I win, no matter what I do." - Goo

>Hmmm, one thinks that covers the passive aggressive "bully" as well who
>just does it in other ways.

It's not all that unusual to see someone once in a while
respond to a challenge or criticism about something they
have done or failed to do, by slinking away from it and
leaving a childish insult or something similar in an attempt
to change the subject hopefully hiding their cowardly
retreat. It's not unusual to see a person do that once in
a while, but with Goo it's his standard method of behavior
....it's most often the "best" that the Goober can manage.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:36:44 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

>"pearl" > wrote in message ...
>
>> Here are some of the ways in which the nutrients supplied by brown
>> rice can make an important difference in your health:
>> .........'
>> http://www.peertrainer.com/DFcalorie...B.aspx?id=5914
>
>This is a very informative and interesting article. Worth a read.

Fortunately where I live it's easy to get multivitamins:
__________________________________________________ _______
Equate
Complete Multivitamin

Suggested Use: Take one tablet daily with a full glass of water, preferably after a meal.

(Vitamin A, 29% as Beta Carotene)

Also Contains:
Phosphorus 11%
Iodine 100%
Selenium 29%
chloride 2%
potassium 2%
*Boron 150mcg
*Nickel 5mcg
*Silicon 2mg
*Tin 10mcg
*Vanadium 10mcg
*Lutein (Tagetes erecta) (flower) 250mcg
*Lycopene 300mcg

*Daily Value (DV) not established

Contains: Fish (Cod) and Soy.
.. . .

Vitamin A 70%
Vitamin C 150%
Calcium 20%
Iron 100%
Vitamin D 100%
Vitamin E 100%`
Vitamin K 31%
Thiamin (B1) 100%
Riboflavin (B2) 100%
Niacin (B3) 100%
Vitamin B6 100%
Folic Acid (Folate) 125%
Vitamin B12 100%
Biotin 10%
Magnesium 25%
Panthothenic Acid 100%
Zinc 73%
Copper 45%
Manganese 115%
Chromium 29%
Molybdenum 60%

http://www.thedailyplate.com/nutriti...e-multivitamin
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Chow on one of them a day--maybe two if you're sick--and you're
good to go. Some meat for protein, and starch to burn, and as far
as other plants all you have to worry about is eating enough
roughage to keep things moving. If you try to get your vitamins
by eating vegetables you're probably going to end up eating
a bushel of them a day...eating all day every day like a grazing
animal just trying to eat enough low nutrition food to not starve
to death...eating to survive and surviving to eat, almost exclusively.
Meat provides enough nutrition that humans didn't have to remain
slaves to the vegetation that barely managed to let them survive.
When our pre-human encestors began to eat meat, it freed them.
It freed their time and their minds at the same time it made them
servants to another lifestyle--hunting--which expanded their ability
to think and work together incredibly. They weren't as much slaves
to the hunting as to the vegetation because then they had both.
If you want to see what humans would be like if we didn't hunt,
look at gorillas. We would just sit around eating all day...eating
low nutrition plants for hours and hours wearing out our teeth,
then spend other hours picking parasites from each other and
eating them. We wouldn't be providing lives for billions of domestic
animals either.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, "Pear" made the huge understatement:

>You're as clueless as dh@.

Much, much more so. Goo can't even appreciate how any
animals benefit from farming. They just don't come much more
clueless than that, especially in discussions about the ethics
of raising those very same animals for food.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, the Goober cowardly wussed as usual:

>leslie, lying ANTI-scientific foot rubbing whore, lied:
>
>> 'When called to account
>
>When called to account for your

Goo, see if you can explain how you think you disagree
with yourself on a few things. Try explaining how you think
you disagree with yourself about whether or not the lives
of livestock should be taken into consideration:
__________________________________________________ _______
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever" - Goo

"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
of consideration." - Goo

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

"I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
consideration" - Goo

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
whether or not life is ever a benefit for animals, and even whether
or not we ever discuss existing animals:
__________________________________________________ _______
"Life is not a benefit for farm animals." - Goo

"Their lives may be pleasant for them." - Goo

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

"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo

"Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
*IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo

"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo

"IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
aspects of their lives." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and a few other ways you think you disagree with yourself in
general:
__________________________________________________ _______
"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo

"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know" - Goo

"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo

"we don't know if that move improves its welfare" - Goo

"the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo

"Intent doesn't matter" - Goo

"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Goo wrote:

>pearl wrote:
>> Goo wrote in message m...
>>> pearl wrote:
>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:16:51 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Japan's diet stands on a foundation of rice."
>>>>> Rice is starch. Starch is just complex sugar, so they
>>>>> could do just as well or better by living on Captain Crunch.
>>>> 'Brown rice is often referred to as Natures most perfect food.
>>> *Only* by lying "vegan" extremists who don't know ****-all about
>>> nutrition and are willing to lie about it in furtherance of their
>>> extremist ideological agenda.
>>>
>>> Rice is starch, and starch is sugar, and that is *INADEQUATE* for human
>>> nutrition.
>>
>> 'Bullies project
>
>Stick it up your gaping flue, leslie. Rice is *not* a "perfect" food in
>anyway - virtually no protein, seriously lacking in many important vitamins.

Nothing is a perfect food Goo. What do you think even
comes close?

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:37:21 +0200 (CEST), wrote:

>"'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc onto
>other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing something
>about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to distract and
>divert attention away from themselves and their inadequacies. Projection
>is achieved through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise
>this, every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
>target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves."
>
>And this is not limited to any one group nor side of a question and it can
>be expressed in many guises.

Goo is a special case. He is without question the most dishonest
person I've ever encountered. The stupid blatancy of his lies and
other types of dishonesty still continues to impress me, even though
I've seen him lie literally thousands of times over the years. This is
one of the favorites:

"You have never identified a single lie I've told." - Goo

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Goo wrote:

>pearl wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:16:51 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Japan's diet stands on a foundation of rice."
>>> Rice is starch. Starch is just complex sugar, so they
>>> could do just as well or better by living on Captain Crunch.
>>
>> 'Brown rice is often referred to as Natures most perfect food.
>
>Well, that's funny - some *other* quack has called something else the
>"perfect" food, and of course there can only be one.

Knowing how you are Goo, your idea of the perfect food
is very likely to be shit.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message m...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ..> >>
pearl
> >>>>> wrote:> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >>>>>>> ..
> >>>>>>>>>> Rice is starch, and starch is sugar, and that is *INADEQUATE* for human
> >>>>>>>>>> nutrition.
> >>>>>>>>> 'Bullies project
> >>>>>>>> Stick it up your gaping flue, you stupid bitch.
> >>>>> .. said a representative of the meatarian contingent. Abusive pervert.
> >>>> No such thing.
> >>> What then? The meat industry? Who pays you, whore Ball?
> >> No one, ****. Why would anyone need to pay me to trash your goofy
> >> bullshit? I do it as a public service. I'm a very public-spirited person.
> >
> > From: Rudy Canoza >
> > Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:18:22 -0700
> > [..]
> >
> >> Who pays you Shitstain?
> >> Why do your posts hop through NORWAY?
> >
> > Heh heh heh...you stupid, STUPID pudgy queer. If only
> > you knew...
> >
> > --------------------------
> >
> > From: Rudy Canoza >
> > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:27:05 -0700
> > [..]
> >
> > As to who pays me, that's not something you need to
> > know. You'll just have to speculate in your usual
> > uninformed manner.
> >
> > ------------------------
> >
> > From: Rudy Canoza >
> > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:32:03 -0700
> > [..]
> >
> >> On Oct 17, 4:16 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>> Heh heh heh...pays me for what?
> > [..]
> >> and who pays you
> >
> > That isn't anything you need to know, and you're not
> > going to know it. Deal with it, ronnnnnnnie.
> >
> > -------------------------
> >
> > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, misc.rural
> > From: Rudy Canoza >
> > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:24:55 -0700
> > [..]
> >
> >> Who pays you?
> >
> > Lots of people. "When you're hot, you're hot!"
> >
> > ------------------------
> >
> > Your Google profile used to say "Occupation: agriculture"
> > which could only mean the 'beef industry', you stupid filth.
> >
> >>>>>>>> Rice is *not* a "perfect" food in
> >>>>>>>> anyway - virtually no protein, seriously lacking in many important vitamins.
> >>>>>>> Not just starch then, as you stated above. You're as clueless as dh@.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 'Rice is a staple food for nearly one-half of the world's population.
> >>>>>> "Staple" does not mean "perfect" food.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You'll quickly become ill if you eat nothing but rice. That would not
> >>>>>> be the case if rice were "perfect".
> >>>>> It's often referred to as "nature's perfect food"
> >>>> *ONLY* by irrational "vegan" extremists.
> >>> No such thing.
> >> Yes, you are the walking embodiment of it. You don't know ****-ALL
> >> about nutrition; not one ****ing legitimate thing. You are completely
> >> and irrevocably full of shit.
> >
> > 'Bullies project [snip canned, stale psychobabble bullshit]
>
> Yeah, yeah - when you get your

"Rice is starch" - Jonathan Ball, terminally ignorant loser.

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

> lard ass kicked and your towering
> ignorance exposed, you always trot out more bullshit.

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc
onto other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing
something about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to
distract and divert attention away from themselves and their
inadequacies. Projection is achieved through blame, criticism and
allegation; once you realise this, every criticism, allegation etc that
the bully makes about their target is actually an admission or
revelation about themselves.
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm

> You *DON'T* know nutrition, you *DON'T* know archeology or anthropology
> - you don't know a ****ING thing except how to massage people's feet and
> give bad blowjobs. You have *NO* training in any scientific field that
> would allow you to speak competently about nutrition, anatomy or
> physiology. You're a crackpot new-age "vegan" extremist - a marginal.

'When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave,
the bully instinctively exhibits this recognisable behavioural response:

a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include Trivialization
...
b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly and
seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of
counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion
or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are
the hallmarks of this stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the
question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour.
...'
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm

"'When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave,
the bully instinctively exhibits this recognisable behavioural response:

a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include Trivialization
...
b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly and
seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of
counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion
or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are
the hallmarks of this stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the
question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour."

Hmmm, one thinks that covers the passive aggressive "bully" as well who
just does it in other ways.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"
Pearl--
IF you really NEED to swap insults with degenerate "Rudy", PLEASE do
NOT cross-post this crap to: alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE
SCIENCE only, please.

Laurie Forti
Moderator
alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE





--
I'd prefer that you'd post your questions to
news:alt.food.vegan.science as others can read our exchanges.