ipse dixit > wrote in message >. ..
> On 27 Jan 2004 06:03:25 -0800, (K D B) wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" > wrote in message >...
> >> "Laurie" > wrote in message ...
> >> > "everwestward" > wrote in message om...
> >> > > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There's no riddle. You're a mentally ill asshole.
> >> > > >
> >> > > My, oh my. Someone has too much hostility. Must
> >> > > be all the dietary impurities.
> >> > >
> >> > Oh, you don't know about Jon-a-thug noBalls?
> >> > He is arguably the most intentionally-obnoxious of all the
> >> > hostile, meatarian trolls who haunt the veg*n ng's, hoping to
> >> > suck innocent newbies into meaningless dialog and then blast
> >> > them with lies, personal insults, vulgarity, and verbally-violent
> >> > assaults. Killfile him and the rest of his ilk.
> >> >
> >> > Laurie
> >> >
> >> They don't come much better than that, Pearl.
> >
> > Except for the fact that Larry has shown no evidence of meaningless
> >dialogue or lies
>
> The evidence of Laurie's claim is plain to everyone.
> Jon's only reason for being here is to "haunt the veg*n
> ng's, hoping to suck innocent newbies into meaningless
> dialog and then blast them with lies, personal insults,
> vulgarity, and verbally-violent assaults."

Show evidence of lies or meaningless dialogue. I never questioned
anything else in LARRY'S statement. Quit playing into the ****head's
gender-confused nonsense by calling him "Laurie".
>
> You probably don't see it, but that's no surprise since
> also fail to see his unethical snipping, too.

also...,too?

Anyway, we've already established that "retaliation" went clear
over your head, but could you at least try to learn the difference
between "snipping" and "unethical snipping"? Hint: YOU practice the
latter (in this post even). But, since your shit-stirring goal here is
to instigate an argument, show evidence of unethical snipping on
Jonathan's part in his last 50 posts. Since you are a ****ing
minimally-educated moron, I will then determine how many of those
actually constitute "unethcal" snipping and compare that number to the
number of posts out of your last 50 in which you have been guilty of
"unethical" snipping. Then, whichever one of you has the highest
total, I will blast with truth supported by a generous amount of
personal insults, vulgarity, and verbally-violent assaults.
Don't worry Dreck, as long as slutweed continues to post, you're
only the second dumbest sack-of-shit on usenet.

Kevin

"K D B" > wrote in message om...
> ipse dixit > wrote in message >. ..
> > On 27 Jan 2004 06:03:25 -0800, (K D B) wrote:
> > >"ipse dixit" > wrote in message >...
> > >> "Laurie" > wrote in message ...
> > >> > "everwestward" > wrote in message om...
> > >> > > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > There's no riddle. You're a mentally ill asshole.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > My, oh my. Someone has too much hostility. Must
> > >> > > be all the dietary impurities.
> > >> > >
> > >> > Oh, you don't know about Jon-a-thug noBalls?
> > >> > He is arguably the most intentionally-obnoxious of all the
> > >> > hostile, meatarian trolls who haunt the veg*n ng's, hoping to
> > >> > suck innocent newbies into meaningless dialog and then blast
> > >> > them with lies, personal insults, vulgarity, and verbally-violent
> > >> > assaults. Killfile him and the rest of his ilk.
> > >> >
> > >> > Laurie
> > >> >
> > >> They don't come much better than that, Pearl.
> > >
> > > Except for the fact that Larry has shown no evidence of meaningless
> > >dialogue or lies
> >
> > The evidence of Laurie's claim is plain to everyone.
> > Jon's only reason for being here is to "haunt the veg*n
> > ng's, hoping to suck innocent newbies into meaningless
> > dialog and then blast them with lies, personal insults,
> > vulgarity, and verbally-violent assaults."
>
> Show evidence of lies or meaningless dialogue.

Look for it yourself. You'll find it all in Google archives.
You can't miss it.

> I never questioned
> anything else in LARRY'S statement. Quit playing into the ****head's
> gender-confused nonsense by calling him "Laurie".

I'll call him by his preferred name. The fact that Jon
hates him using the same pet name he calls his own
wife gives me a giggle, so I'll continue using it if that's
alright with you.
> >
> > You probably don't see it, but that's no surprise since
> > also fail to see his unethical snipping, too.
>
> also...,too?
>
As well, yes, moreover.

> Anyway, we've already established that "retaliation" went clear
> over your head,

Nope. I know a tu quoque when I see one.

> but could you at least try to learn the difference
> between "snipping" and "unethical sni

"pearl" > wrote in message
...

> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

Wow, Pearl, I just saw your page.
First, I started the Jon-a-thug noBalls Memorial Killfile, and now you
have a John-a-thug noBalls Memorial Degeneracy page.
To that noble (pun intended) cause, and to help noBalls immortalize
himself even further, I donate the following historical material for your
archive.
Hide the children; it ain't pretty.
http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt

Laurie

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:49:15 -0500, "Laurie" > wrote:

>
>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>
>> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
>
> Wow, Pearl, I just saw your page.
> First, I started the Jon-a-thug noBalls Memorial Killfile, and now you
>have a John-a-thug noBalls Memorial Degeneracy page.
> To that noble (pun intended) cause, and to help noBalls immortalize
>himself even further, I donate the following historical material for your
>archive.
> Hide the children; it ain't pretty.
>http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt
>
> Laurie

You missed a few:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Burger King Uncowed
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700

"vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products.
That's an influence, whether you like it or not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: (Jonathan Ball)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan
Subject: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, ****with
Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700

People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans"
aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm
animals: they don't want there to be farm animals.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
Subject: Article about animal interests
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:07:55 -0800
Message-ID: >

"they follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its
natural and logical conclusion."
[That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination
of domestic animals.]
"You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself."
[That other bizarre direction being to improve the animals'
welfare instead of to eliminate them.]
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
2001-09-17 From: Jonathan Ball
"Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm
animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm
animals would live in bad conditions.

28 Mar 2002 by Jonathan Ball
It doesn't matter if the animals know our intent, ****wit.
We know it.

30 Apr 2002 by Jonathan Ball
The fact they're going to be killed "anyway" is an enormous
factor in the quality of their lives

02 Oct 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If there is no moral loss, which he coyly has hinted at
before, then he has no grounds for bashing "vegans" for
wanting domestic farm animals to disappear


22 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
wrote:

> Meat eaters promote life for the animals they eat,

No, they don't.


As we can see your Gonad agrees with the veg*n way of
thinking on all of the above. He obviously believes that you
should be "vegans", and that you have arrived at a natural
and logical conclusion by deciding to become one. He
never suggests that people consider any alternatives to
veg*nism, and he can't provide even one lame example of
an opposition to "AR". The Gonad is on your side as I am
convinced you are well aware, though we never see you
post his quotes which let us know it...but then you wouldn't
want to do that now would you? No, that's the last thing
any of you would want.

wrote in message >. ..
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:49:15 -0500, "Laurie" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
> >
> > Wow, Pearl, I just saw your page.
> > First, I started the Jon-a-thug noBalls Memorial Killfile, and now you
> >have a John-a-thug noBalls Memorial Degeneracy page.
> > To that noble (pun intended) cause, and to help noBalls immortalize
> >himself even further, I donate the following historical material for your
> >archive.
> > Hide the children; it ain't pretty.
> >http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt
> >
> > Laurie
>
> You missed a few:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: Jonathan Ball >
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> Subject: Burger King Uncowed
> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700
>
> "vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
> mean no animals raised for food and other products.
> That's an influence, whether you like it or not.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: (Jonathan Ball)
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan
> Subject: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, ****with
> Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700
>
> People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans"
> aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm
> animals: they don't want there to be farm animals.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: Jonathan Ball >
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
> Subject: Article about animal interests
> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:07:55 -0800
> Message-ID: >
>
> "they follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its
> natural and logical conclusion."
> [That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination
> of domestic animals.]
> "You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
> bizarre direction...all by yourself."
> [That other bizarre direction being to improve the animals'
> welfare instead of to eliminate them.]
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> 2001-09-17 From: Jonathan Ball
> "Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm
> animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm
> animals would live in bad conditions.
>
> 28 Mar 2002 by Jonathan Ball
> It doesn't matter if the animals know our intent, ****wit.
> We know it.
>
> 30 Apr 2002 by Jonathan Ball
> The fact they're going to be killed "anyway" is an enormous
> factor in the quality of their lives
>
> 02 Oct 2001 by Jonathan Ball
> If there is no moral loss, which he coyly has hinted at
> before, then he has no grounds for bashing "vegans" for
> wanting domestic farm animals to disappear
>
>
> 22 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
> wrote:
>
> > Meat eaters promote life for the animals they eat,
>
> No, they don't.
>
>
> As we can see your Gonad agrees with the veg*n way of
> thinking on all of the above.

Nowhere in any of those quotes does he agree with their way of
thinking. You can't read. You can make out the individual words, but
their meaning escapes you when those words are combined in a logical
sentence structure.


He obviously believes that you
> should be "vegans", and that you have arrived at a natural
> and logical conclusion by deciding to become one.

There's nothing obvious about it, and nothing you've quoted even
says what you claim it says.


He
> never suggests that people consider any alternatives to
> veg*nism, and he can't provide even one lame example of
> an opposition to "AR".

You really can't read, can you?


The Gonad is on your side as I am
> convinced you are well aware, though we never see you
> post his quotes which let us know it...but then you wouldn't
> want to do that now would you? No, that's the last thing
> any of you would want.


You're an idiot.

Kevin

>I've also heard of the
> "Jain" movement which parallels my eating habits closely, but Jainism
> is more of a spiritual belief than a dietary preference, and I'm not
> quite ready to accept a new god simply because he/she offers the
> tastiest menu!
>

Jains (and Hindus and Muslims and Jews and even Mormons) believe in exactly
the same God that Christians do. Same Invisible Big Guy. They simply
"worship" their diety in a different way. Alas, there would be so many
fewer "religious wars" if people realized this.

That having been said. I am really fascinated by your dietary preferances.
I suspect you might be able be able to coin a NEW term... how about
"skinnytarian?"

SD

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:49:15 -0500, "Laurie" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
> > >
> > > Wow, Pearl, I just saw your page.
> > > First, I started the Jon-a-thug noBalls Memorial Killfile, and now you
> > >have a John-a-thug noBalls Memorial Degeneracy page.
> > > To that noble (pun intended) cause, and to help noBalls immortalize
> > >himself even further, I donate the following historical material for your
> > >archive.
> > > Hide the children; it ain't pretty.
> > >http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt
> > >
> > > Laurie

Hey, Laurie, I just saw your post, courtesy of 'kdb'. (A recent
glitch on the web resulted in a number of posts not getting through).

Thanks for the great title. I've linked to your page, and you're
very welcome to link to mine.

L.

On 31 Jan 2004 09:40:19 -0800, (K D B) wrote:

wrote in message >. ..
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:49:15 -0500, "Laurie" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
>> >
>> > Wow, Pearl, I just saw your page.
>> > First, I started the Jon-a-thug noBalls Memorial Killfile, and now you
>> >have a John-a-thug noBalls Memorial Degeneracy page.
>> > To that noble (pun intended) cause, and to help noBalls immortalize
>> >himself even further, I donate the following historical material for your
>> >archive.
>> > Hide the children; it ain't pretty.
>> >http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt
>> >
>> > Laurie
>>
>> You missed a few:
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> From: Jonathan Ball >
>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
>> Subject: Burger King Uncowed
>> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700
>>
>> "vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>> mean no animals raised for food and other products.
>> That's an influence, whether you like it or not.
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> From: (Jonathan Ball)
>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan
>> Subject: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, ****with
>> Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700
>>
>> People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans"
>> aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm
>> animals: they don't want there to be farm animals.
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> From: Jonathan Ball >
>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
>> Subject: Article about animal interests
>> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:07:55 -0800
>> Message-ID: >
>>
>> "they follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its
>> natural and logical conclusion."
>> [That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination
>> of domestic animals.]
>> "You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
>> bizarre direction...all by yourself."
>> [That other bizarre direction being to improve the animals'
>> welfare instead of to eliminate them.]
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> 2001-09-17 From: Jonathan Ball
>> "Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm
>> animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm
>> animals would live in bad conditions.
>>
>> 28 Mar 2002 by Jonathan Ball
>> It doesn't matter if the animals know our intent, ****wit.
>> We know it.
>>
>> 30 Apr 2002 by Jonathan Ball
>> The fact they're going to be killed "anyway" is an enormous
>> factor in the quality of their lives
>>
>> 02 Oct 2001 by Jonathan Ball
>> If there is no moral loss, which he coyly has hinted at
>> before, then he has no grounds for bashing "vegans" for
>> wanting domestic farm animals to disappear
>>
>>
>> 22 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Meat eaters promote life for the animals they eat,
>>
>> No, they don't.
>>
>>
>> As we can see your Gonad agrees with the veg*n way of
>> thinking on all of the above.
>
> Nowhere in any of those quotes does he agree with their way of
>thinking.

Then point out which one(s) do not agree with their way of
thinking. But you can't do it, because they all do.

>You can't read. You can make out the individual words, but
>their meaning escapes you when those words are combined in a logical
>sentence structure.
>
>
> He obviously believes that you
>> should be "vegans", and that you have arrived at a natural
>> and logical conclusion by deciding to become one.
>
> There's nothing obvious about it, and nothing you've quoted even
>says what you claim it says.

What does: People who don't want them to exist should be
"vegans". mean to you Brandumbass?

> He
>> never suggests that people consider any alternatives to
>> veg*nism, and he can't provide even one lame example of
>> an opposition to "AR".
>
> You really can't read, can you?
>
>
> The Gonad is on your side as I am
>> convinced you are well aware, though we never see you
>> post his quotes which let us know it...but then you wouldn't
>> want to do that now would you? No, that's the last thing
>> any of you would want.
>
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> Kevin

"Laurie" > wrote in message >...
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
>
> Wow, Pearl, I just saw your page.
> First, I started the Jon-a-thug noBalls Memorial Killfile, and now you
> have a John-a-thug noBalls Memorial Degeneracy page.
> To that noble (pun intended) cause, and to help noBalls immortalize
> himself even further, I donate the following historical material for your
> archive.
> Hide the children; it ain't pretty.
> http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt
>
> Laurie




I'm still convinced that Ball and Etter are closet vegans and are
only "acting out" as children do to impress their meat munching
friends.

It's sad I know, but hopefully they will overcome in time.

"Ron" > wrote in message
om...
> "Laurie" > wrote in message
>...
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
> >
> > Wow, Pearl, I just saw your page.
> > First, I started the Jon-a-thug noBalls Memorial Killfile, and now
you
> > have a John-a-thug noBalls Memorial Degeneracy page.
> > To that noble (pun intended) cause, and to help noBalls immortalize
> > himself even further, I donate the following historical material for
your
> > archive.
> > Hide the children; it ain't pretty.
> > http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt
> >
> > Laurie
>
>
>
>
> I'm still convinced that Ball and Etter are closet vegans and are
> only "acting out" as children do to impress their meat munching
> friends.
>
> It's sad I know, but hopefully they will overcome in time.
==========================
Yes, vegan stupidity is sad, but as you say, it can be overcome.

Nice to see that you cannot defend your religion any better than the rest of
the losers here, eh killer?

"rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Laurie" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
> > >
> > > Wow, Pearl, I just saw your page.
> > > First, I started the Jon-a-thug noBalls Memorial Killfile, and now
> you
> > > have a John-a-thug noBalls Memorial Degeneracy page.
> > > To that noble (pun intended) cause, and to help noBalls immortalize
> > > himself even further, I donate the following historical material for
> your
> > > archive.
> > > Hide the children; it ain't pretty.
> > > http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt
> > >
> > > Laurie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm still convinced that Ball and Etter are closet vegans and are
> > only "acting out" as children do to impress their meat munching
> > friends.
> >
> > It's sad I know, but hopefully they will overcome in time.
> ==========================
> Yes, vegan stupidity is sad, but as you say, it can be overcome.
>
> Nice to see that you cannot defend your religion any better than the rest of
> the losers here, eh killer?



Why don't you two just jump out of the closet and quit the silliness.

Or are you being *paid* to promote the unhealthy animal food industry?

"Ron" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Laurie" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
> > > >
> > > > Wow, Pearl, I just saw your page.
> > > > First, I started the Jon-a-thug noBalls Memorial Killfile, and
now
> > you
> > > > have a John-a-thug noBalls Memorial Degeneracy page.
> > > > To that noble (pun intended) cause, and to help noBalls
immortalize
> > > > himself even further, I donate the following historical material for
> > your
> > > > archive.
> > > > Hide the children; it ain't pretty.
> > > > http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt
> > > >
> > > > Laurie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm still convinced that Ball and Etter are closet vegans and are
> > > only "acting out" as children do to impress their meat munching
> > > friends.
> > >
> > > It's sad I know, but hopefully they will overcome in time.
> > ==========================
> > Yes, vegan stupidity is sad, but as you say, it can be overcome.
> >
> > Nice to see that you cannot defend your religion any better than the
rest of
> > the losers here, eh killer?
>
>
>
> Why don't you two just jump out of the closet and quit the silliness.
===============
If it's so silly you should be able to refute what i say about your veggies
with no problem, right? Why is none of you have ever been able to do that?

>
> Or are you being *paid* to promote the unhealthy animal food industry?
=================
No more so than you are paid to support an industry that kills and maims
millions upon millions of animals just for your convenience. Why do you
continue to not address that part of the discussion, and instead focus on
making one line cracks than just display your ignorance?

"Dirk McDougal" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> Support your claim, for example, that the idea of
> complementary proteins is a "myth". Support it with
> peer reviewed reasearch, please.
Gee, I could not find any "reasearch", but Lappe, who started this myth
retracted it in a later edition of her book, and there are plenty of real
references cited he
http://www.notmilk.com/protein.html

Laurie

Laurie wrote:

> "Dirk McDougal" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>
>>Support your claim, for example, that the idea of
>>complementary proteins is a "myth". Support it with
>>peer reviewed reasearch, please.
>
> Gee, I could not find any "reasearch", but Lappe, who started this myth

No, she didn't. You are lying. It isn't a myth, and
it's been around since LONG before Lappe.

> retracted it in a later edition of her book, and there are plenty of real
> references cited he
> http://www.notmilk.com/protein.html

Those are not real references. That shoddy, shabby
page is part of a food zealot's page, and the "studies"
cited concerning "combining protein" are NOT
identified. The page is chock-full of spelling errors
and other indications of slipshod polemics. It is NOT
science-based, period.