Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Letters to the editor

Zakhar, daft as ever, wrote:

>>Try reading again.
>>
>>5. Our oceans would be fished to extinction. Yes, all the vegetarians I

> know
>>eat fish and seafood.
>>
>>See, the writer is saying that most 'vegetarians' eat fish. This appears

> to
>>me to be true.

>
> No, you read again with some knowledge.
>
> The writer implied that all vegetarians eat fish.


Bullshit, you ignorant prat. The writer only said the vegetarians of the
writer's acquaintance ate fish -- not ALL.

> Which is beside the point. The point is NO vegetarians eat fish. There are
> people who eat fish that call themselves vegetarian, but these people are
> ill-informed or liars.


They're free to call themselves whatever they want.

> Lesson one: Fish are NOT vegetable.


How long did it take you to comprehend that one, dummy?

>>The oceans are already in serious peril from overfishing. If eveyone

> became
>>'vegetarian' in the sense that the writer means it and we omnivores

> observe
>>it, there is no doubt that the oceans would indeed be fished until there
>>were no stocks left.

>
> In the sense that meat eaters could eat more fish, call themselves
> vegetarians and empty the oceans, yes.


The oceans won't be emptied by fish-eaters.

> Lesson two:
>
> What is a vegetarian?
> Someone who does not eat meat, poultry, game or *fish* and who also avoids
> slaughterhouse by-products such as gelatine and animal fats.


Some vegetarians will take exception about by-products, which most
people in modern society find almost unavoidable. Those products end up
in cosmetics, shampoo, conditioners, and soap. Animal-derived products
are also used in pharmaceuticals. Is one no longer vegetarian because
that Advil or Tylenol has gelatin around it? Or that capsule is made of
gelatin?

> Most
> vegetarians eat dairy products and free-range eggs, Vegans avoid all animal
> products.
>
> http://www.vegsoc.org/newveg/index.html


Nobody avoids all animal products.

  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Fools Gold
 
Posts: n/a
Default Letters to the editor


Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Rogi Surta wrote:
> > Totally wrong my friend. You are sadly misinformed. Cattle are one of the most
> > destructive food sources Americans use. The calorie per bushel of grain invested
> > to meat is far less efficient than direct human consumption of the same grain.

>
> You are misinformed, you top-posting goofball. The
> grain cattle eat is not considered edible by humans.
> It is grown AS livestock feed.
>
> Anyway, your sense of "efficiency" is irrelevant and
> misguided. The goal in producing food is not to get
> the highest caloric value from the smallest possible
> resource input, and you're not even proposing that we
> do that. You can prove it for yourself by looking at
> the resource requirements to grow a bushel of potatoes
> versus the requirements to grow a bushel of
> raspberries. You aren't proposing that we grow and
> consume only the most resource-efficient vegetables, so
> the idea that meat be produced and consumed is no
> different.
>
> A Mercedes-Benz requires more resources to produce than
> a Kia, you dummy, but you're not proposing that people
> ONLY should have Kias available for purchase.
>
> > The number of acres of rain forests cleared each year in south america to raise
> > the cattle for fast food industries alone (a notoriously empty calorie food
> > source) is nothing more than rape of the earth.

>
> Bullshit. You're an ignorant environmental extremist.
> You're also full of shit in your claim that the
> calories are "empty".
>


Grain production is the point, not what kind it is. Are you so ****ing dumb that you
can not grasp this simple point? - resources it takes to get a calorie of meet -
versus a calorie of grain? This is what we call science.

Let me guess, now you are going to try to insult me by calling a scientist? Maybe you
might even call me educated, that would really hurt my feelings!

I am not alone in purposing gas economy cars over gas guzzling-Saudi Arabia-supporting
cars.

An empty calorie is a common term referring to high sugar/ fat content while being low
in nutrients. You seem to be a very uneducated person. Are you by any chance a
cultural decedent of the klu klux klan? A white southern Protestant?

Calling me an environmentalist means what? That I am not so self-centered and arrogant
that I care about leaving for my children a world that can sustain them?

Let me guess, you are one of those common fat people that cares only about living
forever in heaven and could give a flying **** that our children will live in a
caldron of 6 billion plus humans fighting over the last scraps of territory on this
shrinking planet.

Anyone that thinks it is an insult to be called an environmentalist has got to be a
very selfish ignorant person! My money is on you being a decedent of a white southern
protestant christian. A slave owning, civil rights violating, bible swinging, camel
through the eye of a needle, hates the educated, hillbilly!

Check this out and then talk to me http://www.2think.org/dhw.shtml

who's next?

>
> >
> > The areas you refer to that cattle graze on are devastated by the input of
> > cattle. Your statement that I seem to be in support of petro chem companies
> > indicates you did not read my comments. Grain raised cattle requires MORE petro
> > chems. That is a fact. You seem to see what you want just to argue your beliefs
> > with no regard for reality!
> >
> > How do you think a billion south east asians and a billion Chinese survive? Do
> > you think they are eating more meat or more grain?

>
> Relative to 10 years ago? They're eating more grain
> per capita today than they did 10 years ago, idiot.
>
> > They live with less land and
> > less cash and they do it with way less meat.

>
> With way MORE meat than they ate per person 10 years
> ago, dummy.
>
> > Why? Because it is the most
> > efficient way to live.

>
> Efficiency is not the only consideration.
>
> >
> > Deny this all you want. Fact is that in this country vegetarians (which I AM
> > NOT and never have been) live longer

>
> Prove it.
>
> > and cost less tax dollars in medical care.

>
> Prove it.
>
> > Heart disease is the number one killer in the country and the largest chunk of
> > medical costs that your tax dollars pay for. Your defense of meat is based not
> > on common sense but group identity. Perhaps you should just watch sports on tv
> > instead.
> >
> > rick etter wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Rogi Surta" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>You make a post using a persons false assumption about bushels of food per
> >>
> >>acre;
> >>
> >>>plants versus animal.
> >>
> >>===============
> >>And your assumptions are what?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Being a vegetarian is about less fat and cholesterol in your diet. It is
> >>
> >>about
> >>
> >>>living longer with less medical costs. Forget the fact that it takes more
> >>
> >>farming
> >>
> >>>to grow grain and feed to animals and then eat the animals.
> >>
> >>===========================
> >>No, it does not. It takes *zero* amounts of grains or other crops to raise
> >>many meat animals...
> >>Animals can, and do live, thrive, and grow in areas that crops are not
> >>easily grown without massive inputs from the petro-chemical industry. An
> >>industry you appear to really support... Trying to grow human edible crops
> >>where the land is minimal takes far more resourses, and causes far more
> >>environmental damage than from eating meat raised in the same area.
> >>
> >> It is about less
> >>
> >>>farming needs and therefore less herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers in
> >>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>rivers I catch trout and salmon in.
> >>
> >>======================
> >>Sure, but if veg*ns would replace 100s of 1000s of calories from their
> >>mono-culture crop foods with the same amount of calories from one grass-fed
> >>animal, or game animal, then the impact from farming would be less.
> >>
> >> Your entire premise is exactly backwards and
> >>
> >>>embarrassingly stupid!
> >>
> >>=======================
> >>You've made a few false claims of your own here...
> >>
> >>
> >>>You have made a fool of yourself. For the vast majority of people that
> >>
> >>live on a
> >>
> >>>plant only diet it is not because they love Bambi in her forest home, it
> >>
> >>is because
> >>
> >>>of poverty. They have little land and the implements to grow with. The
> >>
> >>huge list of
> >>
> >>>claims are made by misinformed person, much like yourself!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Your
> >>>
> >>>LizH228 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Here is a letter to the editor taken out of yesterday's Denver paper
> >>
> >>(Rocky
> >>
> >>>>Mountain News):
> >>>>Letters to the Editor, February 10
> >>>>February 10, 2004
> >>>>
> >>>>Worldwide vegan diet would be catastrophic
> >>>>
> >>>>With the recent mad cow disease scare I've noticed a lot of people have
> >>>>suggested that we all eat vegetarian. Let's think about that for a
> >>
> >>minute. Here
> >>
> >>>>are a few reasons why a total vegetarian planet would be a horrific
> >>
> >>idea:
> >>
> >>>>1. We would have to clear billions of acres of land, rainforests,
> >>
> >>national
> >>
> >>>>parks, etc., to make room to grow crops.
> >>>>
> >>>>2. Deer, elk, cattle, sheep, goats, etc., would wreak havoc on those
> >>
> >>crops
> >>
> >>>>because their natural food source would no longer be available to them.
> >>
> >>We
> >>
> >>>>would not like that and we would insist that someone do something about
> >>
> >>it.
> >>
> >>>>What do we do? Shoot them? Chase them away? To where? We would come to
> >>
> >>look at
> >>
> >>>>them as "pests." These predators would eventually become extinct due to
> >>
> >>lack of
> >>
> >>>>natural prey.
> >>>>
> >>>>Until then, I'm sure they would find humans pretty tasty.
> >>>>
> >>>>3. Without humans and predators keeping down their populations, deer,
> >>
> >>elk,
> >>
> >>>>etc., will die from sickness, disease and overcrowding, eventually
> >>
> >>becoming
> >>
> >>>>extinct themselves.
> >>>>
> >>>>4. With no room to breed livestock, many goods and foodstuffs, like wool
> >>
> >>and
> >>
> >>>>dairy products, will no longer be available.
> >>>>
> >>>>5. Our oceans would be fished to extinction. Yes, all the vegetarians I
> >>
> >>know
> >>
> >>>>eat fish and seafood.
> >>>>
> >>>>6. Without rainforests, global warming will accelerate out of control,
> >>
> >>creating
> >>
> >>>>floods in many parts of the world and drought in others.
> >>>>
> >>>>7. What would happen if we had a drought? A lot of human deaths would
> >>
> >>occur, of
> >>
> >>>>course, but our crops will die, too. The planet will become a desiccated
> >>>>tinderbox waiting for something to ignite it.
> >>>>
> >>>>Human beings are omnivores, meaning we eat fruits, vegetables, nuts . .
> >>
> >>. and
> >>
> >>>>meat. If you wish to eat vegetarian, fine. In fact, if we all decided to
> >>
> >>be
> >>
> >>>>totally carnivorous (eating only meat products) a similar worldwide
> >>
> >>catastrophe
> >>
> >>>>would occur. We need to be omnivorous. Otherwise, this planet will die.
> >>>>
> >>>>We'll be moving to Mars a lot sooner than we think.
> >>>

> >


  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Fools Gold
 
Posts: n/a
Default Johathan's Balls (Crushed)



> Rogi Surta wrote:
> > Totally wrong my friend. You are sadly misinformed. Cattle are one of the most
> > destructive food sources Americans use. The calorie per bushel of grain invested
> > to meat is far less efficient than direct human consumption of the same grain.

>
> You are misinformed, you top-posting goofball. The
> grain cattle eat is not considered edible by humans.
> It is grown AS livestock feed.
>
> Anyway, your sense of "efficiency" is irrelevant and
> misguided. The goal in producing food is not to get
> the highest caloric value from the smallest possible
> resource input, and you're not even proposing that we
> do that. You can prove it for yourself by looking at
> the resource requirements to grow a bushel of potatoes
> versus the requirements to grow a bushel of
> raspberries. You aren't proposing that we grow and
> consume only the most resource-efficient vegetables, so
> the idea that meat be produced and consumed is no
> different.
>
> A Mercedes-Benz requires more resources to produce than
> a Kia, you dummy, but you're not proposing that people
> ONLY should have Kias available for purchase.
>
> > The number of acres of rain forests cleared each year in south america to raise
> > the cattle for fast food industries alone (a notoriously empty calorie food
> > source) is nothing more than rape of the earth.

>
> Bullshit. You're an ignorant environmental extremist.
> You're also full of shit in your claim that the
> calories are "empty".


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

Grain production is the point, not what kind of grain. Are you so ****ing dumb that
you can not grasp this simple
concept? - resources it takes to get a calorie of meet - versus a calorie of grain?
This is what we call science.

Let me guess, now you are going to try to insult me by calling a scientist? Maybe you
might even call me
educated, that would really hurt my feelings!

I am not alone in purposing gas economy cars over gas guzzling-Saudi Arabia-supporting
cars.

An empty calorie is a common term referring to high sugar/ fat content while being low
in nutrients. You seem to
be a very uneducated person. Are you by any chance a cultural decedent of the klu klux
klan? A white southern
Protestant?

Calling me an environmentalist means what? That I am not so self-centered and arrogant
that I care about
leaving for my children a world that can sustain them?

Let me guess, you are one of those common fat people that cares only about living
forever in heaven and could
give a flying **** that our children will live in a caldron of 6 billion plus humans
fighting over the last scraps of
territory on this shrinking planet.

Anyone that thinks it is an insult to be called an environmentalist has got to be a
very selfish ignorant person! My
money is on you being a decedent of a white southern protestant christian. A slave
owning, civil rights violating,
bible swinging, camel through the eye of a needle, hates the educated, hillbilly!

Check this out and then talk to me http://www.2think.org/dhw.shtml

who's next?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> >
> > The areas you refer to that cattle graze on are devastated by the input of
> > cattle. Your statement that I seem to be in support of petro chem companies
> > indicates you did not read my comments. Grain raised cattle requires MORE petro
> > chems. That is a fact. You seem to see what you want just to argue your beliefs
> > with no regard for reality!
> >
> > How do you think a billion south east asians and a billion Chinese survive? Do
> > you think they are eating more meat or more grain?

>
> Relative to 10 years ago? They're eating more grain
> per capita today than they did 10 years ago, idiot.
>
> > They live with less land and
> > less cash and they do it with way less meat.

>
> With way MORE meat than they ate per person 10 years
> ago, dummy.
>
> > Why? Because it is the most
> > efficient way to live.

>
> Efficiency is not the only consideration.
>
> >
> > Deny this all you want. Fact is that in this country vegetarians (which I AM
> > NOT and never have been) live longer

>
> Prove it.
>
> > and cost less tax dollars in medical care.

>
> Prove it.
>
> > Heart disease is the number one killer in the country and the largest chunk of
> > medical costs that your tax dollars pay for. Your defense of meat is based not
> > on common sense but group identity. Perhaps you should just watch sports on tv
> > instead.
> >
> > rick etter wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Rogi Surta" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>You make a post using a persons false assumption about bushels of food per
> >>
> >>acre;
> >>
> >>>plants versus animal.
> >>
> >>===============
> >>And your assumptions are what?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Being a vegetarian is about less fat and cholesterol in your diet. It is
> >>
> >>about
> >>
> >>>living longer with less medical costs. Forget the fact that it takes more
> >>
> >>farming
> >>
> >>>to grow grain and feed to animals and then eat the animals.
> >>
> >>===========================
> >>No, it does not. It takes *zero* amounts of grains or other crops to raise
> >>many meat animals...
> >>Animals can, and do live, thrive, and grow in areas that crops are not
> >>easily grown without massive inputs from the petro-chemical industry. An
> >>industry you appear to really support... Trying to grow human edible crops
> >>where the land is minimal takes far more resourses, and causes far more
> >>environmental damage than from eating meat raised in the same area.
> >>
> >> It is about less
> >>
> >>>farming needs and therefore less herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers in
> >>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>rivers I catch trout and salmon in.
> >>
> >>======================
> >>Sure, but if veg*ns would replace 100s of 1000s of calories from their
> >>mono-culture crop foods with the same amount of calories from one grass-fed
> >>animal, or game animal, then the impact from farming would be less.
> >>
> >> Your entire premise is exactly backwards and
> >>
> >>>embarrassingly stupid!
> >>
> >>=======================
> >>You've made a few false claims of your own here...
> >>
> >>
> >>>You have made a fool of yourself. For the vast majority of people that
> >>
> >>live on a
> >>
> >>>plant only diet it is not because they love Bambi in her forest home, it
> >>
> >>is because
> >>
> >>>of poverty. They have little land and the implements to grow with. The
> >>
> >>huge list of
> >>
> >>>claims are made by misinformed person, much like yourself!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Your
> >>>
> >>>LizH228 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Here is a letter to the editor taken out of yesterday's Denver paper
> >>
> >>(Rocky
> >>
> >>>>Mountain News):
> >>>>Letters to the Editor, February 10
> >>>>February 10, 2004
> >>>>
> >>>>Worldwide vegan diet would be catastrophic
> >>>>
> >>>>With the recent mad cow disease scare I've noticed a lot of people have
> >>>>suggested that we all eat vegetarian. Let's think about that for a
> >>
> >>minute. Here
> >>
> >>>>are a few reasons why a total vegetarian planet would be a horrific
> >>
> >>idea:
> >>
> >>>>1. We would have to clear billions of acres of land, rainforests,
> >>
> >>national
> >>
> >>>>parks, etc., to make room to grow crops.
> >>>>
> >>>>2. Deer, elk, cattle, sheep, goats, etc., would wreak havoc on those
> >>
> >>crops
> >>
> >>>>because their natural food source would no longer be available to them.
> >>
> >>We
> >>
> >>>>would not like that and we would insist that someone do something about
> >>
> >>it.
> >>
> >>>>What do we do? Shoot them? Chase them away? To where? We would come to
> >>
> >>look at
> >>
> >>>>them as "pests." These predators would eventually become extinct due to
> >>
> >>lack of
> >>
> >>>>natural prey.
> >>>>
> >>>>Until then, I'm sure they would find humans pretty tasty.
> >>>>
> >>>>3. Without humans and predators keeping down their populations, deer,
> >>
> >>elk,
> >>
> >>>>etc., will die from sickness, disease and overcrowding, eventually
> >>
> >>becoming
> >>
> >>>>extinct themselves.
> >>>>
> >>>>4. With no room to breed livestock, many goods and foodstuffs, like wool
> >>
> >>and
> >>
> >>>>dairy products, will no longer be available.
> >>>>
> >>>>5. Our oceans would be fished to extinction. Yes, all the vegetarians I
> >>
> >>know
> >>
> >>>>eat fish and seafood.
> >>>>
> >>>>6. Without rainforests, global warming will accelerate out of control,
> >>
> >>creating
> >>
> >>>>floods in many parts of the world and drought in others.
> >>>>
> >>>>7. What would happen if we had a drought? A lot of human deaths would
> >>
> >>occur, of
> >>
> >>>>course, but our crops will die, too. The planet will become a desiccated
> >>>>tinderbox waiting for something to ignite it.
> >>>>
> >>>>Human beings are omnivores, meaning we eat fruits, vegetables, nuts . .
> >>
> >>. and
> >>
> >>>>meat. If you wish to eat vegetarian, fine. In fact, if we all decided to
> >>
> >>be
> >>
> >>>>totally carnivorous (eating only meat products) a similar worldwide
> >>
> >>catastrophe
> >>
> >>>>would occur. We need to be omnivorous. Otherwise, this planet will die.
> >>>>
> >>>>We'll be moving to Mars a lot sooner than we think.
> >>>

> >


  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Zakhar
 
Posts: n/a
Default Letters to the editor

TexMex, stupid as stupid as ever.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Zakhar, daft as ever, wrote:
>
> >>Try reading again.
> >>
> >>5. Our oceans would be fished to extinction. Yes, all the vegetarians I

> > know
> >>eat fish and seafood.
> >>
> >>See, the writer is saying that most 'vegetarians' eat fish. This

appears
> > to
> >>me to be true.

> >
> > No, you read again with some knowledge.
> >
> > The writer implied that all vegetarians eat fish.

>
> Bullshit, you ignorant prat. The writer only said the vegetarians of the
> writer's acquaintance ate fish -- not ALL.


"Yes, all the vegetarians I know eat fish" was the phrase. It was implicit.


>
> > Which is beside the point. The point is NO vegetarians eat fish. There

are
> > people who eat fish that call themselves vegetarian, but these people

are
> > ill-informed or liars.

>
> They're free to call themselves whatever they want.


You may be happy living, as you do, with ignorant people and liars.

>
> > Lesson one: Fish are NOT vegetable.

>
> How long did it take you to comprehend that one, dummy?


I've not got a problem, you stupid ****.

>
> >>The oceans are already in serious peril from overfishing. If eveyone

> > became
> >>'vegetarian' in the sense that the writer means it and we omnivores

> > observe
> >>it, there is no doubt that the oceans would indeed be fished until there
> >>were no stocks left.

> >
> > In the sense that meat eaters could eat more fish, call themselves
> > vegetarians and empty the oceans, yes.

>
> The oceans won't be emptied by fish-eaters.


You must have polished the old crystal ball, I never realised you could see
the future, or are you LYING again.

>
> > Lesson two:
> >
> > What is a vegetarian?
> > Someone who does not eat meat, poultry, game or *fish* and who also

avoids
> > slaughterhouse by-products such as gelatine and animal fats.

>
> Some vegetarians will take exception about by-products, which most
> people in modern society find almost unavoidable. Those products end up
> in cosmetics, shampoo, conditioners, and soap.


You STUPID ****.

Read it again!

....does not EAT meat, poultry, game or *fish* and who also avoids
slaughterhouse by-products such as gelatine and animal fats.

(Most) Vegetarians do not EAT "cosmetics, shampoo, conditioners, and soap".

>Animal-derived products
> are also used in pharmaceuticals. Is one no longer vegetarian because
> that Advil or Tylenol has gelatin around it? Or that capsule is made of
> gelatin?


I avoid it yes, so do the other VEGETARIANS I know.

>
> > Most
> > vegetarians eat dairy products and free-range eggs, Vegans avoid all

animal
> > products.
> >
> > http://www.vegsoc.org/newveg/index.html

>
> Nobody avoids all animal products.


That's one reason why I'm not a VEGAN.

>



  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Letters to the editor

Zakhar, dumber than ever, wrote:
>>>>5. Our oceans would be fished to extinction. Yes, all the vegetarians I
>>>know
>>>>eat fish and seafood.
>>>>
>>>>See, the writer is saying that most 'vegetarians' eat fish. This

> appears
>>>to
>>>
>>>>me to be true.
>>>
>>>No, you read again with some knowledge.
>>>
>>>The writer implied that all vegetarians eat fish.

>>
>>Bullshit, you ignorant prat. The writer only said the vegetarians of the
>>writer's acquaintance ate fish -- not ALL.

>
> "Yes, all the vegetarians I know eat fish" was the phrase. It was implicit.


It wasn't, you imbecile.

>>>Which is beside the point. The point is NO vegetarians eat fish. There

> are
>>>people who eat fish that call themselves vegetarian, but these people

> are
>>>ill-informed or liars.

>>
>>They're free to call themselves whatever they want.

>
> You may be happy living, as you do, with ignorant people and liars.


You're right: I've dealt too patiently with you, Ray, Dreck, and Lesley.

>>>Lesson one: Fish are NOT vegetable.

>>
>>How long did it take you to comprehend that one, dummy?

>
> I've not got a problem, you stupid ****.


Yes, you do. You're a dolt. That's a problem, a hindrance.

>>>>The oceans are already in serious peril from overfishing. If eveyone
>>>
>>>became
>>>
>>>>'vegetarian' in the sense that the writer means it and we omnivores
>>>
>>>observe
>>>
>>>>it, there is no doubt that the oceans would indeed be fished until there
>>>>were no stocks left.
>>>
>>>In the sense that meat eaters could eat more fish, call themselves
>>>vegetarians and empty the oceans, yes.

>>
>>The oceans won't be emptied by fish-eaters.

>
> You must have polished the old crystal ball, I never realised you could see
> the future, or are you LYING again.


Fish-eaters have no vested interest in emptying the oceans. Sustainable
practices will always win for the market to continue.

>>>Lesson two:
>>>
>>>What is a vegetarian?
>>>Someone who does not eat meat, poultry, game or *fish* and who also

>
> avoids
>
>>>slaughterhouse by-products such as gelatine and animal fats.

>>
>>Some vegetarians will take exception about by-products, which most
>>people in modern society find almost unavoidable. Those products end up
>>in cosmetics, shampoo, conditioners, and soap.

>
> You STUPID ****.


You imbecile.

> Read it again!


I don't have to re-read it, I got it the first time.

> ...does not EAT meat, poultry, game or *fish* and who also avoids
> slaughterhouse by-products such as gelatine and animal fats.
>
> (Most) Vegetarians do not EAT "cosmetics, shampoo, conditioners, and soap".


They use them. The paragraph says the AVOID them. They clearly don't,
except when it comes to ingesting animal parts. You ignoramus.

>>Animal-derived products
>>are also used in pharmaceuticals. Is one no longer vegetarian because
>>that Advil or Tylenol has gelatin around it? Or that capsule is made of
>>gelatin?

>
> I avoid it yes, so do the other VEGETARIANS I know.


Suffer. Hehe.

>>>Most
>>>vegetarians eat dairy products and free-range eggs, Vegans avoid all

>
> animal
>
>>>products.
>>>
>>>http://www.vegsoc.org/newveg/index.html

>>
>>Nobody avoids all animal products.

>
> That's one reason why I'm not a VEGAN.


What are the other reasons?



  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Zakhar
 
Posts: n/a
Default Letters to the editor

TexMex
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
snip
> >>
> >>The oceans won't be emptied by fish-eaters.

> >
> > You must have polished the old crystal ball, I never realised you could

see
> > the future, or are you LYING again.

>
> Fish-eaters have no vested interest in emptying the oceans. Sustainable
> practices will always win for the market to continue.


What a load of ********.

You can't predict the future.

>
> >>>Lesson two:
> >>>
> >>>What is a vegetarian?
> >>>Someone who does not eat meat, poultry, game or *fish* and who also

> >
> > avoids
> >
> >>>slaughterhouse by-products such as gelatine and animal fats.
> >>
> >>Some vegetarians will take exception about by-products, which most
> >>people in modern society find almost unavoidable. Those products end up
> >>in cosmetics, shampoo, conditioners, and soap.

> >
> > You STUPID ****.

>
> You imbecile.
>
> > Read it again!

>
> I don't have to re-read it, I got it the first time.


No you did NOT.

>
> > ...does not EAT meat, poultry, game or *fish* and who also avoids
> > slaughterhouse by-products such as gelatine and animal fats.
> >
> > (Most) Vegetarians do not EAT "cosmetics, shampoo, conditioners, and

soap".
>
> They use them. The paragraph says the AVOID them. They clearly don't,
> except when it comes to ingesting animal parts. You ignoramus.


Avoid EATING them you stupid git.

>
> >>Animal-derived products
> >>are also used in pharmaceuticals. Is one no longer vegetarian because
> >>that Advil or Tylenol has gelatin around it? Or that capsule is made of
> >>gelatin?

> >
> > I avoid it yes, so do the other VEGETARIANS I know.

>
> Suffer. Hehe.


No I use alternatives.

>
> >>>Most
> >>>vegetarians eat dairy products and free-range eggs, Vegans avoid all

> >
> > animal
> >
> >>>products.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.vegsoc.org/newveg/index.html
> >>
> >>Nobody avoids all animal products.

> >
> > That's one reason why I'm not a VEGAN.

>
> What are the other reasons?


You can use some animal products in animal friendly ways.


>



  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Zakhar
 
Posts: n/a
Default Letters to the editor

TexMex scribbled unintelligently...
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Suckhard wrote:
> >>>>The oceans won't be emptied by fish-eaters.
> >>>
> >>>You must have polished the old crystal ball, I never realised you could

> >
> > see
> >
> >>>the future, or are you LYING again.
> >>
> >>Fish-eaters have no vested interest in emptying the oceans. Sustainable
> >>practices will always win for the market to continue.

> >
> > What a load of ********.
> >
> > You can't predict the future.

>
> Such laws of economics have predictive value.


You STILL can't predict the future.

You can't state "The oceans won't be emptied by fish-eaters", as you CAN'T
predict the future.

>
> >>>>>Lesson two:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What is a vegetarian?
> >>>>>Someone who does not eat meat, poultry, game or *fish* and who also
> >>>
> >>>avoids
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>slaughterhouse by-products such as gelatine and animal fats.
> >>>>
> >>>>Some vegetarians will take exception about by-products, which most
> >>>>people in modern society find almost unavoidable. Those products end

up
> >>>>in cosmetics, shampoo, conditioners, and soap.
> >>>
> >>>You STUPID ****.
> >>
> >>You imbecile.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Read it again!
> >>
> >>I don't have to re-read it, I got it the first time.

> >
> > No you did NOT.

>
> Yes I did. They don't eat animal foods, they avoid byproducts.


Yes EATING them.

You're REALLY having trouble with this.

>
> >>>...does not EAT meat, poultry, game or *fish* and who also avoids
> >>>slaughterhouse by-products such as gelatine and animal fats.
> >>>
> >>>(Most) Vegetarians do not EAT "cosmetics, shampoo, conditioners, and

> >
> > soap".
> >
> >>They use them. The paragraph says the AVOID them. They clearly don't,
> >>except when it comes to ingesting animal parts. You ignoramus.

> >
> > Avoid EATING them you stupid git.

>
> No, they don't eat animal parts. They avoid byproducts. Or at least they
> say they try to avoid them.


Read another definition from the same site, it *may* help your
understanding.

http://www.vegsoc.org/info/definitions.html

A vegetarian does not **eat** any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or
crustacea, or slaughter by-products such as gelatine or animal fats.


>
> >>>>Animal-derived products
> >>>>are also used in pharmaceuticals. Is one no longer vegetarian because
> >>>>that Advil or Tylenol has gelatin around it? Or that capsule is made

of
> >>>>gelatin?
> >>>
> >>>I avoid it yes, so do the other VEGETARIANS I know.
> >>
> >>Suffer. Hehe.

> >
> > No I use alternatives.

>
> Then you suffer.


No.

>
> >>>>>Most
> >>>>>vegetarians eat dairy products and free-range eggs, Vegans avoid all
> >>>
> >>>animal
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>products.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>http://www.vegsoc.org/newveg/index.html
> >>>>
> >>>>Nobody avoids all animal products.
> >>>
> >>>That's one reason why I'm not a VEGAN.
> >>
> >>What are the other reasons?

> >
> > You can use some animal products in animal friendly ways.

>
> Examples.


I'm sure you can think of your own.

>



  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Letters to the editor


"Fools Gold" > wrote in message
...

Jonathan Ball wrote:
Rogi Surta wrote:
> Totally wrong my friend. You are sadly misinformed. Cattle are one of the

most
> destructive food sources Americans use. The calorie per bushel of grain

invested
> to meat is far less efficient than direct human consumption of the same

grain.
You are misinformed, you top-posting goofball. The
grain cattle eat is not considered edible by humans.
It is grown AS livestock feed.
Anyway, your sense of "efficiency" is irrelevant and
misguided. The goal in producing food is not to get
the highest caloric value from the smallest possible
resource input, and you're not even proposing that we
do that. You can prove it for yourself by looking at
the resource requirements to grow a bushel of potatoes
versus the requirements to grow a bushel of
raspberries. You aren't proposing that we grow and
consume only the most resource-efficient vegetables, so
the idea that meat be produced and consumed is no
different.
A Mercedes-Benz requires more resources to produce than
a Kia, you dummy, but you're not proposing that people
ONLY should have Kias available for purchase.
> The number of acres of rain forests cleared each year in south america to

raise
> the cattle for fast food industries alone (a notoriously empty calorie

food
> source) is nothing more than rape of the earth.

Bullshit. You're an ignorant environmental extremist.
You're also full of shit in your claim that the
calories are "empty".

Grain production is the point, not what kind it is. Are you so ****ing dumb
that you can not grasp this simple point? - resources it takes to get a
calorie of meet - versus a calorie of grain? This is what we call science.
=======================
Yes, let's discuss that simple comparison. Grains for your consumption
require massive amounts more in resources than many meats. Why is that that
seems to be above your head? Where is the massive inputs from the
petro-chemical industry for grass-fed meats? Where is the massive
petro-chemical industry for game? I'll tell you where the massive
petro-chemical industry is, it's in the production of your cheap,
convenient, grow 'em as fast and cheaply as possible using whatever
resources it takes veggies. But then, it's not really about a vegan doing
'better', is it? It's about the sanctimonious hypocrisy that makes them
feel better. Forget the fact that they kill more animals than they need to,
because their convenience and entertainment come brefore actually saving any
animals.


Let me guess, now you are going to try to insult me by calling a scientist?
========================
Hardly. Your ignorance is too great for that label...

Maybe you might even call me educated, that would really hurt my feelings!
==================
Naw, not even that. Unless you count 6th grade as an education...


I am not alone in purposing gas economy cars over gas guzzling-Saudi
Arabia-supporting cars.
An empty calorie is a common term referring to high sugar/ fat content while
being low in nutrients. You seem to be a very uneducated person. Are you by
any chance a cultural decedent of the klu klux klan? A white southern
Protestant?
======================
Ah, the last refuge of those that know their argument is lost, call the
other person a racist. You really are that ignorant, aren't you?


Calling me an environmentalist means what? That I am not so self-centered
and arrogant that I care about leaving for my children a world that can
sustain them?
Let me guess, you are one of those common fat people that cares only about
living forever in heaven and could give a flying **** that our children will
live in a caldron of 6 billion plus humans fighting over the last scraps of
territory on this shrinking planet.
Anyone that thinks it is an insult to be called an environmentalist has got
to be a very selfish ignorant person! My money is on you being a decedent of
a white southern protestant christian. A slave owning, civil rights
violating, bible swinging, camel through the eye of a needle, hates the
educated, hillbilly!
Check this out and then talk to me http://www.2think.org/dhw.shtml
who's next?
===============
You. Stick a fork in yourself, you're toast, killer.


>



snippage...


  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bald Spot
 
Posts: n/a
Default Letters to the editor



rick etter wrote:

> "Fools Gold" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> Rogi Surta wrote:
> > Totally wrong my friend. You are sadly misinformed. Cattle are one of the

> most
> > destructive food sources Americans use. The calorie per bushel of grain

> invested
> > to meat is far less efficient than direct human consumption of the same

> grain.
> You are misinformed, you top-posting goofball. The
> grain cattle eat is not considered edible by humans.
> It is grown AS livestock feed.
> Anyway, your sense of "efficiency" is irrelevant and
> misguided. The goal in producing food is not to get
> the highest caloric value from the smallest possible
> resource input, and you're not even proposing that we
> do that. You can prove it for yourself by looking at
> the resource requirements to grow a bushel of potatoes
> versus the requirements to grow a bushel of
> raspberries. You aren't proposing that we grow and
> consume only the most resource-efficient vegetables, so
> the idea that meat be produced and consumed is no
> different.
> A Mercedes-Benz requires more resources to produce than
> a Kia, you dummy, but you're not proposing that people
> ONLY should have Kias available for purchase.
> > The number of acres of rain forests cleared each year in south america to

> raise
> > the cattle for fast food industries alone (a notoriously empty calorie

> food
> > source) is nothing more than rape of the earth.

> Bullshit. You're an ignorant environmental extremist.
> You're also full of shit in your claim that the
> calories are "empty".
>
> Grain production is the point, not what kind it is. Are you so ****ing dumb
> that you can not grasp this simple point? - resources it takes to get a
> calorie of meet - versus a calorie of grain? This is what we call science.
> =======================
> Yes, let's discuss that simple comparison. Grains for your consumption
> require massive amounts more in resources than many meats. Why is that that
> seems to be above your head? Where is the massive inputs from the
> petro-chemical industry for grass-fed meats? Where is the massive
> petro-chemical industry for game? I'll tell you where the massive
> petro-chemical industry is, it's in the production of your cheap,
> convenient, grow 'em as fast and cheaply as possible using whatever
> resources it takes veggies. But then, it's not really about a vegan doing
> 'better', is it? It's about the sanctimonious hypocrisy that makes them
> feel better. Forget the fact that they kill more animals than they need to,
> because their convenience and entertainment come brefore actually saving any
> animals.
>
> Let me guess, now you are going to try to insult me by calling a scientist?
> ========================
> Hardly. Your ignorance is too great for that label...
>
> Maybe you might even call me educated, that would really hurt my feelings!
> ==================
> Naw, not even that. Unless you count 6th grade as an education...
>
> I am not alone in purposing gas economy cars over gas guzzling-Saudi
> Arabia-supporting cars.
> An empty calorie is a common term referring to high sugar/ fat content while
> being low in nutrients. You seem to be a very uneducated person. Are you by
> any chance a cultural decedent of the klu klux klan? A white southern
> Protestant?
> ======================
> Ah, the last refuge of those that know their argument is lost, call the
> other person a racist. You really are that ignorant, aren't you?
>
> Calling me an environmentalist means what? That I am not so self-centered
> and arrogant that I care about leaving for my children a world that can
> sustain them?
> Let me guess, you are one of those common fat people that cares only about
> living forever in heaven and could give a flying **** that our children will
> live in a caldron of 6 billion plus humans fighting over the last scraps of
> territory on this shrinking planet.
> Anyone that thinks it is an insult to be called an environmentalist has got
> to be a very selfish ignorant person! My money is on you being a decedent of
> a white southern protestant christian. A slave owning, civil rights
> violating, bible swinging, camel through the eye of a needle, hates the
> educated, hillbilly!
> Check this out and then talk to me http://www.2think.org/dhw.shtml
> who's next?
> ===============
> You. Stick a fork in yourself, you're toast, killer!
>
> snippage...


Typical response from a punk. He is more than happy to **** with anyone he dam
well pleases and when a bully bigger and smarter than him gives him a taste of
his own medicine what does he do. He says "your toast"

Well where is the butter smart ass? Here is some of your own style of shit right
back at you:

You know many of us are creative with the fake names we create. I look at yours
and think, "what is he saying?" "Rick Etter" do a little variation on that and
what do you get?

DICK EATER!

I am more than happy to play by your rules you pussy!

  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Letters to the editor


"Bald Spot" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> rick etter wrote:
>
> > "Fools Gold" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > Rogi Surta wrote:
> > > Totally wrong my friend. You are sadly misinformed. Cattle are one of

the
> > most
> > > destructive food sources Americans use. The calorie per bushel of

grain
> > invested
> > > to meat is far less efficient than direct human consumption of the

same
> > grain.
> > You are misinformed, you top-posting goofball. The
> > grain cattle eat is not considered edible by humans.
> > It is grown AS livestock feed.
> > Anyway, your sense of "efficiency" is irrelevant and
> > misguided. The goal in producing food is not to get
> > the highest caloric value from the smallest possible
> > resource input, and you're not even proposing that we
> > do that. You can prove it for yourself by looking at
> > the resource requirements to grow a bushel of potatoes
> > versus the requirements to grow a bushel of
> > raspberries. You aren't proposing that we grow and
> > consume only the most resource-efficient vegetables, so
> > the idea that meat be produced and consumed is no
> > different.
> > A Mercedes-Benz requires more resources to produce than
> > a Kia, you dummy, but you're not proposing that people
> > ONLY should have Kias available for purchase.
> > > The number of acres of rain forests cleared each year in south america

to
> > raise
> > > the cattle for fast food industries alone (a notoriously empty calorie

> > food
> > > source) is nothing more than rape of the earth.

> > Bullshit. You're an ignorant environmental extremist.
> > You're also full of shit in your claim that the
> > calories are "empty".
> >
> > Grain production is the point, not what kind it is. Are you so ****ing

dumb
> > that you can not grasp this simple point? - resources it takes to get a
> > calorie of meet - versus a calorie of grain? This is what we call

science.
> > =======================
> > Yes, let's discuss that simple comparison. Grains for your consumption
> > require massive amounts more in resources than many meats. Why is that

that
> > seems to be above your head? Where is the massive inputs from the
> > petro-chemical industry for grass-fed meats? Where is the massive
> > petro-chemical industry for game? I'll tell you where the massive
> > petro-chemical industry is, it's in the production of your cheap,
> > convenient, grow 'em as fast and cheaply as possible using whatever
> > resources it takes veggies. But then, it's not really about a vegan

doing
> > 'better', is it? It's about the sanctimonious hypocrisy that makes them
> > feel better. Forget the fact that they kill more animals than they need

to,
> > because their convenience and entertainment come brefore actually saving

any
> > animals.
> >
> > Let me guess, now you are going to try to insult me by calling a

scientist?
> > ========================
> > Hardly. Your ignorance is too great for that label...
> >
> > Maybe you might even call me educated, that would really hurt my

feelings!
> > ==================
> > Naw, not even that. Unless you count 6th grade as an education...
> >
> > I am not alone in purposing gas economy cars over gas guzzling-Saudi
> > Arabia-supporting cars.
> > An empty calorie is a common term referring to high sugar/ fat content

while
> > being low in nutrients. You seem to be a very uneducated person. Are you

by
> > any chance a cultural decedent of the klu klux klan? A white southern
> > Protestant?
> > ======================
> > Ah, the last refuge of those that know their argument is lost, call the
> > other person a racist. You really are that ignorant, aren't you?
> >
> > Calling me an environmentalist means what? That I am not so

self-centered
> > and arrogant that I care about leaving for my children a world that can
> > sustain them?
> > Let me guess, you are one of those common fat people that cares only

about
> > living forever in heaven and could give a flying **** that our children

will
> > live in a caldron of 6 billion plus humans fighting over the last scraps

of
> > territory on this shrinking planet.
> > Anyone that thinks it is an insult to be called an environmentalist has

got
> > to be a very selfish ignorant person! My money is on you being a

decedent of
> > a white southern protestant christian. A slave owning, civil rights
> > violating, bible swinging, camel through the eye of a needle, hates the
> > educated, hillbilly!
> > Check this out and then talk to me http://www.2think.org/dhw.shtml
> > who's next?
> > ===============
> > You. Stick a fork in yourself, you're toast, killer!
> >
> > snippage...

>
> Typical response from a punk. He is more than happy to **** with anyone he

dam
> well pleases and when a bully bigger and smarter than him gives him a

taste of
> his own medicine

==================
Hardly the case. He has nothing but the typical lys and delusion. I notice
you did not and cannot refute anything I said. Instead, you resort to
profanity. Is that all you have?


what does he do. He says "your toast"
>
> Well where is the butter smart ass? Here is some of your own style of shit

right
> back at you:

====================
Still can't refute anything I said? Too bad. You're done too then it looks
like.

>
> You know many of us are creative with the fake names we create. I look at

yours
> and think, "what is he saying?" "Rick Etter" do a little variation on

that and
> what do you get?

=====================
Ummm., still nothing about the discussion. I guess you have absolutly
nothing to add except your hatred and stupidity. typical. Come on back
little-one when you can address the issues. that is, if mommy lets you back
on the computer after she sees what a potty mouth you are.



>
> DICK EATER!
>
> I am more than happy to play by your rules you pussy!

==================
Bring it one liitle boy, petey.... you're wit is in need of help.


>





  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Happy Thoughts
 
Posts: n/a
Default Letters to the editor

LizH228 wrote:

> 1. We would have to clear billions of acres of land, rainforests, national
> parks, etc., to make room to grow crops.


Hmmmm...you'd think that the cattle and other animals currently being
raised for their flesh would consume much more of such crops! And that
once the land being used to support those animals becomes available for
crops, there'd even be a surplus.

<< much silliness from this letter to the editor--which, hopefully,
thinking people realized had many fallacies--snipped >>

> Human beings are omnivores, meaning we eat fruits, vegetables, nuts . . . and
> meat.


I'm always amused by this argument, particularly since the people making
it can rarely come up with a response to this question: Then how do you
explain the societies in our world, some dating back thousands of years,
that do not kill ANY animals for food, clothing, etc.? They're still
around, and they're definitely NOT omnivores. What's up with that?!

--

"Vegetarians save lives every day"
and other veggie items:
www.SmartAssProducts.com
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Letters to the editor


"Happy Thoughts" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> LizH228 wrote:
>
> > 1. We would have to clear billions of acres of land, rainforests,

national
> > parks, etc., to make room to grow crops.

>
> Hmmmm...you'd think that the cattle and other animals currently being
> raised for their flesh would consume much more of such crops! And that
> once the land being used to support those animals becomes available for
> crops, there'd even be a surplus.

=====================
Hey fool, there already is a surplus. Plus, cattle need to be fed
absolutely no mass produced crops.


>
> << much silliness from this letter to the editor--which, hopefully,
> thinking people realized had many fallacies--snipped >>
>
> > Human beings are omnivores, meaning we eat fruits, vegetables, nuts . .

.. and
> > meat.

>
> I'm always amused by this argument, particularly since the people making
> it can rarely come up with a response to this question: Then how do you
> explain the societies in our world, some dating back thousands of years,
> that do not kill ANY animals for food, clothing, etc.? They're still
> around, and they're definitely NOT omnivores. What's up with that?!

======================
They aren't really vegan. Plus, if you remain a third world slum hole, you
can get the nutrients that plants along won't get just from the filth you
live in.
Otherwise, you cannot live on plant foods alone.


>
> --
>
> "Vegetarians save lives every day"

=====================
A ly that has never been proven by a single vegan anywhere. Care to be the
first, killer?



> and other veggie items:
> www.SmartAssProducts.com



  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Street Sweeper
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wapakoneta

*

rick etter wrote:

> (snippage)
> They aren't really vegan.* Plus, if you remain a third world slum hole, you
> can get the nutrients that plants along won't get just from the filth you
> live in.
> Otherwise, you cannot live on plant foods alone.


What kind of KKK shit is this? Do you think you can stick to your own demands
of staying on subject?
What relevance does a nation status or condition have to do with your goal of
being hero to the world of reason?
Seems to me that your common theme is being abusive.* Why don't you tell us
what kind of reputation Ohio and Lake Erie has in this nation?
You are one pathetic loser!

  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wapakoneta


"Street Sweeper" > wrote in message
...

rick etter wrote:
(snippage)
They aren't really vegan. Plus, if you remain a third world slum hole, you
can get the nutrients that plants along won't get just from the filth you
live in.
Otherwise, you cannot live on plant foods alone.


What kind of KKK shit is this?
=======================
I don'y know. What KKK hate group to you belong to?


Do you think you can stick to your own demands of staying on subject?
========================
Apparently you have a problem doing so. Why is that? Your diey made you
stupid or something/


What relevance does a nation status or condition have to do with your goal
of being hero to the world of reason?
Seems to me that your common theme is being abusive. Why don't you tell us
what kind of reputation Ohio and Lake Erie has in this nation?
You are one pathetic loser!
=====================
Why is it you have problem addressing what I write? Oh yeah, because you
can't defend your ignorant, delusional religion of veganism. When you can
refute what I say, instead of being a whiner without anything to add to the
disusion, come on bak little boy.


You must be the perfect example of just what I said, you cannot live on
plants alone and get all the nutrients you need. You're down to 2 remaining
braincells, so I'd use them wisely if i were you.






  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default Letters to the editor

"rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> "Happy Thoughts" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > LizH228 wrote:
> >
> > > 1. We would have to clear billions of acres of land, rainforests,

> national
> > > parks, etc., to make room to grow crops.

> >
> > Hmmmm...you'd think that the cattle and other animals currently being
> > raised for their flesh would consume much more of such crops! And that
> > once the land being used to support those animals becomes available for
> > crops, there'd even be a surplus.

> =====================



> Hey fool, there already is a surplus. Plus, cattle need to be fed
> absolutely no mass produced crops.




So there is no need for feedlots, hay crops, feed corn crops?

Are you a complete and total idiot etter?








>
>
> >
> > << much silliness from this letter to the editor--which, hopefully,
> > thinking people realized had many fallacies--snipped >>
> >
> > > Human beings are omnivores, meaning we eat fruits, vegetables, nuts . .

> . and
> > > meat.

> >
> > I'm always amused by this argument, particularly since the people making
> > it can rarely come up with a response to this question: Then how do you
> > explain the societies in our world, some dating back thousands of years,
> > that do not kill ANY animals for food, clothing, etc.? They're still
> > around, and they're definitely NOT omnivores. What's up with that?!

> ======================
> They aren't really vegan. Plus, if you remain a third world slum hole, you
> can get the nutrients that plants along won't get just from the filth you
> live in.
> Otherwise, you cannot live on plant foods alone.
>
>
> >
> > --
> >
> > "Vegetarians save lives every day"

> =====================
> A ly that has never been proven by a single vegan anywhere. Care to be the
> first, killer?
>
>
>
> > and other veggie items:
> > www.SmartAssProducts.com



  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Letters to the editor


"Ron" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message

>...
> > "Happy Thoughts" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > LizH228 wrote:
> > >
> > > > 1. We would have to clear billions of acres of land, rainforests,

> > national
> > > > parks, etc., to make room to grow crops.
> > >
> > > Hmmmm...you'd think that the cattle and other animals currently being
> > > raised for their flesh would consume much more of such crops! And

that
> > > once the land being used to support those animals becomes available

for
> > > crops, there'd even be a surplus.

> > =====================

>
>
> > Hey fool, there already is a surplus. Plus, cattle need to be fed
> > absolutely no mass produced crops.

>
>
>
> So there is no need for feedlots, hay crops, feed corn crops?

============================
No, there is no absolute need for cattle to be fed any crops. Is that too
hard for your feeble brain?


>
> Are you a complete and total idiot etter?

================
Nope. What's the matter with you? Too completely brainwashed and ignorant.
Show me where it is necessary for any cow to be fed crops in order to be
raised for meat production. That you resort to delusion and stupidity
doesn't mean that reality takes a break, killer.

Why did you ignore the part about there already being a surplus of grain in
the world? finally figured out your stupidity has caught up with you, fool?
Try to become better informed before making any more of a fool of yourself.



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > << much silliness from this letter to the editor--which, hopefully,
> > > thinking people realized had many fallacies--snipped >>
> > >
> > > > Human beings are omnivores, meaning we eat fruits, vegetables, nuts

.. .
> > . and
> > > > meat.
> > >
> > > I'm always amused by this argument, particularly since the people

making
> > > it can rarely come up with a response to this question: Then how do

you
> > > explain the societies in our world, some dating back thousands of

years,
> > > that do not kill ANY animals for food, clothing, etc.? They're still
> > > around, and they're definitely NOT omnivores. What's up with that?!

> > ======================
> > They aren't really vegan. Plus, if you remain a third world slum hole,

you
> > can get the nutrients that plants along won't get just from the filth

you
> > live in.
> > Otherwise, you cannot live on plant foods alone.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > "Vegetarians save lives every day"

> > =====================
> > A ly that has never been proven by a single vegan anywhere. Care to be

the
> > first, killer?
> >
> >
> >
> > > and other veggie items:
> > > www.SmartAssProducts.com



  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
angry etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default rick etters to the editor

*

rick etter wrote:

> ================
> Nope.* What's the matter with you?* Too completely brainwashed and
> ignorant.
> Show me where it is necessary for any cow to be fed crops in order to
> be
> raised for meat production.* That you resort to delusion and stupidity
>
> doesn't mean that reality takes a break, killer.
>
> Why did you ignore the part about there already being a surplus of
> grain* in
> the world?* finally figured out your stupidity has caught up with you,
> fool? Try to become better informed before making any more of a fool
> of yourself.


Note the intense level of frustration in Mr Etter. Why can't the world
be as smart as he?Oh how frustrating it must be to be the smartest
know-it-all on the subject of cow food in the whole ****ing world.
You laughingly wrote:

"Try to become better informed before making any more of a fool of
yourself."

Mr etter, do you have any idea how ironic this statement is that you've
made above ? Along with Mr Ball, there is no greater a fool than you.
Your investment in cow diet on these pages for so many weeks makes you
what? Are we all to suppose that you are some suave sophistict that
knows real respect? Respect as an expert in COW DIET!

You,* like Mr Ball,* suffer from a severe inferiority complex! Are you
feeling so small and insignificant... (so left out) that your biggest
investment in life is to demand respect as an expert in COW DIET?

Do you have any self esteem what so ever? Is your penis size so
traumatizing, like that of Mr Ball, that you have to resort to flushing
out suckers to engage you in this "who's the cow diet expert"? Dam your
life must be pathetic!

You and Ball have got to be either the same person or* two of the
biggest self-esteem lacking losers that I have ever come across anywhere
at anytime! It'S called being "a legend in your own mind. "

So many of us get a kick from observing belly sliding losers like you
and Ball. The way you both demonstrate such an obvious need to ridicule
others, ESPECIALLY WOMEN tells us all, that despite any down side we may
face in life, at least we are not as big a loser as either of you two
jokes!

Go spank it in the dark. you cry baby pussy!

I have slammed dunked your ass here only because you have made it
soooooooo easy! Isn't that any kind of clue? Do you not see how ****ing
naked your mindset is here on these pages? Just because their are those
like me that will entertain ourselves by engaging you any way shape or
form does not in and of it's self grant you significance in any arena
other than LOSER!

Ok pussy, let's see you or the other joke do your best at a response.
Call me stupid or something. Will it change why you two dwel here? NOT A
CHANCE!

You are what you both are... LOSERS!

Your both pathetic!

  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
angry etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default rick etters to the editor

*

rick etter wrote:

> ================
> Nope.* What's the matter with you?* Too completely brainwashed and
> ignorant.
> Show me where it is necessary for any cow to be fed crops in order to
> be
> raised for meat production.* That you resort to delusion and stupidity
>
> doesn't mean that reality takes a break, killer.
>
> Why did you ignore the part about there already being a surplus of
> grain* in
> the world?* finally figured out your stupidity has caught up with you,
> fool? Try to become better informed before making any more of a fool
> of yourself.


Note the intense level of frustration in Mr Etter. Why can't the world
be as smart as he?Oh how frustrating it must be to be the smartest
know-it-all on the subject of cow food in the whole ****ing world.
You laughingly wrote:

"Try to become better informed before making any more of a fool of
yourself."

Mr etter, do you have any idea how ironic this statement is that you've
made above ? Along with Mr Ball, there is no greater a fool than you.
Your investment in cow diet on these pages for so many weeks makes you
what? Are we all to suppose that you are some suave sophistict that
knows real respect? Respect as an expert in COW DIET!

You,* like Mr Ball,* suffer from a severe inferiority complex! Are you
feeling so small and insignificant... (so left out) that your biggest
investment in life is to demand respect as an expert in COW DIET?

Do you have any self esteem what so ever? Is your penis size so
traumatizing, like that of Mr Ball, that you have to resort to flushing
out suckers to engage you in this "who's the cow diet expert"? Dam your
life must be pathetic!

You and Ball have got to be either the same person or* two of the
biggest self-esteem lacking losers that I have ever come across anywhere
at anytime! It'S called being "a legend in your own mind. "

So many of us get a kick from observing belly sliding losers like you
and Ball. The way you both demonstrate such an obvious need to ridicule
others, ESPECIALLY WOMEN tells us all, that despite any down side we may
face in life, at least we are not as big a loser as either of you two
jokes!

Go spank it in the dark. you cry baby pussy!

I have slammed dunked your ass here only because you have made it
soooooooo easy! Isn't that any kind of clue? Do you not see how ****ing
naked your mindset is here on these pages? Just because their are those
like me that will entertain ourselves by engaging you any way shape or
form does not in and of it's self grant you significance in any arena
other than LOSER!

Ok pussy, let's see you or the other joke do your best at a response.
Call me stupid or something. Will it change why you two dwel here? NOT A
CHANCE!

You are what you both are... LOSERS!

Your both pathetic!

  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
angry etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default rick etters to the editor

*

rick etter wrote:

> ================
> Nope.* What's the matter with you?* Too completely brainwashed and
> ignorant.
> Show me where it is necessary for any cow to be fed crops in order to
> be
> raised for meat production.* That you resort to delusion and stupidity
>
> doesn't mean that reality takes a break, killer.
>
> Why did you ignore the part about there already being a surplus of
> grain* in
> the world?* finally figured out your stupidity has caught up with you,
> fool? Try to become better informed before making any more of a fool
> of yourself.


Note the intense level of frustration in Mr Etter. Why can't the world
be as smart as he?Oh how frustrating it must be to be the smartest
know-it-all on the subject of cow food in the whole ****ing world.
You laughingly wrote:

"Try to become better informed before making any more of a fool of
yourself."

Mr etter, do you have any idea how ironic this statement is that you've
made above ? Along with Mr Ball, there is no greater a fool than you.
Your investment in cow diet on these pages for so many weeks makes you
what? Are we all to suppose that you are some suave sophistict that
knows real respect? Respect as an expert in COW DIET?

You,* like Mr Ball,* suffer from a severe inferiority complex! Are you
feeling so small and insignificant... (so left out) that your biggest
investment in life is to seeking respect as an expert in COW DIET?

Do you have any self esteem what so ever? Is your penis size so
traumatizing, like that of Mr Ball, that you have to resort to flushing
out suckers to engage you in this "who's the cow diet expert"? Dam your
life must be pathetic!

You and Ball have got to be either the same person or two of the biggest
self-esteem lacking losers that I have ever come across anywhere at
anytime! It's called being "a legend in your own mind. " You ain't all
that!

So many of us get a kick from observing belly sliding losers like you
and Ball. The way you both demonstrate such an obvious need to ridicule
others, ESPECIALLY WOMEN tells us all, that despite any down side we may
face in life, at least we are not as big a loser as either of you two
jokes!

Go spank it in the dark. you cry baby pussy!

I have slam dunked your ass here only because you have made it soooooooo
easy! Isn't that any kind of clue? Do you not see how ****ing naked your
mindset is here on these pages? Just because their are those like me
that will entertain ourselves by engaging you any way shape or form does
not in and of it's self grant you significance in any arena other than
LOSER!

Ok pussy, let's see you or the other joke do your best at a response.
Call me stupid or something. Will it change why you two dwel here? NOT A
CHANCE!

You are what you both are... LOSERS!

You're both pathetic!

  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
angry etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default rick etters to the editor

*

rick etter wrote:

> ================
> Nope.* What's the matter with you?* Too completely brainwashed and
> ignorant.
> Show me where it is necessary for any cow to be fed crops in order to
> be
> raised for meat production.* That you resort to delusion and stupidity
>
> doesn't mean that reality takes a break, killer.
>
> Why did you ignore the part about there already being a surplus of
> grain* in
> the world?* finally figured out your stupidity has caught up with you,
> fool? Try to become better informed before making any more of a fool
> of yourself.


Note the intense level of frustration in Mr Etter. Why can't the world
be as smart as he?Oh how frustrating it must be to be the smartest
know-it-all on the subject of cow food in the whole ****ing world.
You laughingly wrote:

"Try to become better informed before making any more of a fool of
yourself."

Mr etter, do you have any idea how ironic this statement is that you've
made above ? Along with Mr Ball, there is no greater a fool than you.
Your investment in cow diet on these pages for so many weeks makes you
what? Are we all to suppose that you are some suave sophistict that
knows real respect? Respect as an expert in COW DIET?

You,* like Mr Ball,* suffer from a severe inferiority complex! Are you
feeling so small and insignificant... (so left out) that your biggest
investment in life is seeking respect as an expert in COW DIET?

Do you have any self esteem what so ever? Is your penis size so
traumatizing, like that of Mr Ball, that you have to resort to flushing
out suckers to engage you in this "who's the cow diet expert"? Dam your
life must be pathetic!

You and Ball have got to be either the same person or two of the biggest
self-esteem lacking losers that I have ever come across anywhere at
anytime! It's called being "a legend in your own mind. " You ain't all
that!

So many of us get a kick from observing belly sliding losers like you
and Ball. The way you both demonstrate such an obvious need to ridicule
others, ESPECIALLY WOMEN tells us all, that despite any down side we may
face in life, at least we are not as big a loser as either of you two
jokes!

Go spank it in the dark. you cry baby pussy!

I have slam dunked your ass here only because you have made it soooooooo
easy! Isn't that any kind of clue? Do you not see how ****ing naked your
mindset is here on these pages? Just because there are those like me
that will entertain ourselves by engaging you any way shape or form does
not in and of it's self grant you significance in any arena other than
LOSER!

Ok pussy, let's see you or the other joke do your best at a response.
Call me stupid or something. Will it change why you two dwel here? NOT A
CHANCE!

You are what you both are... LOSERS!

You're both pathetic!



  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default Letters to the editor

"rick etter" > wrote in message thlink.net>...
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message

> >...
> > > "Happy Thoughts" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > LizH228 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 1. We would have to clear billions of acres of land, rainforests,

> national
> > > > > parks, etc., to make room to grow crops.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmmm...you'd think that the cattle and other animals currently being
> > > > raised for their flesh would consume much more of such crops! And

> that
> > > > once the land being used to support those animals becomes available

> for
> > > > crops, there'd even be a surplus.
> > > =====================

> >
> >
> > > Hey fool, there already is a surplus. Plus, cattle need to be fed
> > > absolutely no mass produced crops.

> >
> >
> >
> > So there is no need for feedlots, hay crops, feed corn crops?

> ============================
> No, there is no absolute need for cattle to be fed any crops. Is that too
> hard for your feeble brain?
>




I bow to your expertise in cow food matters, etter.

Certainly there is no need for cattle to be fed any crops. There just
won't be enough cattle to keep all the Mickey D's going around the
world.

Beef will become a rare and very expensive delicacy like caviar.






> >
> > Are you a complete and total idiot etter?

> ================
> Nope. What's the matter with you? Too completely brainwashed and ignorant.
> Show me where it is necessary for any cow to be fed crops in order to be
> raised for meat production. That you resort to delusion and stupidity
> doesn't mean that reality takes a break, killer.
>
> Why did you ignore the part about there already being a surplus of grain in
> the world? finally figured out your stupidity has caught up with you, fool?
> Try to become better informed before making any more of a fool of yourself.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > << much silliness from this letter to the editor--which, hopefully,
> > > > thinking people realized had many fallacies--snipped >>
> > > >
> > > > > Human beings are omnivores, meaning we eat fruits, vegetables, nuts

> . .
> . and
> > > > > meat.
> > > >
> > > > I'm always amused by this argument, particularly since the people

> making
> > > > it can rarely come up with a response to this question: Then how do

> you
> > > > explain the societies in our world, some dating back thousands of

> years,
> > > > that do not kill ANY animals for food, clothing, etc.? They're still
> > > > around, and they're definitely NOT omnivores. What's up with that?!
> > > ======================
> > > They aren't really vegan. Plus, if you remain a third world slum hole,

> you
> > > can get the nutrients that plants along won't get just from the filth

> you
> > > live in.
> > > Otherwise, you cannot live on plant foods alone.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > "Vegetarians save lives every day"
> > > =====================
> > > A ly that has never been proven by a single vegan anywhere. Care to be

> the
> > > first, killer?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > and other veggie items:
> > > > www.SmartAssProducts.com

  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default rick etters to the editor


"angry etter" > wrote in message
...

rick etter wrote:
================
Nope. What's the matter with you? Too completely brainwashed and ignorant.
Show me where it is necessary for any cow to be fed crops in order to be
raised for meat production. That you resort to delusion and stupidity
doesn't mean that reality takes a break, killer.
Why did you ignore the part about there already being a surplus of grain in
the world? finally figured out your stupidity has caught up with you, fool?
Try to become better informed before making any more of a fool of yourself.




Note the intense level of frustration in Mr Etter. Why can't the world be as
smart as he?
=====================
ROTFLMAO The only intense level of frustration, hatred and pure ignorance
is from your posts, loser. Look at how many times you think you have to
spew your BS. What a hoot. Now, why not address the issues I bring up,
little boy? Can't do it, can you?



Oh how frustrating it must be to be the smartest know-it-all on the subject
of cow food in the whole ****ing world.
You laughingly wrote:
"Try to become better informed before making any more of a fool of
yourself."
Mr etter, do you have any idea how ironic this question is that you've asked
? Along with Mr Ball, there is no greater a fool than you. Your investment
in cow diet on these pages for so many weeks makes you what? Are we all to
suppose that you are some suave sophistict that knows real respect? Respect
as an expert in COW DIET!
You, like Mr Ball, suffer from a severe inferiority complex! Are you
feeling so small and insignificant... (so left out) that your biggest
investment in life is to demand respect as an expert in COW DIET?
Do you have any self esteem what so ever? Is your penis size so
traumatizing, like that of Mr Ball, that you have to resort to flushing out
suckers to engage you in this "who's the cow diet expert"? Dam your life
must be pathetic!
======================
Apparentlt far far better than yours, killer. Why the spew of ignorance and
hatred from vegans? Because you know you're living a life of stupidity,
hypocrisy, and delusions?


You and Ball have got to be either the same person or two of the biggest
self-esteem lacking losers that I have ever come across anywhere at anytime!
It'S called being "a legend in your own mind. "
So many of us get a kick from observing belly sliding losers like you and
Ball. The way you both demonstrate such an obvious need to ridicule others,
ESPECIALLY WOMEN tells us all, that despite any down side we may face in
life, at least we are not as big a loser as either of you two jokes!
Go spank it in the dark. you cry baby pussy!
I have slammed dunked your ass here only because you have made it soooooooo
easy! Isn't that anykind of clue? Do you not see how ****ing naked your
mindset is here on these pages? Just because their are those like me that
will entertain ourselves by engaring you any way shape or form does not in
and of it's self grant you significance in any arena other than LOSER!
Ok pussy, let's see you or the other joke do your best at a response. Call
me stupid or something. Will it change why you two dwel here? NOT A CHANCE!
You are what you both are... LOSERS!
Your both pathetic!
=================
You should know, little boy.


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





  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default rick etters to the editor



Intense level of your ignorance, frustration, and hatred noted, killer.


snippage of same hatred and pathetic hatred...


  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default rick etters to the editor


"angry etter" > wrote absolutly nothing....



The intense level of your ignorance, frustration, and hatred noted, killer.


snippage of same hatred and pathetic hatred...





  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default rick etters to the editor


"angry etter" > wrote absolutly nothing....



The intense level of your ignorance, frustration, and hatred noted, killer.


snippage of same hatred and pathetic hatred...





  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default rick etters to the editor


"angry etter" > wrote absolutly nothing....



The intense level of your ignorance, frustration, and hatred noted, killer.


snippage of same hatred and pathetic hatred...



  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default rick etters to the editor


"angry etter" > wrote absolutly nothing....



The intense level of your ignorance, frustration, and hatred noted, killer.


snippage of same hatred and pathetic hatred...



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Happy 90th, Rosamond V.P. Kaufman! (1960s cookbook editor) [email protected] General Cooking 0 24-07-2013 01:22 AM
All Cap Letters Robert L. Myers Vegan 1 28-08-2011 01:43 AM
Gourmet Magazine Editor on NPR Fresh Air jj General Cooking 24 15-10-2009 10:35 PM
Web based multi-media presentation editor Douglas General Cooking 0 17-09-2007 05:58 PM
[Fwd: rick etters to the editor] Betty Bater Vegan 21 12-03-2004 01:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"