All this discussion about grass-fed beef, and the risky
contortions of "vegans" and quasi-"vegans" to avoid
acknowledging that grass-fed beef *could* be a lesser
harm (to animals) food than some vegetables, illustrate
an interesting but disappointing phenomenon. I have to
add "predictable" to the list as well. The phenomenon
is that "vegans" are among the class of people who
suspend all disbelief, as long as the message is one
they are predisposed to accept.

In the discussion, "vegans" and quasi-"vegans" have
said that some beef that is purported to be grass-fed
has in fact been "finished" on some quantity of grain.
One minor problem is that they can't point to any
such beef; rather, they grasp at the thin reed of no
legal definition of grass-fed. The larger problem,
though, is that they have been shown web sites of
sellers of grass-fed beef who explicitly claim that
*their* beef cattle are never fed any grain at all.
One exceptionally moronic pseudo-"vegan" has laughably
said that farmers are liars, and therefore this claim
must be a lie. Another neophyte quasi-"vegan", while
not alleging lying quite so blatantly, hints that she
expects the claims to be lies.

But these same goofs will naively accept at face value
a manufacturer's claim to be producing and selling
"vegan" products, when the idea of a definition of
"vegan" is obviously FAR murkier than a definition of
grass-fed. The reason is obvious: "vegans" are
perfectly willing to be deluded, as long as the claims
they accept are comforting.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:37:01 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>
>In the discussion, "vegans" and quasi-"vegans" have
>said that some beef that is purported to be grass-fed
>has in fact been "finished" on some quantity of grain.
> One minor problem is that they can't point to any
>such beef; rather, they grasp at the thin reed of no
>legal definition of grass-fed. The larger problem,
>though, is that they have been shown web sites of
>sellers of grass-fed beef who explicitly claim that
>*their* beef cattle are never fed any grain at all.

And these sites might well be misleading customers
into believing their product is genuine.

[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

>One exceptionally moronic pseudo-"vegan" has laughably
>said that farmers are liars

From U.S.D.A
[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

Switching to grass fed beef is no guarantee you'll
actually be eating it.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
news
> Switching to grass fed beef is no guarantee you'll
> actually be eating it.

Most farmers who are into niche markets...and grass fed is one of
them...understand that their customers are skeptical and want to know the
truth. I'm not saying none will lie, but I would venture that most do not.

Most of these producers are also very open to a potential customer visiting
the farm to see for themselves. I don't grass feed my beef (and I don't lie
about it). I do have other claims, such as they do not get antibiotics
(unless they are sick and I know which animals have been treated and which
have not), no hormones and no animal proteins. I also raise pastured
poultry. If someone wanted to come to see for themselves, they would be
welcomed with open arms. Nothing to hide here.

Most producers have the same attitude, at least the ones I have met.

There is a listing of local producers for a variety of products at
localharvest.org. They are not all grass-fed, but these are people who
would welcome questions and visits from those who care.

Jena

On 16 Jan 2004 21:52:51 GMT, "JMartin" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message news
>>
>> Switching to grass fed beef is no guarantee you'll
>> actually be eating it.
>
>Most farmers who are into niche markets...and grass fed is one of
>them...understand that their customers are skeptical and want to know the
>truth. I'm not saying none will lie, but I would venture that most do not.
>
Which takes nothing away from the fact that
switching to grass fed beef is no guarantee
you'll actually be eating it. Farmers are likely
to lie to their customers by taking advantage
of the unregulated use of the terms describing
their product. Also, your snipping of the material
I've provided which supports this issue shows
you are equally likely to lie and misinform your
customers as well, else you would have left it
in your reply.

[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

From U.S.D.A
[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]

>Most of these producers are also very open to a potential customer visiting
>the farm to see for themselves.

That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
later on in the year. Farmers are notorious liars
who'll even infect their own livestock with deadly,
painful diseases for compensation payments, so
why would anyone trust what a farmer claims
about his business?

On 16 Jan 2004 21:52:51 GMT, "JMartin" > wrote:

>
>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
>news
>> Switching to grass fed beef is no guarantee you'll
>> actually be eating it.
>
>Most farmers who are into niche markets...and grass fed is one of
>them...understand that their customers are skeptical and want to know the
>truth. I'm not saying none will lie, but I would venture that most do not.
>
>Most of these producers are also very open to a potential customer visiting
>the farm to see for themselves.

That makes sense. When people have something good going on, they
are often not too shy about showing it to others.

>I don't grass feed my beef (and I don't lie
>about it). I do have other claims, such as they do not get antibiotics
>(unless they are sick and I know which animals have been treated and which
>have not), no hormones and no animal proteins. I also raise pastured
>poultry. If someone wanted to come to see for themselves, they would be
>welcomed with open arms. Nothing to hide here.
>
>Most producers have the same attitude, at least the ones I have met.

From what I've seen in these groups over the years, the veg*ns/"ARAs"
are the most dishonest group of people I've ever encountered. They are
dishonest about:

· veg*nism helping farm animals
· the concept that "AR" would produce wild populations from domestic animals
· the concept that "AR" would provide rights, better lives, longer lives or anything
at all for domestic animals
· the fact that some types of meat involve far fewer deaths than some types of
vegetable products
· the fact that they contribute to the deaths of animals in crop fields
· being mainly interested in animals, when it is clear from the above two facts
that they don't really care about human influence on animals, but only about
promoting veg*nism regardless of its impact.

>There is a listing of local producers for a variety of products at
>localharvest.org. They are not all grass-fed, but these are people who
>would welcome questions and visits from those who care.
>
>Jena

Those who care certainly leaves out the veg*ns when it comes to promoting
decent lives for farm animals with their lifestyle. I have yet to see anyone in these
ngs who even pretends to promote something like that other than myself. According
to "ARAs" and their supposed opponents--much much more according to their
supposed opponents--we are not to consider the lives of farm animals at all, and
above all should *not* try to contribute to decent lives for them in the future. If you're
like all the rest around here, you believe that no farm animals benefit from farming.
If that's true then you are certainly different from any farmers that I've known over
the years, but not one farmer posting in these ngs appears to believe that his/her
animals benefit from being raised by them. Not only that, but they don't believe any
farm animals anywhere have ever benefitted from being raised by humans. That is
the complete oposite of what I've encountered in discussions with farmers I have
met in person, but it has always been the case in these weird ngs. So. Since no
one is supposed to care about promoting decent lives for future farm animals, why
are there farmers working hard to treat their animals better, and who is paying the
extra buck for their products? It seems that there *must* be some people out there
who want to promote better lives for farm animals as opposed to no lives like the
veg*ns/"ARAs", but where are they?

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:38:33 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:


>That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
>his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
>later on in the year.

If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
really matter anyway, since according to some of you
the CDs don't really matter. Or do CDs not really matter
only if they are feeding a veg*n, but they do matter if
they are feeding cattle (who also happen to be veg*n)?

>Farmers are notorious liars

Veg*ns like yourself are the most dishonest people
I've ever had anything to do with. Farmers have always
been honest even when it hurts. They have to be in
order to have a clear view of the world and make a
living with it.

>who'll even infect their own livestock with deadly,
>painful diseases for compensation payments, so
>why would anyone trust what a farmer claims
>about his business?

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:04:22 GMT, wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:38:33 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>
>
>>That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
>>his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
>>later on in the year.
>
> If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
>really matter anyway

It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,
whatever you believe.

>>Farmers are notorious liars
>
> Veg*ns like yourself are the most dishonest people
>I've ever had anything to do with.

Your opinion of vegans matters nothing, Harrison.

> Farmers have always
>been honest even when it hurts.

Then why do they intentionally infect their own
cattle with painful, deadly diseases? That's not
being "honest even when it hurts", and neither
is their lying to customers which YOU think
"wouldn't really matter anyway."

[A huge increase in compensation payments being
made for brucellosis infected cattle in Northern
Ireland has been criticised by a Stormont Assembly
committee. The Public Accounts Committee said it
was greatly concerned at the increased payments
and the evidence that some

*farmers were deliberately infecting their herds.*

In a report published on Tuesday, the committee said
there was evidence in five cases where farmers
deliberately introduced the disease to take advantage
of the compensation on offer.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1787931.stm

[LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government's
hope of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease suffered a
setback amid reports that it may have been spread
deliberately.

Rumours have circulated for months that unscrupulous
farmers have been approaching those in the industry
offering infected animals to generate generous
compensation claims.

Last week a farmer in Pembrokeshire, west Wales,
notified authorities saying she had received a telephone
call from someone demanding £2,000 cash in exchange
for infecting her animals with the disease.]
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe...britain.sheep/

[THE Government is investigating allegations that
farmers are deliberately infecting their sheep and cattle
with the foot and mouth virus to claim compensation far
in excess of their market value.

Some evidence has already been found in Cumbria,
where rumours have been circulating about infected
ears and tails from farms stricken with foot and mouth
being offered to owners of healthy livestock.

At least one suspect lamb's tail has been found on a farm
in the area. Officers of the Department for the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs' investigation unit are looking into the
find and police will be called in if the unit is satisfied there is
a case to answer.]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../30/nfnm30.xml

You might think farmers are "honest even when it hurts",
even while lying to their customers and infecting their
own cattle, but don't expect me to.

Dreck wrote:
>>>That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
>>>his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
>>>later on in the year.
>>
>> If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
>>really matter anyway
>
> It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,
> whatever you believe.

Yes, but how many do lie to consumers? Buy locally-produced foods and
there's less risk for lies.

<snip>
>>Farmers have always
>>been honest even when it hurts.
>
> Then why do they intentionally infect their own
> cattle with painful, deadly diseases? That's not
> being "honest even when it hurts", and neither
> is their lying to customers which YOU think
> "wouldn't really matter anyway."

The article tells why: because compensation rates for sick animals are
higher than market prices. You get more of what you subsidize and less
of what you tax. Stop paying farmers in excess of market price for sick
animals and they'll try to keep their livestock from becoming ill. Or
tax them for sick animals (use the tax money to pay for more
inspections) and you'll see much healthier herds.

> [A huge increase in compensation payments being
> made for brucellosis infected cattle in Northern
> Ireland has been criticised by a Stormont Assembly
> committee. The Public Accounts Committee said it
> was greatly concerned at the increased payments
> and the evidence that some
>
> *farmers were deliberately infecting their herds.*
>
> In a report published on Tuesday, the committee said
> there was evidence in five cases where farmers
> deliberately introduced the disease to take advantage
> of the compensation on offer.]
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1787931.stm
>
> [LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government's
> hope of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease suffered a
> setback amid reports that it may have been spread
> deliberately.
>
> Rumours have circulated for months that unscrupulous
> farmers have been approaching those in the industry
> offering infected animals to generate generous
> compensation claims.
>
> Last week a farmer in Pembrokeshire, west Wales,
> notified authorities saying she had received a telephone
> call from someone demanding £2,000 cash in exchange
> for infecting her animals with the disease.]
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe...britain.sheep/
>
> [THE Government is investigating allegations that
> farmers are deliberately infecting their sheep and cattle
> with the foot and mouth virus to claim compensation far
> in excess of their market value.
>
> Some evidence has already been found in Cumbria,
> where rumours have been circulating about infected
> ears and tails from farms stricken with foot and mouth
> being offered to owners of healthy livestock.
>
> At least one suspect lamb's tail has been found on a farm
> in the area. Officers of the Department for the Environment,
> Food and Rural Affairs' investigation unit are looking into the
> find and police will be called in if the unit is satisfied there is
> a case to answer.]
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../30/nfnm30.xml
>
> You might think farmers are "honest even when it hurts",
> even while lying to their customers and infecting their
> own cattle, but don't expect me to.

They generally don't lie to consumers. Setting up a scheme whereby they
get more money for sick animals than healthy ones only leads to more
sick cattle. It also works for humans and you're living proof, you
bone-idle dole scrounger.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:34:29 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Dreck wrote:
>>>>That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
>>>>his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
>>>>later on in the year.
>>>
>>> If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
>>>really matter anyway
>>
>> It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,
>> whatever you believe.
>
>Yes, but how many do lie to consumers?

Enough for USDA to make note of it and comment.
You can never tell, especially where farmers are
concerned.

>Buy locally-produced foods and there's less risk for lies.
>
The risk remains the same wherever the customer
buys his meat. The farmer might take his animals
far from home to finish them in a feedlot on corn.

><snip>
>>>Farmers have always
>>>been honest even when it hurts.
>>
>> Then why do they intentionally infect their own
>> cattle with painful, deadly diseases? That's not
>> being "honest even when it hurts", and neither
>> is their lying to customers which YOU think
>> "wouldn't really matter anyway."
>
>The article tells why: because compensation rates for sick animals are
>higher than market prices. You get more of what you subsidize and less
>of what you tax. Stop paying farmers in excess of market price for sick
>animals and they'll try to keep their livestock from becoming ill. Or
>tax them for sick animals (use the tax money to pay for more
>inspections) and you'll see much healthier herds.
>
So, you're blaming the market, consumers and the
government for the farmer's intentional lies and
dishonesty, not to mention the intentional infecting
of his animals for compensation. Anyone but the
farmer himself. How transparent you are.

>> [A huge increase in compensation payments being
>> made for brucellosis infected cattle in Northern
>> Ireland has been criticised by a Stormont Assembly
>> committee. The Public Accounts Committee said it
>> was greatly concerned at the increased payments
>> and the evidence that some
>>
>> *farmers were deliberately infecting their herds.*
>>
>> In a report published on Tuesday, the committee said
>> there was evidence in five cases where farmers
>> deliberately introduced the disease to take advantage
>> of the compensation on offer.]
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1787931.stm
>>
>> [LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government's
>> hope of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease suffered a
>> setback amid reports that it may have been spread
>> deliberately.
>>
>> Rumours have circulated for months that unscrupulous
>> farmers have been approaching those in the industry
>> offering infected animals to generate generous
>> compensation claims.
>>
>> Last week a farmer in Pembrokeshire, west Wales,
>> notified authorities saying she had received a telephone
>> call from someone demanding £2,000 cash in exchange
>> for infecting her animals with the disease.]
>> http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe...britain.sheep/
>>
>> [THE Government is investigating allegations that
>> farmers are deliberately infecting their sheep and cattle
>> with the foot and mouth virus to claim compensation far
>> in excess of their market value.
>>
>> Some evidence has already been found in Cumbria,
>> where rumours have been circulating about infected
>> ears and tails from farms stricken with foot and mouth
>> being offered to owners of healthy livestock.
>>
>> At least one suspect lamb's tail has been found on a farm
>> in the area. Officers of the Department for the Environment,
>> Food and Rural Affairs' investigation unit are looking into the
>> find and police will be called in if the unit is satisfied there is
>> a case to answer.]
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../30/nfnm30.xml
>>
>> You might think farmers are "honest even when it hurts",
>> even while lying to their customers and infecting their
>> own cattle, but don't expect me to.
>
>They generally don't lie to consumers.

I disagree with your opinion. I believe they generally
do lie to their customers.

ipse dixit wrote in message ...
<snip BS>

Why can you not comprehend the difference between "some" and "all" ?

--
Saerah

TANSTAAFL

"We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like
cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the
ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How
silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell." - Cassie from THE THREE

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:08:00 -0500, "Saerah" > wrote:

>ipse dixit wrote in message ...
><snip BS>
>
That material you snipped away showing the
fact that farmers intentionally lie to their
customers isn't BS, so let's put it all back again
before you proceed to show where USDA are
lying.

<unsnip>
[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

From U.S.D.A
[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]

ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:08:00 -0500, "Saerah" >
wrote:
>
>>ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>><snip BS>
>>
>That material you snipped away showing the
>fact that farmers intentionally lie to their
>customers isn't BS, so let's put it all back again
>before you proceed to show where USDA are
>lying.

i only snipped for brevity- you've posted this plenty of times. i'm not
saying that *some* farmers are dishonest, i'm just saying that its illogical
for you to infer that *all* managers of livestock are lying simply becasue
*some* are.


>
><unsnip>
>[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
>animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
>including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
>feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
>surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
>that roam where they please or to animals kept in
>barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
>No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
>how many years it took to achieve a national
>definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
>anyone does.]
>http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm
>
>From U.S.D.A
>[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
>most commented upon topic in this docket. We
>will not belabor all the points of concern which
>are addressed but will focus on the areas of
>concern to our cooperative of growers. While
>Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
>IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
>NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
>you need to define both as what they ARE since
>that is what is motivating the consumer.
>
>While the intent of this language would suggest
>that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
>especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
>not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
>80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
>the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
>animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
>70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
>fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
>these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
>consumer expectations as is borne out in the
>website comments.]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:22:46 -0500, "Saerah" > wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:08:00 -0500, "Saerah" >wrote:
>>>ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>>><snip BS>
>>>
>>That material you snipped away showing the
>>fact that farmers intentionally lie to their
>>customers isn't BS, so let's put it all back again
>>before you proceed to show where USDA are
>>lying.
>
>i only snipped for brevity- you've posted this plenty of times.

Then you have no excuse for your error in thinking
I wrote *all* farmers are lying, have you?

> i'm not
>saying that *some* farmers are dishonest, i'm just saying that its illogical
>for you to infer that *all* managers of livestock are lying simply becasue
>*some* are.
>
And where have I written *all* farmers are lying?
If you took the time to read the threads more
thoroughly before jumping in and making an arse
of yourself you might have noticed I've addressed
your point before now.

[start usual suspect]
>Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all.
[me]
That's right, and I've never said otherwise.
[end]

>><unsnip>
>>[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
>>animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
>>including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
>>feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
>>surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
>>that roam where they please or to animals kept in
>>barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
>>No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
>>how many years it took to achieve a national
>>definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
>>anyone does.]
>>http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm
>>
>>From U.S.D.A
>>[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
>>most commented upon topic in this docket. We
>>will not belabor all the points of concern which
>>are addressed but will focus on the areas of
>>concern to our cooperative of growers. While
>>Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
>>IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
>>NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
>>you need to define both as what they ARE since
>>that is what is motivating the consumer.
>>
>>While the intent of this language would suggest
>>that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
>>especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
>>not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
>>80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
>>the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
>>animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
>>70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
>>fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
>>these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
>>consumer expectations as is borne out in the
>>website comments.]
>

ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:22:46 -0500, "Saerah" >
wrote:
>>ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:08:00 -0500, "Saerah"
>wrote:
>>>>ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>>>><snip BS>
>>>>
>>>That material you snipped away showing the
>>>fact that farmers intentionally lie to their
>>>customers isn't BS, so let's put it all back again
>>>before you proceed to show where USDA are
>>>lying.
>>
>>i only snipped for brevity- you've posted this plenty of times.
>
>Then you have no excuse for your error in thinking
>I wrote *all* farmers are lying, have you?
>
>> i'm not
>>saying that *some* farmers are dishonest, i'm just saying that its
illogical
>>for you to infer that *all* managers of livestock are lying simply becasue
>>*some* are.
>>
>And where have I written *all* farmers are lying?
>If you took the time to read the threads more
>thoroughly before jumping in and making an arse
>of yourself you might have noticed I've addressed
>your point before now.
>
>[start usual suspect]
>>Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all.
>[me]
>That's right, and I've never said otherwise.
>[end]
>

yes, but then you follow up the quoted material by saying "farmers lie".
whcih implies that "all farmers lie", if you dont qualify your statement.




>>><unsnip>
>>>[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
>>>animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
>>>including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
>>>feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
>>>surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
>>>that roam where they please or to animals kept in
>>>barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
>>>No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
>>>how many years it took to achieve a national
>>>definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
>>>anyone does.]
>>>http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm
>>>
>>>From U.S.D.A
>>>[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
>>>most commented upon topic in this docket. We
>>>will not belabor all the points of concern which
>>>are addressed but will focus on the areas of
>>>concern to our cooperative of growers. While
>>>Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
>>>IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
>>>NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
>>>you need to define both as what they ARE since
>>>that is what is motivating the consumer.
>>>
>>>While the intent of this language would suggest
>>>that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
>>>especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
>>>not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
>>>80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
>>>the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
>>>animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
>>>70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
>>>fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
>>>these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
>>>consumer expectations as is borne out in the
>>>website comments.]
>>
>

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:57:55 -0500, "Saerah" > wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:22:46 -0500, "Saerah" >wrote:
>>>ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:08:00 -0500, "Saerah" >wrote:
>>>>>ipse dixit wrote in message ...
>>>>><snip BS>
>>>>>
>>>>That material you snipped away showing the
>>>>fact that farmers intentionally lie to their
>>>>customers isn't BS, so let's put it all back again
>>>>before you proceed to show where USDA are
>>>>lying.
>>>
>>>i only snipped for brevity- you've posted this plenty of times.
>>
>>Then you have no excuse for your error in thinking
>>I wrote *all* farmers are lying, have you?
>>
Well?

>>> i'm not saying that *some* farmers are dishonest, i'm
>>>just saying that its illogical for you to infer that *all*
>>>managers of livestock are lying simply becasue *some* are.
>>>
>>And where have I written *all* farmers are lying?
>>If you took the time to read the threads more
>>thoroughly before jumping in and making an arse
>>of yourself you might have noticed I've addressed
>>your point before now.
>>
>>[start usual suspect]
>>>Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all.
>>[me]
>>That's right, and I've never said otherwise.
>>[end]
>
>yes, but then you follow up the quoted material by saying "farmers lie".

And that is true, they do. It would be wrong to
claim they *don't* lie in light of all the evidence
against them.

>whcih implies

You're implying it rather than I.

> that "all farmers lie", if you dont qualify your statement.
>
I'll leave you to make all the false assumptions
and implications. You've already got a head
start on me in that anyway.
>
>>>><unsnip>
>>>>[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
>>>>animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
>>>>including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
>>>>feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
>>>>surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
>>>>that roam where they please or to animals kept in
>>>>barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
>>>>No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
>>>>how many years it took to achieve a national
>>>>definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
>>>>anyone does.]
>>>>http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm
>>>>
>>>>From U.S.D.A
>>>>[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
>>>>most commented upon topic in this docket. We
>>>>will not belabor all the points of concern which
>>>>are addressed but will focus on the areas of
>>>>concern to our cooperative of growers. While
>>>>Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
>>>>IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
>>>>NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
>>>>you need to define both as what they ARE since
>>>>that is what is motivating the consumer.
>>>>
>>>>While the intent of this language would suggest
>>>>that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
>>>>especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
>>>>not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
>>>>80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
>>>>the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
>>>>animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
>>>>70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
>>>>fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
>>>>these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
>>>>consumer expectations as is borne out in the
>>>>website comments.]
>>>
>>
>

"Saerah" > wrote in message
...
>
> ipse dixit wrote in message ...
> >On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:22:46 -0500, "Saerah" >
> wrote:
> >>ipse dixit wrote in message ...
> >>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:08:00 -0500, "Saerah"
> >wrote:
> >>>>ipse dixit wrote in message ...
> >>>><snip BS>
> >>>>
> >>>That material you snipped away showing the
> >>>fact that farmers intentionally lie to their
> >>>customers isn't BS, so let's put it all back again
> >>>before you proceed to show where USDA are
> >>>lying.
> >>
> >>i only snipped for brevity- you've posted this plenty of times.
> >
> >Then you have no excuse for your error in thinking
> >I wrote *all* farmers are lying, have you?
> >
> >> i'm not
> >>saying that *some* farmers are dishonest, i'm just saying that its
> illogical
> >>for you to infer that *all* managers of livestock are lying simply
becasue
> >>*some* are.
> >>
> >And where have I written *all* farmers are lying?
> >If you took the time to read the threads more
> >thoroughly before jumping in and making an arse
> >of yourself you might have noticed I've addressed
> >your point before now.
> >
> >[start usual suspect]
> >>Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all.
> >[me]
> >That's right, and I've never said otherwise.
> >[end]
> >
>
> yes, but then you follow up the quoted material by saying "farmers lie".
> which implies that "all farmers lie", if you dont qualify your statement.

It's called equivocation, it's one of the many tools of deception this idiot
uses to misrepresent the truth.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:24:22 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:04:22 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:38:33 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
>>>his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
>>>later on in the year.
>>
>> If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
>>really matter anyway
>
>It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,

The lying matters. The CDs don't, according to the
thinking of some veg*ns around here. How about you?
Do the CDs you contribute to with your diet matter? How
about by your use of paper, wood, electricity, roads,
buildings, etc?

>whatever you believe.
>
>>>Farmers are notorious liars
>>
>> Veg*ns like yourself are the most dishonest people
>>I've ever had anything to do with.
>
>Your opinion of vegans matters nothing, Harrison.
>
>> Farmers have always
>>been honest even when it hurts.
>
>Then why do they intentionally infect their own
>cattle with painful, deadly diseases?

To make them sick. Why did you think they do it?

>That's not
>being "honest even when it hurts",

It is if they don't want to make their cattle sick, and
only do it as a last resort that they hate to do.

>and neither
>is their lying to customers which YOU think
>"wouldn't really matter anyway."

The lying does matter. But what and who
does it matter to?

> wrote in message
...

> The lying does matter. But what and who
> does it matter to?
If lying matters, then why do you lie about animals being used in
products such as glass and steel, when you have no credible data to support
those claims?

Laurie

"Laurie" > wrote
>
> > wrote
>
> > The lying does matter. But what and who
> > does it matter to?
> If lying matters, then why do you lie about animals being used in
> products such as glass and steel, when you have no credible data to
support
> those claims?

Who said that?

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:12:46 GMT, wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:24:22 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:04:22 GMT, wrote:
>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:38:33 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>
>>>>That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
>>>>his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
>>>>later on in the year.
>>>
>>> If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
>>>really matter anyway
>>
>>It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,
>
> The lying matters.

You've only just wrote, "that it wouldn't really matter
anyway", so make up your stupid mind.

>>> Farmers have always
>>>been honest even when it hurts.
>>
>>Then why do they intentionally infect their own
>>cattle with painful, deadly diseases?
>
> To make them sick. Why did you think they do it?
>
They do it for exactly the reason you gave and
to fraudulently claim compensation for what
should be a safety net for other genuine people
in need of that money. In short, they lie and
cheat their own kind, and can't be trusted to look
after animals, let alone be honest to customers
about their product.

>>That's not
>>being "honest even when it hurts",
>
> It is if they don't want to make their cattle sick, and
>only do it as a last resort that they hate to do.
>
What a load of rubbish. You start off by claiming
farmers are "honest even when it hurts" and then
go on to admit they're anything but honest or even
responsible enough to look after the animals in their
charge.

>>and neither
>>is their lying to customers which YOU think
>>"wouldn't really matter anyway."
>
> The lying does matter.

Then why did you lie by initially claiming, "it wouldn't
really matter anyway"?

>But what and who does it matter to?

Everyone, including themselves.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:02:58 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:12:46 GMT, wrote:
>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:24:22 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:04:22 GMT, wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:38:33 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
>>>>>his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
>>>>>later on in the year.
>>>>
>>>> If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
>>>>really matter anyway
>>>
>>>It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,
>>
>> The lying matters.
>
>You've only just wrote, "that it wouldn't really matter
>anyway", so make up your stupid mind.
>
>>>> Farmers have always
>>>>been honest even when it hurts.
>>>
>>>Then why do they intentionally infect their own
>>>cattle with painful, deadly diseases?
>>
>> To make them sick. Why did you think they do it?
>>
>They do it for exactly the reason you gave and
>to fraudulently claim compensation for what
>should be a safety net for other genuine people
>in need of that money. In short, they lie and
>cheat their own kind, and can't be trusted to look
>after animals,
__________________________________________________ _______
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.

A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.

[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.

''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.

People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stori...427010026.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>let alone be honest to customers
>about their product.
>
>>>That's not
>>>being "honest even when it hurts",
>>
>> It is if they don't want to make their cattle sick, and
>>only do it as a last resort that they hate to do.
>>
>What a load of rubbish. You start off by claiming
>farmers are "honest even when it hurts" and then
>go on to admit they're anything but honest or even
>responsible enough to look after the animals in their
>charge.
>
>>>and neither
>>>is their lying to customers which YOU think
>>>"wouldn't really matter anyway."
>>
>> The lying does matter.
>
>Then why did you lie by initially claiming, "it wouldn't
>really matter anyway"?

You snipped it, so you know what it is. If you want
to discuss it then put it back.

>>But what and who does it matter to?
>
>Everyone, including themselves.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:04:15 GMT, wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:02:58 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:12:46 GMT, wrote:
>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:24:22 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:04:22 GMT, wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:38:33 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
>>>>>>his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
>>>>>>later on in the year.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
>>>>>really matter anyway
>>>>
>>>>It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,
>>>
>>> The lying matters.
>>
>>You've only just wrote, "that it wouldn't really matter
>>anyway", so make up your stupid mind.
>>
Well? Which is it, then? Does lying matter or
doesn't it?

>>>>> Farmers have always
>>>>>been honest even when it hurts.
>>>>
>>>>Then why do they intentionally infect their own
>>>>cattle with painful, deadly diseases?
>>>
>>> To make them sick. Why did you think they do it?
>>>
>>They do it for exactly the reason you gave and
>>to fraudulently claim compensation for what
>>should be a safety net for other genuine people
>>in need of that money. In short, they lie and
>>cheat their own kind, and can't be trusted to look
>>after animals,
>_________________________________________________ ________
>Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
>State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
>[...]
>On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
>of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
>in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
>existence and the slaughterhouse.
>
>A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
>the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
>livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.
>
>[...]
>In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
>hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
>U.S. shores.
>
>''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
>if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.
>
>People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
>ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
>means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
>start to finish.''
>[...]
>http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stori...427010026.html
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
How does Newkirk's statement take anything away
from the facts I've pointed out to you? Farmers
infect their cattle for exactly the reason you gave
and to fraudulently claim compensation from what
should be a safety net for other genuine people in
need of that money. In short, they lie and cheat their
own kind and can't be trusted to look after animals.
That's not being "honest even when it hurts", you idiot.
It's thoroughly dishonest and unethical.

>>>>That's not
>>>>being "honest even when it hurts",
>>>
>>> It is if they don't want to make their cattle sick, and
>>>only do it as a last resort that they hate to do.
>>>
>>What a load of rubbish. You start off by claiming
>>farmers are "honest even when it hurts" and then
>>go on to admit they're anything but honest or even
>>responsible enough to look after the animals in their
>>charge.
>>
Well, stupid? How is what they do being, "honest even
when it hurts"?

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:34:26 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:04:15 GMT, wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:02:58 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:12:46 GMT, wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:24:22 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:04:22 GMT, wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:38:33 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
>>>>>>>his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
>>>>>>>later on in the year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
>>>>>>really matter anyway
>>>>>
>>>>>It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,
>>>>
>>>> The lying matters.
>>>
>>>You've only just wrote, "that it wouldn't really matter
>>>anyway", so make up your stupid mind.
>>>
>Well? Which is it, then? Does lying matter or
>doesn't it?

Replace what you snipped and see for yourself.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 02:18:53 GMT, wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:34:26 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:04:15 GMT, wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:02:58 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:12:46 GMT, wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:24:22 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:04:22 GMT, wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:38:33 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
>>>>>>>>his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
>>>>>>>>later on in the year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
>>>>>>>really matter anyway
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,
>>>>>
>>>>> The lying matters.
>>>>
>>>>You've only just wrote, "that it wouldn't really matter
>>>>anyway", so make up your stupid mind.
>>>>
>>Well? Which is it, then? Does lying matter or
>>doesn't it?
>
> Replace what you snipped and see for yourself.
>
<unsnip>
>>>>> Farmers have always
>>>>>been honest even when it hurts.
>>>>
>>>>Then why do they intentionally infect their own
>>>>cattle with painful, deadly diseases?
>>>
>>> To make them sick. Why did you think they do it?
>>>
>>They do it for exactly the reason you gave and
>>to fraudulently claim compensation for what
>>should be a safety net for other genuine people
>>in need of that money. In short, they lie and
>>cheat their own kind, and can't be trusted to look
>>after animals,
>_________________________________________________ ________
>Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
>State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
>[...]
>On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
>of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
>in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
>existence and the slaughterhouse.
>
>A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
>the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
>livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.
>
>[...]
>In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
>hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
>U.S. shores.
>
>''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
>if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.
>
>People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
>ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
>means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
>start to finish.''
>[...]
>http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stori...427010026.html
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
How does Newkirk's statement take anything away
from the facts I've pointed out to you? Farmers
infect their cattle for exactly the reason you gave
and to fraudulently claim compensation from what
should be a safety net for other genuine people in
need of that money. In short, they lie and cheat their
own kind and can't be trusted to look after animals.
That's not being "honest even when it hurts", you idiot.
It's thoroughly dishonest and unethical.

>>>>That's not
>>>>being "honest even when it hurts",
>>>
>>> It is if they don't want to make their cattle sick, and
>>>only do it as a last resort that they hate to do.
>>>
>>What a load of rubbish. You start off by claiming
>>farmers are "honest even when it hurts" and then
>>go on to admit they're anything but honest or even
>>responsible enough to look after the animals in their
>>charge.
>>
Well, stupid? How is what they do being, "honest even
when it hurts"?
<end>

There. Now answer the question, Harrison.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:45:05 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 02:18:53 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:34:26 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:04:15 GMT, wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:02:58 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:12:46 GMT, wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:24:22 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:04:22 GMT, wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:38:33 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
>>>>>>>>>his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
>>>>>>>>>later on in the year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
>>>>>>>>really matter anyway
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The lying matters.
>>>>>
>>>>>You've only just wrote, "that it wouldn't really matter
>>>>>anyway", so make up your stupid mind.
>>>>>
>>>Well? Which is it, then? Does lying matter or
>>>doesn't it?
>>
>> Replace what you snipped and see for yourself.
>>
><unsnip>
>>>>>> Farmers have always
>>>>>>been honest even when it hurts.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then why do they intentionally infect their own
>>>>>cattle with painful, deadly diseases?
>>>>
>>>> To make them sick. Why did you think they do it?
>>>>
>>>They do it for exactly the reason you gave and
>>>to fraudulently claim compensation for what
>>>should be a safety net for other genuine people
>>>in need of that money. In short, they lie and
>>>cheat their own kind, and can't be trusted to look
>>>after animals,
>>________________________________________________ _________
>>Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
>>State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
>>[...]
>>On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
>>of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
>>in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
>>existence and the slaughterhouse.
>>
>>A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
>>the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
>>livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.
>>
>>[...]
>>In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
>>hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
>>U.S. shores.
>>
>>''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
>>if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.
>>
>>People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
>>ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
>>means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
>>start to finish.''
>>[...]
>>http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stori...427010026.html
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>How does Newkirk's statement take anything away
>from the facts I've pointed out to you? Farmers
>infect their cattle for exactly the reason you gave
>and to fraudulently claim compensation from what
>should be a safety net for other genuine people in
>need of that money. In short, they lie and cheat their
>own kind and can't be trusted to look after animals.
>That's not being "honest even when it hurts", you idiot.
>It's thoroughly dishonest and unethical.
>
>>>>>That's not
>>>>>being "honest even when it hurts",
>>>>
>>>> It is if they don't want to make their cattle sick, and
>>>>only do it as a last resort that they hate to do.
>>>>
>>>What a load of rubbish. You start off by claiming
>>>farmers are "honest even when it hurts" and then
>>>go on to admit they're anything but honest or even
>>>responsible enough to look after the animals in their
>>>charge.
>>>
>Well, stupid? How is what they do being, "honest even
>when it hurts"?
><end>
>
>There. Now answer the question, Harrison.

I did. Do you know when?

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "Laurie" > wrote
> >
> > > wrote
> > > The lying does matter. But what and who does it matter to?
> > If lying matters, then why do you lie about animals being used in
> > products such as glass and steel, when you have no credible data to
> > support those claims?
>
> Who said that?
As the reference CLEARLY shows, I was responding to ,
who frequently makes such bizarre claims, and then perpetually fails to
support those claims when challenged, such as:
=================
"From: )
Subject: Do seals have rights?



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals, alt.animals.felines,
alt.animals.horses.breeding, rec.animals.wildlife, alt.philosophy
Date: 2004-02-10 19:25:50 PST

<snip>
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.
What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:

Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid, contact-lens care products, glues for paper and
cardboard cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC,
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings
================
C'mon, Dutch, you have been plaguing these veg*n ng's for years, and you
have seen dh's crackpot claims for years, and you know he has never even
attempted to support his claims when challenged for years -- all this rather
similar to your own lack of intellectual ethics.

Laurie

Laurie wrote:

> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Laurie" > wrote
>>
> wrote
>>>
>>>> The lying does matter. But what and who does it matter to?
>>>
>>> If lying matters, then why do you lie about animals being used in
>>>products such as glass and steel, when you have no credible data to
>>>support those claims?
>>
>>Who said that?
>
> As the reference CLEARLY shows, I was responding to ,
> who frequently makes such bizarre claims, and then perpetually fails to
> support those claims when challenged, such as:
> =================
> "From: )
> Subject: Do seals have rights?
>
>
>
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals, alt.animals.felines,
> alt.animals.horses.breeding, rec.animals.wildlife, alt.philosophy
> Date: 2004-02-10 19:25:50 PST
>
> <snip>
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
> of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
> buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.
> What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> to avoid the following in order to be successful:
>
> Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
> Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
> Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
> Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
> Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
> Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
> auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
> greases, brake fluid, contact-lens care products, glues for paper and
> cardboard cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
> sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC,
> Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
> Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
> Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
> Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
> Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings
> ================
> C'mon, Dutch, you have been plaguing these veg*n ng's for years, and you
> have seen dh's crackpot claims for years, and you know he has never even
> attempted to support his claims when challenged for years -- all this rather
> similar to your own lack of intellectual ethics.

You are in no position to be cracking wise about
"intellectual ethics", Larry.

"Laurie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Laurie" > wrote
> > >
> > > > wrote
> > > > The lying does matter. But what and who does it matter to?
> > > If lying matters, then why do you lie about animals being used in
> > > products such as glass and steel, when you have no credible data to
> > > support those claims?
> >
> > Who said that?

> As the reference CLEARLY shows, I was responding to ,

I was responding to him, and it was several months ago. What kind of
lame-ass news server are YOU using?

> who frequently makes such bizarre claims, and then perpetually fails to
> support those claims when challenged, such as:
> =================
> "From: )
> Subject: Do seals have rights?

If you are referring to his claims that vegans contribute to the deaths of
animals, then he *is* supporting that claim.

His problem is not unsupported claims, it's an unethical and sophistic train
of thought called "The Logic of the Larder."

You think lack of support of claims is everything because you have wasted so
much of your life amassing that huge pile of crap you laughably call
evidence.

-snip-

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:51:44 -0500, "Laurie" > wrote:

>
>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>> "Laurie" > wrote
>> >
>> > > wrote
>> > > The lying does matter. But what and who does it matter to?
>> > If lying matters, then why do you lie about animals being used in
>> > products such as glass and steel, when you have no credible data to
>> > support those claims?
>>
>> Who said that?
> As the reference CLEARLY shows, I was responding to ,
>who frequently makes such bizarre claims, and then perpetually fails to
>support those claims when challenged, such as:
>=================
>"From: )
>Subject: Do seals have rights?
>
>
>
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals, alt.animals.felines,
>alt.animals.horses.breeding, rec.animals.wildlife, alt.philosophy
>Date: 2004-02-10 19:25:50 PST
>
><snip>
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
>of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
>buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.
>What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
>(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
>to avoid the following in order to be successful:
>
>Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
>Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
>Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
>Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
>Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
>Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
>Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
>auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
>greases, brake fluid, contact-lens care products, glues for paper and
>cardboard cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
>sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC,
>Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
>Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
>Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
>Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
>Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
>Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
>Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings
>================
> C'mon, Dutch, you have been plaguing these veg*n ng's for years, and you
>have seen dh's crackpot claims for years,

So you don't think animals are killed in crop fields or that animal
by-products are used in manufacturing. On which planet do you
think things are like that? Oh yeah, Mercury, Venus, Mars..............

>and you know he has never even
>attempted to support his claims when challenged for years --

Here's something that *anyone* who really cared about
animals would have accepted years ago:
__________________________________________________ _______
Animals give us much more than milk, steak, ham and leg of lamb.
For example, 99 percent of every cow is used, but less than half of
that is actually eaten as beef. By-products, or the non-meat products
that come from animals, are used to make an amazing variety of
medicines, foods, household and industrial products.

After meat, drugs and medicines are the major products that come
from beef and pork. Hogs alone provide 40 important drugs. Look
around your house: soap, paint, detergent, cosmetics, wallpaper,
glass and plastics -- all are made from animals. We even use
animal by-products in our cars: in tires, seat coverings, antifreeze
and oil.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/newsfo...yproduct1.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
but you don't care about animals enough to...well...even
think about them.
__________________________________________________ _______
SO, WHEN IS A COW MORE THAN A COW?

Whenever we depend on its renewable resources
to be part of the world that helps us.

Beef by-products enable us to use 99% of every beef animal.
BEEF BY-PRODUCTS - THE NATURAL SOURCE

Beef by-products serve as source materials for other industries,
including pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and textiles.

We normally associate beef as being part of a satisfying meal.
However, because 99% of the beef animal is utilized, items
manufactured from beef by-products are all around us. Yogurt,
car tires, drywall and a variety of medicines all contain a beef
by-product.

The medical world relies on beef by-products for many life
saving or life improving medications and treatments. Our bodies
can easily accept a medication or treatment made with beef
by-products. Although some medical products and treatments
are made from synthetic ingredients, many are still made more
economically from beef cattle, thus helping to keep the cost of
our health care down.

Some frequently used medical products made from beef
by-products include trypsin (for cleansing wounds and ulcers),
corticotrophin (for treating allergies, arthritis and respiratory
diseases), iron (for treating anemia), thrombin (for blood
coagulation), and a huge range of other valuable
pharmaceutical products.

Beef by-products are also used in all sorts of mechanical items.
For example, chemical manufacturers use the fatty acids of
inedible beef fats and proteins for the production of lubricants
and fluids. From industrial cleaners and fertilizers to printing ink
and high gloss for magazines, many useful products are created
from beef cattle.

Automobile and bicycle tires contain stearic acid, which makes
the rubber hold its shape under continuous surface friction. Even
the asphalt on our roadways contains a binding agent derived
from the fat of beef cattle.

The creation of beef by-products is an important way for the beef
industry to reduce, reuse and recycle.

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/jross/beefprod.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
see also:
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/jross/house.htm
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/jross/industry.htm
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/jross/travel.htm
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/jross/pharmacy.htm