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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:09:24 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:05:24 GMT, wrote:
>
>[..]
>> 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.

>
>Most meatarians justify their diet using the same logic
>you use,


They know that what I point out is true. So do you.

>and they use it because they intuitively know
>they are doing something terribly wrong when eating
>rights-holding farmed animals.


That could only be true if there were rights-holding
farmed animals, but there are none.

>You don't get to see vegans arguing we should all eat
>veg on the basis that such a diet provides life for more
>cabbages,


No. You argue we should all eat veg to prevent the
lives and deaths of billions of animals.

>do you, and that's because we all know that
>the life and death of a cabbage is morally meaningless.
>You're an AR, Harrison, else you would not be trying
>to morally justify the life and death of your food.


No Gonad. I believe that it's ethically equivalent or
superior to contribute to decent lives for farm animals,
as it is to contribute to none at all. We know you "ARAs"
don't feel that way, so it's incredibly stupid of you to say
I'm in favor of "AR". I'm very much in favor of decent
Animal Welfare, which is something you "ARAs" want
to prevent. You certainly will NOT contribute to decent
AW for food animals with you diet, and you make it very
obvious that you don't want anyone else to either.
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:16:27 GMT, wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:09:24 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:05:24 GMT,
wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>> 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.

>>
>>Most meatarians justify their diet using the same logic
>>you use,

>
> They know that what I point out is true.


I've no doubt they believe it.

> So do you.


No, I don't.

>>and they use it because they intuitively know
>>they are doing something terribly wrong when eating
>>rights-holding farmed animals.

>
> That could only be true if there were rights-holding
>farmed animals, but there are none.


They and you believe they have rights, else you wouldn't
be trying to morally justify your diet on them. I remember
you once tried to tell me my rights don't trump the rights
of unborn animals, so what does that say about your false
stance against the proposition of rights for the animals
already existing, comrade?

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
David Harrison- 10/12/2001

>>You don't get to see vegans arguing we should all eat
>>veg on the basis that such a diet provides life for more
>>cabbages,

>
> No.


Then why do you argue we should eat farmed animals
on the basis that such a diet provides life for more farmed
animals, if the lives of farmed animals, like cabbages have
no moral meaning to you?

>You argue we should all eat veg to prevent the
>lives and deaths of billions of animals.


Yes, I do.

>>do you, and that's because we all know that
>>the life and death of a cabbage is morally meaningless.
>>You're an AR, Harrison, else you would not be trying
>>to morally justify the life and death of your food.

>
> No


Yes, Harrison. You would not be trying to morally justify
something that didn't warrant such a moral justification, so
it's patently obvious you intuitively know animals hold a right
against you not to be farmed, and you justify violating this
perceived right by declaring you and the beast both benefit
from farming it, just as a rueful slaver would to his critic.

>Gonad.


I'm Derek.

>I believe that it's ethically equivalent or
>superior to contribute to decent lives for farm animals,
>as it is to contribute to none at all.


Then you must also sanction slavery and the raising of
children for food, research models and clothing material.

>We know you "ARAs" don't feel that way,


Exactly! We don't think the way you do in those respects.

>so it's incredibly stupid of you to say I'm in favor of "AR".


You're just misguided and a bit extreme in your AR views,
that's all. For example, even I wouldn't declare an unborn
animal has such rights that mine can't trump, as you did.

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
David Harrison- 10/12/2001

>I'm very much in favor of decent
>Animal Welfare, which is something you "ARAs" want
>to prevent.


How is it in an animal's interest or welfare to be kept
on farms and slaughtered when just in its prime of life?
Let's believe you ARE a welfarist for just a moment.
Aren't you troubled by the fact that your view and use
of the term "welfare" can be used by those actually
opposed to the proposition?

>You certainly will NOT contribute to decent
>AW for food animals with you diet, and you make it very
>obvious that you don't want anyone else to either.


That's right.
  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?

wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:09:24 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:05:24 GMT,
wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>> 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.

>>
>>Most meatarians justify their diet using the same logic
>>you use,

>
>
> They know that what I point out is true.


We know that what you say, not "point out", is
worthless bullshit.

>
>>and they use it because they intuitively know
>>they are doing something terribly wrong when eating
>>rights-holding farmed animals.

>
>
> That could only be true if there were rights-holding
> farmed animals, but there are none.
>
>
>>You don't get to see vegans arguing we should all eat
>>veg on the basis that such a diet provides life for more
>>cabbages,

>
>
> No. You argue we should all eat veg to prevent the
> lives and deaths of billions of animals.


And you argue we should all eat meat to CAUSE the lives
of billions of animals. Your advice is stupid.

>
>
>>do you, and that's because we all know that
>>the life and death of a cabbage is morally meaningless.
>>You're an AR, Harrison, else you would not be trying
>>to morally justify the life and death of your food.

>
>
> No


Yes. At heart, ****wit, you are an "ara".

  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?

wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:09:24 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:05:24 GMT,
wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>> 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.

>>
>>Most meatarians justify their diet using the same logic
>>you use,

>
>
> They know that what I point out is true.


We know that what you say, not "point out", is
worthless bullshit.

>
>>and they use it because they intuitively know
>>they are doing something terribly wrong when eating
>>rights-holding farmed animals.

>
>
> That could only be true if there were rights-holding
> farmed animals, but there are none.
>
>
>>You don't get to see vegans arguing we should all eat
>>veg on the basis that such a diet provides life for more
>>cabbages,

>
>
> No. You argue we should all eat veg to prevent the
> lives and deaths of billions of animals.


And you argue we should all eat meat to CAUSE the lives
of billions of animals. Your advice is stupid.

>
>
>>do you, and that's because we all know that
>>the life and death of a cabbage is morally meaningless.
>>You're an AR, Harrison, else you would not be trying
>>to morally justify the life and death of your food.

>
>
> No


Yes. At heart, ****wit, you are an "ara".

  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?

"nemo" > wrote
>
> ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of veg
> protein to produce 1lb of steak.***


Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger?
http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html




  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


Dutch > wrote in message
...
> "nemo" > wrote
> >
> > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of veg
> > protein to produce 1lb of steak.***

>
> Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger?
>

http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html
>


They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961!

The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to use
when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - usually
because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about animals'
suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of those
types still about, I see. )

The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible to
transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact that
even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed was
already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by.

And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein argument.
If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and legumes you
get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's unique
to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no problem.

In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid agencies
having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves to
chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something like a 10
: 1 return in protein.

They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work!




  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


"nemo" > wrote
>
> Dutch > wrote
> > "nemo" > wrote
> > >
> > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of veg
> > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.***

> >
> > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger?
> >

>

http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html
> >

>
> They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961!


It was likely as true then as it is today.

> The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to use
> when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - usually
> because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about animals'
> suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of those
> types still about, I see. )


Ad hominem fallacy.

> The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible to
> transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact that
> even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed was
> already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by.


You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people starving
at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net surplus of
grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and political,
it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism.

> And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein

argument.
> If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and legumes

you
> get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's

unique
> to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no problem.


Strawman fallacy, we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of
diets.

> In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid agencies
> having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves to
> chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something like a

10
> : 1 return in protein.
>
> They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work!


Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of
imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly cuts
the mustard right now.


  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


"nemo" > wrote
>
> Dutch > wrote
> > "nemo" > wrote
> > >
> > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of veg
> > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.***

> >
> > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger?
> >

>

http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html
> >

>
> They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961!


It was likely as true then as it is today.

> The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to use
> when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - usually
> because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about animals'
> suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of those
> types still about, I see. )


Ad hominem fallacy.

> The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible to
> transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact that
> even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed was
> already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by.


You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people starving
at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net surplus of
grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and political,
it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism.

> And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein

argument.
> If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and legumes

you
> get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's

unique
> to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no problem.


Strawman fallacy, we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of
diets.

> In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid agencies
> having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves to
> chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something like a

10
> : 1 return in protein.
>
> They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work!


Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of
imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly cuts
the mustard right now.


  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:28:30 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:29:28 GMT, wrote:
>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:25:44 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:10:54 GMT,
wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:36:57 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:16:27 GMT,
wrote:
>>>>>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:09:24 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:05:24 GMT,
wrote:
>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>>>>>>>>slaughters,

>>
>> That was fact #1

>
>No, it isn't. The meat industry allows lives into its environment,
>but something else "provides" that life for the animals in it. The
>industry itself can't "provide" life anymore than hospitals can.
>
>>>>>>>>and the animals live and die in it as they do
>>>>>>>>in any other habitat.

>>
>> #2

>
>False. Wild animals live longer and die differently to farmed
>animals slaughtered in abattoirs.
>
>>>>>>>>They also depend on it for their
>>>>>>>>lives like the animals in any other habitat.

>>
>> #3

>
>False. Animals can live wild, so it's false to say they "depend"
>on being farmed to survive. Most if not all feral cattle are the
>result of escapees.
>
>>>>>>>>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.

>>
>> #4

>
>False. There's no guarantee that animals will be raised in
>decent ways simply because more people consume them.
>In fact it's true to say that welfare standards have dropped
>in large scale farming and slaughter houses because of the
>heavier demand on these places.
>
>>>>>>>Most meatarians justify their diet using the same logic
>>>>>>>you use,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They know that what I point out is true.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've no doubt they believe it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So do you.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I don't.
>>>>
>>>> Which of the facts I mentioned above--don't snip them--do
>>>>you not believe?
>>>
>>>They aren't facts,

>>
>> They are all facts.

>
>No, they aren't.
>
>>>so I don't believe any of them.

>>
>> Because you don't like those particular facts.

>
>They aren't facts.
>
>> I'm extremely
>>glad that I don't have such a severe mental disorder as that. It
>>would scare me, and it should really scare the hell out of you.
>>You could very well end up hurting or killing someone you care
>>about, if you haven't done so already.

>
>yeah yeah yeah. Harrison, if anyone around here has a mental
>disorder, it is you, because I don't believe the weird rubbish you
>do, and only someone you've described above would believe the
>things you do, so it's obvious which out of the two of us has that
>mental disorder you've described. Now, stop trying to be offensive
>and aggressive, because you're not very good at it.
>
>>>>>>>and they use it because they intuitively know
>>>>>>>they are doing something terribly wrong when eating
>>>>>>>rights-holding farmed animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That could only be true if there were rights-holding
>>>>>>farmed animals, but there are none.
>>>>>
>>>>>They and you believe they have rights,
>>>>
>>>> No, I sure don't. Which rights do you "think" I believe
>>>>they have?
>>>
>>>The right against you not to be farmed for your benefit.

>>
>> They obviously have no such right.

>
>They obviously do, according to you,


Not only are you a liar, but you're a damn idiot too.
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:28:30 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:29:28 GMT, wrote:
>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:25:44 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:10:54 GMT,
wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:36:57 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:16:27 GMT,
wrote:
>>>>>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:09:24 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:05:24 GMT,
wrote:
>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>>>>>>>>slaughters,

>>
>> That was fact #1

>
>No, it isn't. The meat industry allows lives into its environment,
>but something else "provides" that life for the animals in it. The
>industry itself can't "provide" life anymore than hospitals can.
>
>>>>>>>>and the animals live and die in it as they do
>>>>>>>>in any other habitat.

>>
>> #2

>
>False. Wild animals live longer and die differently to farmed
>animals slaughtered in abattoirs.
>
>>>>>>>>They also depend on it for their
>>>>>>>>lives like the animals in any other habitat.

>>
>> #3

>
>False. Animals can live wild, so it's false to say they "depend"
>on being farmed to survive. Most if not all feral cattle are the
>result of escapees.
>
>>>>>>>>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.

>>
>> #4

>
>False. There's no guarantee that animals will be raised in
>decent ways simply because more people consume them.
>In fact it's true to say that welfare standards have dropped
>in large scale farming and slaughter houses because of the
>heavier demand on these places.
>
>>>>>>>Most meatarians justify their diet using the same logic
>>>>>>>you use,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They know that what I point out is true.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've no doubt they believe it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So do you.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I don't.
>>>>
>>>> Which of the facts I mentioned above--don't snip them--do
>>>>you not believe?
>>>
>>>They aren't facts,

>>
>> They are all facts.

>
>No, they aren't.
>
>>>so I don't believe any of them.

>>
>> Because you don't like those particular facts.

>
>They aren't facts.
>
>> I'm extremely
>>glad that I don't have such a severe mental disorder as that. It
>>would scare me, and it should really scare the hell out of you.
>>You could very well end up hurting or killing someone you care
>>about, if you haven't done so already.

>
>yeah yeah yeah. Harrison, if anyone around here has a mental
>disorder, it is you, because I don't believe the weird rubbish you
>do, and only someone you've described above would believe the
>things you do, so it's obvious which out of the two of us has that
>mental disorder you've described. Now, stop trying to be offensive
>and aggressive, because you're not very good at it.
>
>>>>>>>and they use it because they intuitively know
>>>>>>>they are doing something terribly wrong when eating
>>>>>>>rights-holding farmed animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That could only be true if there were rights-holding
>>>>>>farmed animals, but there are none.
>>>>>
>>>>>They and you believe they have rights,
>>>>
>>>> No, I sure don't. Which rights do you "think" I believe
>>>>they have?
>>>
>>>The right against you not to be farmed for your benefit.

>>
>> They obviously have no such right.

>
>They obviously do, according to you,


Not only are you a liar, but you're a damn idiot too.


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


Dutch > wrote in message
...
>
> "nemo" > wrote
> >
> > Dutch > wrote
> > > "nemo" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of

veg
> > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.***
> > >
> > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger?
> > >

> >

>

http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html
> > >

> >
> > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961!

>
> It was likely as true then as it is today.
>
> > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to

use
> > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - usually
> > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about

animals'
> > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of those
> > types still about, I see. )

>
> Ad hominem fallacy.


Oy! What a poseur - using Latin already!!)

Nonce Equitur. (Pervert on a horse!)
>
> > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible to
> > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact

that
> > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed was
> > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by.

>
> You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people

starving
> at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net surplus

of
> grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and

political,
> it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism.
>
> > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein

> argument.
> > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and legumes

> you
> > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's

> unique
> > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no

problem.
>
> Strawman fallacy, we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of
> diets.
>
> > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid

agencies
> > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves to
> > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something like

a
> 10
> > : 1 return in protein.
> >
> > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work!

>
> Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of
> imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly cuts
> the mustard right now.
>

Oh, yes it does!

If you think Veganism is rubbish - go elsewhere, and cut the formal language
crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least
authoritative - it just sounds daft!


  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


Dutch > wrote in message
...
>
> "nemo" > wrote
> >
> > Dutch > wrote
> > > "nemo" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of

veg
> > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.***
> > >
> > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger?
> > >

> >

>

http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html
> > >

> >
> > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961!

>
> It was likely as true then as it is today.
>
> > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to

use
> > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - usually
> > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about

animals'
> > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of those
> > types still about, I see. )

>
> Ad hominem fallacy.


Oy! What a poseur - using Latin already!!)

Nonce Equitur. (Pervert on a horse!)
>
> > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible to
> > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact

that
> > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed was
> > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by.

>
> You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people

starving
> at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net surplus

of
> grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and

political,
> it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism.
>
> > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein

> argument.
> > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and legumes

> you
> > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's

> unique
> > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no

problem.
>
> Strawman fallacy, we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of
> diets.
>
> > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid

agencies
> > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves to
> > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something like

a
> 10
> > : 1 return in protein.
> >
> > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work!

>
> Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of
> imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly cuts
> the mustard right now.
>

Oh, yes it does!

If you think Veganism is rubbish - go elsewhere, and cut the formal language
crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least
authoritative - it just sounds daft!


  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Derek wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:27:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball >

wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"veganism" commits a massive and classic logical
> >>fallacy at its very co

> >
> >
> > No, it doesn't.

>
> Yes, it does. The fallacy is built into "veganism" at
> the very beginning. All "vegans" commit it, and most
> continue to commit it even after it is illustrated for
> them in 6-color diagrams.
>
> > You commit the fallacy

>
> I commit no fallacy.
>
> > by building a
> > false argument and then attribute it to vegans as
> > their's when it isn't.

>
> It is theirs (not "their's", you moron). All "vegans"
> subscribe to it, some explicitly, some implicitly.
>
> >
> >
> >>Denying the Antecedent. It goes like this:
> >>
> >> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering
> >> and death of animals.

> >
> >
> > This premise is false

>
> All "vegans" believe it to be true. The truth of the
> proposition is immaterial: all "vegans" believe it to
> be true, and construct the rest of their fallacy on the
> belief.
>
> >
> >
> >> I do not consume animal parts;
> >>
> >> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
> >> of animals.
> >>
> >>This conclusion, of course, is patently false,

> >
> >
> > And that's why you claim it to be the vegan's argument:

>
> No. I claim it to be the "vegan's"


Why the quotes?

> argument because
> they all say it, unanimously and universally. Most say
> it implicitly: that's what the Irrational Search for
> Micrograms of Animal Parts is about.
>
> > because it's a false argument. In short, you've built a
> > straw man

>
> No. All "vegans" believe it.


You really think you can trivialise us by using quotes? This group really is
becoming Mecca for poor little lame-brained meat-eating idiots and poseurs.

For Christ's sake let's cut the crap and start swapping some interesting
recipes again!

And all of you pratts who don't approve of Veganism - well - sod off
somewhere else coz you ain't gonna convert anyone back to meat-eating on
here with the sort of irrational, trivial, malicious and vexatious arguments
you pathetically keep coming up with!


  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Derek wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:27:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball >

wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"veganism" commits a massive and classic logical
> >>fallacy at its very co

> >
> >
> > No, it doesn't.

>
> Yes, it does. The fallacy is built into "veganism" at
> the very beginning. All "vegans" commit it, and most
> continue to commit it even after it is illustrated for
> them in 6-color diagrams.
>
> > You commit the fallacy

>
> I commit no fallacy.
>
> > by building a
> > false argument and then attribute it to vegans as
> > their's when it isn't.

>
> It is theirs (not "their's", you moron). All "vegans"
> subscribe to it, some explicitly, some implicitly.
>
> >
> >
> >>Denying the Antecedent. It goes like this:
> >>
> >> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering
> >> and death of animals.

> >
> >
> > This premise is false

>
> All "vegans" believe it to be true. The truth of the
> proposition is immaterial: all "vegans" believe it to
> be true, and construct the rest of their fallacy on the
> belief.
>
> >
> >
> >> I do not consume animal parts;
> >>
> >> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
> >> of animals.
> >>
> >>This conclusion, of course, is patently false,

> >
> >
> > And that's why you claim it to be the vegan's argument:

>
> No. I claim it to be the "vegan's"


Why the quotes?

> argument because
> they all say it, unanimously and universally. Most say
> it implicitly: that's what the Irrational Search for
> Micrograms of Animal Parts is about.
>
> > because it's a false argument. In short, you've built a
> > straw man

>
> No. All "vegans" believe it.


You really think you can trivialise us by using quotes? This group really is
becoming Mecca for poor little lame-brained meat-eating idiots and poseurs.

For Christ's sake let's cut the crap and start swapping some interesting
recipes again!

And all of you pratts who don't approve of Veganism - well - sod off
somewhere else coz you ain't gonna convert anyone back to meat-eating on
here with the sort of irrational, trivial, malicious and vexatious arguments
you pathetically keep coming up with!


  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid? MEAT! POULRTY! FISH! EGGS! MILK! CHEESE!

<big snip>
<big OUCH!!>
>
> "Well, since one chicken lays twelve eggs and since
> happy chickens are certainly happy in part because they
> can fornicate, then eating twelve happy chickens and
> their mother is better than eating one asparagus plant."
> Asbestos Jeff 2004-07-08 http://tinyurl.com/63wvo
>


The *list* goes on and on - until the meat eaters' arguments finally
capsize!!!

Mesothelioma Nemo!

(We do asbestos we can!)




  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid? MEAT! POULRTY! FISH! EGGS! MILK! CHEESE!

<big snip>
<big OUCH!!>
>
> "Well, since one chicken lays twelve eggs and since
> happy chickens are certainly happy in part because they
> can fornicate, then eating twelve happy chickens and
> their mother is better than eating one asparagus plant."
> Asbestos Jeff 2004-07-08 http://tinyurl.com/63wvo
>


The *list* goes on and on - until the meat eaters' arguments finally
capsize!!!

Mesothelioma Nemo!

(We do asbestos we can!)


  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


"nemo" > wrote in message
k...
>
> Dutch > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "nemo" > wrote
> > >
> > > Dutch > wrote
> > > > "nemo" > wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of

> veg
> > > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.***
> > > >
> > > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger?
> > > >
> > >

> >

>

http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961!

> >
> > It was likely as true then as it is today.
> >
> > > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to

> use
> > > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments -

usually
> > > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about

> animals'
> > > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of

those
> > > types still about, I see. )

> >
> > Ad hominem fallacy.

>
> Oy! What a poseur - using Latin already!!)
>
> Nonce Equitur. (Pervert on a horse!)


OK, for your benefit, the fallacy of argument by demeaning the character of
one's opponent instead of addressing the substance of what he says.

> > > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible

to
> > > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact

> that
> > > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed

was
> > > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by.

> >
> > You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people

> starving
> > at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net

surplus
> of
> > grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and

> political,
> > it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism.


Predictably, no response on substance.

> > > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein

> > argument.
> > > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and

legumes
> > you
> > > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's

> > unique
> > > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no

> problem.
> >
> > Strawman fallacy,


That means arguing against a position that your opponent never took.

> we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of
> > diets.


> > > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid

> agencies
> > > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves

to
> > > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something

like
> a
> > 10
> > > : 1 return in protein.
> > >
> > > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work!

> >
> > Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of
> > imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly

cuts
> > the mustard right now.
> >

> Oh, yes it does!


In your deluded mind..

> If you think Veganism is rubbish - go elsewhere,


Make me.

> and cut the formal language
> crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least
> authoritative - it just sounds daft!


I'll try to dumb it down for you in future.


  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


"nemo" > wrote in message
k...
>
> Dutch > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "nemo" > wrote
> > >
> > > Dutch > wrote
> > > > "nemo" > wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of

> veg
> > > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.***
> > > >
> > > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger?
> > > >
> > >

> >

>

http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961!

> >
> > It was likely as true then as it is today.
> >
> > > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to

> use
> > > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments -

usually
> > > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about

> animals'
> > > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of

those
> > > types still about, I see. )

> >
> > Ad hominem fallacy.

>
> Oy! What a poseur - using Latin already!!)
>
> Nonce Equitur. (Pervert on a horse!)


OK, for your benefit, the fallacy of argument by demeaning the character of
one's opponent instead of addressing the substance of what he says.

> > > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible

to
> > > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact

> that
> > > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed

was
> > > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by.

> >
> > You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people

> starving
> > at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net

surplus
> of
> > grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and

> political,
> > it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism.


Predictably, no response on substance.

> > > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein

> > argument.
> > > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and

legumes
> > you
> > > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's

> > unique
> > > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no

> problem.
> >
> > Strawman fallacy,


That means arguing against a position that your opponent never took.

> we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of
> > diets.


> > > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid

> agencies
> > > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves

to
> > > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something

like
> a
> > 10
> > > : 1 return in protein.
> > >
> > > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work!

> >
> > Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of
> > imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly

cuts
> > the mustard right now.
> >

> Oh, yes it does!


In your deluded mind..

> If you think Veganism is rubbish - go elsewhere,


Make me.

> and cut the formal language
> crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least
> authoritative - it just sounds daft!


I'll try to dumb it down for you in future.


  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid? MEAT! POULRTY! FISH! EGGS! MILK! CHEESE!

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:20:44 GMT, "nemo" > wrote:

><big snip>
><big OUCH!!>
>>
>> "Well, since one chicken lays twelve eggs and since
>> happy chickens are certainly happy in part because they
>> can fornicate, then eating twelve happy chickens and
>> their mother is better than eating one asparagus plant."
>> Asbestos Jeff 2004-07-08 http://tinyurl.com/63wvo
>>

>
>The *list* goes on and on - until the meat eaters' arguments finally
>capsize!!!


How so?

>Mesothelioma Nemo!
>
>(We do asbestos we can!)
>


  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid? MEAT! POULRTY! FISH! EGGS! MILK! CHEESE!

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:20:44 GMT, "nemo" > wrote:

><big snip>
><big OUCH!!>
>>
>> "Well, since one chicken lays twelve eggs and since
>> happy chickens are certainly happy in part because they
>> can fornicate, then eating twelve happy chickens and
>> their mother is better than eating one asparagus plant."
>> Asbestos Jeff 2004-07-08 http://tinyurl.com/63wvo
>>

>
>The *list* goes on and on - until the meat eaters' arguments finally
>capsize!!!


How so?

>Mesothelioma Nemo!
>
>(We do asbestos we can!)
>




  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "nemo" > wrote in message
> k...



> > and cut the formal language
> > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the

least
> > authoritative - it just sounds daft!

>
> I'll try to dumb it down for you in future.


That will come naturally for you....


  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "nemo" > wrote in message
> k...



> > and cut the formal language
> > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the

least
> > authoritative - it just sounds daft!

>
> I'll try to dumb it down for you in future.


That will come naturally for you....


  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


Dutch > wrote in message
...
>
> "nemo" > wrote in message
> k...
> >
> > Dutch > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "nemo" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > Dutch > wrote
> > > > > "nemo" > wrote
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs

of
> > veg
> > > > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.***
> > > > >
> > > > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >

> >

>

http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961!
> > >
> > > It was likely as true then as it is today.
> > >
> > > > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used

to
> > use
> > > > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments -

> usually
> > > > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about

> > animals'
> > > > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of

> those
> > > > types still about, I see. )
> > >
> > > Ad hominem fallacy.

> >
> > Oy! What a poseur - using Latin already!!)
> >
> > Nonce Equitur. (Pervert on a horse!)

>
> OK, for your benefit, the fallacy of argument by demeaning the character

of
> one's opponent instead of addressing the substance of what he says.
>
> > > > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible

> to
> > > > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact

> > that
> > > > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed

> was
> > > > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them

by.
> > >
> > > You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people

> > starving
> > > at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net

> surplus
> > of
> > > grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and

> > political,
> > > it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism.

>
> Predictably, no response on substance.
>
> > > > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein
> > > argument.
> > > > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and

> legumes
> > > you
> > > > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's
> > > unique
> > > > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no

> > problem.
> > >
> > > Strawman fallacy,

>
> That means arguing against a position that your opponent never took.
>
> > we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of
> > > diets.

>
> > > > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid

> > agencies
> > > > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves

> to
> > > > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something

> like
> > a
> > > 10
> > > > : 1 return in protein.
> > > >
> > > > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of

work!
> > >
> > > Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories

of
> > > imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly

> cuts
> > > the mustard right now.
> > >

> > Oh, yes it does!

>
> In your deluded mind..
>
> > If you think Veganism is rubbish - go elsewhere,

>
> Make me.
>
> > and cut the formal language
> > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least
> > authoritative - it just sounds daft!

>
> I'll try to dumb it down for you in future.
>

Good. I'm sure to you it will come quite naturally!


  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


Dutch > wrote in message
...
>
> "nemo" > wrote in message
> k...
> >
> > Dutch > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "nemo" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > Dutch > wrote
> > > > > "nemo" > wrote
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs

of
> > veg
> > > > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.***
> > > > >
> > > > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >

> >

>

http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961!
> > >
> > > It was likely as true then as it is today.
> > >
> > > > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used

to
> > use
> > > > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments -

> usually
> > > > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about

> > animals'
> > > > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of

> those
> > > > types still about, I see. )
> > >
> > > Ad hominem fallacy.

> >
> > Oy! What a poseur - using Latin already!!)
> >
> > Nonce Equitur. (Pervert on a horse!)

>
> OK, for your benefit, the fallacy of argument by demeaning the character

of
> one's opponent instead of addressing the substance of what he says.
>
> > > > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible

> to
> > > > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact

> > that
> > > > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed

> was
> > > > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them

by.
> > >
> > > You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people

> > starving
> > > at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net

> surplus
> > of
> > > grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and

> > political,
> > > it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism.

>
> Predictably, no response on substance.
>
> > > > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein
> > > argument.
> > > > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and

> legumes
> > > you
> > > > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's
> > > unique
> > > > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no

> > problem.
> > >
> > > Strawman fallacy,

>
> That means arguing against a position that your opponent never took.
>
> > we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of
> > > diets.

>
> > > > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid

> > agencies
> > > > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves

> to
> > > > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something

> like
> > a
> > > 10
> > > > : 1 return in protein.
> > > >
> > > > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of

work!
> > >
> > > Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories

of
> > > imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly

> cuts
> > > the mustard right now.
> > >

> > Oh, yes it does!

>
> In your deluded mind..
>
> > If you think Veganism is rubbish - go elsewhere,

>
> Make me.
>
> > and cut the formal language
> > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least
> > authoritative - it just sounds daft!

>
> I'll try to dumb it down for you in future.
>

Good. I'm sure to you it will come quite naturally!


  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


C. James Strutz > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "nemo" > wrote in message
> > k...

>
>
> > > and cut the formal language
> > > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the

> least
> > > authoritative - it just sounds daft!

> >
> > I'll try to dumb it down for you in future.

>
> That will come naturally for you....
>

I just said that too!

See? Great minds think alike! - while dumb pratts hide their ignorance in
pseudo-authorative language and hyperbole. That's the same as Armenian Bole
except it's no good in gold size!




  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?


C. James Strutz > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "nemo" > wrote in message
> > k...

>
>
> > > and cut the formal language
> > > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the

> least
> > > authoritative - it just sounds daft!

> >
> > I'll try to dumb it down for you in future.

>
> That will come naturally for you....
>

I just said that too!

See? Great minds think alike! - while dumb pratts hide their ignorance in
pseudo-authorative language and hyperbole. That's the same as Armenian Bole
except it's no good in gold size!


  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?

"nemo" > wrote
>
> Dutch > wrote


> > > and cut the formal language
> > > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least
> > > authoritative - it just sounds daft!

> >
> > I'll try to dumb it down for you in future.
> >

> Good. I'm sure to you it will come quite naturally!


True, I can speak quite well without using "formal language". Communicating
with people of all levels of intelligence has always been a strength of
mine.


  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Foods to Avoid?

"nemo" > wrote
>
> Dutch > wrote


> > > and cut the formal language
> > > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least
> > > authoritative - it just sounds daft!

> >
> > I'll try to dumb it down for you in future.
> >

> Good. I'm sure to you it will come quite naturally!


True, I can speak quite well without using "formal language". Communicating
with people of all levels of intelligence has always been a strength of
mine.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Foods to help insomnia, and foods to avoid Cheryl[_3_] General Cooking 25 06-06-2010 08:26 PM
A food to avoid Robert Miles Diabetic 0 24-08-2008 01:14 AM
How to avoid sulfites Sportinus Winemaking 3 13-10-2005 08:55 PM
Hardwoods to avoid? JBSummer Barbecue 12 27-10-2004 12:55 PM
How to avoid hob getting dirty? Shahab General Cooking 9 04-09-2004 08:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:23 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"