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.

"LizH228" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>

Was the letter from the loonie bin?

Zakhar wrote:

> "LizH228" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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
>>
>
>
> Was the letter from the loonie bin?

No, dumbo. Some of it is no doubt exaggerated, but a
lot of it merits serious consideration; or, it would if
the proposal that everyone become strictly vegetarian
were serious.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > "LizH228" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>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
> >>
> >
> >
> > Was the letter from the loonie bin?
>
> No, dumbo. Some of it is no doubt exaggerated,

LOL.

It's either a JOKE or somebody is so ignorant it's almost beyond belief.

>but a
> lot of it merits serious consideration; or, it would if
> the proposal that everyone become strictly vegetarian
> were serious.

What like "eat fish"?

You stupid tosser.

>

Zakhar wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Zakhar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"LizH228" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Was the letter from the loonie bin?
>>
>>No, dumbo. Some of it is no doubt exaggerated,
>
>
> LOL.
>
> It's either a JOKE or somebody is so ignorant it's almost beyond belief.

No, it isn't a joke at all, and the writer clearly
isn't ignorant, because much of what he writes is
exactly what would have to happen if everyone were to
switch to a strictly vegetarian diet.

>
>
>>but a
>>lot of it merits serious consideration; or, it would if
>>the proposal that everyone become strictly vegetarian
>>were serious.
>
>
> What like "eat fish"?

Non sequitur.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>Zakhar wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"LizH228" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Was the letter from the loonie bin?
> >>
> >>No, dumbo. Some of it is no doubt exaggerated,
> >
> >
> > LOL.
> >
> > It's either a JOKE or somebody is so ignorant it's almost beyond belief.
>
> No, it isn't a joke at all, and the writer clearly
> isn't ignorant, because much of what he writes is
> exactly what would have to happen if everyone were to
> switch to a strictly vegetarian diet.

Write down the "much" part that YOU agree with. (There's some space in
beween the square brackets below).

[ ]



>
> >
> >
> >>but a
> >>lot of it merits serious consideration; or, it would if
> >>the proposal that everyone become strictly vegetarian
> >>were serious.
> >
> >
> > What like "eat fish"?
>
> Non sequitur.

Of course it follows you stupid ****. (Stick your pompous Latin use up your
over fingered loose arse).

It was suggested by some equally ignorant shit that vegetarians eat fish,
and "Our oceans would be fished to extinction".

1) Vegetarians DON'T eat fish you stupid bloody ****ing fool.

2) If everyone was vegetarian the oceans would NOT be fished to extinction
for human food.


>

"Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Zakhar wrote:
> >
> > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > >
> > >>Zakhar wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>"LizH228" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>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
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Was the letter from the loonie bin?
> > >>
> > >>No, dumbo. Some of it is no doubt exaggerated,
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL.
> > >
> > > It's either a JOKE or somebody is so ignorant it's almost beyond
belief.
> >
> > No, it isn't a joke at all, and the writer clearly
> > isn't ignorant, because much of what he writes is
> > exactly what would have to happen if everyone were to
> > switch to a strictly vegetarian diet.
>
> Write down the "much" part that YOU agree with. (There's some space in
> beween the square brackets below).
>
> [ ]
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>but a
> > >>lot of it merits serious consideration; or, it would if
> > >>the proposal that everyone become strictly vegetarian
> > >>were serious.
> > >
> > >
> > > What like "eat fish"?
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Of course it follows you stupid ****. (Stick your pompous Latin use up
your
> over fingered loose arse).
>
> It was suggested by some equally ignorant shit that vegetarians eat fish,
> and "Our oceans would be fished to extinction".
>
> 1) Vegetarians DON'T eat fish you stupid bloody ****ing fool.
>
> 2) If everyone was vegetarian the oceans would NOT be fished to extinction
> for human food.
>

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.

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.

(LizH228) wrote in message >...
> 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.

This would be a good opportunity to write your own letter to the
editor with your views on this.

"Benfez" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zakhar" > wrote in message
> ...
snip

> >
>
> 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.

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.

Lesson one: Fish are NOT vegetable.

>
> 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.

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

http://www.vegsoc.org/newveg/index.html



>
>

Yes, I believe him. If we all became vegetarians then there will be millions
of farm animals roaming about the place causing havoc. We must keep them in
farms and slaughter them to keep control of their numbers.

What utter rubbish. Obviously the person who wrote this thread is an idiot,
who doesnt realise that the meat industry breeds animals for human
consumption. If we all were to become vegetarians then there will be no meat
industry and thus no farm animals roaming about the place. The world would
be a better place.

"Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Benfez" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Zakhar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> snip
>
> > >
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Lesson one: Fish are NOT vegetable.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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. Most
> vegetarians eat dairy products and free-range eggs, Vegans avoid all
animal
> products.
>
> http://www.vegsoc.org/newveg/index.html
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
>

"LizH228" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Wrong. If you consider the gross inefficiency of cattle as converters of
grain to meat, we probably already have enough agricultural land to feed
everyone on the planet several times over.

> 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.

There would be a reduction of livestock if we didn't eat them for meat.
Wildlife would have more habitat in the reclaimed farmland.

> Until then, I'm sure they would find humans pretty tasty.

Deer, elk, cattle, sheep, and goats don't eat people. :^)

> 3. Without humans and predators keeping down their populations, deer, elk,
> etc., will die from sickness, disease and overcrowding, eventually
becoming
> extinct themselves.

Without livestock, predators of deer and elk (which were "controlled" almost
to extinction to protect livestock interests) could return to help regulate
the population, as was intended by nature.

> 4. With no room to breed livestock, many goods and foodstuffs, like wool
and
> dairy products, will no longer be available.

There would be plenty of room to breed livestock for dairy and non-food
products.

> 5. Our oceans would be fished to extinction. Yes, all the vegetarians I
know
> eat fish and seafood.

I'm guessing the author doesn't know many vegetarians (or the few he does
know really ****ed him off, prompting him to write the letter!). The demand
for seafood products would be greatly diminished since most vegetarians
DON'T eat seafood.

> 6. Without rainforests, global warming will accelerate out of control,
creating
> floods in many parts of the world and drought in others.

I suppose the author reasons that rainforests would be eliminated to support
his first fallacy, which is untrue. Unfortunately, a larger reason for the
destruction of rainforests is increasing human population and the resulting
sprawl into new territories. Also the demand for tropical hardwood products.

> 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.

Well, at least the floods would help to extinguish the raging fires. :^)

> 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.

The book is out on whether humans were intended to be herbivores,
carnivores, or omnivores. There are too many varying opinions on the subject
for anyone to conclude anything with any certainty.

> We'll be moving to Mars a lot sooner than we think.

Mars isn't such a bad place. I grew up there (Mars, Pennsylvania that is!).

"Poddo" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, I believe him. If we all became vegetarians then there will be
millions
> of farm animals roaming about the place causing havoc. We must keep them
in
> farms and slaughter them to keep control of their numbers.
>
> What utter rubbish. Obviously the person who wrote this thread is an
idiot,
> who doesnt realise that the meat industry breeds animals for human
> consumption. If we all were to become vegetarians then there will be no
meat
> industry and thus no farm animals roaming about the place.


> The world would
> be a better place.
======================
And your proof of that is?


>
> "Zakhar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Benfez" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Zakhar" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > snip
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Lesson one: Fish are NOT vegetable.
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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. Most
> > vegetarians eat dairy products and free-range eggs, Vegans avoid all
> animal
> > products.
> >
> > http://www.vegsoc.org/newveg/index.html
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "LizH228" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.
>
> Wrong. If you consider the gross inefficiency of cattle as converters of
> grain to meat, we probably already have enough agricultural land to feed
> everyone on the planet several times over.
==========================
I guesss you just don't know that cattle eat grass, eh? All cattle eat
grass. Let's see you survive on grass. cattle are a very efficient means
of turning an inedible, for us, plant material into perfectly good, healthy
food we can eat. That you have to try and convenice yourself that all meat
is raised the way you have delusions about doesn't make your diet better.
In fact, it's very easy to show that a vegan diet can cause far more death
and suffering of animals than a meat-included diet.


>
> > 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.
>
> There would be a reduction of livestock if we didn't eat them for meat.
> Wildlife would have more habitat in the reclaimed farmland.
>
> > Until then, I'm sure they would find humans pretty tasty.
>
> Deer, elk, cattle, sheep, and goats don't eat people. :^)
>
> > 3. Without humans and predators keeping down their populations, deer,
elk,
> > etc., will die from sickness, disease and overcrowding, eventually
> becoming
> > extinct themselves.
>
> Without livestock, predators of deer and elk (which were "controlled"
almost
> to extinction to protect livestock interests) could return to help
regulate
> the population, as was intended by nature.
=====================
No they wouldn't. You wouldbn't allow them in your back yard. You'd be one
of the first screaming to get them out...



>
> > 4. With no room to breed livestock, many goods and foodstuffs, like wool
> and
> > dairy products, will no longer be available.
>
> There would be plenty of room to breed livestock for dairy and non-food
> products.
=======================
There's plenty of room now.


>
> > 5. Our oceans would be fished to extinction. Yes, all the vegetarians I
> know
> > eat fish and seafood.
>
> I'm guessing the author doesn't know many vegetarians (or the few he does
> know really ****ed him off, prompting him to write the letter!). The
demand
> for seafood products would be greatly diminished since most vegetarians
> DON'T eat seafood.
======================
Right, and vegans don't kill animals for their food. You really are a hoot!


>
> > 6. Without rainforests, global warming will accelerate out of control,
> creating
> > floods in many parts of the world and drought in others.
>
> I suppose the author reasons that rainforests would be eliminated to
support
> his first fallacy, which is untrue. Unfortunately, a larger reason for the
> destruction of rainforests is increasing human population and the
resulting
> sprawl into new territories. Also the demand for tropical hardwood
products.
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, at least the floods would help to extinguish the raging fires. :^)
>
> > 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.
>
> The book is out on whether humans were intended to be herbivores,
> carnivores, or omnivores. There are too many varying opinions on the
subject
> for anyone to conclude anything with any certainty.
>
> > We'll be moving to Mars a lot sooner than we think.
>
> Mars isn't such a bad place. I grew up there (Mars, Pennsylvania that
is!).
>
>
>
>

Here is the link to the article in the newspaper. It gives a place that people
can respond:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...,DRMN_38_26420
14,00.html

"rick etter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Poddo" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Yes, I believe him. If we all became vegetarians then there will be
> millions
> > of farm animals roaming about the place causing havoc. We must keep them
> in
> > farms and slaughter them to keep control of their numbers.
> >
> > What utter rubbish. Obviously the person who wrote this thread is an
> idiot,
> > who doesnt realise that the meat industry breeds animals for human
> > consumption. If we all were to become vegetarians then there will be no
> meat
> > industry and thus no farm animals roaming about the place.
>
>
> > The world would
> > be a better place.
> ======================
> And your proof of that is?
>

what proof do you have of the contrary?

>
> >
> > "Zakhar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Benfez" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Zakhar" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > snip
> > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Lesson one: Fish are NOT vegetable.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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. Most
> > > vegetarians eat dairy products and free-range eggs, Vegans avoid all
> > animal
> > > products.
> > >
> > > http://www.vegsoc.org/newveg/index.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Poddo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Poddo" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Yes, I believe him. If we all became vegetarians then there will be
> > millions
> > > of farm animals roaming about the place causing havoc. We must keep
them
> > in
> > > farms and slaughter them to keep control of their numbers.
> > >
> > > What utter rubbish. Obviously the person who wrote this thread is an
> > idiot,
> > > who doesnt realise that the meat industry breeds animals for human
> > > consumption. If we all were to become vegetarians then there will be
no
> > meat
> > > industry and thus no farm animals roaming about the place.
> >
> >
> > > The world would
> > > be a better place.
> > ======================
> > And your proof of that is?
> >
>
> what proof do you have of the contrary?
====================
You made the claim. Now back it up, killer.

As for the contrary, you probably kill far more animals than some meat
eaters, yet you simple rule for your simple mind makes that OK for you.
Hardly a 'better place' for the animals you kill, though.




snips...

"Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Benfez" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Zakhar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> snip
>
> > >
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Lesson one: Fish are NOT vegetable.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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. Most
> vegetarians eat dairy products and free-range eggs, Vegans avoid all
animal
> products.
>
> http://www.vegsoc.org/newveg/index.html
>
>

Fine, you call yourself a vegetarian and live by your rules. Some people I
know who call themselves vegetarians still eat fish. Hence your definition
whilst wholly appropriate, does not fit all those who would define
themselves as 'vegetarians'. Ill informed - yes, liars - a bit harsh
probably, I would prefer to think of them as stupid.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:09:45 -0000, "Zakhar" > wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
>> Zakhar wrote:
>>
>> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >
>> >>Zakhar wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>"LizH228" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>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
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Was the letter from the loonie bin?
>> >>
>> >>No, dumbo. Some of it is no doubt exaggerated,
>> >
>> >
>> > LOL.
>> >
>> > It's either a JOKE or somebody is so ignorant it's almost beyond belief.
>>
>> No, it isn't a joke at all, and the writer clearly
>> isn't ignorant, because much of what he writes is
>> exactly what would have to happen if everyone were to
>> switch to a strictly vegetarian diet.
>
>Write down the "much" part that YOU agree with. (There's some space in
>beween the square brackets below).
>
[ From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
Subject: The Least Harm Principle
Message-ID: k.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:04:56 GMT

OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
farm animals. ]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:15:29 +0000 (UTC), "Poddo" > wrote:

>
>"rick etter" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Poddo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Yes, I believe him. If we all became vegetarians then there will be
>> millions
>> > of farm animals roaming about the place causing havoc. We must keep them
>> in
>> > farms and slaughter them to keep control of their numbers.
>> >
>> > What utter rubbish. Obviously the person who wrote this thread is an
>> idiot,
>> > who doesnt realise that the meat industry breeds animals for human
>> > consumption. If we all were to become vegetarians then there will be no
>> meat
>> > industry and thus no farm animals roaming about the place.
>>
>>
>> > The world would
>> > be a better place.
>> ======================
>> And your proof of that is?
>>
>
>what proof do you have of the contrary?

You provided your own proof that it would not be better for
farm animals, since there wouldn't be any. So how would it
be better for wildlife?

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:22:40 -0000, "Benfez" > wrote:

>Fine, you call yourself a vegetarian and live by your rules. Some people I
>know who call themselves vegetarians still eat fish. Hence your definition
>whilst wholly appropriate, does not fit all those who would define
>themselves as 'vegetarians'. Ill informed - yes, liars - a bit harsh
>probably, I would prefer to think of them as stupid.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.
What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:
__________________________________________________ _______
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people
consume animal products from animals they think are
raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for
more such animals in the future.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat. From a grass
raised dairy cow people get thousands of servings of dairy
products. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides,
and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields,
one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve
more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass
raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products contribute to less
wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and decent lives for
cattle. ·

wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:09:45 -0000, "Zakhar" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>
>>>Zakhar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Zakhar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"LizH228" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Was the letter from the loonie bin?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, dumbo. Some of it is no doubt exaggerated,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>LOL.
>>>>
>>>>It's either a JOKE or somebody is so ignorant it's almost beyond belief.
>>>
>>>No, it isn't a joke at all, and the writer clearly
>>>isn't ignorant, because much of what he writes is
>>>exactly what would have to happen if everyone were to
>>>switch to a strictly vegetarian diet.
>>
>>Write down the "much" part that YOU agree with. (There's some space in
>>beween the square brackets below).
>>
>
> [ From: Jonathan Ball >
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
> Subject: The Least Harm Principle
> Message-ID: k.net>
> Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:04:56 GMT
>
> OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
> farm animals. ]

Non sequitur, ****WIT. However, what I wrote is true:
the country could easily be fed without raising any
farm animals.

wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:22:40 -0000, "Benfez" > wrote:
>
>
>>Fine, you call yourself a vegetarian and live by your rules. Some people I
>>know who call themselves vegetarians still eat fish. Hence your definition
>>whilst wholly appropriate, does not fit all those who would define
>>themselves as 'vegetarians'. Ill informed - yes, liars - a bit harsh
>>probably, I would prefer to think of them as stupid.
>
>
> · Vegans contribute to

****WIT David Harrison, possum ****er, contributes to
stupidity.

Benfez wrote:

> "Zakhar" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Benfez" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Zakhar" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>>snip
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Lesson one: Fish are NOT vegetable.
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>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. Most
>>vegetarians eat dairy products and free-range eggs, Vegans avoid all
>
> animal
>
>>products.
>>
>>http://www.vegsoc.org/newveg/index.html
>>
>>
>
>
> Fine, you call yourself a vegetarian and live by your rules.

GregGeorge - everyone's pet name for "Zakhar", which is
not his real name - eats animal products. He is not
vegetarian.

> Some people I
> know who call themselves vegetarians still eat fish. Hence your definition
> whilst wholly appropriate, does not fit all those who would define
> themselves as 'vegetarians'. Ill informed - yes, liars - a bit harsh
> probably, I would prefer to think of them as stupid.
>
>

You make a post using a persons false assumption about bushels of food per acre;
plants versus animal.

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. It is about less
farming needs and therefore less herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers in the
rivers I catch trout and salmon in. Your entire premise is exactly backwards and
embarrassingly stupid!

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.

"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.
>

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:21:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote:

>Benfez wrote:
>
snip

>>
>>
>> Fine, you call yourself a vegetarian and live by your rules.
>
>GregGeorge - everyone's pet name for "Zakhar"

Lies: It's a a name you incorrectly apply, as do your brown nosing
cohorts.


>, which is
>not his real name -

Lies: It is my name.

>eats animal products. He is not
>vegetarian.

Lies: I'm a vegetarian.

>
>> Some people I
>> know who call themselves vegetarians still eat fish. Hence your definition
>> whilst wholly appropriate, does not fit all those who would define
>> themselves as 'vegetarians'. Ill informed - yes, liars - a bit harsh
>> probably, I would prefer to think of them as stupid.
>>
>>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Benfez wrote:


Testing .....

Jon Ball is a tosser.

Zakhar wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:21:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Benfez wrote:
>>
>
> snip
>
>
>>>
>>>Fine, you call yourself a vegetarian and live by your rules.
>>
>>GregGeorge - everyone's pet name for "Zakhar"
>
>
> Lies: It's a a name you incorrectly apply, as do your brown nosing
> cohorts.

It's a name numerous other free-thinkers apply to you,
GregGeorge.

>
>
>
>>, which is
>>not his real name -
>
>
> Lies: It is my name.

"Zakhar" is not your real name.

>
>
>>eats animal products. He is not
>>vegetarian.
>
>
> Lies: I'm a vegetarian.

Wrong. You consume animal products.

>
>
>>>Some people I
>>>know who call themselves vegetarians still eat fish. Hence your definition
>>>whilst wholly appropriate, does not fit all those who would define
>>>themselves as 'vegetarians'. Ill informed - yes, liars - a bit harsh
>>>probably, I would prefer to think of them as stupid.
>>>
>>>
>
>

GregGeorge wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>Benfez wrote:
>
>
>
> Testing .....

You failed. You always fail.

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.
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.

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? They live with less land and
less cash and they do it with way less meat. Why? Because it is the most
efficient way to live.

Deny this all you want. Fact is that in this country vegetarians (which I AM
NOT and never have been) live longer and cost less tax dollars in medical care.
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.
> >

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Zakhar wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:21:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Benfez wrote:
> >>
> >
> > snip
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>Fine, you call yourself a vegetarian and live by your rules.
> >>
> >>GregGeorge - everyone's pet name for "Zakhar"
> >
> >
> > Lies: It's a a name you incorrectly apply, as do your brown nosing
> > cohorts.
>
> It's a name numerous other free-thinkers apply to you,
> GregGeorge.

Cancer causing free-radicals jump to mind. You baldy little ****er.

>
> >
> >
> >
> >>, which is
> >>not his real name -
> >
> >
> > Lies: It is my name.
>
> "Zakhar" is not your real name.

It is my name, I use EVERY time I post. You stupid tosser.

>
> >
> >
> >>eats animal products. He is not
> >>vegetarian.
> >
> >
> > Lies: I'm a vegetarian.
>
> Wrong. You consume animal products.

Lies:

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

http://www.vegsoc.org/newveg/index.html

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".

>
> 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.
>>>
>

GregGeorge wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>GregGeorge wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:21:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Benfez wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Fine, you call yourself a vegetarian and live by your rules.
>>>>
>>>>GregGeorge - everyone's pet name for "Zakhar"
>>>
>>>
>>>Lies: It's a a name you incorrectly apply, as do your brown nosing
>>>cohorts.
>>
>>It's a name numerous other free-thinkers apply to you,
>>GregGeorge.
>
>
> Cancer causing free-radicals jump around in my mind.

I'm not surprised.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>>, which is
>>>>not his real name -
>>>
>>>
>>>Lies: It is my name.
>>
>>"Zakhar" is not your real name.
>
>
> It is my name, I use EVERY time I post.

It's your pseudonym that you use every time you post.
It is not your name.

>
>
>>>
>>>>eats animal products. He is not
>>>>vegetarian.
>>>
>>>
>>>Lies: I'm a vegetarian.
>>
>>Wrong. You consume animal products.
>
>
> Lies:

Nope. You consume animal products.


You're a member of al Qaeda, aren't you, you scummy
little wog?

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> GregGeorge wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >
> >>Benfez wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Testing .....
>
> You failed. You always fail.

No. It worked, and you snipped the good bit:

"Jon Ball is a tosser." You baldy little ****er.


>

"Baldy dwarf" > wrote in message
news
>
> You're a member of al Qaeda, aren't you, you scummy
> little wog?

LOL. That was funny...for a change.

You baldy little ****er.
>

GregGeorge wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>GregGeorge wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Benfez wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Testing .....
>>
>>You failed. You always fail.
>
>
> No. It worked

No, it failed. You always fail, asswipe.

"Baldy Little ****er" > wrote in message
nk.net...


No. It worked, and you snipped the good bit:

"Jon Ball is a tosser." You baldy little ****er.
>

"Rogi Surta" > wrote in message
...
> Totally wrong my friend. You are sadly misinformed.
====================
No, I'm not.

Cattle are one of the most
> destructive food sources Americans use.
======================
You obviously can't read for comprehension, can you?

The calorie per bushel of grain invested
> to meat is far less efficient than direct human consumption of the same
grain.
=====================
Again, there is *NO* need or requirement to feed grain to cattle. Period.


> 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.
====================
More emtpy rhetoric without basis.

>
> The areas you refer to that cattle graze on are devastated by the input of
> cattle.
=================
No, they are not. They are areas of land that are marginal at best for crop
production. That your ignornat mantra requires you to repeat ignorant lys
doesn't make those lys true.


Your statement that I seem to be in support of petro chem companies
> indicates you did not read my comments.
======================
Yes, I did. You advocate a food source totally dependent on the
petro-chemical industry instead of substituting some of your calories with
very efficient, very environmentally friendly ones from specific meats.


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!
==========================
Again, your religious mantra of hate and misinformation has you blinded to
one small fact. There is *NO* need, nor any requirment to feed grain to
cattle. You do know that cattle can, and do live and grow quite well on
grass, don't you? Grass that does not need any massive petro-chemical
industry inputs in the form of mechinazation, pesticides, fertilizers, or
herbicides. All these are needed in massive quantituies to produce your
veggies, killer.


>
> 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? They live with less
land and
> less cash and they do it with way less meat. Why? Because it is the most
> efficient way to live.
=====================
BS

>
> Deny this all you want.
=====================
I will, because you are wrong...

Fact is that in this country vegetarians (which I AM
> NOT and never have been) live longer and cost less tax dollars in medical
care.
> 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.
==========================
maybe that's your pasttime. I watch very little. I'm too busy out doors
most of the time.
Your ignorance is amazing. You've watched too many lame TV shows
apparently.


>
> 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.
> > >
>

GregGeorge wrote:

> "Baldy Little ****er" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>
> No. It worked

No, it failed. You always fail, GregGeorge.

No. It worked, and you snipped the good bit:

"Jon Ball is a tosser." You baldy little ****er.