John Coleman wrote:
>>The orthorexic John Coleman wrote:
>
> "Orthorexia Nervosa", is that a scientific concept,

Yes. It's an eating disorder characterized by a "fixation on righteous eating."
The term was coined by Steven Bratman, MD, himself a former "health food junkie."

www.orthorexia.com

> or a dumb name for
> people unfortunate to be ignorant enough to starve themselves?

You're confusing it with anorexia, which is *possible* for orthorexics, but not
necessarily a factor.

> Anyway, why
> should I "name" someone who insults and characatures me?

So we know to whom you're replying.

> And I thought on a
> ng people can follow this thread back if they want the pain.

Some of us don't read by thread. You're not doing anyone a service by snipping
that little bit of information.

>>Allegedly, it might. It's also irrelevant. Lots of
>>very smart people get things very wrong because of
>>fundamental flaws in their reasoning ability. He was one.
>
> and you another

What is wrong with Mr Woods' reasoning?

>>That's not unknown. Read Tom Wolfe's outstanding book,
>>"Radical Chic / Mau-mauing the Flack-Catchers".
>
> Plenty of folk mock their own race, usually they are not considered racist,
> some even make a career of it. This is just another of your pointless
> distractions

Not at all. In this case, race was *central* to Ehret's theses about diet and
illness.

John Coleman wrote:

>>Gullible people like you may buy into Ehret's pseudoscience and even adopt
> a
>>subtle form of Ehret's racist views, but his works lack any scientific
> merit.
>
> yes, they lack any merit by modern standards,

By ANY standard.

> and were poor even by his own time -

By ANY standard.

> but he was still on the right tracks

Bullshit. Why do you say that if you haven't actually read his works yourself,
nevermind your admissions that (a) you don't follow his counsel, and (b) his
lacks work any scientific merit? Furthermore, why do you still present him in
this group as "Professor" Ehret without knowing his actual educational or work
background?

John Coleman wrote:
<...>
>>Cholera is preventable. So is salmonella and E coli. All three with great
>>frequency infect those who eat raw produce.
>
> raw meat maybe

No, asswipe, raw produce. Raw produce causes more food-borne illness than meat.

http://www.nfpa-food.org/science/wp_ecoli.html
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5101a3.htm
http://medicalreporter.health.org/tmr0799/sprouts.html
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/199_sprt.html
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/iyh/food/sprouts.html
http://www.medserv.dk/modules.php?na...print&sid=1761

Need more?

>>No, it's not a fact.
>
> not a _widely accepted_ fact

It doesn't have to be widely-accepted, or even accepted, to be fact. Ask Galileo.

>>Serum cholesterol is overwhelmingly a factor of endogenous factors, not
> diet.
>
> So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a raw diet?

First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over 400.

I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over 2, what's yours?
-- Orthorexic John Coleman, http://snipurl.com/6gj2

Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol results on your new website to
prove this claim. Otherwise, I consider you a stupid ****ing liar and all your
anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the realm of testifying or testiLYING.

Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it remains a post hoc fallacy. I
don't know what your diet was like before you changed, but raw food alone
wouldn't cause such a drop in serum cholesterol. If your previous diet included
*large* amounts (and they would be excessive amounts to raise your cholesterol
that high) saturated fat from dairy and trans-fats from processed vegetarian
foods, then I'd understand such a drop. Losing the saturated fat -- trans and
otherwise -- gets the credit, not raw food.

> How come vegans
> have lower cholesterol than "omnivores".

They often don't.

> Obviously diet is a big factor.

Saturated fat consumption plays a role. Not all omnivores eat a lot of sat fat.
I know plenty vegans who eat loads of margarine and tropical oils, and who don't
heed advice to shun transfats.

> "Although saturated fat is the main dietary culprit that raises LDL, trans
> fat and dietary cholesterol also contribute significantly."
> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/503_fats.html

Transfat is of *vegetable* origin, stupid ****. It is saturated fat. Not all
meat is high in LDL. Too bad you make broad generalization errors and condemn
all meat and dairy products rather than the bad ones, and too bad you make the
same error in reverse and suggest that something is "good" just because it's
from vegetable origin.

>>Some dietary cholesterol, such as that from cold water fish, is healthful
> and
>>helps reduce LDL.
>
> My LDL is 1, what is the LDL of a fish eater?

100? That's pretty ****ing high for a veg-n.

A healthy LDL level is one that falls in the optimal or near-optimal
range.
* Optimal: Less than 100 mg/dL
* Near Optimal: 100-129 mg/dL
* Borderline High: 130-159 mg/dL
* High: 160-189 mg/dL
* Very High: 190 mg/dL and higher

source: http://snipurl.com/6gj6

My LDL is less than half yours. I eat a lot of cooked food. Go figure.

>>Not all meat is high in saturated fats. What is wrong with getting B12
> from lean
>>meats?
>
> heme iron ,

Addressed previously and ignored in your replies. Let me refresh your ailing memory:
RESTORE
More easily absorbed than non-heme.
Dietary factors that can reduce non-heme iron absorption
include phytates (found in grains, legumes, and rice); soy
protein and soy fiber; oxalates (found in spinach); and tannic
acid (found in teas and coffee). Calcium (found in dairy
products) can reduce the absorption of both non-heme and heme
iron (1).
http://nutrition.ucdavis.edu/InfoSheets/iron.htm

And before you make claims about vitamin C and non-heme absorption:

Effect of ascorbic acid intake on nonheme-iron absorption from a
complete diet....

CONCLUSIONS: The facilitating effect of vitamin C on iron
absorption from a complete diet is far less pronounced than that
from single meals. These findings may explain why several prior
studies did not show a significant effect on iron status of
prolonged supplementation with vitamin C.
http://tinyurl.com/wwpr

What benefits absorption of non-heme? Try meat. In one study, non-heme iron was
absorbed more easily in the presence of heme iron from meat. The study showed
that just eating 50 or 75 grams (about an eighth of a pound) of pork increased
nonheme absorption by 44% to 57% (respectively on 50g and 75g trials).

http://tinyurl.com/x8b2

END RESTORE

> HCAs,

Not a problem for people with moderate to low LDL. That includes you, even
though your LDL is high for a vegan.

> the waste,

What waste?

> it tastes and smells gross

Peculiar aesthetics. Not everyone shares your opinion.

>>Not found in meat or dairy, dumb ass. Transfats are found in hydrogenated
>>VEGETABLE oils. You ****ing DOPE.
>
> nope, found in meat and dairy as well

Did you even read that? Here, since I have to do everything for you:
What is Trans Fat?
Basically, trans fat is made when manufacturers add hydrogen to
*VEGETABLE* OIL --a process called hydrogenation. Hydrogenation
increases the shelf life and flavor stability of foods containing these
fats. [my emphasis]

> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/503_fats.html
> please don't lecture on food science, or indeed science

Afraid you'll get tripped up?

>>More easily absorbed than non-heme.
>
> yes and a pro oxidant implicated in many degenerative diseases
> http://www.askbillsardi.com/sdm.asp?pg=iron

Bill Sardi is a health journalist and consumer advocate.

Not a doctor. Not a dietician. His "findings" don't match up with the findings
of research studies which implicate the role of LDL/saturated fats with
Alzheimer's and other degenerative diseases -- not iron.

>>from single meals. These findings may explain why several prior
>>studies did not show a significant effect on iron status of
>>prolonged supplementation with vitamin C.
>
> adding vitamin C to the diet is part of many national programs to increase
> iron uptake and is effective in vegetarian diets

Ipse dixit. You snipped the context of that study and made your own pretext.
Incorrigible liar.

>>What benefits absorption of non-heme? Try meat.
>
> You don't need heme iron, no one does.

Ipse dixit. Heme iron is more easily absorbed by humans than non-heme. One with
an iron deficiency has no business on a veg-n diet because the excess phytates
in such a diet will bind with non-heme iron and prevent it from being absorbed.

>>Heterocyclic, you moron. And you still have no clue about HCAs. You throw
> the
>>phrase around as a catch-all, when the issue is quite minor.
>
> HCAs are implicated in cancer, not very minor.

HCAs are not universal in meat. Your gross generalization is a distortion of the
truth.

>>Fresh meat does not stink.
>
> true,

You should've stopped arguing right there.

> the cooking makes it gross,

Ipse dixit. Most people enjoy seared animal flesh, even if the inside part
remains somewhat rare.

> but then you need that to make it less of
> a health risk

Ipse dixit. Raw meat can be part of a healthful diet. Sashimi, tartar, and
carpaccio are all examples of healthful dishes. The important thing in handling
food is to make sure things are clean.

BTW, I've not read much about widespread infection from eating raw meat. I
*have* read plenty about infections from raw produce lately. What's up with that?

>>Psychosomatic (heavy emphasis on PSYCHO).
>
> Look you've posted serious factual errors in this one.

Nope. None. The only area in which you have any room to wiggle is that a *small*
amount of transfats are found in some dairy and meat products; transfats,
though, most significantly come from hydrogenated vegetable oils. That's why so
many veg-ns continue to have problems with elevated LDL.

> Why don't you find
> somewhere else where it is easier for you to maintain cred?

Why don't you **** yourself?

> Your consistent posting of factual errors,

None.

> propaganda

None.

> and insults

Only those which you deserve.

> means I am blocking your address.

Can't handle the truth, eh. Bury your head very deep in the sand, Coleman.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
<...>
>>> My diet varies but little. I eat meat in moderation, very little
>>> dairy, starches, vegetables, and some (probably not enough) fruit. I
>>> drink lots of coffee, some beer and wine, the very rare soda. Some
>>> years I get several colds; other years I don't get any.
>>
>> There are a lot of possible explanations, including already having
>> antibodies for prevailing bugs, stress, etc. Your experience may
>> change a bit when your son starts school and brings home new bugs from
>> his classmates.
>
> I expect it to change :-( I was aware of the phenomenon decades
> ago. It further refutes Orthorexic John's bogus claim: the parents'
> diets don't change when their kids begin going to (and bringing
> illnesses home from) school.
>
>>> In the early 1990s I got enough colds that a then-girlfriend thought
>>> I was basically "sickly" (despite getting on my bicycle and riding in
>>> and finishing the Solvang Century with no training whatever.)
>>
>> I'm impressed.
>
> I didn't ride it in a very good time, and the following year, with a
> moderate amount of training, I shaved over an hour and a half off the
> riding time. The point was, on just a plain-ol' Californian diet, and
> despite getting my share of colds, I could just "do it".

Which is impressive in its own right.

> The following
> year, on the same diet but with some training, I "did it" even better.
> Orthorexic John doesn't know what he's talking about.

You know that. I know that. I suspect he knows that, too.

>>> From 1996 up to about 2000 I think I had maybe one cold. I have no
>>> idea what caused the difference, except that I ditched that toxic
>>> girlfriend.
>>
>> Stress is a big factor; I don't know if she caused you any,
>
> Truckloads.

Been there, done that.

>> or even if you perceived it as a stressful relationship
>
> Very.
>
>> (a lot of people do feel better after dumping Mr or Miss Wrong). It's
>> also possible she was a Typhoid Mary of sorts, especially if she
>> worked around sickly people herself.
>
> Mostly she didn't work. That was a big part of the problem; way more to
> it that preceded my foolish involvement with her.
>
>>> A diet that is unbalanced and doesn't provide what are recognized to
>>> be important, if not essential, nutrients will probably make one more
>>> susceptible to colds; that doesn't mean it "causes" colds.
>>
>> Correct. Coleman, though, will only dodge around that as he's already
>> done by stating that there are other factors. What a dumb ****.
>
> I don't know if orthorexia causes dumb-****edness or is a symptom of it,
> but for sure there's a relationship.

LOL, I agree.

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
news
> You made a claim; support your claim, or
> admit you can't.
Gee, noBalls, why are you demanding that other people follow standards
that you can not??

Laurie

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
link.net...
>> John Coleman wrote:
> > no a result confirmed by many raw foodists and documented by Ehret -
science
> > is about theories that can be confirmed by observation
>
> You have no peer-reviewed
> research to back up your assertion that following a
> foods diet improves health.
Here is it:
http://www.ecologos.org/livingfood.htm

Laurie

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> > Stress is a big factor; I don't know if she caused you any,
> Truckloads.
Here, noBalls repeats his humorously-common "blame-the-other not myself
for my failings" gambit.
"Stress" does not wander through the Universe and jump on random,
innocent people, noBalls creates his OWN stress by being mentally weak and
not being able to control himself, as is so often demonstrated here.
And then there is the cortisol connection.
http://www.ecologos.org/anxiety.htm

Laurie

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
news
> Then you should be highly skeptical of everything he
> writes that pretends to be a scientific finding.
Gee, noBalls, Ehret NEVER pretended his writings were "scientific" in
nature.
Caught in another lie?

Laurie

Lying Larry Forti wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> news >
>> You made a claim; support your claim, or
>>admit you can't.
>
> Why are you demanding that other people follow standards
> that you can not??

I do support my claims, Lying Larry. Why don't you?
Why do you offer your ecologos.org CRAP as "support"
for some nonsense you spout here, when all it does is
repeat the nonsense?

Face it, Lying Larry Forti, failed electrician: you
cannot support your nonsense claims about human diet.

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
.net...
> ... stop removing the name of the
> person to whom you're replying. It shouldn't be so
> hard for you to be more ethical.
Wouldn't using your real name, noBalls, instead of inventing lots of
phony names and phony accounts be more "ethical" for you??

Laurie

Laurie wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>>John Coleman wrote:
>>>no a result confirmed by many raw foodists and documented by Ehret -
>
> science
>
>>>is about theories that can be confirmed by observation
>>
>> You have no peer-reviewed
>>research to back up your assertion that following a
>>"natural" foods diet improves health.
>
> Here is it:
> http://www.ecologos.org/livingfood.htm

Does not address "natural foods"; why do you LIE and
offer a link to only the *abstract* of a journal
article you HAVEN'T READ, when the article does not
support your false, religiously-held belief?

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
nk.net...

> Nope. I'm not advancing any theory.
Sure you do, noBalls, you have repeatedly advanced the theory that
humans are omnivores, yet you can not provide any support when challenged.
And, here's another unsupported claim: "Because I'm far smarter than you
give me credit for, Shitbag."

Laurie

Laurie wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>
>>>Stress is a big factor; I don't know if she caused you any,
>>
>>Truckloads.
>
> Here, noBalls repeats his humorously-common "blame-the-other not myself
> for my failings" gambit.

No. I didn't offer anything that amounts to "blame",
Lying Larry Forti.

Why on earth do you think you, a failed electrician,
have anything to say about diet?

Laurie wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> news >
>>Then you should be highly skeptical of everything he
>>writes that pretends to be a scientific finding.
>
> Ehret NEVER pretended his writings were "scientific" in
> nature.

He did pretend. That idiot Orthorexic John fell for
it. So did you.

Laurie wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> .net...
>
>>... stop removing the name of the
>>person to whom you're replying. It shouldn't be so
>>hard for you to be more ethical.
>
> Wouldn't using your real name

Wouldn't using your real name, gender-confused
Lawrence, instead of some girly corruption of it, be
more sensible, as well as more ethical?

What kind of chromosomal damage do you have that leads
you to use a girly corruption of Lawrence as your name?

Laurie wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>
>>Nope. I'm not advancing any theory.
>
> Sure you do

Nope. I am merely attacking your crap theory, not
offering one of my own.

In stating that humans are omnivores, I state the
scientific consensus of experts in the field. You not
only are not an expert, you have ZERO qualifications.

"rick etter" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> The 'vegan' process of getting b12 is not natural.
Unfortunately, toxic chemical agriculture has destroyed the B-12
producing bacteria in the soil, so commercial produce does not now contain
the B-12 it would if sane, sustainable agricultural methods were used. So,
with the 'natural' source of B-12 destroyed be greedy technocrats, taking a
supplement is the simplest alternative.
The "vegan process" certainly did not destroy the health of soil.
Eating cooked animal flesh, or drinking bovine beverage, is most
certainly not natural either. Are you going to stop that because it is not
natural? Why try to impose standards on others that YOU do not follow? To
emphasize the paucity of your "intellect"?

Laurie

"Laurie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > The 'vegan' process of getting b12 is not natural.
> Unfortunately, toxic chemical agriculture has destroyed the B-12
> producing bacteria in the soil, so commercial produce does not now contain
> the B-12 it would if sane, sustainable agricultural methods were used.
=====================
And it would still not be a reliable source of B12, fool.
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/b12.htm


So,
> with the 'natural' source of B-12 destroyed be greedy technocrats, taking
a
> supplement is the simplest alternative.
===============
No, the 'natural' source of b12 is the same as it always was, killer, meat.
even your so-called 'natural' source required the 'exploitation' of animals
fool, so it is hardly vegan, so why not just eat the real thing, idiot?



> The "vegan process" certainly did not destroy the health of soil.
> Eating cooked animal flesh, or drinking bovine beverage, is most
> certainly not natural either. Are you going to stop that because it is
not
> natural?
================
Eating meat is far more 'natural' than any of the mono-cultured crops you
eat, fool. Even the 'organic' ones...


Why try to impose standards on others that YOU do not follow? To
> emphasize the paucity of your "intellect"?
====================
Wow, such big words from the idiot of usenet quackery. How's the scam
funds coming alone, killer?


>
> Laurie
>
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Laurie wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >
> >>>Stress is a big factor; I don't know if she caused you any,
> >>
noBalls> >>Truckloads.
> >
> > Here, noBalls repeats his humorously-common "blame-the-other not
myself
> > for my failings" gambit.
>
> No. I didn't offer anything that amounts to "blame", ...
You said that SHE -caused- you "truckloads" of stress; thus trying to
blame another for your own profound lack of mental discipline and maturity.
You, like everyone else, create your own consciousness and, indeed, the
psychic prison you are building with your boundless negativity, dishonesty,
and intentionally-abusive behavior.
HINT: blame: To place responsibility for (something)...
You can't even understand what YOU write.

Laurie







> Lying Larry Forti.
>
> Why on earth do you think you, a failed electrician,
> have anything to say about diet?
>

Laurie wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>Laurie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Stress is a big factor; I don't know if she caused you any,
>>>>
>>>>Truckloads.
>
>>> Here, Ball repeats his humorously-common "blame-the-other not
>>> myself for my failings" gambit.
>>
>>No. I didn't offer anything that amounts to "blame", Lying Larry Forti.
>
> You said that SHE -caused- you "truckloads" of stress

Not "blame", Lying Larry. English is obviously not
your native tongue, is it?

I didn't "blame" the stress FOR anything, Lying Larry.
I merely said she produced it.

Once again, Lying Larry, you demonstrate utter
incompetence. That's to be expected from a lifelong
FAILURE.

>
>>Lying Larry Forti.
>>
>>Why on earth do you think you, a failed electrician,
>>have anything to say about diet?

Well?!! You FAILED at your career, Lying Larry. You
NEVER HAD a career involving nutrition. You are
IGNORANT about it.

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message nk.net>...
> Laurie wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >
> >>>Stress is a big factor; I don't know if she caused you any,
> >>
> >>Truckloads.
> >
> > Here, noBalls repeats his humorously-common "blame-the-other not myself
> > for my failings" gambit.
>
> No. I didn't offer anything that amounts to "blame",
> Lying Larry Forti.
>
> Why on earth do you think you, a failed electrician,
> have anything to say about diet?




What does the electrical trade have to do with nutrition?

Are you getting stupider Bawl?


..

"Ron" > wrote in message
om...
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
nk.net>...
> > Laurie wrote:
> >
> > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > >
> > >
> > >>>Stress is a big factor; I don't know if she caused you any,
> > >>
> > >>Truckloads.
> > >
> > > Here, noBalls repeats his humorously-common "blame-the-other not
myself
> > > for my failings" gambit.
> >
> > No. I didn't offer anything that amounts to "blame",
> > Lying Larry Forti.
> >
> > Why on earth do you think you, a failed electrician,
> > have anything to say about diet?
>
>
>
>
> What does the electrical trade have to do with nutrition?
=====================
You really are too stupid to keep up, aren't you killer? Larry-boygirl
claims to be an engineer. Obviously a failed one. Yet as you just said,
what does his claimed education have to do with nutrition? And, as you
imply, *nothing*. That was the point dolt....
Man, you are too ignorant for words, aren't you. I see you ran away pretty
quick from your last bit of loonicy.


>
> Are you getting stupider Bawl?
=================
That'd be you, killer. Do try to keep up.


>
>
> .

"rick etter" > wrote in message link.net>...
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
> nk.net>...
> > > Laurie wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>Stress is a big factor; I don't know if she caused you any,
> > > >>
> > > >>Truckloads.
> > > >
> > > > Here, noBalls repeats his humorously-common "blame-the-other not
> myself
> > > > for my failings" gambit.
> > >
> > > No. I didn't offer anything that amounts to "blame",
> > > Lying Larry Forti.
> > >
> > > Why on earth do you think you, a failed electrician,
> > > have anything to say about diet?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What does the electrical trade have to do with nutrition?
> =====================
> You really are too stupid to keep up, aren't you killer? Larry-boygirl
> claims to be an engineer. Obviously a failed one. Yet as you just said,
> what does his claimed education have to do with nutrition? And, as you
> imply, *nothing*. That was the point dolt....
> Man, you are too ignorant for words, aren't you. I see you ran away pretty
> quick from your last bit of loonicy.
>
>
> >
> > Are you getting stupider Bawl?
> =================
> That'd be you, killer. Do try to keep up.
>
>
> >
> >



Tell me more about the grass fed beef you stuff your piehole with
etter.

For instance, who cut and wraps the meat? Who slaughters the animal?
Do you take the hide too since you already stated you take the udder?



..

"Ron" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
link.net>...
> > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
> > nk.net>...
> > > > Laurie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>>Stress is a big factor; I don't know if she caused you any,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Truckloads.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here, noBalls repeats his humorously-common "blame-the-other
not
> > myself
> > > > > for my failings" gambit.
> > > >
> > > > No. I didn't offer anything that amounts to "blame",
> > > > Lying Larry Forti.
> > > >
> > > > Why on earth do you think you, a failed electrician,
> > > > have anything to say about diet?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What does the electrical trade have to do with nutrition?
> > =====================
> > You really are too stupid to keep up, aren't you killer? Larry-boygirl
> > claims to be an engineer. Obviously a failed one. Yet as you just
said,
> > what does his claimed education have to do with nutrition? And, as you
> > imply, *nothing*. That was the point dolt....
> > Man, you are too ignorant for words, aren't you. I see you ran away
pretty
> > quick from your last bit of loonicy.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Are you getting stupider Bawl?
> > =================
> > That'd be you, killer. Do try to keep up.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> Tell me more about the grass fed beef you stuff your piehole with
> etter.
>
> For instance, who cut and wraps the meat? Who slaughters the animal?
> Do you take the hide too since you already stated you take the udder?
==============
Your continued dodging noted, fool.



Why do you keep asking questions I've answered and continue to ignore the
ones put to you, killer?

Why are you running from the b12 discussion?





>
>
>
> .

On 27 May 2004 12:33:35 -0700, (Ron) wrote:

[..]
> Tell me more about the grass fed beef you stuff your piehole with
>etter.

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
Rick Etter 2003-11-15

But evidence proves that that is a long way from
the truth.

[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
biggest and most controversial activities is killing
coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
western livestock.

Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
animals in their dens.]
http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html

Also, though a customer might switch to grass
fed beef on the understanding that he would be
reducing the collateral deaths associated with
his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
collateral death from the feed grown to feed
them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.

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

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

Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.

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

Hope that helps.

Laurie wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>Laurie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Stress is a big factor; I don't know if she caused you any,
>>>>
> noBalls> >>Truckloads.
>
>>> Here, noBalls repeats his humorously-common "blame-the-other not
>
> myself
>
>>>for my failings" gambit.
>>
>>No. I didn't offer anything that amounts to "blame", ...
>
> You said that SHE -caused- you "truckloads" of stress

Not the same as "blame", Lying Larry.

Why must you lie reflexively, Larry?

> thus trying to blame another

False.


>>Lying Larry Forti.
>>
>>Why on earth do you think you, a failed electrician,
>>have anything to say about diet?
>>
>
>
>

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> claims to be an engineer.
I have a BS (62) and MS (64) in Chemical Engineering from
Northeastern University. Feel free to verify.

> what does his claimed education have to do with nutrition? And, as
you
> imply, *nothing*. That was the point dolt....
So, you REALLY do not understand that the years and years of
college-level chemistry courses I took prepared me to be able to read
and understand nutrition research, which is nothing but chemistry?
Since you and the rest of the meatarian propagandists have never
passed a college-level chem course, I seem considerably more qualified
than any of you.

> ... your last bit of loonicy [sic].
Another bit of creativity with the English language??

Laurie

"Laurie" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> > claims to be an engineer.
> I have a BS (62) and MS (64) in Chemical Engineering from
> Northeastern University. Feel free to verify.
====================
Really? And it looks like you haven't done anything since then either,
killer.

>
> > what does his claimed education have to do with nutrition? And, as
> you
> > imply, *nothing*. That was the point dolt....
> So, you REALLY do not understand that the years and years of
> college-level chemistry courses I took prepared me to be able to read
> and understand nutrition research, which is nothing but chemistry?
================
Your preparation was for naught it appears. I'd ask for my money back if I
were you, fool.


> Since you and the rest of the meatarian propagandists have never
> passed a college-level chem course, I seem considerably more qualified
> than any of you.
==================
LOL What a hoot, from the most propagandizing fool on usenet.


>
> > ... your last bit of loonicy [sic].
> Another bit of creativity with the English language??
>
> Laurie
>
>