frlpwr wrote:

> Susan Kennedy wrote:
>
>>"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message

>>Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not
>>with us?
>>
>
> ARAs aren't suggesting domestic animals be let loose to fend for
> themselves nor do they intend to raid homes and farms slaughtering
> companion and farm animals.
>
> A phase out is the usual proposal

And could never occur without a police state. You have
not made any progress at all in persuading people to be
vegetarian; the percentage of vegetarians in the
population is fairly static at less than 5%, and
so-called - and misnamed - "ethical" vegetarians are
but a tiny percentage of all vegetarians.

Admit it: your dystopia could only occur through the
violent imposition of a hated minority regime.

> and would be relatively quick if all
> breeding of domestic species ended.

Not going to happen.

> Most males of domestic livestock
> are already castrated so, since food animals are under strict human
> control, it would not be that difficult to castrate all of them.

Try it. See what happens to you.


> The best case scenario would have livestock pastured for the remainder
> of their natural lifespans,

No, the best case scenario would be for you to realize
your ideas are pure ****wittery, and for you to shut
the **** up, once and for all.

The next best scenario would be for you actually to try
to impose your fascist regime, suffer your guaranteed
failure, and be sent to prison for the rest of your life.


> Phasing out companion animals could follow the same pattern

Try it. See what happens to you.

>
>>And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were.
>>In fact, she even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone,
>>rather like my 3 year old grandson.
>
>
> Unlike your 3 year old grandson, you are free to euthanize your cat when
> its bid for attention becomes too annoying.
>
> Humans think it's cute to say we are slaves to our companion
> animals, but it's not.

Not to you, maybe. But no one cares, really, what you
like.

> The fact is we exercise ultimate control over
> every facet of the life and death of our "pets". If they rebel, they
> are "unmanageable" and we euthanize them, surrender them, abandon them
> or tether them in the yard.
>
>
>>In point of fact, by insisting that other people follow your beliefs, > aren't *you* the ones who wants control?
>
>
> As Rat says elsewhere, persuasion is the only certain way to secure
> rights for animals.

But your case is entirely unpersuasive, and always will
be. None of your gurus has said anything more
persuasive than what their predecessors were saying
centuries ago. This is why we now have violent fascist
"ara" groups like ALF in existence. They KNOW they
have no hope of persuading anyone peacefully of anything.

> No law in the world is capable of enforcing
> humility, generosity, concern or genuine respect for anybody or
> anything.

Certainly not when its inauthentic, as the versions
advanced by "aras" all are. It isn't about humility,
generosity, concern or genuine respect; that's not what
"aras" are advocating.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Hey Feral --
>
> Yep, they find you, don't they?

Non sequitur. She didn't write about any "they"
finding her.

Susan Kennedy wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>Rubystars wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors?
>>>
>>>
>>>Rat I wasn't going to say anything up until you said this. Are you
>
> opposed
>
>>>to neutering cats and keeping them indoors? Those are two things which
>
> are
>
>>>strongly in the interest of cats!
>>
>>You have to understand something, something that's
>>crucial to figuring out "aras". They have a rigid,
>>all-encompassing view of the human-animal relationship
>>continuum. They will strive at all times to remain
>>consistent with their fundamental view: that human use
>>of animals is evil. What they don't get, and never
>>will, is that they continually prove the truth of
>>Emerson's observation: "A foolish consistency is the
>>hobgoblin of little minds."
>>
>>If it weren't already obvious that believers in "ar"
>>have small minds, this kind of foolish consistency
>>should make it clear.
>>
>
>
> I'm more under the impression that they are anthropomorphizing.

That's one of the failings of "animal rights activists"
("aras"), but it's not the only one.

> Rat seems
> to think animals are a lot more intelligent and capable than they are.
> Perhaps they mistake cunning for intelligence, I don't know. I do know I am
> an unashamed omnivore, just like a good many animals are.
>
>
>

rick etter wrote:

> "Susan Kennedy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"rick etter" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Susan Kennedy" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>snippage...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Personally, I don't see that AR will ever become that accepted.
>>>
>>>--------------
>>>She knows that too. It's just that she can't help herself with her
>>>knee-jerk spews.
>>>There wouldn't be crops, power, gas, transportation, heating, any number
>>
>>of
>>
>>>things in the world if animals had rights.
>>>Afterall, you wouldn't be able to plow them under or poison them to keep
>>>your food clean and cheap, or process them for storage and shipment.
>>>Her own usenet spews contribute to the death and suffering of animals,
>
> yet
>
>>>here she is, continueing for nothing more than her entertainment.
>>
>>Much as I hate to say it, you're reactions sound pretty knee-jerk to me.
>>Not that I don't agree with some of what you say, but I really gotta say -
>>if I were on the fence, the way you say it would likely push me over on
>
> her
>
>>side, even if only temporarily.
>
> ==================
> That's the point. her side is bogus, and she knows it. Winning a
> miss-congeniality isn't my thing. Pointing out her lys and delusions is.
> btw, she also supports *** sex with young boys. She has no problem with
> nambla, and even supports them. Animals she'll say she protects, yet she
> can't bring herself to condemn queers that prey on little boys. Her whole
> belief system is so skewed as to be irrelevant.

Karen Winter ('rat') is perhaps the most glaring
example of the mentally ill self-marginalized mindset
that makes up "aras". Her damaged psyche is so bad
that she ACTIVELY seeks to increase her marginalization
by deliberately adopting beliefs that she already knows
to be seen as loathsome by the larger society.

It is critically important to see the correct order and
states of mind involved. It would be one thing if
someone were to hold a belief independently of, even
ignorant of, what the larger society thought about it.
That's not what Karen does. Karen is fully aware of
the larger society's beliefs about various issues, and
because she is perpetually at war with the larger
society, she SELF CONSCIOUSLY adopts beliefs that the
larger society finds loathsome, disgusting, wrong,
misguided, etc.

Karen does not support NAMBLA out of a genuine belief
that there is nothing wrong with men ****ing little
boys in the ass. Karen supports NAMBLA because she
SELF CONSCIOUSLY wants to express her contempt for the
larger society, and she knows that's one way to do it.
It would make it easier to dismiss her as just
another 58-year-old angry ******* who never got over
her teen years, except her vocal sophistry can be seen
as helping true criminal predators.

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Rubystars of SBC
http://yahoo.sbc.com said:

>> >These are worthy goals. PETA intends to do much more than that though,
>they
>> >intend to end all animal use, not just abuse.
>> >
>> The big question is then where the line between use and abuse lies.
>
>Yes, and that's where I feel the debate could be most productive, fighting
>hard and long for animal welfare. Look at all the energy that PETA expends
>on turning children against their mommies (did you see the Mommy kills
>animals comic?), making offensive images of Madonna and child with a dead
>chicken substituted for Jesus, supporting terror groups like ALF and ELF,
>etc. That energy would be so much better spent if they were working hard to
>help animals and end animal suffering.

I've never seen any PETA campaigns, only heard of them. That's why I
haven't commented on PETA because I'm not really qualified to speak
about it, not having seen the campaigns. However, I do agree that a
lot of wrong is done by animal right's organisations, like "freeing"
minks to certain death, and other such things. If it wasn't for such
things I could easily imagine myself joining an organisation, if it
really worked for better treatment of animals. As it is now, I don't
know what I can do, apart from choosing what I do or don't buy, but
that barely makes any difference, as I'm only one person.
>
>Working to try to do something about improving conditions on factory farms,
>making fur seem unfashionable (perhaps promoting faux instead), exposing why
>its a bad idea to buy wild caught pets, and why its a better idea many times
>to opt for captive bred ones, working for better animal cruelty laws and
>stiffer penalties, etc. would all be better than what they're doing now.
>They have done some good, but they expend so much energy on nonsense and
>hype and strangeness and being loud and offensive that they are diverting
>far too many resources from actually helping animals while making animal
>advocacy look like a cause full of kooks.
>
I agree that the "Meat is murder!" types are giving fighting for
better conditions for animals a bad name, and I have always thought
they were -ehm- what'stheword - too extreme, maybe?

>> I've now begun eating fish again, because my body insisted
>> persistently, and it got to a point where I couldn't ignore it; and I
>> feel better now (though it's a recent change), so I guess it must be
>> some vital nutrient I was missing in my diet. I imagine it to be some
>> of the fatty acids.
>
>You need to take care of yourself first. I think anyone who says you're
>doing something wrong here is mistaken.
>
>> Some people would consider that to be abuse, but I don't think I'm
>> helping anyone by damaging my health, and until I find a way of making
>> sure that I get those nutrients on a veg*n diet, I won't be on one.
>> Keep in mind that when I decided to go veggie, I also decided that if
>> I couldn't get enough of the right nutrients that way, I'd stop.
>
>The best situation is if you can meet your own needs AND meet your ethical
>goals at the same time. Eating fish isn't cruel, IMO.

Well, there's the issue of what the fishing industry does to the
environment, and I've heard that the fishermen in the big industrial
fishing boats don't kill the fish at once, so the fish just lie in the
boat and suffer until they reach shore. Then there's also the issue of
how the water pollution affects the fish, so it's considered not
advisable to eat more than a certain amount, due to some pollutants in
the fish. Well, I try to stick to the kind of fish which I know is
found within Sweden, such a salmon, so it at least eliminates the
issue of import and all.

>As much as we hate to
>think of ourselves this way, humans are predators. I don't think everyone
>needs to eat meat (and of course there are a lot of people who have lived
>for a very long time very healthily without it), but some people may need to
>eat some... it could just be how your body chemistry is. Doctors don't even
>know everything there is to know about nutrition so there may be some
>nutrients that are hard to get without meat that people don't really know
>that much about yet.
>
I don't know if it might be because I didn't do it right when being a
veggie, but my body, she wants fish, even if I did read about vegan
nutrition, and I did try my best.

>> I plan to still stick around, for recipes and such, as I still eat
>> vegan meals most of the time, though. Some people might tell me off
>> for this, but that's their business, and I'm not going to let them
>> bother me.
>
>I like to come here to alt.food.vegan to see the recipes and learn about new
>foods. I love to try new things and a lot of vegan foods are truly
>excellent.
>
I agree :0)
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"No. *Real* men eat whatever they like." Chwith (AFV)

Jonathan Ball wrote:
> Rat & Swan wrote:

>> Hey Feral --

>> Yep, they find you, don't they?

> Non sequitur. She didn't write about any "they" finding her.

Idiot.

Rat

Susan --

You must realize (as I'm sure you do from the difference in tone
of my posts and jonnie or etter's posts) that both jonnie and etter are
weird people, full of hatred, and willing to invent all kinds of lies
about their opponents. Do not believe anything they say about me
without checking; most of it is pure invention.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
>>> Hey Feral --
>
>
>>> Yep, they find you, don't they?
>
>
>> Non sequitur. She didn't write about any "they" finding her.
>
>
> I'm an idiot.
>
> Rat

Yep.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Susan --
>
> You must realize (as I'm sure you do from the difference in tone
> of my posts and jonnie or etter's posts) that both jonnie and etter are
> weird people,

You support NAMBLA, an organization dedicated to
legalizing adult men raping young boys. You claim to
be an "anarchist", something you know is impossible.
You are an "ara", a tiny minority within an already
minority.

Your existence defines weird.

> full of hatred,

That would be be you.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Susan --
>
> You must realize

Karen Winter ('rat') is perhaps the most glaring
example of the mentally ill self-marginalized mindset
that makes up "aras". Her damaged psyche is so bad
that she ACTIVELY seeks to increase her marginalization
by deliberately adopting beliefs that she already knows
to be seen as loathsome by the larger society.

It is critically important to see the correct order and
states of mind involved. It would be one thing if
someone were to hold a belief independently of, even
ignorant of, what the larger society thought about it.
That's not what Karen does. Karen is fully aware of
the larger society's beliefs about various issues, and
because she is perpetually at war with the larger
society, she SELF CONSCIOUSLY adopts beliefs that the
larger society finds loathsome, disgusting, wrong,
misguided, etc.

Karen does not support NAMBLA out of a genuine belief
that there is nothing wrong with men ****ing little
boys in the ass. Karen supports NAMBLA because she
SELF CONSCIOUSLY wants to express her contempt for the
larger society, and she knows that's one way to do it.
It would make it easier to dismiss her as just
another 58-year-old angry ******* who never got over
her teen years, except her vocal sophistry can be seen
as helping true criminal predators.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Susan --
>
> You must realize (as I'm sure you do from the difference in tone
> of my posts and jonnie or etter's posts) that both jonnie and etter are
> weird people, full of hatred, and willing to invent all kinds of lies
> about their opponents. Do not believe anything they say about me
> without checking; most of it is pure invention.
>
=======================
Yes, do check it out. You'll find that rattie does indeed fully support the
pervs of nambla.
Nothing invented about that, it's what you say.

> >
> Susan,
> Never argue with a terrorist, just shoot it on sight. There are
> plenty of documented cases of PETA support for terrorist
> organizations. Those who support such activities are as guilty as
> those who blow the hands of researchers or kill thousands of mink in a
> misguided attempt to feel important. Fanatics can not be swayed by
> reasoned discourse.

In a public appearance before a veterans group yesterday, President Bush
affirmed: "If you harbor a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, if you
feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists." The
Commander-in-Chief was speaking of Al Qaeda and Hamas, but we're reminded
that the same rule should apply when assessing blame for homegrown
terrorism. In particular, the zealots at People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) have a long history of supporting terrorists whose crimes are
inspired by animal-rights ideology and environmental extremism.

Those with a fascination for the macabre may be interested in the 2002
"annual report" of animal-rights- and eco-terrorism, published by the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF). It brags about "100 illegal direct actions"
committed by this cadre of violent thugs against businesses, government
agencies, and universities.

And the hit parade continues. Americans have seen a spike of eco-terror and
animal-rights terror attacks in 2003, including the following crimes
committed during the past month:

Animal-rights zealots vandalized the house and car of a San Francisco chef
who dared to serve foie gras.

The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) firebombed an SUV dealership in California,
causing an estimated $1 million in damages.

Vandals struck 17 Starbucks restaurants in San Francisco.

Militant animal rightists threatened to kidnap the wife and children of a
businessman connected to a medical research firm.

And, of course, ELF arsonists threatened the lives of firefighters and
construction workers when they caused $50 million in damage to an unfinished
apartment complex in San Diego.
Last year, Rick Berman of the Center for Consumer Freedom testified before
Congress that between 1994 and 1995:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals gave over $70,000 to an Animal
Liberation Front criminal named Rodney Coronado, who was convicted of arson,
a felony, in connection with the $1.7 million firebombing of a Michigan
State University research facility ... In addition, both PETA and its
president, Ingrid Newkirk, are acknowledged financial supporters of an
organization called No Compromise, which operates on behalf of, and for the
"underground" supporters of the Animal Liberation Front.

Patty




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"MEow" > wrote in message
...
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Rubystars of SBC
> http://yahoo.sbc.com said:
>
> >> >These are worthy goals. PETA intends to do much more than that though,
> >they
> >> >intend to end all animal use, not just abuse.
> >> >
> >> The big question is then where the line between use and abuse lies.
> >
> >Yes, and that's where I feel the debate could be most productive,
fighting
> >hard and long for animal welfare. Look at all the energy that PETA
expends
> >on turning children against their mommies (did you see the Mommy kills
> >animals comic?), making offensive images of Madonna and child with a dead
> >chicken substituted for Jesus, supporting terror groups like ALF and ELF,
> >etc. That energy would be so much better spent if they were working hard
to
> >help animals and end animal suffering.
>
> I've never seen any PETA campaigns, only heard of them. That's why I
> haven't commented on PETA because I'm not really qualified to speak
> about it, not having seen the campaigns. However, I do agree that a
> lot of wrong is done by animal right's organisations, like "freeing"
> minks to certain death, and other such things. If it wasn't for such
> things I could easily imagine myself joining an organisation, if it
> really worked for better treatment of animals. As it is now, I don't
> know what I can do, apart from choosing what I do or don't buy, but
> that barely makes any difference, as I'm only one person.

I got really interested in animal advocacy when I was a teenager. Naturally
I started looking into organizations like PETA, etc. I was shocked and
disappointed at them and turned off when I realized what they were really
like. I did find a bright spot in the middle of all that darkness though,
and that was "animal welfare."

> >Working to try to do something about improving conditions on factory
farms,
> >making fur seem unfashionable (perhaps promoting faux instead), exposing
why
> >its a bad idea to buy wild caught pets, and why its a better idea many
times
> >to opt for captive bred ones, working for better animal cruelty laws and
> >stiffer penalties, etc. would all be better than what they're doing now.
> >They have done some good, but they expend so much energy on nonsense and
> >hype and strangeness and being loud and offensive that they are diverting
> >far too many resources from actually helping animals while making animal
> >advocacy look like a cause full of kooks.
> >
> I agree that the "Meat is murder!" types are giving fighting for
> better conditions for animals a bad name, and I have always thought
> they were -ehm- what'stheword - too extreme, maybe?

Yeah. I mean, it's fine to have high ideals, but to pursue them in such a
way really doesn't help anyone, human or animal. I think they should take a
more practical approach.

> >> I've now begun eating fish again, because my body insisted
> >> persistently, and it got to a point where I couldn't ignore it; and I
> >> feel better now (though it's a recent change), so I guess it must be
> >> some vital nutrient I was missing in my diet. I imagine it to be some
> >> of the fatty acids.
> >
<snip>
> Well, there's the issue of what the fishing industry does to the
> environment, and I've heard that the fishermen in the big industrial
> fishing boats don't kill the fish at once, so the fish just lie in the
> boat and suffer until they reach shore. Then there's also the issue of
> how the water pollution affects the fish, so it's considered not
> advisable to eat more than a certain amount, due to some pollutants in
> the fish. Well, I try to stick to the kind of fish which I know is
> found within Sweden, such a salmon, so it at least eliminates the
> issue of import and all.

I think it's good that you try to get the most ethical food you can. That's
not easy to do!

> >As much as we hate to
> >think of ourselves this way, humans are predators. I don't think everyone
> >needs to eat meat (and of course there are a lot of people who have lived
> >for a very long time very healthily without it), but some people may need
to
> >eat some... it could just be how your body chemistry is. Doctors don't
even
> >know everything there is to know about nutrition so there may be some
> >nutrients that are hard to get without meat that people don't really know
> >that much about yet.
> >
> I don't know if it might be because I didn't do it right when being a
> veggie, but my body, she wants fish, even if I did read about vegan
> nutrition, and I did try my best.

That's all anyone can do.

> >> I plan to still stick around, for recipes and such, as I still eat
> >> vegan meals most of the time, though. Some people might tell me off
> >> for this, but that's their business, and I'm not going to let them
> >> bother me.
> >
> >I like to come here to alt.food.vegan to see the recipes and learn about
new
> >foods. I love to try new things and a lot of vegan foods are truly
> >excellent.
> >
> I agree :0)



-Rubystars

"The_Pittmans" > wrote in message ...
> > >
> > Susan,
> > Never argue with a terrorist, just shoot it on sight. There are
> > plenty of documented cases of PETA support for terrorist
> > organizations. Those who support such activities are as guilty as
> > those who blow the hands of researchers or kill thousands of mink in a
> > misguided attempt to feel important. Fanatics can not be swayed by
> > reasoned discourse.
>
> In a public appearance before a veterans group yesterday, President Bush
> affirmed: "If you harbor a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, if you
> feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists." The
> Commander-in-Chief was speaking of Al Qaeda and Hamas, but we're reminded
> that the same rule should apply when assessing blame for homegrown
> terrorism. In particular, the

... 'Coalition Of The Willing' led by pResident Bush, who again, after
over a decade of terrorization of the Iraqi people through war, bombing
and sanctions, launched another all out assault on that long-suffering nation.

Now, what about your terrorization of non-human species eh, hypocrites?

I like vegetables, especially when used to flavor up animals that I
have killed with a gun and whose flesh I want to eat:


Antelope Steak Deluxe

2 lbs. steak, 1-inch thick, cut in serving pieces
2 tablespoons shortening
4 tablespoons flour
2 soup cans water
1 tsp. parsley
sea salt, lemon pepper
can cream of mushroom soup
1 cup diced celery
1 clove garlic
can mushroom slices, drained
Heat shortening in skillet, pound flour into meat, and brown well. Put
in 1 can water and simmer for half an hour. Add salt, pepper and
parsley. Pour on soup and remaining water, mixed together. Add celery,
press garlic, and mushrooms, and cook on low heat for 1 hour. Serves
6.

Wild brown rice, with slivered almonds,
and shoepeg corn with pimiento round out the meal.


OYSTER-STUFFED GROUSE

1 cleaned grouse
1 cup breadcrumbs
sea salt, lemon pepper
1/4 cup chopped celery
1/2 pint raw oysters
4 strips bacon
Brown breadcrumbs in butter, season with salt and pepper; add celery
and oysters. Stuff the bird with this mixture. Fasten bacon strips
across breast and roast covered in 425-degree Fahrenheit oven 45
minutes, basting occasionally. Present with rice and steamed
asparagus. Serves 1.

-Jitney

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:02:12 -0600, "Susan Kennedy" > wrote:

>
>"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Rubystars wrote:
>>
>> > "Offbreed" > wrote in message
>> > om...
>>
>> <snip>
>> >>
>> >>If you think about what they advocate, they are pushing for the end of
>> >>all human/nonhuman interaction. This allows them to constantly move
>> >>the goalposts.
>>
>> > Yes, they don't want people to keep pets, go to zoos, or anything else
>that
>> > would allow humans to interact with animals.
>>
>> Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term goal,
>> not anything that is going to happen any time soon. But this shows the
>> poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans
>> interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I can
>> think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual freedom.
>> So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984).
>
>Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not with us?

They don't. They don't want them to exist at all. They lie and pretend
that they want them to have longer better lives, but those "ARAs" who
actually feel that way--if there are any at all--just don't understand the
difference between AW and "AR", or they believe in "AR" ideas
that wouldn't work out. Do you **ever** hear about "ARAs" producing
successful groups of wild animals, from domestic animals? I can think of
one example that could possibly be considered as such, but that's all.
I doubt that Rat can tell us of any. Do you know of any?

"Rubystars" > wrote in message y.com>...
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > Vegetarian Virgin Mary Ad Riles Boston Church
> >
> > BOSTON (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of
> > Boston Tuesday demanded the removal of an animal rights
> > group's billboard advertisement depicting the Virgin
> > Mary cradling a lifeless chicken in her arms.
> >
> > The ad by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
> > features the tagline "Go Vegetarian -- It's an
> > Immaculate Conception," a reference to teachings about
> > Mary's purity.
> >
> >
> http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/n...40920000245585
> >
>
> Blasphemy. Disgusting.
>
> -Rubystars

I do believe that PETA is being investigated by Congress which
wants to revoke their tax free status because PETA has supported
via cash donations groups that the FBI has labeled as
"internal terrorist" groups--you know, the ones that
go around bombing research labs at colleges and private
companies? Plus, PETA have donated LOTS
of money to support the legal funds of some of these groups
leaders that are being tried for murder--seems if you disagree
with these 'internal terrorist groups' and get killed by them
then PETA will pay for the 'bad' guys legal bills with the
(stupid and moronic) public donations who believe that PETA
stands only for warm and fuzzy things!!
Try these links to find out the truth about PETA--and
remember, one of their goals is to ELIMINATE completely
pet ownership--so, look at your sweet dog or cat and see
how your life would be without them, that is the PETA
agenda:
http://www.animalscam.com/
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

"sunny" > wrote in message
<snip>
> I do believe that PETA is being investigated by Congress which
> wants to revoke their tax free status because PETA has supported
> via cash donations groups that the FBI has labeled as
> "internal terrorist" groups--you know, the ones that
> go around bombing research labs at colleges and private
> companies?

I hope their tax exempt status is revoked. With all the hype about terrorism
over the recent years I'm surprised it already hasn't been.

>Plus, PETA have donated LOTS
> of money to support the legal funds of some of these groups
> leaders that are being tried for murder--seems if you disagree
> with these 'internal terrorist groups' and get killed by them
> then PETA will pay for the 'bad' guys legal bills with the
> (stupid and moronic) public donations who believe that PETA
> stands only for warm and fuzzy things!!

I think its sad that so many celebrities who could do so much good if they
threw their support behind a legit animal welfare organization, choose
instead to side with PETA. They may be helping to give it the innocent look
and helping to cover up the support of terrorists.

> Try these links to find out the truth about PETA--and
> remember, one of their goals is to ELIMINATE completely
> pet ownership--so, look at your sweet dog or cat and see
> how your life would be without them, that is the PETA
> agenda:
> http://www.animalscam.com/
> http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

Yeah, and that goes for the people who have beautiful exotics too.

-Rubystars

jitney wrote:
>
> If, in your interesting ethical world, animals have rights, just how
> do you propose to protect the animals from each other?

In my "interesting ethical world", it would not be my place to interfere
in the lives of other animals. Being a big Buttinsky, this would be and
is now a difficult lesson for me.

> I'm sure the deer would much rather be slowly torn apart by wolves,

Deer have evolved survival strategies to deal with wolf predation. When
older deer lose their edge or younger deer don't develop it soon enough,
they are taken. I think every death is a tragedy, but at least wild
deer have the opportunity to try their skill against the wolf and, many
times, they win.

> or try to die in old age in a rock nook while coyotes were nipping at > its belly.

Or die from septecemia from a bullet wound. Yes, death is rarely
gentle.

> Or the African elephant, after its sixth set of teeth decay, slowly
> starve to death.

Hopefully, she dies on the sweet soil of her own territory and not on a
sanitized, concrete slab in a zoo. Hopefully, her lifeless form will be
mourned by her vigilant family, not carted off to the renderer before
the afternoon crowds arrive.

> Nature, with its disease,droughts parasites, predators and wildfires
> is a far crueler master than the husbandry of man.

I don't see it this way at all. Life is a game of chance for all of us
with pleasure, pride and persistence its prize. We don't allow most
livestock to play this glorious game. What can be more cruel than
taking away the ability to win the day by speed, by awareness, by
stealth, by obstinence, by bulk, by daring, by ferociousness, by dumb
luck? What do we give them in place of the game? Nothing but a string
of days or months or years, every one the same.

> Would you sentence the lion to life in prison for murder?
> Or would the death penalty be more appropriate?

The lion is an obligate carnivore and a subsistence hunter, she must
kill. Even so, most of the lion's hunting forays fail and her target
persists for another day. When is it the packer hog's turn to win?

> Would pheasants be hunted down for the serial murder of bugs?

No. Should pheasants be bred, raised and released in front of an
advancing line of people with guns?

> (Or are bugs cute enough to qualify for rights?)

There is no correlation between cuteness and rights. If there was, most
of the humans on this planet would be without them.

> And of course we would have to arrest the big fish for eating
> the little fish.

Am I to understand that a fish is your ethical model?

> And then there would be the interesting task of re-training predators
> in vegan ethics. (Would it be okay to confine the predators during the
> re-education period?)
> Coherent answers, please, if you can do it.

AFAIK, only humans have the ability to weigh the consequences of our
actions and make a conscious decision to change our behavior. We have
the luxury or the gift to choose to be kind. Why not use it?

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> Hey Feral --
>
> Yep, they find you, don't they?

More like they're waiting everywhere for you to find them.
>
> Here I am in New Mexico,

So I see. I remember NM as slow, hot and dusty, but I only spent two
weeks there, all of it behind bars in the Silver City jail. Never got
to Santa Fe. Upon my release, I was invited to leave the state and I
felt I had no choice but to accept.

The worst part about it was the cops impounded my car with my cat in it!
Naturally, he was no where to be found by the time I got out. Instead
of heading for the border, I had to sneak around Silver City for a few
days looking for my big, black tomcat. The lowpoint was going to the
city landfill and looking at a long row of cat carcasses in various
stages of decomposition. Don't ask me why they hadn't been buried,
especially in the heat, but my boy was not among them.

I can't think of New Mexico without thinking of him. I hope he found
someone to help him out. I failed him, that's for sure.

> working with critters, and I'm out feeding the birds along
> the arroyo, and a guy in a passing car stops to talk to me.
>
> Turns out he has a friend who is taking care of a paraplegic
> bunny, who needs help caring for the rabbit

Wow. Injury or birth defect?

> -- so I'm going over
> to talk to her next week.

Sounds like you better start rabbit-proofing your house. His legs might
not work, but I bet his teeth do. You know how "help with care" quickly
become "home for care".

> Be well, take care, and all the best to you always.

Same to you. Hope you both are happy in your new home.

> You're my role model.

Silly girl.
>

Jonathan Ball wrote:
> frlpwr wrote:

(snip)
> > Most males of domestic livestock
> > are already castrated so, since food animals are under strict human
> > control, it would not be that difficult to castrate all of them.

> Try it. See what happens to you.

I imagine I'd get carpal tunnel from handling the testicles of every
intact male farm animal in the country. What do you see happening?

> > The best case scenario would have livestock pastured for the
> > remainder of their natural lifespans,

> No, the best case scenario would be for you to realize
> your ideas are pure ****wittery, and for you to shut
> the **** up, once and for all.

What do you figure the odds are I'll take this path?

> The next best scenario would be for you actually to try
> to impose your fascist regime, suffer your guaranteed
> failure, and be sent to prison for the rest of your life.

Why do male Antis act like frightened old women?

Call the FBI. Warn them of my plot to overthrow the livestock industry.
Tell them you won't be able to keep down your calming tea until I'm
behind bars.

> > Phasing out companion animals could follow the same pattern

Try it. See what happens to you.

Is this where you tell me you're going to shoot me in the head and ****
on my brain? Or is it the broken bottle up the **** time again?

(snip)

> > Humans think it's cute to say we are slaves to our companion
> > animals, but it's not.

> Not to you, maybe.

Not to anyone one who sees pet ownership for what it is. Have you
surrendered your cats to the pound yet? Or are they still living in
boxes in the garage?

> But no one cares, really, what you like.

Boo-hoo. No one cares. This might frighten you little old ladies, but
it doesn't bother me.

Then again, if no one cares, maybe many ones do.

(snip)

> But your case is entirely unpersuasive, and always will
> be.

It's not possible to persuade someone like you to be kind or generous,
but you won't be around forever. One of these days you'll throw a clot,
sooner rather than later, I hope.

(snip)

jitney wrote:
>
> I like vegetables, especially when used to flavor up animals that I
> have killed with a gun and whose flesh I want to eat:

Contact Bob Yates. You two can swap receipes and tell each other how
clever and humourous you are. Oh, and please don't forget the hilarious
inclusion of People Eating Tasty Animals with you next post. Such
comments never grow old in an ethics and animals ng.

Russ Thompson wrote:
>
> > Face it, lady, small livestock producers can't out compete corporate
> > farms for cheap meat.
>
> *** Uh...... No kidding, I think that's exatly what I said.
>
> That's not the fault of vegans.
>
> *** It is a direct result of lower prices recieved by the farmer.

That's what happens when supply is greater than demand.

> Consumers eating less animal products,

Consumer tastes change. Whole milk consumption if down, cheese and
yougurt consumption is up. Alter your business strategy if you can no
longer make a living selling simple cartons of bovine breast milk.

> thus less demand is what created "factory farms"

No, government failure to bust monopolies is what created factory farms,
that and the reluctance of farm state governments to regulate
agriculuture.

> and is putting the small farmer out of business. The information /
> disinformation put out by the vegan

The drift away from whole milk products is driven by health concerns,
not veganism.

> Vegans / animal rights types want to see farms like ours out of
> business and have targeted farms like ours first.

I've looked through "animal rights type" articles on agriculture and I
don't see any evidence of targeting small farms. It's CAFO's that has
everyone howling.

> Have you certified your
> > farm with the Humane Farming Association?
>
> *** No of course not.

Why "of course not"? Do you feel there is something wrong with a trade
group certifying the husbandry practices of its members?

> After looking into it we decided it was not for us.

Mind if I ask why?

> We decided on certified organic instead. Seems most consumers of
> organic products think that "organic" means humane.

Yes, but we both know that isn't necessarily so.
>

frlpwr wrote:

> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>frlpwr wrote:
>
>
> (snip)
>
>>>Most males of domestic livestock
>>>are already castrated so, since food animals are under strict human
>>>control, it would not be that difficult to castrate all of them.
>
>
>>Try it. See what happens to you.
>
>
> I imagine I'd get carpal tunnel from handling the testicles of every
> intact male farm animal in the country. What do you see happening?

You serving a life sentence.

>
>
>>>The best case scenario would have livestock pastured for the
>>>remainder of their natural lifespans,
>
>
>>No, the best case scenario would be for you to realize
>>your ideas are pure ****wittery, and for you to shut
>>the **** up, once and for all.
>
>
> What do you figure the odds are I'll take this path?

Much, much better than seeing your dystopic vision come
to pass. Possibly you'll BE shut up, rather than doing
it yourself.

>
>
>>The next best scenario would be for you actually to try
>>to impose your fascist regime, suffer your guaranteed
>>failure, and be sent to prison for the rest of your life.
>
>
> Why do male Antis act like frightened old women?
>
> Call the FBI. Warn them of my plot to overthrow the livestock industry.

No, it's a wish to overthrown the legitimate government
of the U.S.


>>>Humans think it's cute to say we are slaves to our companion
>>>animals, but it's not.
>
>
>>Not to you, maybe.
>
>
> Not to anyone one who sees pet ownership for what it is.

You are the one who doesn't see it for what it is.
Your concept of it is a minority one; no one in his
right mind buys it.

> Have you
> surrendered your cats to the pound yet? Or are they still living in
> boxes in the garage?

One of 'em spent the night out there the other night.
Got down to under 40 degrees Fahrenheit out there, too.

>
>
>>But no one cares, really, what you like.
>
>
> Boo-hoo. No one cares.

Right. No one cares. You exist beyond the margin.


>>But your case is entirely unpersuasive, and always will
>>be.
>
>
> It's not possible to persuade someone like you to be kind or generous,

I don't need to be persuaded to be those; I already am.

You will never persuade people that your view of
animals, and of the overall human-animal relationship,
is the correct one. Of course, you don't really want
to persuade anyone of it. You LIKE being marginalized
and alienated. You're mentally ill.

frlpwr wrote:

> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>>Hey Feral --
>>
>>Yep, they find you, don't they?
>
>
> More like they're waiting everywhere for you to find them.
>
>>Here I am in New Mexico,
>
>
> So I see. I remember NM as slow, hot and dusty, but I only spent two
> weeks there, all of it behind bars in the Silver City jail. Never got
> to Santa Fe. Upon my release, I was invited to leave the state and I
> felt I had no choice but to accept.
>
> The worst part about it was the cops impounded my car with my cat in it!
> Naturally, he was no where to be found by the time I got out. Instead
> of heading for the border, I had to sneak around Silver City for a few
> days looking for my big, black tomcat. The lowpoint was going to the
> city landfill and looking at a long row of cat carcasses in various
> stages of decomposition. Don't ask me why they hadn't been buried,
> especially in the heat, but my boy was not among them.
>
> I can't think of New Mexico without thinking of him. I hope he found
> someone to help him out. I failed him, that's for sure.

Heh heh heh. Not the first miserable failure in your
marginalized, alienated existence.

Good people manage to go their entire lives without
even being arrested, much less serve two weeks in jail.

What a heartwarming story!

"frlpwr" > wrote in message
<snip>
> It's not possible to persuade someone like you to be kind or generous,
> but you won't be around forever. One of these days you'll throw a clot,
> sooner rather than later, I hope.

That's kind and generous?

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:
> "frlpwr" > wrote in message
> <snip>
>
>>It's not possible to persuade someone like you to be kind or generous,
>>but you won't be around forever. One of these days you'll throw a clot,
>>sooner rather than later, I hope.
>
>
> That's kind and generous?

Nice, eh? That's little Mary Screecher for you: the
angriest ******* in usenet. She revels in her anger
and hatred; treats them like something precious.

Rubystars wrote:
>
> "frlpwr" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> > It's not possible to persuade someone like you to be kind or
> > generous, but you won't be around forever. One of these days you'll > > throw a clot, sooner rather than later, I hope.
>
> That's kind and generous?
>
I reserve the right to withdraw my kindness and generosity from those I
determine to be "unworthy'. You know all about "unworthy", right?
Those without "depth", those like the beaver-toothed dwarf.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> Rubystars wrote:
> > "frlpwr" > wrote in message
> > <snip>
> >
> >>It's not possible to persuade someone like you to be kind or
> >>generous, but you won't be around forever. One of these days you'll > >>throw a clot, sooner rather than later, I hope.

> > That's kind and generous?
>
> Nice, eh? That's little Mary Screecher for you: the
> angriest ******* in usenet.

I'm not angry, I just wish you would throw a clot around two o'clock
this afternoon.

(snip)

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Rubystars wrote:
> > "frlpwr" > wrote in message
> > <snip>
> >
> >>It's not possible to persuade someone like you to be kind or generous,
> >>but you won't be around forever. One of these days you'll throw a clot,
> >>sooner rather than later, I hope.
> >
> >
> > That's kind and generous?
>
> Nice, eh? That's little Mary Screecher for you: the
> angriest ******* in usenet. She revels in her anger
> and hatred; treats them like something precious.

Now be honest, you haven't been much nicer. Calling people ****s, etc. I've
been mean to people sometimes but I don't think I could top either of you.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>Rubystars wrote:
>>
>>>"frlpwr" > wrote in message
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>It's not possible to persuade someone like you to be kind or generous,
>>>>but you won't be around forever. One of these days you'll throw a clot,
>>>>sooner rather than later, I hope.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's kind and generous?
>>
>>Nice, eh? That's little Mary Screecher for you: the
>>angriest ******* in usenet. She revels in her anger
>>and hatred; treats them like something precious.
>
>
> Now be honest, you haven't been much nicer. Calling people ****s, etc. I've
> been mean to people sometimes but I don't think I could top either of you.

They started it. They're reaping what they've sown.

"frlpwr" > wrote
> jitney wrote:

[..]
>
> > Nature, with its disease,droughts parasites, predators and wildfires
> > is a far crueler master than the husbandry of man.
>
> I don't see it this way at all. Life is a game of chance for all of us
> with pleasure, pride and persistence its prize. We don't allow most
> livestock to play this glorious game.

Humans don't play this game, we've developed a society where our lives are
nearly completely safe and secure, where the weak are protected. Would life
be better if we allowed killers to roam free amongst us, if we had to
compete for food or starve? It would be more exciting, it'd make for more
interesting prose, but better?

> What can be more cruel than
> taking away the ability to win the day by speed, by awareness, by
> stealth, by obstinence, by bulk, by daring, by ferociousness, by dumb
> luck?

Winning the day for a wild animal is all about surviving until the next day.
They don't bemoan the days they aren't involved in a life-or-death chase.

> What do we give them in place of the game? Nothing but a string
> of days or months or years, every one the same.

Animals seek food, shelter, comfort and constancy above all. We always ought
to strive to provide livestock with more stimulation, better conditions, but
it's not necessary in my view to make their lives poetic reflections of the
life and death struggles of their wild kin.

[..]

> AFAIK, only humans have the ability to weigh the consequences of our
> actions and make a conscious decision to change our behavior.

I don't believe that.

> We have the luxury or the gift to choose to be kind. Why not use it?

Animals are driven almost competely by self-interest, but humanity is a
balance between kindness to others and self-interest. How can we justify
owning property, electronic toys, enjoying wealth and comfort, when people,
and animals, suffer and starve all over the world? Should we not all be
Mother Theresas?

You think of yourself as a model of compassion, a defender of the innocent,
and you have assembled an certain set of goals, an array of clients and
opponents to reinforce that view of self, but in the end you still balance
the suffering of the world around, the lives of others, with your own
comfort and convenience.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

> Good people manage to go their entire lives without even being arrested,
> much less serve two weeks in jail.

And better people often get arrested for civil disobedience or possibly
animal liberation, or some other worthy cause, and thus demonstrate
their ethical superiority. You make a fetish of laws, and you have
the nerve to call people like me and Feral fascists. Blatant
projection, jonnie; we know who the fascist is here.

<snip>

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Good people manage to go their entire lives without even being
>> arrested, much less serve two weeks in jail.
>
>
> And better people often get arrested for civil disobedience

Very few.

> or possibly animal liberation,

You mean, terrorism.

> or some other worthy cause,

Terrorism is not a worthy cause.

> and thus demonstrate their ethical superiority.

You mean *moral* superiority. Why are you so afraid of
that word? Your substitution of "ethical" for "moral"
is wrong virtually 100% of the time.

"animal rights" is a morally bankrupt position.

> You make a fetish of laws,

False.



Anyway, feral**** was in the slammer for some common
criminality. It was an alcohol-fueled violent episode.

> No, government failure to bust monopolies is what created factory farms,
> that and the reluctance of farm state governments to regulate
> agriculuture.

*** Those are also problems. However the real problem is reduced consumption
> The drift away from whole milk products is driven by health concerns,
> not veganism.

*** Why are you changing the subject to "whole milk products"?
>
> I've looked through "animal rights type" articles on agriculture and I
> don't see any evidence of targeting small farms. It's CAFO's that has
> everyone howling.

*** There is no attempt make to make clear the difference between CAFO's and
the small family farm. We are all painted with the same broad brush.
> Why "of course not"? Do you feel there is something wrong with a trade
> group certifying the husbandry practices of its members?

*** Again you are trying to change the subject. You asked me about "Humane
Farming Association" not about "trade groups". Yes I have a problem with the
"Humane Farming Association" and what that group of uninformed people think
of as humane. That does not mean that I have the same problem with every
other trade group.

> Mind if I ask why?

*** Simply the Humane Farming Association doesn't understand either animal
husbandry or the economics of animal agriculture. There is also no financial
incentive for us to become certified despite the fact that our farm would
more than meet their standards.

> Yes, but we both know that isn't necessarily so.

*** That's why I said "think". Of course it is not necessarily so. I would
even say that it is very unlikely to be so. However perception IS realiety.
Consumers of organic dairy products are willing to pay a premium for their
perception.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, Wi




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Russ Thompson wrote:
>>No, government failure to bust monopolies is what created factory farms,
>>that and the reluctance of farm state governments to regulate
>>agriculuture.
>
>
> *** Those are also problems. However the real problem is reduced consumption

No, not lately. Beef consumption is - well, was, until
last week - way up. It's attributed in the popular
press to the low carb/high protein diet fad.

>
>>The drift away from whole milk products is driven by health concerns,
>>not veganism.
>
>
> *** Why are you changing the subject to "whole milk products"?
>
>>I've looked through "animal rights type" articles on agriculture and I
>>don't see any evidence of targeting small farms. It's CAFO's that has
>>everyone howling.
>
>
> *** There is no attempt make to make clear the difference between CAFO's and
> the small family farm. We are all painted with the same broad brush.
>
>>Why "of course not"? Do you feel there is something wrong with a trade
>>group certifying the husbandry practices of its members?
>
>
> *** Again you are trying to change the subject. You asked me about "Humane
> Farming Association" not about "trade groups". Yes I have a problem with the
> "Humane Farming Association" and what that group of uninformed people think
> of as humane. That does not mean that I have the same problem with every
> other trade group.
>
>
>>Mind if I ask why?
>
>
> *** Simply the Humane Farming Association doesn't understand either animal
> husbandry or the economics of animal agriculture. There is also no financial
> incentive for us to become certified despite the fact that our farm would
> more than meet their standards.
>
>
>>Yes, but we both know that isn't necessarily so.
>
>
> *** That's why I said "think". Of course it is not necessarily so. I would
> even say that it is very unlikely to be so. However perception IS realiety.
> Consumers of organic dairy products are willing to pay a premium for their
> perception.
>
> Kala Thompson
> Farmer
> Richland Center, Wi
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Good people manage to go their entire lives without even being arrested,
> > much less serve two weeks in jail.
>
> And better people often get arrested for civil disobedience or possibly
> animal liberation, or some other worthy cause, and thus demonstrate
> their ethical superiority. You make a fetish of laws, and you have
> the nerve to call people like me and Feral fascists. Blatant
> projection, jonnie; we know who the fascist is here.
>
> <snip>
>
> Rat

Interesting, if I read you right you support the right to bomb a church
because they oppose a cause that is "worthy"

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Rubystars of SBC
http://yahoo.sbc.com said:


[snip]

>I got really interested in animal advocacy when I was a teenager. Naturally
>I started looking into organizations like PETA, etc. I was shocked and
>disappointed at them and turned off when I realized what they were really
>like. I did find a bright spot in the middle of all that darkness though,
>and that was "animal welfare."

Have you found a way to work for that, apart from just by what you
buy? I'd be very interested in hearing about it, if you have. I buy
ecological eggs because that the standards for how to treat the
animals are higher for ecological eggs than other eggs here in Sweden;
I don't recall the details, but I checked and they were higher (also
for other ecological products). We don't have such labels as "Humane
Farming" or similar.

However, just trying to be a "ethical consumer" won't do, in itself,
I'm afraid, so I'd be interested in hearing about other ways to make a
change.

>> >> I've now begun eating fish again, because my body insisted
>> >> persistently, and it got to a point where I couldn't ignore it; and I
>> >> feel better now (though it's a recent change), so I guess it must be
>> >> some vital nutrient I was missing in my diet. I imagine it to be some
>> >> of the fatty acids.
>> >
><snip>
>> Well, there's the issue of what the fishing industry does to the
>> environment, and I've heard that the fishermen in the big industrial
>> fishing boats don't kill the fish at once, so the fish just lie in the
>> boat and suffer until they reach shore. Then there's also the issue of
>> how the water pollution affects the fish, so it's considered not
>> advisable to eat more than a certain amount, due to some pollutants in
>> the fish. Well, I try to stick to the kind of fish which I know is
>> found within Sweden, such a salmon, so it at least eliminates the
>> issue of import and all.
>
>I think it's good that you try to get the most ethical food you can. That's
>not easy to do!
>
Not, it isn't. It's a very complicated issue, and I think I keep
slipping.

>> >> I plan to still stick around, for recipes and such, as I still eat
>> >> vegan meals most of the time, though. Some people might tell me off
>> >> for this, but that's their business, and I'm not going to let them
>> >> bother me.
>> >
>> >I like to come here to alt.food.vegan to see the recipes and learn about
>new
>> >foods. I love to try new things and a lot of vegan foods are truly
>> >excellent.
>> >
>> I agree :0)
>
>
>
The other day I made some veggies in a curry/tomato sauce, but it was
way too hot, so I added some vegan "cream", but didn't feel like
eating it, as I didn't expect it to be very good. Today I couldn't be
bothered to cook, so I boiled some rice and warmed the dish in the
microwave, to have with the rice. Good thing is that it was delicious;
bad thing is that I'll never be able to make that dish again because
I've forgotten how I did.

BTW: I've found a vegan light margarine, with only 40% fat. It's a
Swedish product, so I don't know if it can be bought outside of
Sweden, but it's made by Carlshamn (which is a dairy, but they also
make dairy free products). It tastes like regular margarine, but is
softer for some reason.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"I can't quite join the campaign because I come from a country filled with
erotic sculptures. My slogan shouting to increase erotic sculptures won't
carry the right thirst and conviction." Thåths (afdaniain)

frlpwr wrote:
>
> jitney wrote:
> >
> > I like vegetables, especially when used to flavor up animals that I
> > have killed with a gun and whose flesh I want to eat:
>
> Contact Bob Yates. You two can swap receipes and tell each other how
> clever and humourous you are. Oh, and please don't forget the hilarious
> inclusion of People Eating Tasty Animals with you next post. Such
> comments never grow old in an ethics and animals ng.

I have never claimed to be clever of humorous, it is nice of you to make
that claim for me though.

Also in response to an earlier post by you
>>
In my "interesting ethical world", it would not be my place to interfere
in the lives of other animals. Being a big Buttinsky, this would be and
is now a difficult lesson for me.
>>

My not interfering with other animals does that mean that you will not
interfere with your fellow human animals?

Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> frlpwr wrote:
>
> > I hope he found someone to help him out. I failed him, that's for > > sure.
>
> Heh heh heh.

I'm not surprised you think a cat lost in a strange place is funny.

> Not the first miserable failure in your
> marginalized, alienated existence.

I'm less "marginalized" than you are. You are a self-employed
"consultant", which means you are just a couple of screw-ups from being
on the street with your stout wife and your kid.
>
> Good people manage to go their entire lives without
> even being arrested,

So do a lot of "bad people", dummy

> much less serve two weeks in jail.

Yeah, man, it was hard time. They didn't serve juice and I couldn't
score pot.