On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:08:24 GMT, wowfabgroovy wrote:
> is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally herbivorous?
> i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
> naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?

I'd say food chain issues make keeping carnivourous animals for food even
more wasteful. Energy is lost, the further up the food chain you go -
Feeding a cow a ton of veggies than eating it will give you less energy
than eating the veggies yourself, as some of the energy in the veggies has
gone into the cow moving, breathing, circulating blood etc. Feeding the
cow to a dog, or a set of dogs, then eating the dogs gives you even less
energy because the dogs will have used some of that energy too. This is
stuff I remember from biology; there's probably something similar in place
regarding nutrients.

--
Alex Pounds (Creature) .~. LGBTSoc Comms Person
CS2 Student /V\ Website working group chair
// \\ Environmental committee member
"Variables won't; Constants aren't" /( )\
^`~'^

"Creature" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:08:24 GMT, wowfabgroovy wrote:
> > is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally herbivorous?
> > i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
> > naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?
>
> I'd say food chain issues make keeping carnivourous animals for food even
> more wasteful. Energy is lost, the further up the food chain you go -
> Feeding a cow a ton of veggies than eating it will give you less energy
> than eating the veggies yourself, as some of the energy in the veggies has
> gone into the cow moving, breathing, circulating blood etc.
====================
Really? How well do you process grass? I'd say you're lying. there is no
way that you can convert grass to protein to keep yourself alive.
A cow can and does just that, and makes for a delicious steak when done...



Feeding the
> cow to a dog, or a set of dogs, then eating the dogs gives you even less
> energy because the dogs will have used some of that energy too. This is
> stuff I remember from biology; there's probably something similar in place
> regarding nutrients.
==================
Sure, only you can convert the nutrients that cows can, so your spew about
waste is just that, wastflu spew...


>
> --
> Alex Pounds (Creature) .~. LGBTSoc Comms
Person
> CS2 Student /V\ Website working group
chair
> // \\ Environmental committee
member
> "Variables won't; Constants aren't" /( )\
> ^`~'^

"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > went:
>
> >Sure, only you can convert the nutrients that cows can, so your spew
about
> >waste is just that, wastflu spew...
>
> what is it with you carcass munchers that makes you so agressive?
=================
LOL Agressive? I suggest you read some of the more vicious vegan loon
postings if you want aggressive. they talk about killing people...

if
> you can't answer the original question, don't bother replying because
> you're really not adding anything to the thread at all.
========================
what question was that? Since you snip everything posted, even you don't
know what you're talking about.
My post was perfectly in line with the post I responded to. That post made
some stupid comments about being able to
eat what cows do and do a *better* job of converting that food to nutrinets.
I called him on his stupidity, because just like you, he cannot eat grass.

What is with you animals killers that pretend otherwise that makes you so
ignorant?
>
>

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:08:24 GMT, wowfabgroovy
> wrote:

>is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally herbivorous?
>i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
>naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?
>

Personally, I would rather herd a sheep or a cow than a bear. My
guess is that food animals are such because they are docile.
Carnivores are rarely docile. Lazy sometimes, like lions, but not
often placid.

I imagine the thinking went something like, "When I try to brand that
animal, will it turn my torso into confetti?"

Tangentially related, I recall reading a SF story (by CJ Cherryh,
maybe?) that featured a race of beings that ate only carnivores that
also ate only carnivores. This was supposed to imply ultimate
superiority on the food chain.
-Vioxel

pamitySpam
Just remove all the spam and such.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:16:01 -0400, rick etter wrote:
> "Creature" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:08:24 GMT, wowfabgroovy wrote:
>> > is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally herbivorous?
>> > i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
>> > naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?
>>
>> I'd say food chain issues make keeping carnivourous animals for food even
>> more wasteful. Energy is lost, the further up the food chain you go -
>> Feeding a cow a ton of veggies than eating it will give you less energy
>> than eating the veggies yourself, as some of the energy in the veggies has
>> gone into the cow moving, breathing, circulating blood etc.
>====================
> Really? How well do you process grass? I'd say you're lying. there is no
> way that you can convert grass to protein to keep yourself alive.
> A cow can and does just that, and makes for a delicious steak when done...

Normally I have you killfiled, and it's posts like this that make me
realise why. Really, come on now. Think this through. We're talking GCSE
biology here, it's not that complex.
The point is not that a cow can or cannot process grass better than I can
(of course it can). The point is that the more stages in the food chain
there are, the smaller the amount of the original energy remains. All
energy comes from the sun; filter that energy as sun -> plant -> you and
you'll get x energy. Filter it as sun -> plant -> animal -> you, and
you'll get less energy, as the animal will have used some to heat its
body, move around, moo, think, respire, etc.

--
Alex Pounds (Creature) .~. LGBTSoc Comms Person
CS2 Student /V\ Website working group chair
// \\ Environmental committee member
"Variables won't; Constants aren't" /( )\
^`~'^

< Really? How well do you process grass? I'd say you're lying. there is
no way that you can convert grass to protein to keep yourself alive. A cow
can and does just that, and makes for a delicious steak when done... >

Let me preface this with saying I am neither vegan nor vegetarian. While
humans cannot process grass into protein(and maybe they can, I just do no
have the time to research this) there are other grains and beans that we can
such as soy. Soy, per pound, provides more protein than beef(and with less
health risks too). Soy is often used as feed for farm animals because of
its inexpensive nature to be produced.

It is a very simple fact that each level of processing(i.e., cow eats soy,
we eat cow) sacrifices some of the nutrients and energy in the food. If
some creature above us were to eat us, they would only gain a partial
benefit of what we gained from the cow.

Christopher

wowfabgroovy wrote:
> is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally herbivorous?

I'm going to agree with Vioxel on this one. Most large carnivorous
animals are too aggressive for husbandry.

> i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
> naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?

Cats are also eaten in some cultures. Other omnivorous/carnivorous
animals used for food would include raccoon, opossum, snake, alligator,
bear, turtle, monkey, etc.

Creature wrote:
>>is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally herbivorous?
>>i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
>>naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?
>
> I'd say food chain issues make keeping carnivourous animals for food even
> more wasteful. Energy is lost, the further up the food chain you go -
> Feeding a cow a ton of veggies than eating it will give you less energy
> than eating the veggies yourself, as some of the energy in the veggies has
> gone into the cow moving, breathing, circulating blood etc. Feeding the
> cow to a dog, or a set of dogs, then eating the dogs gives you even less
> energy because the dogs will have used some of that energy too. This is
> stuff I remember from biology; there's probably something similar in place
> regarding nutrients.

That's a fair grasp of entropy, but grossly exaggerated since the energy
loss isn't as direct a comparison as you've explained it.

Cattle usually don't eat veggies, but silage, grains, legumes -- and
almost always stuff completely unsuitable for human consumption. Game
animals also rarely eat food intended for humans, unless they trespass
into someone's garden, orchard, etc. Pigs are often fed with scraps and
other non- and unconsumable (by humans) feed. Most poultry can also
convert stuff humans normally wouldn't eat.

Question: Take any of those animals out of the equation, and what's the
net gain/loss in the system?
Answer: A gain of usable protein for humans.

Christopher P. Cericola wrote:
> < Really? How well do you process grass? I'd say you're lying. there is
> no way that you can convert grass to protein to keep yourself alive. A cow
> can and does just that, and makes for a delicious steak when done... >
>
> Let me preface this with saying I am neither vegan nor vegetarian. While
> humans cannot process grass into protein(and maybe they can, I just do no
> have the time to research this) there are other grains and beans that we can
> such as soy. Soy, per pound, provides more protein than beef(and with less
> health risks too).

last sentence, do you have any proof of this?

Nutritional Data for 100 grams of SOYBEANS, GREEN, COOKED, BOILED, DRAINED
Protein Gms : 12.350
(0% refuse)

Do you prefer tofu to edame?

Nutritional Data for 100 grams of TOFU; RAW, REGULAR
Protein Gms : 8.080
(0% refuse)

Nutritional Data for 100 grams of BEEF; SHORT LOIN, TENDERLOIN, SELECT,
SEP LEAN, CKD, BROILED
Protein Gms : 28.250
(with 20% refuse)

Too lean? Let's try ground beef then...

Nutritional Data for 100 grams of BEEF; GROUND, REGULAR, COOKED,
PAN-FRIED, WELL DONE
Protein Gms : 27.000
(with 0% refuse)

Nutritional Data for 100 grams of PORK; FRESH, SHOULDER, BLADE, BOSTON,
SEPARABLE LEAN AND FAT, CKD, RSTD
Protein Gms : 23.110
(with 24% refuse)

Nutritional Data for 100 grams of FINFISH; SALMON, COHO, WILD, RAW
Protein Gms : 21.620
(0% refuse)

Nutritional Data for 100 grams of TURKEY; YOUNG HEN, DARK MEAT,
MEAT&SKIN, COOKED, ROASTED
Protein Gms : 27.370
(27% refuse)

And just for comparison sake...

Nutritional Data for 100 grams of FAST FOODS; CHICKEN, BREADED AND
FRIED, BONELESS PIECES, W/ BARB. SAUCE
Protein Gms : 13.190
(0% refuse)

So even McNuggets have more protein per unit of weight than soybeans and
tofu. Soy also lacks vitamin B12 and a few essential amino acids.

> Soy is often used as feed for farm animals because of
> its inexpensive nature to be produced.

Partially true; yield per cost unit is more to the point. Other protein
sources are just as inexpensive, but often with lower yields. Also, it's
important to note that soy may be used in animal feed but is seldom used
all by itself as feed. Other soy byproducts, like hulls, are more often
used alone.

> It is a very simple fact that each level of processing(i.e., cow eats soy,
> we eat cow) sacrifices some of the nutrients and energy in the food. If
> some creature above us were to eat us, they would only gain a partial
> benefit of what we gained from the cow.

As noted earlier to another poster, the cow converts most of its energy
from foods we cannot digest. We can digest the cow should we choose to
eat it. What's the net gain/loss in the system if we eat something that
eats something we can't? (Read it until you understand.)

"Christopher P. Cericola" > wrote in message
...
> < Really? How well do you process grass? I'd say you're lying. there
is
> no way that you can convert grass to protein to keep yourself alive. A cow
> can and does just that, and makes for a delicious steak when done... >
>
> Let me preface this with saying I am neither vegan nor vegetarian. While
> humans cannot process grass into protein(and maybe they can, I just do no
> have the time to research this) there are other grains and beans that we
can
> such as soy. Soy, per pound, provides more protein than beef(and with
less
> health risks too). Soy is often used as feed for farm animals because of
> its inexpensive nature to be produced.
=======================
read your last sentence, the key is *often*. Cows do not *need* to be fed
anything besides grass. They do quite well on it. In fact, really better.
when grass fed their omega3 fat levels start to rival that of fish, instead
of omega6. Aside from that though, how do you figure it's more effecient to
feed them soy? .Or, how do your figure it's more effecinet to grow all the
soy and then process it into a form we can eat than to just eat a free
ranging grass-fed cow?


>
> It is a very simple fact that each level of processing(i.e., cow eats soy,
> we eat cow) sacrifices some of the nutrients and energy in the food.
==========================
No, it doesn't. Not if the *food* you start with is inedible to the final
person doing the eating. That makes cows a very efficient way to convert
inedible, environmentally friendly plants into a form that we can then eat.


If
> some creature above us were to eat us, they would only gain a partial
> benefit of what we gained from the cow.
=================
And why would he care? His hunger is satisfied regardless of your supposed
efficientless process.


>
> Christopher
>
>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> wowfabgroovy wrote:
> > is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally herbivorous?
>
> I'm going to agree with Vioxel on this one. Most large carnivorous
> animals are too aggressive for husbandry.
>
> > i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
> > naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?
>
> Cats are also eaten in some cultures. Other omnivorous/carnivorous
> animals used for food would include raccoon, opossum, snake, alligator,
> bear, turtle, monkey, etc.
===============
chickens, by the millions....


>

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:57:42 GMT, wowfabgroovy
> wrote:

>Vioxel > went:
>
>>Personally, I would rather herd a sheep or a cow than a bear. My
>>guess is that food animals are such because they are docile.
>>Carnivores are rarely docile. Lazy sometimes, like lions, but not
>>often placid.
>
>that would make sense. and in the days when we were hunters, cows and
>sheep would be easier to hunt than lions and tigers and bears. so it
>would make sense that someone would eventually have the idea of
>rearing such animals to make them easier to hunt.
>
>i was wondering if maybe it was becuase carnivorous animals didn't
>taste very nice or something? has anyone here ever eaten one?
>

I had bear once as a kid. It was really tasty, I must admit. It was
very different from beef, darker-flavored and a little greasier. I
don't know how much of that was due to preparation, though.

-Vioxel

pamitySpam
Just remove all the spam and such.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:24:58 GMT, wowfabgroovy > wrote:

>"rick etter" > went:
>
>>Sure, only you can convert the nutrients that cows can, so your spew about
>>waste is just that, wastflu spew...
>
>what is it with you carcass munchers that makes you so agressive?
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
« This manuscript explains the philosophy of a group of individuals
throughout the world who call themselves, ‘Liberators’. They believe
in a revolution to liberate animals and, if necessary, to kill their
oppressors. They say such extreme action is needed to stop the horrible
human caused suffering of animals and the destruction of the world.
They believe that nothing short of a total overthrow of this system
will free our brothers and sisters. Please see that this 'Declaration
of War’ is published for the world to read and understand.
Signed - Screaming Wolf »
[...]
http://www.animalliberationfront.com...20of%20war.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
In a war that is fought on on all fronts, as
thousands of actions occur every year
around the world there is bound to be
prisoners. Prisoner support is essential and
important aspect of our movement.
[...]
http://www.animalliberation.net/people/
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
All jailed political prisoners need our help through phone
calls ,letter writing, and faxes. We all must send prisoners
letters and information of different events to keep their
resolve strong (it get's lonely in jail!). Please, if you are not
a regular letter writer, make sure to send these activists mail
every once in a while. They will surely appreciate it.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/veganresist/pow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
"Every social justice movement has embraced violence and every
successful social justice movement has utilized violent tactics to
achieve their goals. I don?t think it is possible without that. I think
we have to quit waiting until everyone is behind us before we embrace
new tactics." ? Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

http://www.amprogress.org/ResearchOp...fm?ID=338&c=18
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
DAN MATHEWS, Celebrity Recruiter for PeTA

"We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win."
(USA Today, September 3, 1991)


INGRID NEWKIRK, FOUNDER, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)

"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals
out or burn them down."
( National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997)

"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against
it."
(Vogue, September, 1989)

"I know it's illegal [trespassing], but I don't think it's wrong."
(Montgomery County, MD, Journal Feb. 16, 1988)


ALEX PACHECO, CHAIRMAN, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable
crimes' when used for the animal cause."
(Gazette Mail, Charleston, WV, January 15, 1989)

Intersting PeTA facts

When ALF member Roger Troen was convicted of burglary and arson at
the University of Oregon, in which $36,000 in damage was inflicted,
PeTA paid Troen's $27.000 legal fees and his $34,900 fine. Gary
Thorud testified under oath that "we were illegally funding this
individual with money solicited for other causes, and Ingrid was
using that money, bragging to the staff that she had spent $25,000
on the case."
Deposition of Gary Thorud, Berosini v. PeTA, at 49-50.

Rodney Coronado, a member of the Animal Liberation Front, pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to 57 months in prison for the destruction
of an animal diagnostics research lab at the University of California,
Davis in April, 1987 (total damage estimates: $4.5 million). PETA sent
$ 45,200 to Coronado's 'support committee,' which was a sum 15 times
greater than what PETA spent on animal shelters nationwide in all of
that year.

http://altpet.net/petition/arquote.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
PETA's sympathies for ELF actions were apparent in a recent speech by
PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich.

"I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses,
these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow," he said.

PETA payouts to radicals willing to carry out such crimes include:

-- $5,000 to Josh Harper, who was convicted of assaulting police and firing on
a fishing vessel;

-- $2,000 to Dave Wilson, convicted of firebombing a fur cooperative;

-- $7,500 to Fran Trutt, convicted of attempted murder of a medical executive

http://www.cdfe.org/peta_fox.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:24:58 GMT, wowfabgroovy > wrote:

>"rick etter" > went:
>
>>Sure, only you can convert the nutrients that cows can, so your spew about
>>waste is just that, wastflu spew...
>
>what is it with you carcass munchers that makes you so agressive?
__________________________________________________ _______
August 11, 2002:
Arson by the ELF caused $700,000 worth of damage at a Forest Service lab
in Irvine, PA, and destroyed 70 years of research focused on maintaining a
healthy forest ecosystem. An e-mail from Elf's office said "While innocent
life will never be harmed in any action we undertake, where it is necessary,
we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice, and
provide the needed protection for our planet that decades of legal battles,
pleading protest, and economic sabotage have failed so drastically to
achieve." It further stated that all Forest Service stations were targeted,
and, if rebuilt, the Pennsylvania station would be targeted for complete
destruction.

September 21, 2001 UK:
Ashley Broadley Glynn Harding, the mail bomber
who sent 15 letter bombs to animal-related businesses and individuals over
a three-month period last winter, was sentenced to indefinite detention in
mental hospital. Additional court ordered restrictions mean that Harding will
not be released until the Home Secretary is satisfied that he poses no risk to
the public. The bomber's mail terror campaign injured two adults and one
child, one woman lost her left eye, the child scarred for life. At trial, evidence
indicated that he had intended to mail as many as 100 letter bombs.

August 16, 2001 UK:
One of the three men who assaulted Brian Cass, managing director of
Huntingdon Life Sciences, at his home, received a sentence of three years in
jail for his part in the attack. David Blenkinsop and two others donned ski
masks and ambushed Cass as he arrived home, bludgeoning him with wooden
staves and pickaxe handles. DNA on the handles and Blenkinsop’s clothing
helped convict him of the offense.

June 12, 2001 MO:
A 30-year-old animal rights activist attacked a
"Survivor" series cast member at a workplace safety promotion, pepper
spraying him in the face and hitting several onlookers, including children, as
well. Police arrested the attacker. Michael Skupin, who lasted six weeks on
"Survivor," attributed the attack to his killing of a pig for food on the series.

May 31, 2001 Canada:
In a raid late this month, Toronto police arrested
two men and put out an appeal for apprehension of a third in connection
with animal cruelty charges stemming from the videotaped skinning of live
animals. The video showed a cat being tortured and killed allegedly by a
self-styled artist and vegan protesting animal cruelty. Anthony Ryan
Wenneker, 24, and Jessie Champlain Powers, 21 were arrested. The raid
turned up a headless, skinned cat in the refrigerator, along with other
animal skeletons, including a dog, some mice and rats, and the videos.
Police are searching for the third person seen in the videos.

May 23, 2001 UK:
Three men, ages 34, 31 and 34, were arrested for the
attack on Brian Cass, Director of Huntingdon Life Sciences. The baseball bat
brandishing attackers split Cass' scalp and bruised him and sprayed a
would-be rescuer with CS gas on February 22, 2001. One of the men was
arrested at an animal sanctuary run by TV script writer Carla Lane.

May 9, 2001 Israel:
Shraga Segal, an immunologist and former dean of the
Ben-Gurion University medical school, resigned his post as chairman of the
government body that supervises research involving animals. Segal received
a faxed death threat and threats of violence against his family.

April 27, 2001 WA:
Governor Gary Locke signed into law this week a
measure that would make it a misdemeanor to knowingly interfere with or
recklessly injure a guide dog, or to allow one's dog to obstruct or intimidate
a guide dog. Repeat offenses could net up to one year in jail and a $5,000
fine. The measure sailed through the legislature in record time after reports
of blind people being harassed by animal rights fanatics, both verbally and
by looking for opportunities to separate the guide dogs from their owners.

April 19, 2001 UK:
In the US District Court for the District of New Jersey,
the US subsidiary of Huntingdon Life Sciences joined in the filing of an
amended complaint against SHAC, Voices for Animals, Animal Defense
League, In Defense of Animals, and certain individuals. The amended filing
asserts claims under the Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
Statute (RICO) and cited physical attacks on individual employees, death
threats, bomb threats, destruction of property, burglary, harassment and
intimidation; and also asserts claims for interference with contractual
relations and economic advantage. The original plaintiffs in the action were
the Stephens Group and its wholly owned investment-banking subsidiary,
Stephens, Inc.

February 23, 2001 UK:
In a major public escalation of animal rights terrorist violence, the managing
director of Huntingdon Life Sciences was attacked as he arrived home by
three masked goons wielding baseball bats or ax handles. Brian Cass, 53,
bludgeoned with head and body wounds and bruises, including a 3-inch
scalp gash, was saved from further injury by his girl friend's screams and
the aid of two passersby. One of the Good Samaritans chased the
attackers, but was debilitated by CS gas from one of the attackers. Cass,
stitched up and back at work the next day, vowed to continue the work of
HLS, which includes government mandated tests seeking cures for
dementia, diabetes, AIDS, asthma and other diseases. In reaction to the
attack, Ronnie Lee, ALF founder who is no longer with the group, condoned
the attack and expressed surprise that it didn't happen more often,
declaring that Cass got off "lightly." Other animal rights groups publicly
backed off condoning the act, but expressed "understanding" of how it
could occur. In calendar year 2000, 11 Huntingdon employees' cars were
firebombed.

February 21, 2001 UK:
Two men ages 26 and 36, and one 31 year-old woman were arrested in
connection with letter bombing attacks against at least eleven agricultural
businesses. Since December 10, 2000, three bombs were intercepted, but 5
of 10 others exploded, causing serious eye and facial injury to two adults,
and leg wounds to a 6-year old daughter of one of the intended victims.
Authorities considered all of the bombs potentially lethal. The businesses
included pet supply, pest control, farming, agricultural supply, and a
livestock auction agency.

February 13, 2001 Scotland:
A letter bomb was sent to an agricultural entity in the Borders. Army
experts were called out to defuse the bomb.

February 12, 2001 UK:
An agricultural firm in North Yorkshire received a letter bomb which was
defused without incident by army experts.

February 4, 2001 UK:
In an attack near Nantwich, Cheshire Beagles master George Murray, his
wife and five other hunt members were assaulted by masked animal rights
activists. At least five hunt members were injured by the stick- and
whip-wielding attackers. Murray was beaten, kicked in the head and face
and his wife was punched in the face. They were threatened with death as
retribution for the death 10 years ago of hunt saboteur Michael Hill.

January 31, 2001 UK:
A letter bomb exploded in Cumbria in a charity shop owned by the British
Heart Foundation. The woman who opened the package was not injured.

January 30, 2001 UK:
Two nail bombs, sent to an agricultural supplier in Sheffield and a cancer
research campaign shop in Lancashire, were detected and defused by
authorities before being opened by the recipients. Both bomb attacks were
linked to letter bomb mailings that started in mid-December.

January 5, 2001 UK:
Livestock auction estate agents in East Yorkshire are attacked by letter
bomb. One female staff member sustained serious eye injuries from the
explosion.

January 5, 2001 UK:
A farmer in North Yorkshire was injured by nails from an exploding letter
bomb.

December 30, 2000 UK:
A mail bomb sent to a pest control company in Cheshire exploded, injuring
the owner's 6-year old daughter who was helping her father with the mail.
The girl was cut on her legs and feet by shrapnel from the envelope.
Authorities suspect animal rights activists in the bombing.

October 23, 2000 UK:
Two hunt members received death threats and car bombs. Both were on a
publicized list of seven huntsmen considered to be "legitimate targets" by
the Hunt Retribution Squad." All seven had received threatening letters on
September 4, 2000. Amateur whip David Pitfield's van was destroyed by one
bomb in South Nutfield, Surrey. The bomb under a woman hunt member's
vehicle in East Sussex, discovered five hours later, did not detonate and
was removed by army bomb experts. Both bombs were considered lethal.

http://www.naiaonline.org/body/artic...s/arterror.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:00:30 GMT, wowfabgroovy > wrote:

>"rick etter" > went:
>
>>
>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
>>> wowfabgroovy wrote:
>>> > is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally herbivorous?
>>>
>>> I'm going to agree with Vioxel on this one. Most large carnivorous
>>> animals are too aggressive for husbandry.
>>>
>>> > i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
>>> > naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?
>>>
>>> Cats are also eaten in some cultures. Other omnivorous/carnivorous
>>> animals used for food would include raccoon, opossum, snake, alligator,
>>> bear, turtle, monkey, etc.
>>===============
>>chickens, by the millions....
>
>which was one of the reasons for the phrase naturally herbivorous.
>most food sheep are carnivorous now, but not naturally so.

Chickens turkeys and pigs are natural omnivores.

"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > went:
>
> >
> >"usual suspect" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> wowfabgroovy wrote:
> >> > is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally
herbivorous?
> >>
> >> I'm going to agree with Vioxel on this one. Most large carnivorous
> >> animals are too aggressive for husbandry.
> >>
> >> > i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
> >> > naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?
> >>
> >> Cats are also eaten in some cultures. Other omnivorous/carnivorous
> >> animals used for food would include raccoon, opossum, snake, alligator,
> >> bear, turtle, monkey, etc.
> >===============
> >chickens, by the millions....
>
> which was one of the reasons for the phrase naturally herbivorous.
> most food sheep are carnivorous now, but not naturally so.
=================
what are you on? chickens have not been *turned* into omnivores, killer.

wowfabgroovy wrote:
>>Personally, I would rather herd a sheep or a cow than a bear. My
>>guess is that food animals are such because they are docile.
>>Carnivores are rarely docile. Lazy sometimes, like lions, but not
>>often placid.
>
> that would make sense. and in the days when we were hunters, cows and
> sheep would be easier to hunt than lions and tigers and bears. so it
> would make sense that someone would eventually have the idea of
> rearing such animals to make them easier to hunt.
>
> i was wondering if maybe it was becuase carnivorous animals didn't
> taste very nice or something? has anyone here ever eaten one?

I've had everything on the list in my previous post, with the possible
exception of monkey. One can't be sure what one has actually eaten in
certain regions.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:41:50 GMT, wowfabgroovy > wrote:

>"rick etter" > went:
>
>>
>>"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
>>> "rick etter" > went:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"usual suspect" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>> >> wowfabgroovy wrote:
>>> >> > is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally
>>herbivorous?
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm going to agree with Vioxel on this one. Most large carnivorous
>>> >> animals are too aggressive for husbandry.
>>> >>
>>> >> > i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
>>> >> > naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?
>>> >>
>>> >> Cats are also eaten in some cultures. Other omnivorous/carnivorous
>>> >> animals used for food would include raccoon, opossum, snake, alligator,
>>> >> bear, turtle, monkey, etc.
>>> >===============
>>> >chickens, by the millions....
>>>
>>> which was one of the reasons for the phrase naturally herbivorous.
>>> most food sheep are carnivorous now, but not naturally so.
>>=================
>>what are you on? chickens have not been *turned* into omnivores, killer.
>>
>>
>>
>
>killer?

Some types of meat involve less animal deaths than some types of
veggie products. A serving of grass raised beef could involve less
than 1/700 animal deaths. A bag of rice, box of cereal, loaf of bread,
etc.... could easily involve several animal deaths.

"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > went:
>
> >
> >"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "rick etter" > went:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"usual suspect" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> >> wowfabgroovy wrote:
> >> >> > is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally
> >herbivorous?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm going to agree with Vioxel on this one. Most large carnivorous
> >> >> animals are too aggressive for husbandry.
> >> >>
> >> >> > i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
> >> >> > naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?
> >> >>
> >> >> Cats are also eaten in some cultures. Other omnivorous/carnivorous
> >> >> animals used for food would include raccoon, opossum, snake,
alligator,
> >> >> bear, turtle, monkey, etc.
> >> >===============
> >> >chickens, by the millions....
> >>
> >> which was one of the reasons for the phrase naturally herbivorous.
> >> most food sheep are carnivorous now, but not naturally so.
> >=================
> >what are you on? chickens have not been *turned* into omnivores, killer.
> >
> >
> >
>
> killer?
================
Yes, you are. ou cause the death and suffering of animals for no more
reason than your selfishness and entertainment.
You prove that with each of you inane posts here on usenet. Now, what part
of the word don't you undersatnd?


>
>

"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> went:
>
> > Some types of meat involve less animal deaths than some types of
> >veggie products. A serving of grass raised beef could involve less
> >than 1/700 animal deaths. A bag of rice, box of cereal, loaf of bread,
> >etc.... could easily involve several animal deaths.
>
> are you talking about animals that aren't quick enough to get away
> from a combine harvester or something?
=====================
You ignorant dolt. Prey animals do not run at the first sign of danger.
they freeze in place. that's their best defense from predators. they only
run at the very last second before the predator is on them. With harvesters
up to 30' wide, how do you figure they all make it past the blades before
being cut up? Then there is the end of season starvation and predation.
You crops provided easy food and cover which allowed the populations of
animals to explode. Then you take away all the food and cover. The ones
that do escape the cutting, shredding and slicing now face starvation from
lack of food and predation from lack of cover. And no, they all can't just
scurry on over to the field edges and take up resedence. Those areas will
already be at the caryying capacity for their amount of food and cover.
Then there are all the animals during the season that get sprayed with
pesticides. These greatly effect nesting birds and eggs. Last, there are
all the animals you deliberatly poison just to keep your foods clean, cheap,
and conveninet. Over all, yes, you are a killer. But then, so is everyone
else.


or road pizza from lorries used
> in transportation? it's not really the same at all.
====================
Yes, they are. If I kill one cow, and get 100s of 1000s of calories and
100s of meals from that one death, and you substitute 100s of 1000s of
calories of tofu meat lookalikes, woh do you really think caused the fewest
numbers of animal to die? Why is their deaths any different/ They died for
you to have cheap, conveninet food.


>
>

wowfabgroovy wrote:

> went:
>
>
>> Some types of meat involve less animal deaths than some types of
>>veggie products. A serving of grass raised beef could involve less
>>than 1/700 animal deaths. A bag of rice, box of cereal, loaf of bread,
>>etc.... could easily involve several animal deaths.
>
>
> are you talking about animals that aren't quick enough to get away
> from a combine harvester or something? or road pizza from lorries used
> in transportation? it's not really the same at all.

It is the same. The entire collateral animal death
toll needs to be considered. That includes the deaths
in cultivation, harvesting, storage, and distribution.
For example, perhaps you were unaware of it - most
likely, you are unaware - but grain crops are stored in
elevators at which *active* extermination of rodents is
conducted, to prevent both "theft" and contamination of
the grain.

Sort of makes you look at that wholesome whole-wheat
bread in a new light, doesn't it?

wowfabgroovy > wrote in message
...
> is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally herbivorous?
> i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
> naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?
>
Probably because most carniverous animals were to feirce to be domesticated.
Herbivores are more docile - especially after their testicles have been cut
off without anaesthetic.

And look what happened when the idiots fed dead sheep to cows. Mad Cow
Disease and New Variant CJD! Are farmers and fodder producers naturally
thick as two short planks or do they take special lessons paid for by the
Min of Ag?

Nemo.

"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Ball > went:
>
> >wowfabgroovy wrote:

snippage...


> >Sort of makes you look at that wholesome whole-wheat
> >bread in a new light, doesn't it?
>
> if you can't see a difference between accidental death and deliberate,
> pre-meditated murder, i hope you never have to do jury service.
================
Yes, we can. Animals cannot be murdered. That aside, how do you then
excuse the very deliberate, very cruel deaths that you inflict on animals by
poisoning them just to keep your veggies clean, cheap, and convenient?
What do you do, just sort of put them out of your mind so you can focus on
the animals you think others are killing? How conveninet of you,
hypocritical, but convenient, eh killer?


>
> or maybe you think vegans don't drive because petrol is made out of
> squished prehistoric insects?
=======================
No stupid. try again about the soucre. The extraction, processing and
transportation of all that petro kills many more right now, not the ones
you're delusional about in the past.


not to mention all the modern day
> insects that are murdered by windscreens just for the comfort of the
> driver.
======================
Why is it ar/vegans always resort to the 'bugs' diatribe? If you want to
compare the number of lives, including bugs, that your diet and lifestyle
causes, bring it on, then you've really lost your 'argument', killer. But
that aside, I'm only talking about mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and
amphibians that you cause to suffer and die for no more reason than your
conveninece and entertainment. As I've said many times, there are no real
vegans on usenet, period. I suggest you don't even know the meaning of the
term you throw around to blindly, killer.


>
> you paint a picture of vegans being the lunatic fringe, but you're the
> one who obsesses over it to the extent that you want to argue about
> ethics in a cookery/recipe group.
======================
LOL Then what are you doing? You really are much too stupid for this,
aren't you? Besides, go back and look at the original comments for the
group creation. It wasn't limited to recipies.


Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, killer.

>
>

"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > went:
>
> >you cause the death and suffering of animals for no more
> >reason than your selfishness and entertainment.
> >You prove that with each of you inane posts here on usenet
>
> why, do you kick your dog every time you read them or something?
==================
Are you really this ignorant, or do you work really hard at it? Try
learning a little about power generation, distribution, and communications.

Your flippant, inane posts just continue to prove that *you* have no real
concern for animals, it's all about displaying your hatred of others.
Animals are just the tool for your hatred.





>
>

"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> "nemo" > went:
>
> >And look what happened when the idiots fed dead sheep to cows. Mad Cow
> >Disease and New Variant CJD! Are farmers and fodder producers naturally
> >thick as two short planks or do they take special lessons paid for by the
> >Min of Ag?
>
> it's more likely just down to greed/looking for ways to save money.
=================
Imagine that, the same reasoning that goes into growing your monoculture
crops using massive inputs from the petro-chemical industry.
All just to provide you with the cheapest veggies you can buy. Welcome to
the club, killer.


>
>
>

"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > went:
>
> >
> >"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "rick etter" > went:
> >>
> >> >you cause the death and suffering of animals for no more
> >> >reason than your selfishness and entertainment.
> >> >You prove that with each of you inane posts here on usenet
> >>
> >> why, do you kick your dog every time you read them or something?
> >==================
> >Are you really this ignorant, or do you work really hard at it? Try
> >learning a little about power generation, distribution, and
communications.
>
> mine's powered by little hamsters turning generator wheels.
====================
So you're abusing animals as slave and working them til the drop dead? Way
to go killer! i knew you had it in you...


>
> >
> >Your flippant, inane posts just continue to prove that *you* have no real
> >concern for animals, it's all about displaying your hatred of others.
> >Animals are just the tool for your hatred.
>
> i don't hate anyone. you're the one who seems to have some sort of
> personality disorder the way you try to pick arguments in a cooking
> group.
========================
Yes, you do. You hate those that are comfortable with their lifestyle and
diets. you can't stand the fact that people don't obsess over little bits
of animals in their food. You have to find others to demonize about animal
death and suffering so that you can ignore the massive death you contribute
to.


Now, go have that nice blood-drenched lunch, killer.

>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>

"Creature" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:08:24 GMT, wowfabgroovy wrote:
> > is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally herbivorous?
> > i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
> > naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?
>
> I'd say food chain issues make keeping carnivourous animals for food even
> more wasteful. Energy is lost, the further up the food chain you go -
> Feeding a cow a ton of veggies than eating it will give you less energy
> than eating the veggies yourself, as some of the energy in the veggies has
> gone into the cow moving, breathing, circulating blood etc. Feeding the
> cow to a dog, or a set of dogs, then eating the dogs gives you even less
> energy because the dogs will have used some of that energy too. This is
> stuff I remember from biology; there's probably something similar in place
> regarding nutrients.

I suppose a ton veggies requires no expenditure of energy and effort to
grow? Raising cattle for food is very efficient - the animal does most of
the work for you - but growing vegetables is labour intensive and not always
successful. Having had the experience of growing both for personal
consumption, I have found raising a tonne of beef is far less work than
growing a tonne of vegetables.

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Xaximus of Shaw Residential
Internet said:

>I suppose a ton veggies requires no expenditure of energy and effort to
>grow? Raising cattle for food is very efficient - the animal does most of
>the work for you - but growing vegetables is labour intensive and not always
>successful. Having had the experience of growing both for personal
>consumption, I have found raising a tonne of beef is far less work than
>growing a tonne of vegetables.
>
and where did you get the food for the cattle from? or did they take
care of that, themselves, too?
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
Hi, I'm the .signature virus. Copy me into your .sig file and help me
spread!

"MEow" > wrote in message
...
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Xaximus of Shaw Residential
> Internet said:
>
> >I suppose a ton veggies requires no expenditure of energy and effort to
> >grow? Raising cattle for food is very efficient - the animal does most
of
> >the work for you - but growing vegetables is labour intensive and not
always
> >successful. Having had the experience of growing both for personal
> >consumption, I have found raising a tonne of beef is far less work than
> >growing a tonne of vegetables.
> >
> and where did you get the food for the cattle from? or did they take
> care of that, themselves, too?

It's called grass and it grows naturally in pastures and rangelands.

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Xaximus of Shaw Residential
Internet said:

>> and where did you get the food for the cattle from? or did they take
>> care of that, themselves, too?
>
>It's called grass and it grows naturally in pastures and rangelands.
>
You want to tell me that those pastures was there all the time? You
want to tell me that the cattle can live on this all year around? You
want to tell me that it is even possible for all meat consumed in the
world to be produced in this way, and not just a fraction? If not,
then it's not a solution to the problem, now is it?
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
Hi, I'm the .signature virus. Copy me into your .sig file and help me
spread!

"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally herbivorous?
> i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
> naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?

Herbivores of the bovidae and ungulate families have historically been the
easiest to domesticate and raise in captivity for food, plus they have other
benefits such as wool, leather, or as work animals. Domesticating
carnivores for food would not make much sense since both human and animal
would be competing for the same food. In recent times though, salmon and
trout which are carniverous are now raised in farms commercially. There are
also a number of domesticated food animals which are not herbivores, like
chickens and pigs which are omnivorous.

"MEow" > wrote in message
...
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Xaximus of Shaw Residential
> Internet said:
>
> >> and where did you get the food for the cattle from? or did they take
> >> care of that, themselves, too?
> >
> >It's called grass and it grows naturally in pastures and rangelands.
> >
> You want to tell me that those pastures was there all the time?

In my region pasture land at low elevation is a natural occurence. At the
higher elevations pasture is created naturally by wildfires.

> You
> want to tell me that the cattle can live on this all year around?

Oh dear, how did cattle manage to survive before they were domesticated?

> You
> want to tell me that it is even possible for all meat consumed in the
> world to be produced in this way, and not just a fraction?

I can tell you that all the meat I consume is produced this way.

> If not,
> then it's not a solution to the problem, now is it?

What is the problem?

"Christopher P. Cericola" > wrote in message
...
> < Really? How well do you process grass? I'd say you're lying. there
is
> no way that you can convert grass to protein to keep yourself alive. A cow
> can and does just that, and makes for a delicious steak when done... >
>
> Let me preface this with saying I am neither vegan nor vegetarian. While
> humans cannot process grass into protein(and maybe they can, I just do no
> have the time to research this) there are other grains and beans that we
can
> such as soy. Soy, per pound, provides more protein than beef(and with
less
> health risks too). Soy is often used as feed for farm animals because of
> its inexpensive nature to be produced.
>
> It is a very simple fact that each level of processing(i.e., cow eats soy,
> we eat cow) sacrifices some of the nutrients and energy in the food. If
> some creature above us were to eat us, they would only gain a partial
> benefit of what we gained from the cow.

How does this apply to Inuit, who (traditionally) can only survive by eating
a diet high in fat and protein? The only food sources that have high enough
food value to allow them to survive are all animal, though they have been
known to eat "salads" made from partially-digested lichen scraped from the
insides of caribou stomachs.

"Xaximus" > wrote in message
news:yHVmb.190876$9l5.78938@pd7tw2no...
> "Christopher P. Cericola" > wrote in message
> ...
> > < Really? How well do you process grass? I'd say you're lying. there
> is
> > no way that you can convert grass to protein to keep yourself alive. A
cow
> > can and does just that, and makes for a delicious steak when done... >
> >
> > Let me preface this with saying I am neither vegan nor vegetarian.
While
> > humans cannot process grass into protein(and maybe they can, I just do
no
> > have the time to research this) there are other grains and beans that we
> can
> > such as soy. Soy, per pound, provides more protein than beef(and with
> less
> > health risks too). Soy is often used as feed for farm animals because
of
> > its inexpensive nature to be produced.
> >
> > It is a very simple fact that each level of processing(i.e., cow eats
soy,
> > we eat cow) sacrifices some of the nutrients and energy in the food. If
> > some creature above us were to eat us, they would only gain a partial
> > benefit of what we gained from the cow.
>
> How does this apply to Inuit, who (traditionally) can only survive by
eating
> a diet high in fat and protein? The only food sources that have high
enough
> food value to allow them to survive are all animal, though they have been
> known to eat "salads" made from partially-digested lichen scraped from the
> insides of caribou stomachs.
==================
Easy. vegans would have veggies transported there in massive amounts,
regardless of the animals that would die in that effort. See, they only
really care about animals that are eaten, not the ones that are left to
suffer, die and rot for their lifestyle...

"MEow" > wrote in message
...
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Xaximus of Shaw Residential
> Internet said:
>
> >I suppose a ton veggies requires no expenditure of energy and effort to
> >grow? Raising cattle for food is very efficient - the animal does most
of
> >the work for you - but growing vegetables is labour intensive and not
always
> >successful. Having had the experience of growing both for personal
> >consumption, I have found raising a tonne of beef is far less work than
> >growing a tonne of vegetables.
> >
> and where did you get the food for the cattle from? or did they take
> care of that, themselves, too?
====================
Yes, imagine that. cattle can just roam around and eat, gasp, *grass*! You
know, that stuff that just grows, without any inputs from you. The same
stuff that *you* cannot eat, but cows can turn into delicious edible
foodstuff. So, where's the ineffciency in that?

Now, care to really address his post. The fact remains that growing all
your own food is work! Lots of it, tiime consuming labor. Face it, no
supposed vegan here on usenet even comes close.


> --
> Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
> ICQ# 251532856
> Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
> Hi, I'm the .signature virus. Copy me into your .sig file and help me
> spread!

"MEow" > wrote in message
...
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Xaximus of Shaw Residential
> Internet said:
>
> >> and where did you get the food for the cattle from? or did they take
> >> care of that, themselves, too?
> >
> >It's called grass and it grows naturally in pastures and rangelands.
> >
> You want to tell me that those pastures was there all the time?
=======================
ROTFLMAO You really want to tell me that your mono-cultured farm fields
were always there? What a hoot!
Yes, many places the grasslands were already there, dolt. They have been
grazed for 1000s of years prior to *factory-farmed* meats.


You
> want to tell me that the cattle can live on this all year around?
====================
In places, yes.

You
> want to tell me that it is even possible for all meat consumed in the
> world to be produced in this way, and not just a fraction?
================
Why not? It's only been this way within the last century. Despite your
delusions, most cows do eat grasses for most of their lives, even the ones
that are *finished* on grains. The process of that was made to help keep
farmers in business, not ranchers. It's farmers that would go out of
business, not ranchers.


If not,
> then it's not a solution to the problem, now is it?
=================
Yes, it is. Immediate solution for *those* hypocritical vegans that claim
they want to do all they can to eliminate and reduce as much animal death
and suffering as possible. It's a point you, and no other vegan, has ever
even come close to refuting.


> --
> Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
> ICQ# 251532856
> Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
> Hi, I'm the .signature virus. Copy me into your .sig file and help me
> spread!

"wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > went:
>
> >Yes, you do. You hate those that are comfortable with their lifestyle
and
> >diets. you can't stand the fact that people don't obsess over little
bits
> >of animals in their food. You have to find others to demonize about
animal
> >death and suffering so that you can ignore the massive death you
contribute
> >to.
>
> actually, i think you'll find that that's you. did yer mam run off
> with a vegan or something?
=====================
Nope, that's you. I find it quite telling that you always snip(without
annotation of course, is that ignorance or duplicity) the parts of the posts
that are really relevent, and that you cannot deal with. Why is that
killer? Afraid to look up the truth for a change instead of relying on lys
and delusions?

Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, killer.

>
>

wowfabgroovy > wrote in message
...
> "nemo" > went:
>
> >And look what happened when the idiots fed dead sheep to cows. Mad Cow
> >Disease and New Variant CJD! Are farmers and fodder producers naturally
> >thick as two short planks or do they take special lessons paid for by the
> >Min of Ag?
>
> it's more likely just down to greed/looking for ways to save money.
>
Well they've sure saved the NHS and similar a lot of money!! (Irony)

rick etter > wrote in message
...
>
> "wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "nemo" > went:
> >
> > >And look what happened when the idiots fed dead sheep to cows. Mad Cow
> > >Disease and New Variant CJD! Are farmers and fodder producers naturally
> > >thick as two short planks or do they take special lessons paid for by
the
> > >Min of Ag?
> >
> > it's more likely just down to greed/looking for ways to save money.
> =================
> Imagine that, the same reasoning that goes into growing your monoculture
> crops using massive inputs from the petro-chemical industry.
> All just to provide you with the cheapest veggies you can buy. Welcome
to
> the club, killer.
>
You're welcome to the club too. Where d'ya want it? Head? Spine? Gooleys?

"nemo" > wrote in message
news
>
> rick etter > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "wowfabgroovy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "nemo" > went:
> > >
> > > >And look what happened when the idiots fed dead sheep to cows. Mad
Cow
> > > >Disease and New Variant CJD! Are farmers and fodder producers
naturally
> > > >thick as two short planks or do they take special lessons paid for by
> the
> > > >Min of Ag?
> > >
> > > it's more likely just down to greed/looking for ways to save money.
> > =================
> > Imagine that, the same reasoning that goes into growing your monoculture
> > crops using massive inputs from the petro-chemical industry.
> > All just to provide you with the cheapest veggies you can buy. Welcome
> to
> > the club, killer.
> >
> You're welcome to the club too. Where d'ya want it? Head? Spine? Gooleys?
====================
Unlike vegan liars, I've never claimed any different. Most sane people
realize that *vegan* means absolutly nothing as long as you're posting to
usenet.
There are no vegans on usenet.