Forwarded post from B. V.

Forks over Knives

Monday, September 5, 2011

http://forksoverknives.com/

For more than 2,800 years, the concept of eating plants in their
whole-food form has struggled to be heard and adopted as a way of
life. However, recent evidence shows that more than ever a plant-
based diet is not something to be ignored. In fact, eating a plant-
based diet has become an urgent matter from several perspectives. Not
only will it improve your health -- and the evidence behind this
claim is now overwhelming -- but it will also dramatically reduce
health care costs, as well as reduce violence to our environment and
to other sentient beings.

The fact is our nation's economic stability, already crumbling due to
the repeated bursting of bubbles such as technology and housing, has
been hard hit by spiraling health costs that seem to have no end in
sight. Despite this, as a nation, we are sicker and fatter than we
have ever been. The epidemic of obesity and diabetes, especially in
the young, forecasts an economically unsustainable public health
challenge with the gloomy prophecy that today's children may not
outlive their parents.

Who will protect the public? Not our government: The U.S. Department
of Agriculture's nutrition pyramid is laden with food that will
guarantee millions will suffer ill health. Not the American Dietetic
Association, which is controlled by food corporations. Not the
insurance industry, which profits by selling plans to the sick. Not
the pharmaceutical industry, which pockets billions from chronic
illnesses. And not the medical profession, in which doctors and
nurses receive virtually no training in nutrition or behavioral
modification, and are handsomely rewarded for administrating drugs
and employing technical expertise.

What can save America is a plant-based diet, which will help
individuals recover their good health, and which in turn will set our
health care system right (as well as our economy). However, for this
plant-based diet to take hold, the public must be endowed with
nutritional literacy, the kind of knowledge that is portrayed in the
new documentary, "Forks Over Knives."

"Forks Over Knives" focuses not just on the research that both of us
have been engaged in over the last four decades, whether in China and
Cornell or at the Cleveland Clinic; it also traces the journey of
several Americans as they move from a lifetime of eating mostly
animal-based and processed foods to a whole food plant-based diet,
and the extraordinary medical results that follow. It is educational,
entertaining, and literally life-saving.

What if one simple change could save you from heart disease,
diabetes, and cancer? For decades, that question has fascinated a
small circle of impassioned doctors and researchers -- and now, their
life-changing research is making headlines in the hit documentary
Forks Over Knives. Their answer? Eat a whole-foods, plant-based diet
-- it could save your life. It may overturn most of the diet advice
you’ve heard -- but the experts behind Forks Over Knives aren't
afraid to make waves. In his book Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease,
Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn explained that eating meat, dairy, and oils
injures the lining of our blood vessels, causing heart disease, heart
attack, or stroke. In The China Study, Dr. Colin Campbell revealed
how cancer and other diseases skyrocket when eating meat and dairy is
the norm -- and plummet when a traditional plant-based diet persists.
And more and more experts are adding their voices to the cause.

There is nothing else you can do for your health that can match the
benefits of a plant-based diet. Now, as Forks Over Knives is
introducing more people than ever before to the plant-based way to
health, this accessible guide provides the information you need to
adopt and maintain a plant-based diet. Features include: Insights
from the luminaries behind the film -- Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. John
McDougall, The Engine 2 Diet author Rip Esselstyn, and many others...

Now, as 'Forks Over Knives' is introducing more people than ever
before to the plant-based way to health, this accessible guide
provides the information you need to adopt and maintain a plant-based
diet. Features include:

- Insights from the luminaries behind the film Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr.
John McDougall, The Engine 2 Diet author Rip Esselstyn, and many
others.

- Success stories from converts to plant-based eating -- like
San’Dera Prude, who no longer needs to medicate her diabetes, has
lost weight, and* feels great!

- The many benefits of a whole-foods, plant-based diet for you, for
animals and the environment, and for our future

- A helpful primer on crafting a healthy diet rich in unprocessed
fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains, including tips on
transitioning and essential kitchen tools.

-*125 recipes from 25 champions of plant-based dining -- from
Blueberry Oat Breakfast Muffins and Sunny Orange Yam Bisque to Garlic
Rosemary Polenta* and Raspberry-Pear Crisp -- delicious, healthy, and
for every meal, every*day.

Forks over Knives Videos:**

http://www.forksoverknives.com/media/videos/

Trailer from Movie:

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer...knives/trailer

Please see the documentary film*"Forks Over Knives." It could
transform your life in ways you never thought possible. And it may
just help start the seismic revolution in health care the world so
badly needs.

T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D.
Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr., M.D.

End of forwarded post from B. V.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.

"For more than 2,800 years, the concept of eating plants in their
whole-food form has struggled to be heard and adopted as a way of life."

What a strange claim, why that time depth?

For as long as we can trace human diet into history people have eaten
whatever is to be found in their environment.

The eskimos ate mostly meat and thrived because plant foods did not
exist for them. Others ate mostly plant foods because that is what was
most abundant there and animal resources very scarce.

The most frequent pattern was a mixed diet as the environment allowed.
In more recent times extremes of poverty act in the same fashion. Most
ppeople living in poverty eat plant foods because of cost. They would
and do eat animal products when they can afford them.

The "whole" claim is strange also. Where plant based foods are some
part or mostly the diet the basic food from plants is highly modified.
Grain for example is ground and even with rice when used as an intact
grain it has many of the nutritional outer layers removed. Other parts
the nutritious of plants have peels removed and only selected parts are
eaten. The only "whole" diet would be someone eating the plant exactly
as it comes from the field and that is not the case generally.


This has the sound of a food political claim not a nutrition history or
real world practice one.

Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> Forwarded post from B. V.
>
> Forks over Knives
>
> Monday, September 5, 2011
>
> http://forksoverknives.com/
>
> For more than 2,800 years, the concept of eating plants in their
> whole-food form has struggled to be heard and adopted as a way of
> life. However, recent evidence shows that more than ever a plant-
> based diet is not something to be ignored. In fact, eating a plant-
> based diet has become an urgent matter from several perspectives. Not
> only will it improve your health -- and the evidence behind this
> claim is now overwhelming -- but it will also dramatically reduce
> health care costs, as well as reduce violence to our environment and
> to other sentient beings.
>
> The fact is our nation's economic stability, already crumbling due to
> the repeated bursting of bubbles such as technology and housing, has
> been hard hit by spiraling health costs that seem to have no end in
> sight. Despite this, as a nation, we are sicker and fatter than we
> have ever been. The epidemic of obesity and diabetes, especially in
> the young, forecasts an economically unsustainable public health
> challenge with the gloomy prophecy that today's children may not
> outlive their parents.
>
> Who will protect the public? Not our government: The U.S. Department
> of Agriculture's nutrition pyramid is laden with food that will
> guarantee millions will suffer ill health. Not the American Dietetic
> Association, which is controlled by food corporations. Not the
> insurance industry, which profits by selling plans to the sick. Not
> the pharmaceutical industry, which pockets billions from chronic
> illnesses. And not the medical profession, in which doctors and
> nurses receive virtually no training in nutrition or behavioral
> modification, and are handsomely rewarded for administrating drugs
> and employing technical expertise.
>
> What can save America is a plant-based diet, which will help
> individuals recover their good health, and which in turn will set our
> health care system right (as well as our economy). However, for this
> plant-based diet to take hold, the public must be endowed with
> nutritional literacy, the kind of knowledge that is portrayed in the
> new documentary, "Forks Over Knives."
>
> "Forks Over Knives" focuses not just on the research that both of us
> have been engaged in over the last four decades, whether in China and
> Cornell or at the Cleveland Clinic; it also traces the journey of
> several Americans as they move from a lifetime of eating mostly
> animal-based and processed foods to a whole food plant-based diet,
> and the extraordinary medical results that follow. It is educational,
> entertaining, and literally life-saving.
>
> What if one simple change could save you from heart disease,
> diabetes, and cancer? For decades, that question has fascinated a
> small circle of impassioned doctors and researchers -- and now, their
> life-changing research is making headlines in the hit documentary
> Forks Over Knives. Their answer? Eat a whole-foods, plant-based diet
> -- it could save your life. It may overturn most of the diet advice
> you’ve heard -- but the experts behind Forks Over Knives aren't
> afraid to make waves. In his book Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease,
> Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn explained that eating meat, dairy, and oils
> injures the lining of our blood vessels, causing heart disease, heart
> attack, or stroke. In The China Study, Dr. Colin Campbell revealed
> how cancer and other diseases skyrocket when eating meat and dairy is
> the norm -- and plummet when a traditional plant-based diet persists.
> And more and more experts are adding their voices to the cause.
>
> There is nothing else you can do for your health that can match the
> benefits of a plant-based diet. Now, as Forks Over Knives is
> introducing more people than ever before to the plant-based way to
> health, this accessible guide provides the information you need to
> adopt and maintain a plant-based diet. Features include: Insights
> from the luminaries behind the film -- Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. John
> McDougall, The Engine 2 Diet author Rip Esselstyn, and many others...
>
> Now, as 'Forks Over Knives' is introducing more people than ever
> before to the plant-based way to health, this accessible guide
> provides the information you need to adopt and maintain a plant-based
> diet. Features include:
>
> - Insights from the luminaries behind the film Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr.
> John McDougall, The Engine 2 Diet author Rip Esselstyn, and many
> others.
>
> - Success stories from converts to plant-based eating -- like
> San’Dera Prude, who no longer needs to medicate her diabetes, has
> lost weight, and* feels great!
>
> - The many benefits of a whole-foods, plant-based diet for you, for
> animals and the environment, and for our future
>
> - A helpful primer on crafting a healthy diet rich in unprocessed
> fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains, including tips on
> transitioning and essential kitchen tools.
>
> -*125 recipes from 25 champions of plant-based dining -- from
> Blueberry Oat Breakfast Muffins and Sunny Orange Yam Bisque to Garlic
> Rosemary Polenta* and Raspberry-Pear Crisp -- delicious, healthy, and
> for every meal, every*day.
>
> Forks over Knives Videos:**
>
> http://www.forksoverknives.com/media/videos/
>
> Trailer from Movie:
>
> http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer...knives/trailer
>
> Please see the documentary film*"Forks Over Knives." It could
> transform your life in ways you never thought possible. And it may
> just help start the seismic revolution in health care the world so
> badly needs.
>
> T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D.
> Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr., M.D.
>
> End of forwarded post from B. V.

"The feature film Forks Over Knives examines the profound claim that
most, if not all, of the degenerative diseases that afflict us can be
controlled, or even reversed, by rejecting our present menu of
animal-based and processed foods."

http://forksoverknives.com/
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>> Forwarded post from B. V.
>>
>> Forks over Knives
>>
>> Monday, September 5, 2011
>>
>> http://forksoverknives.com/
>>
>> For more than 2,800 years, the concept of eating plants in their
>> whole-food form has struggled to be heard and adopted as a way of
>> life. However, recent evidence shows that more than ever a plant-
>> based diet is not something to be ignored. In fact, eating a plant-
>> based diet has become an urgent matter from several perspectives. Not
>> only will it improve your health -- and the evidence behind this
>> claim is now overwhelming -- but it will also dramatically reduce
>> health care costs, as well as reduce violence to our environment and
>> to other sentient beings.
>>
>> The fact is our nation's economic stability, already crumbling due to
>> the repeated bursting of bubbles such as technology and housing, has
>> been hard hit by spiraling health costs that seem to have no end in
>> sight. Despite this, as a nation, we are sicker and fatter than we
>> have ever been. The epidemic of obesity and diabetes, especially in
>> the young, forecasts an economically unsustainable public health
>> challenge with the gloomy prophecy that today's children may not
>> outlive their parents.
>>
>> Who will protect the public? Not our government: The U.S. Department
>> of Agriculture's nutrition pyramid is laden with food that will
>> guarantee millions will suffer ill health. Not the American Dietetic
>> Association, which is controlled by food corporations. Not the
>> insurance industry, which profits by selling plans to the sick. Not
>> the pharmaceutical industry, which pockets billions from chronic
>> illnesses. And not the medical profession, in which doctors and
>> nurses receive virtually no training in nutrition or behavioral
>> modification, and are handsomely rewarded for administrating drugs
>> and employing technical expertise.
>>
>> What can save America is a plant-based diet, which will help
>> individuals recover their good health, and which in turn will set our
>> health care system right (as well as our economy). However, for this
>> plant-based diet to take hold, the public must be endowed with
>> nutritional literacy, the kind of knowledge that is portrayed in the
>> new documentary, "Forks Over Knives."
>>
>> "Forks Over Knives" focuses not just on the research that both of us
>> have been engaged in over the last four decades, whether in China and
>> Cornell or at the Cleveland Clinic; it also traces the journey of
>> several Americans as they move from a lifetime of eating mostly
>> animal-based and processed foods to a whole food plant-based diet,
>> and the extraordinary medical results that follow. It is educational,
>> entertaining, and literally life-saving.
>>
>> What if one simple change could save you from heart disease,
>> diabetes, and cancer? For decades, that question has fascinated a
>> small circle of impassioned doctors and researchers -- and now, their
>> life-changing research is making headlines in the hit documentary
>> Forks Over Knives. Their answer? Eat a whole-foods, plant-based diet
>> -- it could save your life. It may overturn most of the diet advice
>> you�ve heard -- but the experts behind Forks Over Knives aren't
>> afraid to make waves. In his book Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease,
>> Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn explained that eating meat, dairy, and oils
>> injures the lining of our blood vessels, causing heart disease, heart
>> attack, or stroke. In The China Study, Dr. Colin Campbell revealed
>> how cancer and other diseases skyrocket when eating meat and dairy is
>> the norm -- and plummet when a traditional plant-based diet persists.
>> And more and more experts are adding their voices to the cause.
>>
>> There is nothing else you can do for your health that can match the
>> benefits of a plant-based diet. Now, as Forks Over Knives is
>> introducing more people than ever before to the plant-based way to
>> health, this accessible guide provides the information you need to
>> adopt and maintain a plant-based diet. Features include: Insights
>> from the luminaries behind the film -- Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. John
>> McDougall, The Engine 2 Diet author Rip Esselstyn, and many others...
>>
>> Now, as 'Forks Over Knives' is introducing more people than ever
>> before to the plant-based way to health, this accessible guide
>> provides the information you need to adopt and maintain a plant-based
>> diet. Features include:
>>
>> - Insights from the luminaries behind the film Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr.
>> John McDougall, The Engine 2 Diet author Rip Esselstyn, and many
>> others.
>>
>> - Success stories from converts to plant-based eating -- like
>> San�Dera Prude, who no longer needs to medicate her diabetes, has
>> lost weight, and� feels great!
>>
>> - The many benefits of a whole-foods, plant-based diet for you, for
>> animals and the environment, and for our future
>>
>> - A helpful primer on crafting a healthy diet rich in unprocessed
>> fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains, including tips on
>> transitioning and essential kitchen tools.
>>
>> -�125 recipes from 25 champions of plant-based dining -- from
>> Blueberry Oat Breakfast Muffins and Sunny Orange Yam Bisque to Garlic
>> Rosemary Polenta� and Raspberry-Pear Crisp -- delicious, healthy, and
>> for every meal, every�day.
>>
>> Forks over Knives Videos:��
>>
>> http://www.forksoverknives.com/media/videos/
>>
>> Trailer from Movie:
>>
>> http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer...knives/trailer
>>
>> Please see the documentary film�"Forks Over Knives." It could
>> transform your life in ways you never thought possible. And it may
>> just help start the seismic revolution in health care the world so
>> badly needs.
>>
>> T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D.
>> Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr., M.D.
>>
>> End of forwarded post from B. V.
>
> "The feature film Forks Over Knives examines the profound claim that
> most, if not all, of the degenerative diseases that afflict us can be
> controlled, or even reversed, by rejecting our present menu of
> animal-based and processed foods."
>
> http://forksoverknives.com/
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti

I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
ridiculously high.

Is there any alternative?

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:06:30 GMT, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

>Forwarded post from B. V.
>
>Forks over Knives
>
>Monday, September 5, 2011
>
>http://forksoverknives.com/
>
>For more than 2,800 years, the concept of eating plants in their
>whole-food form has struggled to be heard and adopted as a way of
>life. However, recent evidence shows that more than ever a plant-
>based diet is not something to be ignored. In fact, eating a plant-
>based diet has become an urgent matter from several perspectives. Not
>only will it improve your health -- and the evidence behind this
>claim is now overwhelming -- but it will also dramatically reduce
>health care costs, as well as reduce violence to our environment and
>to other sentient beings.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. 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. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
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...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. 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 animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > Forwarded post from B. V.
> >
> > Forks over Knives
> >
> > Monday, September 5, 2011
> >
> > http://forksoverknives.com/
> >
> > For more than 2,800 years, the concept of eating plants in their
> > whole-food form has struggled to be heard and adopted as a way of
> > life. However, recent evidence shows that more than ever a plant-
> > based diet is not something to be ignored. In fact, eating a plant-
> > based diet has become an urgent matter from several perspectives. Not
> > only will it improve your health -- and the evidence behind this
> > claim is now overwhelming -- but it will also dramatically reduce
> > health care costs, as well as reduce violence to our environment and
> > to other sentient beings.
> >
> > The fact is our nation's economic stability, already crumbling due to
> > the repeated bursting of bubbles such as technology and housing, has
> > been hard hit by spiraling health costs that seem to have no end in
> > sight. Despite this, as a nation, we are sicker and fatter than we
> > have ever been. The epidemic of obesity and diabetes, especially in
> > the young, forecasts an economically unsustainable public health
> > challenge with the gloomy prophecy that today's children may not
> > outlive their parents.
> >
> > Who will protect the public? Not our government: The U.S. Department
> > of Agriculture's nutrition pyramid is laden with food that will
> > guarantee millions will suffer ill health. Not the American Dietetic
> > Association, which is controlled by food corporations. Not the
> > insurance industry, which profits by selling plans to the sick. Not
> > the pharmaceutical industry, which pockets billions from chronic
> > illnesses. And not the medical profession, in which doctors and
> > nurses receive virtually no training in nutrition or behavioral
> > modification, and are handsomely rewarded for administrating drugs
> > and employing technical expertise.
> >
> > What can save America is a plant-based diet, which will help
> > individuals recover their good health, and which in turn will set our
> > health care system right (as well as our economy). However, for this
> > plant-based diet to take hold, the public must be endowed with
> > nutritional literacy, the kind of knowledge that is portrayed in the
> > new documentary, "Forks Over Knives."
> >
> > "Forks Over Knives" focuses not just on the research that both of us
> > have been engaged in over the last four decades, whether in China and
> > Cornell or at the Cleveland Clinic; it also traces the journey of
> > several Americans as they move from a lifetime of eating mostly
> > animal-based and processed foods to a whole food plant-based diet,
> > and the extraordinary medical results that follow. It is educational,
> > entertaining, and literally life-saving.
> >
> > What if one simple change could save you from heart disease,
> > diabetes, and cancer? For decades, that question has fascinated a
> > small circle of impassioned doctors and researchers -- and now, their
> > life-changing research is making headlines in the hit documentary
> > Forks Over Knives. Their answer? Eat a whole-foods, plant-based diet
> > -- it could save your life. It may overturn most of the diet advice
> > you’ve heard -- but the experts behind Forks Over Knives aren't
> > afraid to make waves. In his book Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease,
> > Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn explained that eating meat, dairy, and oils
> > injures the lining of our blood vessels, causing heart disease, heart
> > attack, or stroke. In The China Study, Dr. Colin Campbell revealed
> > how cancer and other diseases skyrocket when eating meat and dairy is
> > the norm -- and plummet when a traditional plant-based diet persists.
> > And more and more experts are adding their voices to the cause.
> >
> > There is nothing else you can do for your health that can match the
> > benefits of a plant-based diet. Now, as Forks Over Knives is
> > introducing more people than ever before to the plant-based way to
> > health, this accessible guide provides the information you need to
> > adopt and maintain a plant-based diet. Features include: Insights
> > from the luminaries behind the film -- Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. John
> > McDougall, The Engine 2 Diet author Rip Esselstyn, and many others...
> >
> > Now, as 'Forks Over Knives' is introducing more people than ever
> > before to the plant-based way to health, this accessible guide
> > provides the information you need to adopt and maintain a plant-based
> > diet. Features include:
> >
> > - Insights from the luminaries behind the film Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr.
> > John McDougall, The Engine 2 Diet author Rip Esselstyn, and many
> > others.
> >
> > - Success stories from converts to plant-based eating -- like
> > San’Dera Prude, who no longer needs to medicate her diabetes, has
> > lost weight, and* feels great!
> >
> > - The many benefits of a whole-foods, plant-based diet for you, for
> > animals and the environment, and for our future
> >
> > - A helpful primer on crafting a healthy diet rich in unprocessed
> > fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains, including tips on
> > transitioning and essential kitchen tools.
> >
> > -*125 recipes from 25 champions of plant-based dining -- from
> > Blueberry Oat Breakfast Muffins and Sunny Orange Yam Bisque to Garlic
> > Rosemary Polenta* and Raspberry-Pear Crisp -- delicious, healthy, and
> > for every meal, every*day.
> >
> > Forks over Knives Videos:**
> >
> > http://www.forksoverknives.com/media/videos/
> >
> > Trailer from Movie:
> >
> > http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer...knives/trailer
> >
> > Please see the documentary film*"Forks Over Knives." It could
> > transform your life in ways you never thought possible. And it may
> > just help start the seismic revolution in health care the world so
> > badly needs.
> >
> > T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D.
> > Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr., M.D.
> >
> > End of forwarded post from B. V.
>
> "The feature film Forks Over Knives examines the profound claim that
> most, if not all, of the degenerative diseases that afflict us can be
> controlled, or even reversed, by rejecting our present menu of
> animal-based and processed foods."
>
> http://forksoverknives.com/

CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta says Forks Over Knives is "A great film!" See
the tweet he

http://twitter.com/#%21/sanjayguptaC...97935572238336

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum > wrote:

>I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
>lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
>not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>ridiculously high.
>
>Is there any alternative?

Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping yourself,
contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to something that
works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to less wildlife
deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and surely less
than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you don't want to
eat beef...

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>
>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>> ridiculously high.
>>
>> Is there any alternative?
>
> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping yourself,
> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to something that
> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to less wildlife
> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and surely less
> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you don't want to
> eat beef...

You must be kidding. Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>> ridiculously high.
>>>
>>> Is there any alternative?
>>
>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping yourself,
>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to something that
>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to less wildlife
>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and surely less
>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you don't want to
>> eat beef...
>
>You must be kidding.

What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such facts amusing
somehow.

>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.

Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc large
areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle are by
eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>
>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping
>>> yourself,
>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to
>>> something that
>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to less
>>> wildlife
>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and surely
>>> less
>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you don't
>>> want to
>>> eat beef...
>>
>>You must be kidding.
>
> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such facts
> amusing
> somehow.
>
>>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>
> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc large
> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle are by
> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?

You make some good points here. stick to them. The Logic of the Larder is
bullcrap.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:47:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>
>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping
>>>>> yourself,
>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to
>>>>> something that
>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to less
>>>>> wildlife
>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and
>>>>> surely
>>>>> less
>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you
>>>>> don't
>>>>> want to
>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>
>>>>You must be kidding.
>>>
>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such facts
>>> amusing
>>> somehow.
>>>
>>>>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>
>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc
>>> large
>>> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle are
>>> by
>>> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>
>>You make some good points here.
>
> You can appreciate some of the good points I make. Not all.

I appreciate the good points you make, even though I oppose your idiotic and
misguided LoL campaign, unlike you who refuses to appreciate the positive
efforts of people you oppose.


>
>>stick to them.
>
> I do. I stick to all of them...the ones you like and the ones you hate.
> It's
> surprising that you can appreciate this aspect though, since it works
> against
> the misnomer.

Maybe that should clue you in, I don't support the /so-called/ "misnomer".

>
>>. . . [having appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock] is
>>bullcrap.

I said the LoL is bullcrap, not appreciation for AW.

I appreciate AW, and those who promote it successfully, no matter what other
agendas they have.

You don't promote AW, you promote having self-serving, fake "appreciation"
that has never helped one single animal ever.

>
> Not to those of us who can appreciate them. The pastures also provide
> better
> environments for wildlife as well as lives of positive value for cattle.
> Maybe
> you can appreciate the lives of the wildlife who benefit even though you
> can't
> appreciate the lives of the cattle? You acted like you could appreciate
> life for
> some wildlife in the past, but then you acted that way toward livestock as
> well
> before your unlearning.

I only "unlearn" wrong ideas. Are you ever going to do the same?

On 9/5/2011 5:06 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Forwarded post from B. V.
>
> Forks over Knives
>
> Monday, September 5, 2011
>
> http://forksoverknives.com/
>
> For more than 2,800 years, the concept of eating plants in their
> whole-food form has struggled to be heard and adopted as a way of
> life.

If the idea had any merit, it would have prevailed by now.

On 9/13/2011 12:54 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>
>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping yourself,
>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to something that
>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to less wildlife
>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and surely less
>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you don't want to
>>> eat beef...
>>
>> You must be kidding.
>
> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such facts amusing
> somehow.
>
>> Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>> our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>
> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc large
> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than

It isn't necessary to do any of that, of course. Once again, ****wit
presents a false choice. He does that a lot.

On 9/15/2011 3:39 PM, dh@. wrote:

>> stick to them.
>
> I do. I stick to all of them...the ones you like and the ones you hate. It's
> surprising that you can appreciate this aspect though, since it works against
> the misnomer.
>
>> . . . The Logic of the Larder is bullcrap.
>
> Not to those of us who

It is bullshit, period. It's rank sophistry.

On 9/19/2011 9:24 AM, dh@. wrote:

>>>> You make some good points here.
>>>
>>> You can appreciate some of the good points I make. Not all.
>>
>> I appreciate the good points you make, even though I oppose your idiotic and
>> misguided LoL campaign,
>> unlike you who refuses to appreciate the positive efforts of people you oppose.
>
> Like what?
>
>>>> stick to them.
>>>
>>> I do. I stick to all of them...the ones you like and the ones you hate.
>>> It's
>>> surprising that you can appreciate this aspect though, since it works
>>> against
>>> the misnomer.
>>
>> Maybe that should clue you in, I don't support the /so-called/ "misnomer".
>
> You did openly when you first began posting

It's not a <chortle> "misnomer."


>>>> . . . [having appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock] is
>>>> bullcrap.
>>
>> I said the LoL is bullcrap, not appreciation for AW.
>
> You say it's bullcrap whether

It is bullshit. Causing animals to "get to experience life" is no
justification for killing and eating them.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:29:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:47:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
>>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
>>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping
>>>>>> yourself,
>>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to
>>>>>> something that
>>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to less
>>>>>> wildlife
>>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and
>>>>>> surely
>>>>>> less
>>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> want to
>>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>>
>>>>>You must be kidding.
>>>>
>>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such facts
>>>> amusing
>>>> somehow.
>>>>
>>>>>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>
>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc
>>>> large
>>>> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle are
>>>> by
>>>> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>
>>>You make some good points here.
>>
>> You can appreciate some of the good points I make. Not all.
>
>I appreciate the good points you make, even though I oppose your idiotic and
>misguided . . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock] campaign,
>unlike you who refuses to appreciate the positive efforts of people you oppose.

Like what?

>>>stick to them.
>>
>> I do. I stick to all of them...the ones you like and the ones you hate.
>> It's
>> surprising that you can appreciate this aspect though, since it works
>> against
>> the misnomer.
>
>Maybe that should clue you in, I don't support the /so-called/ "misnomer".

You did openly when you first began posting, and almost always have in posts
you make to me. The quotes I have of you acting like you had some appreciation
before the unlearning were mostly directed at other people if I remember
correctly.

>>>. . . [having appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock] is
>>>bullcrap.
>
>I said . . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock] is bullcrap, not appreciation for AW.

You say it's bullcrap whether AW regulations are the reason or just basic
consideration by farmers is the reason.

>> The pastures also provide
>> better
>> environments for wildlife as well as lives of positive value for cattle.
>> Maybe
>> you can appreciate the lives of the wildlife who benefit even though you
>> can't
>> appreciate the lives of the cattle? You acted like you could appreciate
>> life for
>> some wildlife in the past, but then you acted that way toward livestock as
>> well
>> before your unlearning.
>
>I only "unlearn" wrong ideas.

So you're now saying you don't appreciate lives of positive value for
livestock even when you want to think eliminationists are responsible for them
being that way?

On 9/19/2011 1:58 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:29:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:47:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find
>>>>>>>>> that I am
>>>>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and
>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping
>>>>>>>> yourself,
>>>>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to
>>>>>>>> something that
>>>>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing
>>>>>>>> to less
>>>>>>>> wildlife
>>>>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and
>>>>>>>> surely
>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You must be kidding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such facts
>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>> somehow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>>> our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc
>>>>>> large
>>>>>> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than
>>>>>> cattle are
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>>>
>>>>> You make some good points here.
>>>>
>>>> You can appreciate some of the good points I make. Not all.
>>>
>>> I appreciate the good points you make, even though I oppose your
>>> idiotic and
>>> misguided . . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for
>>> livestock] campaign,
>>> unlike you who refuses to appreciate the positive efforts of people
>>> you oppose.
>>
>> Like what?
>
> The efforts of PeTA have improved the lives of millions and millions of
> animals. Just because they wish those animals were not raised in the
> first place, you refuse to applaud their efforts. In other words you
> actually care nothing about the suffering of animals, something you have
> demonstrated many times.

Not in doubt:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - July 31, 2003

****wit has no concern at all for the animals' welfare, and not even
very much for the fact that they live. He *claims* to appreciate their
lives, but he doesn't really appreciate the lives much, and his
"appreciation" certainly doesn't mean anything to the animals.




> All you care about is convincing people to get
> on board your "appreciation" train, an idea that does not help a single
> animal.

Exactly. His supposed "appreciation" is meaningless to the animals.


>>>>> stick to them.
>>>>
>>>> I do. I stick to all of them...the ones you like and the ones you hate.
>>>> It's
>>>> surprising that you can appreciate this aspect though, since it works
>>>> against
>>>> the misnomer.
>>>
>>> Maybe that should clue you in, I don't support the /so-called/
>>> "misnomer".
>>
>> You did openly when you first began posting
>
> That's not the issue and you know it.
>
>> , and almost always have in posts
>> you make to me.
>
> That is a lie. I oppose your phony and ill-conceived "appreciation"
> bullshit, that's all.
>
>> The quotes I have of you acting like you had some appreciation
>> before the unlearning were mostly directed at other people if I remember
>> correctly.
>
> You need to stop mangling quotes from years ago to support your
> misconception and listen to what people are telling you now.
>
> The LoL, the "appreciation" game, is a lost cause. It is empty,
> self-serving, lip service.
>
>>>>> . . . [having appreciation for lives of positive value for
>>>>> livestock] is
>>>>> bullcrap.
>>>
>>> I said . . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock]
>>> is bullcrap, not appreciation for AW.
>>
>> You say it's bullcrap whether AW regulations are the reason or just basic
>> consideration by farmers is the reason.
>
> The LoL is complete bullcrap, you try to use AW to disguise and
> legitimize it.
>
>>>> The pastures also provide
>>>> better
>>>> environments for wildlife as well as lives of positive value for
>>>> cattle.
>>>> Maybe
>>>> you can appreciate the lives of the wildlife who benefit even though
>>>> you
>>>> can't
>>>> appreciate the lives of the cattle? You acted like you could appreciate
>>>> life for
>>>> some wildlife in the past, but then you acted that way toward
>>>> livestock as
>>>> well
>>>> before your unlearning.
>>>
>>> I only "unlearn" wrong ideas.
>>
>> So you're now saying you don't appreciate lives of positive value for
>> livestock even when you want to think eliminationists are responsible
>> for them
>> being that way?
>
> As far as I can decode your tortured prose, that sounds like what you're
> doing, refusing to applaud the efforts of "eliminationists" who work to
> help reduce the suffering of livestock. While you sit on your computer
> feeling good because you "appreciate" that animals are being born
> because you demand meat, they are actually doing something.
>
>
>
>
>

On 9/20/2011 11:37 AM, dh@. wrote:

>>>> You must be kidding.
>>>
>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such facts amusing
>>> somehow.
>>>
>>>> Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>> our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>
>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc large
>>> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle are by
>>> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>
>> It isn't necessary to do any of that, of course. Once again, ****wit presents
>> a false choice. He does that a lot.
>
> It's done whether it's necessary or

It isn't necessary to do it, so for you to present your false choice is,
as usual, bullshit.

On 9/20/2011 11:37 AM, dh@. wrote:
>[...]

Fix your ****ing time, Goober. It's wrong.

Subject: FORKS OVER KNIVES
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:37:38 -0700
Message-ID: >
References: [...]
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.1/32.783


You are not -0700 behind Greenwich time, you stupid cocksucking felching
cracKKKer. Fix your ****ing system.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:58:25 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:29:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:47:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:47dv67578esv99c7lu8b4amr7iuqiftsju@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be
>>>>>>>>> helping
>>>>>>>>> yourself,
>>>>>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to
>>>>>>>>> something that
>>>>>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to
>>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>>> wildlife
>>>>>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and
>>>>>>>>> surely
>>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You must be kidding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such
>>>>>>> facts
>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>> somehow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>>>>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc
>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You make some good points here.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can appreciate some of the good points I make. Not all.
>>>>
>>>>I appreciate the good points you make, even though I oppose your idiotic
>>>>and
>>>>misguided . . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock]
>>>>campaign,
>>>>unlike you who refuses to appreciate the positive efforts of people you
>>>>oppose.
>>>
>>> Like what?
>>
>>The efforts of PeTA have improved the lives of millions and millions of
>>animals.
>
> Which animals, and to what extent did their efforts improve them?
> Remember
> that when you can't provide any examples, we will still have no examples.

PETA called off its Murder King campaign when the company agreed to do the
following things:
Conduct announced and unannounced inspections of its slaughterhouses,
including chicken slaughterhouses, and take action against facilities that
fail inspections
Establish animal-handling verification guidelines for all the
slaughterhouses of its suppliers
Confine no more than five hens to each battery cage, require that the birds
be able to stand fully upright, and require the presence of two water
drinkers per cage (Although confining five hens to a tiny cage is still
horribly cruel, this number is two fewer than the industry standard and
represents a marked improvement for animals.)
Stop purchasing from suppliers that "force-molt" hens (i.e., starve them for
up to two weeks in order to force them to lay more eggs)
Develop auditing procedures for the handling of "broiler" chickens
Institute humane handling procedures for chickens at slaughterhouses
Begin purchasing pork from farms that do not confine sows to stalls


>>Just because they wish those animals were not raised in the first
>>place, you refuse to applaud their efforts. In other words you actually
>>care nothing about the suffering of animals,
>
> I take the suffering AND the positive aspects into consideration.

What does "taking the positive aspects into consideration" accomplish? Tell
us how it helps animals. Just one thing, anything. No?


> Eliminationists only consider the suffering without considering the
> positive
> aspects for any animals involved with raising livestock. Not for wildlife,
> and
> certainly not for the livestock they dishonestly pretend to care about.

Yet THEY actually do something constructive while you do nothing but "take
the positive aspects into consideration" which means exactly nothing. Who's
actually pretending to care about animals?

I think we know, don't we?

>
>>something you have demonstrated
>>many times. All you care about is convincing people to get on board your
>>"appreciation" train, an idea that does not help a single animal.
>
> If PeTA went at it with a different approach, and encourage people to
> eat
> particular animal products because they provide decent lives for the
> animals, it
> would be an entirely different thing. Then more emphesis and interest
> would be
> on providing decent lives for livestock and people wouldn't feel the need
> to
> wipe them out. That would be IF they cared about the animals, which we can
> see
> they obviously do not. They/You are OPPOSED to caring about the animals as
> you
> demonstrate consistently. The situation is never going to change. Only you
> eliminationists COULD change from promoting elimination to promoting
> giving a
> shit, but you don't and don't want anyone else to. That's because you
> don't care
> at all about the animals. You're only care is about the fact that it
> disturbs
> you because other people eat meat, and that's ALL you people are capable
> of
> really caring about. If you cared about the animals you would encourage
> appreciation for lives of positive value even if you yourself were honest
> about
> not contributing to any...you would still approve of those who do. I know
> from
> examples from personal experience. For example I don't eat muton, but I
> can
> appreciate lives of positive value for sheep even so, just as I can for
> types of
> animals I do consume. The ONLY reason to oppose appreciation, is because
> you are
> opposed to the lives themselves.
>
> Dooooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

PeTA's approach to promoting animal welfare is reasonably effective and
consistent with their vegan agenda. Promoting free range products, etc, can
be done by others.

>>>>>>stick to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do. I stick to all of them...the ones you like and the ones you
>>>>> hate.
>>>>> It's
>>>>> surprising that you can appreciate this aspect though, since it works
>>>>> against
>>>>> the misnomer.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe that should clue you in, I don't support the /so-called/
>>>>"misnomer".
>>>
>>> You did openly when you first began posting
>>
>>That's not the issue and you know it.
>
> Why you began to lie is a big issue to both of us, but in different
> ways.
> You wanted to be like Goo, so he told you to start lying about your true
> position. He let you know that no one who is in favor of AW over
> elimination and
> has good reasons to feel that way, could respect the oppinion of
> eliminationists. So he advised you to just start lying and say that you're
> in
> favor of AW, and that you began eating meat, in an attempt to get true AW
> supporting meat consumers to respect you. While that was going on Goo made
> a
> point of chasing off all of the true AW supporters that he could, so now
> I'm the
> only one left. Now I'm the only audience you and Goo who are just
> dishonest
> eliminationists have left, and I know you're eliminationists. So you and
> Goo
> still denying it at this point is about as stupid as it gets.

Calling he and I ARAs is as stupid as it gets. You are without question one
of the biggest nitwits on usenet.

>>>, and almost always have in posts
>>> you make to me.
>>
>>That is a lie. I oppose your phony and ill-conceived "appreciation"
>>bullshit, that's all.
>>
>>> The quotes I have of you acting like you had some appreciation
>>> before the unlearning were mostly directed at other people if I remember
>>> correctly.
>>
>>You need to stop mangling quotes from years ago to support your
>>misconception and listen to what people are telling you now.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, I always try to get you to try to back up
> your
> shit, and usually spend most of my time challenging you to try, pointing
> out
> when you can't, and pointing out when you're lying.

You spend your time misquoting, equivocating and generally being an idiot,
like below.

>
>>. . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock], the
>>"appreciation" game,
>>is a lost cause. It is empty, self-serving, lip service.
>
> ONLY eliminationists have any reason to feel that way. Those of us in
> favor
> of AW over elimination have much reason to appreciate lives of positive
> value
> for the animals.

Meaningless tripe.

>
>>>>>>. . . [having appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock]
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>bullcrap.
>>>>
>>>>I said . . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock] is
>>>>bullcrap, not appreciation for AW.
>>>
>>> You say it's bullcrap whether AW regulations are the reason or just
>>> basic
>>> consideration by farmers is the reason.
>>
>>. . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock] is complete
>>bullcrap,
>
> ONLY to eliminationists, but not to people who favor AW over
> elimination.
>
>>you try to use AW to disguise and legitimize it.
>
> Appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock involves
> appreciating
> when AW regulations are responsible for them.

It also involves appreciating when people you may disagree with contribute
to change that benefits animals, something you are incapable of doing.


>
>>>>> The pastures also provide
>>>>> better
>>>>> environments for wildlife as well as lives of positive value for
>>>>> cattle.
>>>>> Maybe
>>>>> you can appreciate the lives of the wildlife who benefit even though
>>>>> you
>>>>> can't
>>>>> appreciate the lives of the cattle? You acted like you could
>>>>> appreciate
>>>>> life for
>>>>> some wildlife in the past, but then you acted that way toward
>>>>> livestock
>>>>> as
>>>>> well
>>>>> before your unlearning.
>>>>
>>>>I only "unlearn" wrong ideas.
>>>
>>> So you're now saying you don't appreciate lives of positive value for
>>> livestock even when you want to think eliminationists are responsible
>>> for
>>> them
>>> being that way?
>>
>>As far as I can decode your tortured prose, that sounds like what you're
>>doing,
>
> You lie that I never appreciate them. You can't even keep your own lies
> straight.

You don't appreciate lives of positive value when "eliminationists" have
contributed to them, which is what you just accused me of.

You appreciate the meat, period.

> You BOAST that you can't appreciate them. Are you boasting that you
> can't
> appreciate them even when you want to think eliminationists had something
> to do
> with them?

You BOAST that you can appreciate "lives of positive value" but when asked
to say what that appreciation does, which animals it helps, you resort to
equivocation and hand-waving, which is what you will do now, GO:

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:09:02 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:54:16 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>
>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping yourself,
>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to something that
>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to less wildlife
>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and surely less
>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you don't want to
>>>> eat beef...
>>>
>>>You must be kidding.
>>
>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such facts amusing
>>somehow.
>>
>>>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>
>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc large
>>areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle are by
>>eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>
>It isn't necessary to do any of that

It's done whether it's necessary or not Goob.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:58:25 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:29:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:47:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I
>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be
>>>>>>>> helping
>>>>>>>> yourself,
>>>>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to
>>>>>>>> something that
>>>>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to
>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>> wildlife
>>>>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and
>>>>>>>> surely
>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You must be kidding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such
>>>>>> facts
>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>> somehow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>>>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc
>>>>>> large
>>>>>> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>>>
>>>>>You make some good points here.
>>>>
>>>> You can appreciate some of the good points I make. Not all.
>>>
>>>I appreciate the good points you make, even though I oppose your idiotic
>>>and
>>>misguided . . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock]
>>>campaign,
>>>unlike you who refuses to appreciate the positive efforts of people you
>>>oppose.
>>
>> Like what?
>
>The efforts of PeTA have improved the lives of millions and millions of
>animals.

Which animals, and to what extent did their efforts improve them? Remember
that when you can't provide any examples, we will still have no examples.

>Just because they wish those animals were not raised in the first
>place, you refuse to applaud their efforts. In other words you actually
>care nothing about the suffering of animals,

I take the suffering AND the positive aspects into consideration.
Eliminationists only consider the suffering without considering the positive
aspects for any animals involved with raising livestock. Not for wildlife, and
certainly not for the livestock they dishonestly pretend to care about.

>something you have demonstrated
>many times. All you care about is convincing people to get on board your
>"appreciation" train, an idea that does not help a single animal.

If PeTA went at it with a different approach, and encourage people to eat
particular animal products because they provide decent lives for the animals, it
would be an entirely different thing. Then more emphesis and interest would be
on providing decent lives for livestock and people wouldn't feel the need to
wipe them out. That would be IF they cared about the animals, which we can see
they obviously do not. They/You are OPPOSED to caring about the animals as you
demonstrate consistently. The situation is never going to change. Only you
eliminationists COULD change from promoting elimination to promoting giving a
shit, but you don't and don't want anyone else to. That's because you don't care
at all about the animals. You're only care is about the fact that it disturbs
you because other people eat meat, and that's ALL you people are capable of
really caring about. If you cared about the animals you would encourage
appreciation for lives of positive value even if you yourself were honest about
not contributing to any...you would still approve of those who do. I know from
examples from personal experience. For example I don't eat muton, but I can
appreciate lives of positive value for sheep even so, just as I can for types of
animals I do consume. The ONLY reason to oppose appreciation, is because you are
opposed to the lives themselves.

Dooooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

>>>>>stick to them.
>>>>
>>>> I do. I stick to all of them...the ones you like and the ones you
>>>> hate.
>>>> It's
>>>> surprising that you can appreciate this aspect though, since it works
>>>> against
>>>> the misnomer.
>>>
>>>Maybe that should clue you in, I don't support the /so-called/ "misnomer".
>>
>> You did openly when you first began posting
>
>That's not the issue and you know it.

Why you began to lie is a big issue to both of us, but in different ways.
You wanted to be like Goo, so he told you to start lying about your true
position. He let you know that no one who is in favor of AW over elimination and
has good reasons to feel that way, could respect the oppinion of
eliminationists. So he advised you to just start lying and say that you're in
favor of AW, and that you began eating meat, in an attempt to get true AW
supporting meat consumers to respect you. While that was going on Goo made a
point of chasing off all of the true AW supporters that he could, so now I'm the
only one left. Now I'm the only audience you and Goo who are just dishonest
eliminationists have left, and I know you're eliminationists. So you and Goo
still denying it at this point is about as stupid as it gets.

>>, and almost always have in posts
>> you make to me.
>
>That is a lie. I oppose your phony and ill-conceived "appreciation"
>bullshit, that's all.
>
>> The quotes I have of you acting like you had some appreciation
>> before the unlearning were mostly directed at other people if I remember
>> correctly.
>
>You need to stop mangling quotes from years ago to support your
>misconception and listen to what people are telling you now.

In case you hadn't noticed, I always try to get you to try to back up your
shit, and usually spend most of my time challenging you to try, pointing out
when you can't, and pointing out when you're lying.

>. . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock], the "appreciation" game,
>is a lost cause. It is empty, self-serving, lip service.

ONLY eliminationists have any reason to feel that way. Those of us in favor
of AW over elimination have much reason to appreciate lives of positive value
for the animals.

>>>>>. . . [having appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock] is
>>>>>bullcrap.
>>>
>>>I said . . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock] is
>>>bullcrap, not appreciation for AW.
>>
>> You say it's bullcrap whether AW regulations are the reason or just
>> basic
>> consideration by farmers is the reason.
>
>. . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock] is complete bullcrap,

ONLY to eliminationists, but not to people who favor AW over elimination.

>you try to use AW to disguise and legitimize it.

Appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock involves appreciating
when AW regulations are responsible for them.

>>>> The pastures also provide
>>>> better
>>>> environments for wildlife as well as lives of positive value for cattle.
>>>> Maybe
>>>> you can appreciate the lives of the wildlife who benefit even though you
>>>> can't
>>>> appreciate the lives of the cattle? You acted like you could appreciate
>>>> life for
>>>> some wildlife in the past, but then you acted that way toward livestock
>>>> as
>>>> well
>>>> before your unlearning.
>>>
>>>I only "unlearn" wrong ideas.
>>
>> So you're now saying you don't appreciate lives of positive value for
>> livestock even when you want to think eliminationists are responsible for
>> them
>> being that way?
>
>As far as I can decode your tortured prose, that sounds like what you're
>doing,

You lie that I never appreciate them. You can't even keep your own lies
straight.

You BOAST that you can't appreciate them. Are you boasting that you can't
appreciate them even when you want to think eliminationists had something to do
with them?

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:10:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:58:25 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:29:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:0kv477hjku1c7pnq2ffq2q3b1gq9tnu3nd@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:47:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:47dv67578esv99c7lu8b4amr7iuqiftsju@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be
>>>>>>>>>>> helping
>>>>>>>>>>> yourself,
>>>>>>>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to
>>>>>>>>>>> something that
>>>>>>>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>>>>> wildlife
>>>>>>>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> surely
>>>>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You must be kidding.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such
>>>>>>>>> facts
>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>> somehow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>>>>>>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting
>>>>>>>>> etc
>>>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>>>> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than
>>>>>>>>> cattle
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You make some good points here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can appreciate some of the good points I make. Not all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I appreciate the good points you make, even though I oppose your
>>>>>>idiotic
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>misguided . . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for
>>>>>>livestock]
>>>>>>campaign,
>>>>>>unlike you who refuses to appreciate the positive efforts of people
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>oppose.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like what?
>>>>
>>>>The efforts of PeTA have improved the lives of millions and millions of
>>>>animals.
>>>
>>> Which animals, and to what extent did their efforts improve them?
>>> Remember
>>> that when you can't provide any examples, we will still have no
>>> examples.
>>
>>PETA called off its Murder King campaign when the company agreed to do the
>>following things:
>>Conduct announced and unannounced inspections of its slaughterhouses,
>>including chicken slaughterhouses, and take action against facilities that
>>fail inspections
>>Establish animal-handling verification guidelines for all the
>>slaughterhouses of its suppliers
>>Confine no more than five hens to each battery cage, require that the
>>birds
>>be able to stand fully upright, and require the presence of two water
>>drinkers per cage (Although confining five hens to a tiny cage is still
>>horribly cruel, this number is two fewer than the industry standard and
>>represents a marked improvement for animals.)
>>Stop purchasing from suppliers that "force-molt" hens (i.e., starve them
>>for
>>up to two weeks in order to force them to lay more eggs)
>>Develop auditing procedures for the handling of "broiler" chickens
>>Institute humane handling procedures for chickens at slaughterhouses
>
> They did good then and I admit it. And aren't you glad that this time
> you
> could back up a claim you made? Very unusual.

Not unusual, normal. But you could have checked it for yourself at any time.

But I give you credit for admitting you were wrong, that /is/ unusual. It's
not that hard is it? Doesn't hurt at all does it? Actually feels good
doesn't it?


>>Begin purchasing pork from farms that do not confine sows to stalls
>
> That results in more suffering for pigs, so I don't agree with that
> one.
> Interesting that it's the last one and also the only one I don't agree
> with.
>
>>>>Just because they wish those animals were not raised in the first
>>>>place, you refuse to applaud their efforts. In other words you actually
>>>>care nothing about the suffering of animals,
>>>
>>> I take the suffering AND the positive aspects into consideration.
>>
>>What does "taking the positive aspects into consideration" accomplish?
>>Tell
>>us how it helps animals. Just one thing, anything.
>
> What did I tell you?

When I ask that question you never give me a straight answer. Usually you
equivocate, make some ridiculous accusation about me being opposed to AW, or
as in this case, answer a question with a question. But, you see, there /is/
no good answer, because "taking the positive aspects into consideration" as
you put it, is just bullshit.


>
>>No?
>>
>>
>>> Eliminationists only consider the suffering without considering the
>>> positive
>>> aspects for any animals involved with raising livestock. Not for
>>> wildlife,
>>> and
>>> certainly not for the livestock they dishonestly pretend to care about.
>>
>>Yet THEY actually do something constructive while you do nothing but
>>"take
>>the positive aspects into consideration" which means exactly nothing.
>>Who's
>>actually pretending to care about animals?
>>
>>I think we know, don't we?
>
> I admitted they did good, but if you want to be like that about it I
> could
> insist you find reason to believe that Burger King had not planned on
> doing all
> of those things of their own accord and PeTA only dishonestly made it
> APPEAR
> that they had anything to do with it. I do suspect that is the case, but
> wasn't
> going to mention it.

If I recall Burger King issued a press conference where they credited PeTA
with getting them to make those changes.

But the point is, "taking the positive aspects into consideration" leads to
no action, it benefits no animal, it does nothing. What we should always do
is "take the negative aspects into consideration", that way we can take
action to remedy them. For example when you choose free range you have done
so because you have taken the negative aspects of confinement into
consideration, not because you considered that the animals were getting a
"benefit".
>
>>>>something you have demonstrated
>>>>many times. All you care about is convincing people to get on board your
>>>>"appreciation" train, an idea that does not help a single animal.
>>>
>>> If PeTA went at it with a different approach, and encourage people to
>>> eat
>>> particular animal products because they provide decent lives for the
>>> animals, it
>>> would be an entirely different thing. Then more emphesis and interest
>>> would be
>>> on providing decent lives for livestock and people wouldn't feel the
>>> need
>>> to
>>> wipe them out. That would be IF they cared about the animals, which we
>>> can
>>> see
>>> they obviously do not. They/You are OPPOSED to caring about the animals
>>> as
>>> you
>>> demonstrate consistently. The situation is never going to change. Only
>>> you
>>> eliminationists COULD change from promoting elimination to promoting
>>> giving a
>>> shit, but you don't and don't want anyone else to. That's because you
>>> don't care
>>> at all about the animals. You're only care is about the fact that it
>>> disturbs
>>> you because other people eat meat, and that's ALL you people are capable
>>> of
>>> really caring about. If you cared about the animals you would encourage
>>> appreciation for lives of positive value even if you yourself were
>>> honest
>>> about
>>> not contributing to any...you would still approve of those who do. I
>>> know
>>> from
>>> examples from personal experience. For example I don't eat muton, but I
>>> can
>>> appreciate lives of positive value for sheep even so, just as I can for
>>> types of
>>> animals I do consume. The ONLY reason to oppose appreciation, is because
>>> you are
>>> opposed to the lives themselves.
>>>
>>> Dooooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
>>
>>PeTA's approach to promoting animal welfare is reasonably effective and
>>consistent with their vegan agenda. Promoting free range products, etc,
>>can
>>be done by others.
>
> The ****ing "others" get attacked by people like you and PeTA.

That's a bald-faced lie. I have never attacked anyone for promoting humane
farming, I do it myself.

Why do you lie so much?

> A perfect
> example of that same exact thing is you and Goo attacking me for over a
> decade
> for suggesting something that would do nothing except create more interest
> in
> how livestock are raised.

The LoL creates nothing, contributes nothing to the discussion. It's
sophistry.

What promotes better lives for livestock is people taking the negative
aspects into consideration and working to correct them. Considering that
life is a benefit to animals leads nowhere except perhaps to apathy.

> Do you remember Didderot? We discussed that same sort
> of thing through email, and he's one of the only people I've discussed
> this with
> through email. He tried specifically to be a humane farmer, and
> appreciating
> lives of positive value for livestock was so much a part of his life that
> he had
> never known anything else. The same is true of most of the farmers I've
> known in
> person.
> There was also a guy who did the same thing more specifically with
> animals...Didderot was more of a crop farmer, mostly rice. That guy came
> in to
> tell people about humanely raised and grass raised animal products, but
> wouldn't
> tell people exactly where they could get them until they emailed him a few
> times
> and he sort of screened them specifically because of eliminationist
> terrorism.
> So since you're "they're" champion, tell me why ANYONE who specifically
> raises
> animals humanely should have to worry about that making him a special
> target for
> eliminationist terrorism. Go:

That question has nothing to do with me, and you know it.

>>>>>>>>stick to them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do. I stick to all of them...the ones you like and the ones you
>>>>>>> hate.
>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>> surprising that you can appreciate this aspect though, since it
>>>>>>> works
>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>> the misnomer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe that should clue you in, I don't support the /so-called/
>>>>>>"misnomer".
>>>>>
>>>>> You did openly when you first began posting
>>>>
>>>>That's not the issue and you know it.
>>>
>>> Why you began to lie is a big issue to both of us, but in different
>>> ways.
>>> You wanted to be like Goo, so he told you to start lying about your true
>>> position. He let you know that no one who is in favor of AW over
>>> elimination and
>>> has good reasons to feel that way, could respect the oppinion of
>>> eliminationists. So he advised you to just start lying and say that
>>> you're
>>> in
>>> favor of AW, and that you began eating meat, in an attempt to get true
>>> AW
>>> supporting meat consumers to respect you. While that was going on Goo
>>> made
>>> a
>>> point of chasing off all of the true AW supporters that he could, so now
>>> I'm the
>>> only one left. Now I'm the only audience you and Goo who are just
>>> dishonest
>>> eliminationists have left, and I know you're eliminationists. So you and
>>> Goo
>>> still denying it at this point is about as stupid as it gets.
>>
>>Calling he and I ARAs is as stupid as it gets.
>
> As you make such remarks, keep in mind the fact that I have absolutely
> no
> reason at all to think you are not an eliminationist, nor do I have any
> reason
> to believe the Goober is not. While keeping that in mind also consider the
> fact
> that I have MANY reasons to believe Goo is an eliminationist, and several
> reasons to believe that you are also.

Stupid

> . . .
>>>>>>> You acted like you could
>>>>>>> appreciate
>>>>>>> life for
>>>>>>> some wildlife in the past, but then you acted that way toward
>>>>>>> livestock
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>> before your unlearning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I only "unlearn" wrong ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're now saying you don't appreciate lives of positive value
>>>>> for
>>>>> livestock even when you want to think eliminationists are responsible
>>>>> for
>>>>> them
>>>>> being that way?
>>>>
>>>>As far as I can decode your tortured prose, that sounds like what you're
>>>>doing,
>>>
>>> You lie that I never appreciate them. You can't even keep your own
>>> lies
>>> straight.
>>
>>You don't appreciate lives of positive value when "eliminationists" have
>>contributed to them,
>
> Yes I do. That does nothing to prevent it for me, so you lied again.

You hadn't done so when I wrote that, so it wasn't a lie. You've changed
your tune, partially.
>
>>which is what you just accused me of.
>
> For ten years you said you had no appreciation for the lives of any
> livestock animals or anything else that has ever lived.

Your so-called "appreciation" is self-serving bullshit.

Then, recently you kind
> of sort of very halfassly started maunderings and pewls that could lead a
> person
> that you might possibly be able to appreciate lives of positive value for
> some
> livestock but ONLY IF they were positive due to the influence of
> eliminationists. Then YOU seemed to start backing away from that too:


>
> "I only "unlearn" wrong ideas." - Goo
>
>>You appreciate the meat, period.
>
> That lie makes your other lie...LOL...meaningless. You people really do
> suck
> at this.
>
>>> You BOAST that you can't appreciate them. Are you boasting that you
>>> can't
>>> appreciate them even when you want to think eliminationists had
>>> something
>>> to do
>>> with them?
>>
>>You
>
> Do you want us to believe you can:
>
> a. never appreciate them.
>
> b. appreciate them only when you think eliminationists had something to do
> with
> making them of positive value.
>
> c. appreciate them when you think eliminationists had something to do with
> making them of positive value and also under some other circumstances. If
> so,
> explain which other circumstances and why.

Your so-called "appreciation" is self-serving bullshit.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:10:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:58:25 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:29:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:47:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:47dv67578esv99c7lu8b4amr7iuqiftsju@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be
>>>>>>>>>> helping
>>>>>>>>>> yourself,
>>>>>>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to
>>>>>>>>>> something that
>>>>>>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to
>>>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>>>> wildlife
>>>>>>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and
>>>>>>>>>> surely
>>>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You must be kidding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such
>>>>>>>> facts
>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>> somehow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>>>>>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc
>>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>>> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You make some good points here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can appreciate some of the good points I make. Not all.
>>>>>
>>>>>I appreciate the good points you make, even though I oppose your idiotic
>>>>>and
>>>>>misguided . . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock]
>>>>>campaign,
>>>>>unlike you who refuses to appreciate the positive efforts of people you
>>>>>oppose.
>>>>
>>>> Like what?
>>>
>>>The efforts of PeTA have improved the lives of millions and millions of
>>>animals.
>>
>> Which animals, and to what extent did their efforts improve them?
>> Remember
>> that when you can't provide any examples, we will still have no examples.
>
>PETA called off its Murder King campaign when the company agreed to do the
>following things:
>Conduct announced and unannounced inspections of its slaughterhouses,
>including chicken slaughterhouses, and take action against facilities that
>fail inspections
>Establish animal-handling verification guidelines for all the
>slaughterhouses of its suppliers
>Confine no more than five hens to each battery cage, require that the birds
>be able to stand fully upright, and require the presence of two water
>drinkers per cage (Although confining five hens to a tiny cage is still
>horribly cruel, this number is two fewer than the industry standard and
>represents a marked improvement for animals.)
>Stop purchasing from suppliers that "force-molt" hens (i.e., starve them for
>up to two weeks in order to force them to lay more eggs)
>Develop auditing procedures for the handling of "broiler" chickens
>Institute humane handling procedures for chickens at slaughterhouses

They did good then and I admit it. And aren't you glad that this time you
could back up a claim you made? Very unusual.

>Begin purchasing pork from farms that do not confine sows to stalls

That results in more suffering for pigs, so I don't agree with that one.
Interesting that it's the last one and also the only one I don't agree with.

>>>Just because they wish those animals were not raised in the first
>>>place, you refuse to applaud their efforts. In other words you actually
>>>care nothing about the suffering of animals,
>>
>> I take the suffering AND the positive aspects into consideration.
>
>What does "taking the positive aspects into consideration" accomplish? Tell
>us how it helps animals. Just one thing, anything.

What did I tell you?

>No?
>
>
>> Eliminationists only consider the suffering without considering the
>> positive
>> aspects for any animals involved with raising livestock. Not for wildlife,
>> and
>> certainly not for the livestock they dishonestly pretend to care about.
>
>Yet THEY actually do something constructive while you do nothing but "take
>the positive aspects into consideration" which means exactly nothing. Who's
>actually pretending to care about animals?
>
>I think we know, don't we?

I admitted they did good, but if you want to be like that about it I could
insist you find reason to believe that Burger King had not planned on doing all
of those things of their own accord and PeTA only dishonestly made it APPEAR
that they had anything to do with it. I do suspect that is the case, but wasn't
going to mention it.

>>>something you have demonstrated
>>>many times. All you care about is convincing people to get on board your
>>>"appreciation" train, an idea that does not help a single animal.
>>
>> If PeTA went at it with a different approach, and encourage people to
>> eat
>> particular animal products because they provide decent lives for the
>> animals, it
>> would be an entirely different thing. Then more emphesis and interest
>> would be
>> on providing decent lives for livestock and people wouldn't feel the need
>> to
>> wipe them out. That would be IF they cared about the animals, which we can
>> see
>> they obviously do not. They/You are OPPOSED to caring about the animals as
>> you
>> demonstrate consistently. The situation is never going to change. Only you
>> eliminationists COULD change from promoting elimination to promoting
>> giving a
>> shit, but you don't and don't want anyone else to. That's because you
>> don't care
>> at all about the animals. You're only care is about the fact that it
>> disturbs
>> you because other people eat meat, and that's ALL you people are capable
>> of
>> really caring about. If you cared about the animals you would encourage
>> appreciation for lives of positive value even if you yourself were honest
>> about
>> not contributing to any...you would still approve of those who do. I know
>> from
>> examples from personal experience. For example I don't eat muton, but I
>> can
>> appreciate lives of positive value for sheep even so, just as I can for
>> types of
>> animals I do consume. The ONLY reason to oppose appreciation, is because
>> you are
>> opposed to the lives themselves.
>>
>> Dooooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
>
>PeTA's approach to promoting animal welfare is reasonably effective and
>consistent with their vegan agenda. Promoting free range products, etc, can
>be done by others.

The ****ing "others" get attacked by people like you and PeTA. A perfect
example of that same exact thing is you and Goo attacking me for over a decade
for suggesting something that would do nothing except create more interest in
how livestock are raised. Do you remember Didderot? We discussed that same sort
of thing through email, and he's one of the only people I've discussed this with
through email. He tried specifically to be a humane farmer, and appreciating
lives of positive value for livestock was so much a part of his life that he had
never known anything else. The same is true of most of the farmers I've known in
person.
There was also a guy who did the same thing more specifically with
animals...Didderot was more of a crop farmer, mostly rice. That guy came in to
tell people about humanely raised and grass raised animal products, but wouldn't
tell people exactly where they could get them until they emailed him a few times
and he sort of screened them specifically because of eliminationist terrorism.
So since you're "they're" champion, tell me why ANYONE who specifically raises
animals humanely should have to worry about that making him a special target for
eliminationist terrorism. Go:

>>>>>>>stick to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do. I stick to all of them...the ones you like and the ones you
>>>>>> hate.
>>>>>> It's
>>>>>> surprising that you can appreciate this aspect though, since it works
>>>>>> against
>>>>>> the misnomer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe that should clue you in, I don't support the /so-called/
>>>>>"misnomer".
>>>>
>>>> You did openly when you first began posting
>>>
>>>That's not the issue and you know it.
>>
>> Why you began to lie is a big issue to both of us, but in different
>> ways.
>> You wanted to be like Goo, so he told you to start lying about your true
>> position. He let you know that no one who is in favor of AW over
>> elimination and
>> has good reasons to feel that way, could respect the oppinion of
>> eliminationists. So he advised you to just start lying and say that you're
>> in
>> favor of AW, and that you began eating meat, in an attempt to get true AW
>> supporting meat consumers to respect you. While that was going on Goo made
>> a
>> point of chasing off all of the true AW supporters that he could, so now
>> I'm the
>> only one left. Now I'm the only audience you and Goo who are just
>> dishonest
>> eliminationists have left, and I know you're eliminationists. So you and
>> Goo
>> still denying it at this point is about as stupid as it gets.
>
>Calling he and I ARAs is as stupid as it gets.

As you make such remarks, keep in mind the fact that I have absolutely no
reason at all to think you are not an eliminationist, nor do I have any reason
to believe the Goober is not. While keeping that in mind also consider the fact
that I have MANY reasons to believe Goo is an eliminationist, and several
reasons to believe that you are also.
.. . .
>>>>>> You acted like you could
>>>>>> appreciate
>>>>>> life for
>>>>>> some wildlife in the past, but then you acted that way toward
>>>>>> livestock
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> well
>>>>>> before your unlearning.
>>>>>
>>>>>I only "unlearn" wrong ideas.
>>>>
>>>> So you're now saying you don't appreciate lives of positive value for
>>>> livestock even when you want to think eliminationists are responsible
>>>> for
>>>> them
>>>> being that way?
>>>
>>>As far as I can decode your tortured prose, that sounds like what you're
>>>doing,
>>
>> You lie that I never appreciate them. You can't even keep your own lies
>> straight.
>
>You don't appreciate lives of positive value when "eliminationists" have
>contributed to them,

Yes I do. That does nothing to prevent it for me, so you lied again.

>which is what you just accused me of.

For ten years you said you had no appreciation for the lives of any
livestock animals or anything else that has ever lived. Then, recently you kind
of sort of very halfassly started maunderings and pewls that could lead a person
that you might possibly be able to appreciate lives of positive value for some
livestock but ONLY IF they were positive due to the influence of
eliminationists. Then YOU seemed to start backing away from that too:

"I only "unlearn" wrong ideas." - Goo

>You appreciate the meat, period.

That lie makes your other lie...LOL...meaningless. You people really do suck
at this.

>> You BOAST that you can't appreciate them. Are you boasting that you
>> can't
>> appreciate them even when you want to think eliminationists had something
>> to do
>> with them?
>
>You

Do you want us to believe you can:

a. never appreciate them.

b. appreciate them only when you think eliminationists had something to do with
making them of positive value.

c. appreciate them when you think eliminationists had something to do with
making them of positive value and also under some other circumstances. If so,
explain which other circumstances and why.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:42:50 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:37:38 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:09:02 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:54:16 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
>>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
>>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping yourself,
>>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to something that
>>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to less wildlife
>>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and surely less
>>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you don't want to
>>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>>
>>>>>You must be kidding.
>>>>
>>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such facts amusing
>>>>somehow.
>>>>
>>>>>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>
>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc large
>>>>areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle are by
>>>>eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>
>>>It isn't necessary to do any of that
>>
>> It's done whether it's necessary or not Goob.
>
>It isn't necessary to do it

But you can't tell veg*ns where they can get tofu and soy milk etc that was
produced without plowing etc Goo, so soy products which involve it are the only
choice. The same is true for rice products also Goob.

On 9/22/2011 2:43 PM, dh@. wrote:

>>>>>> Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>> our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc large
>>>>> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle are by
>>>>> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>>
>>>> It isn't necessary to do any of that, of course. Once again, ****wit presents
>>>> a false choice. He does that a lot.
>>>
>>> It's done whether it's necessary or
>>
>> It isn't necessary to do it, so for you to present your false choice is, as usual, bullshit.
>
> But you can't tell veg*ns where they

You're presenting a false choice. The choice is *NOT* between
environmentally destructive vegetable farming or environmentally benign
grass fed beef.

What percentage of beef produced in the US is strictly grass-fed, ****wit?

What percentage of the beef you eat is strictly grass-fed, ****wit?

Answers: The domestically produced grass-fed beef market is about $380
million dollars, out of a total market of $74 billion retail and
production value of $37 billion. You do the ****ing math yourself,
****wit, but any way you look at it, grass-fed beef isn't even 1% of the
US market.

As for how much grass-fed beef you eat, ****wit, the answer is zero.

The real choice, ****wit, is between environmentally destructive
vegetable crops, and *EVEN MORE* environmentally destructive meat.

Excerpt

Eating Meat Wastes Our Resources

When it comes to resource and energy wastage, meat products are a
class by themselves.

Scientists compute the energy costs of foods by the value of the raw
materials consumed in the production of that food. Frances Moore
Lappe reports:

A detailed 1978 study sponsored by the Department of Interior and
Commerce produced startling figures showing that the value of raw
materials consumed to produce food from livestock is greater than the
value of all oil, gas, and coal consumed in this country.

The same study revealed the equally startling fact that the
production of meats, dairy products and eggs accounts for one-third
of the total amount of all raw materials used for all purposes in the
United States.

In contrast, growing grains, vegetables and fruits for direct human
consumprion is a model of efficiency, using less than 5% the raw
material consumption as does the production of meat.

Another way scientists compute the energy costs of various foods is
to assess the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce them. An
American scientist, David Pimental, calculates that if the whole
world were to eat according to wasteful U.S. agricultural practices,
the planet's entire petroleum reserves would be exhausted in 13
years.

- "Raw Materials in the United States Economy 1900-1977" Technical
paper 47, Vivian Spencer, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Mines, pg 3

- Lappe, F.M., "Diet For A Small Planet" Ballantine Books, New York,
1982, Tenth Anniversary Edition

- Robbins, John, "Diet For A New America" Stillpoint Publishing,
Walpole, N.H., 1987

- Reid, J.T., "Comparative Efficiency of Animals in the Conversion of
Feedstuffs to Human Foods" Confinement, April 1976, pg. 23

- Hur, Robin and Fields, David; "How Meat Robs America of its
Energy," Vegetarian Times, April 1985

End of excerpt

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

On 9/26/2011 4:32 PM, dh@. wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
>>>>>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
>>>>>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping yourself,
>>>>>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to something that
>>>>>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to less wildlife
>>>>>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and surely less
>>>>>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you don't want to
>>>>>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You must be kidding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such facts amusing
>>>>>>> somehow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>>>> our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc large
>>>>>>> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle are by
>>>>>>> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't necessary to do any of that
>>>>>
>>>>> It's done whether it's necessary or not Goob.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't necessary to do it
>>>
>>> But you can't tell veg*ns where they can get tofu and soy milk etc that was
>>> produced without plowing etc Goo, so soy products which involve it are the only
>>> choice. The same is true for rice products also Goob.
>>
>> You're presenting a false choice. The choice is *NOT* between
>> environmentally destructive vegetable farming or environmentally benign
>> grass fed beef.
>
> I mean: it is when it's

****wit: that's never the choice.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:13:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:10:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:58:25 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:29:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:0kv477hjku1c7pnq2ffq2q3b1gq9tnu3nd@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:47:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:47dv67578esv99c7lu8b4amr7iuqiftsju@4 ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum >
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> helping
>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself,
>>>>>>>>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to
>>>>>>>>>>>> something that
>>>>>>>>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>>>>>> wildlife
>>>>>>>>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> surely
>>>>>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You must be kidding.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such
>>>>>>>>>> facts
>>>>>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>>>>>> somehow.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>>>>>>>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting
>>>>>>>>>> etc
>>>>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>>>>> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than
>>>>>>>>>> cattle
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You make some good points here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can appreciate some of the good points I make. Not all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I appreciate the good points you make, even though I oppose your
>>>>>>>idiotic
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>misguided . . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for
>>>>>>>livestock]
>>>>>>>campaign,
>>>>>>>unlike you who refuses to appreciate the positive efforts of people
>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>oppose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like what?
>>>>>
>>>>>The efforts of PeTA have improved the lives of millions and millions of
>>>>>animals.
>>>>
>>>> Which animals, and to what extent did their efforts improve them?
>>>> Remember
>>>> that when you can't provide any examples, we will still have no
>>>> examples.
>>>
>>>PETA called off its Murder King campaign when the company agreed to do the
>>>following things:
>>>Conduct announced and unannounced inspections of its slaughterhouses,
>>>including chicken slaughterhouses, and take action against facilities that
>>>fail inspections
>>>Establish animal-handling verification guidelines for all the
>>>slaughterhouses of its suppliers
>>>Confine no more than five hens to each battery cage, require that the
>>>birds
>>>be able to stand fully upright, and require the presence of two water
>>>drinkers per cage (Although confining five hens to a tiny cage is still
>>>horribly cruel, this number is two fewer than the industry standard and
>>>represents a marked improvement for animals.)
>>>Stop purchasing from suppliers that "force-molt" hens (i.e., starve them
>>>for
>>>up to two weeks in order to force them to lay more eggs)
>>>Develop auditing procedures for the handling of "broiler" chickens
>>>Institute humane handling procedures for chickens at slaughterhouses
>>
>> They did good then and I admit it. And aren't you glad that this time
>> you
>> could back up a claim you made? Very unusual.
>
>Not unusual, normal.

That's a blatant lie.

>But you could have checked it for yourself at any time.
>
>But I give you credit for admitting you were wrong, that /is/ unusual.

What do you think I was wrong about?

>It's
>not that hard is it? Doesn't hurt at all does it? Actually feels good
>doesn't it?

If I'm wrong about something I usually just change my belief and don't
bother mentioning it to anyone because people here are so childish about it. Ron
and I have been that way toward you and Goo about your pet food cattle, but
after the way he's treated both of us it doesn't matter in the Goober's
direction, and doen't really matter in yours either.

>>>Begin purchasing pork from farms that do not confine sows to stalls
>>
>> That results in more suffering for pigs, so I don't agree with that
>> one.
>> Interesting that it's the last one and also the only one I don't agree
>> with.
>>
>>>>>Just because they wish those animals were not raised in the first
>>>>>place, you refuse to applaud their efforts. In other words you actually
>>>>>care nothing about the suffering of animals,
>>>>
>>>> I take the suffering AND the positive aspects into consideration.
>>>
>>>What does "taking the positive aspects into consideration" accomplish?
>>>Tell
>>>us how it helps animals. Just one thing, anything.
>>
>> What did I tell you?
>
>When I ask that question you never give me a straight answer.

I point out that the only reason for people to pay extra for cage free eggs
is because we have the type of consideration for food animals that you've been
opposing all of these years. Cage free eggs ARE an example.

>Usually you
>equivocate, make some ridiculous accusation about me being opposed to AW,

All I've known you to consistently do is reasure people that it would be
better not to consider lives of positive value, than it would be to take them
into consideration. The ONLY reason for a person to do that is to support
elimination over lives of positive value. There is NO other reason to do what
you've spent the past 10+ years doing, and usually lying consistently as you do.
>or
>as in this case, answer a question with a question.

I've pointed the answer out to you a number of times. Enough that I'm sick
of doing it because you people can't appreciate things like that anyway.

>But, you see, there /is/
>no good answer, because "taking the positive aspects into consideration" as
>you put it, is just bullshit.

That's a blatant lie that ONLY an eliminationist has good reason to tell.

>>>No?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Eliminationists only consider the suffering without considering the
>>>> positive
>>>> aspects for any animals involved with raising livestock. Not for
>>>> wildlife,
>>>> and
>>>> certainly not for the livestock they dishonestly pretend to care about.
>>>
>>>Yet THEY actually do something constructive while you do nothing but
>>>"take
>>>the positive aspects into consideration" which means exactly nothing.
>>>Who's
>>>actually pretending to care about animals?
>>>
>>>I think we know, don't we?
>>
>> I admitted they did good, but if you want to be like that about it I
>> could
>> insist you find reason to believe that Burger King had not planned on
>> doing all
>> of those things of their own accord and PeTA only dishonestly made it
>> APPEAR
>> that they had anything to do with it. I do suspect that is the case, but
>> wasn't
>> going to mention it.
>
>If I recall Burger King issued a press conference where they credited PeTA
>with getting them to make those changes.
>
>But the point is, "taking the positive aspects into consideration" leads to
>no action, it benefits no animal, it does nothing.

That's a lie. Taking them into consideration is why some of us pay extra for
cage free eggs, and more interest would make grass raised animal products much
more popular as well, maybe even to the point of having them easily available at
most super markets like veg*n products are. And THAT is what you people do NOT
want to see happen.

>What we should always do
>is "take the negative aspects into consideration", that way we can take
>action to remedy them. For example when you choose free range you have done
>so because you have taken the negative aspects of confinement into
>consideration, not because you considered that the animals were getting a
>"benefit".

Buying cage free eggs necessarily involves consider the benefits of being
cage free. Dooooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!

>>>>>something you have demonstrated
>>>>>many times. All you care about is convincing people to get on board your
>>>>>"appreciation" train, an idea that does not help a single animal.
>>>>
>>>> If PeTA went at it with a different approach, and encourage people to
>>>> eat
>>>> particular animal products because they provide decent lives for the
>>>> animals, it
>>>> would be an entirely different thing. Then more emphesis and interest
>>>> would be
>>>> on providing decent lives for livestock and people wouldn't feel the
>>>> need
>>>> to
>>>> wipe them out. That would be IF they cared about the animals, which we
>>>> can
>>>> see
>>>> they obviously do not. They/You are OPPOSED to caring about the animals
>>>> as
>>>> you
>>>> demonstrate consistently. The situation is never going to change. Only
>>>> you
>>>> eliminationists COULD change from promoting elimination to promoting
>>>> giving a
>>>> shit, but you don't and don't want anyone else to. That's because you
>>>> don't care
>>>> at all about the animals. You're only care is about the fact that it
>>>> disturbs
>>>> you because other people eat meat, and that's ALL you people are capable
>>>> of
>>>> really caring about. If you cared about the animals you would encourage
>>>> appreciation for lives of positive value even if you yourself were
>>>> honest
>>>> about
>>>> not contributing to any...you would still approve of those who do. I
>>>> know
>>>> from
>>>> examples from personal experience. For example I don't eat muton, but I
>>>> can
>>>> appreciate lives of positive value for sheep even so, just as I can for
>>>> types of
>>>> animals I do consume. The ONLY reason to oppose appreciation, is because
>>>> you are
>>>> opposed to the lives themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Dooooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
>>>
>>>PeTA's approach to promoting animal welfare is reasonably effective and
>>>consistent with their vegan agenda. Promoting free range products, etc,
>>>can
>>>be done by others.
>>
>> The ****ing "others" get attacked by people like you and PeTA.
>
>That's a bald-faced lie. I have never attacked anyone for promoting humane
>farming,

I don't blame you for being ashamed. In fact I've been mentioning that you
should be for as long as you've been opposing consideration of lives of positive
value, ie promoting humane farming.
.. . .
> > A perfect
>> example of that same exact thing is you and Goo attacking me for over a
>> decade
>> for suggesting something that would do nothing except create more interest
>> in
>> how livestock are raised.
>
>. . . [creating more interest in how livestock are raised] creates nothing, contributes nothing to the discussion. It's
>sophistry.
>
>What promotes better lives for livestock is people taking the negative
>aspects into consideration and working to correct them.

LOL!!!! I can't believe that you're so ignorant you don't realise people
need to know what more positive methods would BE before they can put them into
practice.

>Considering that
>life is a benefit to animals leads nowhere except perhaps to apathy.

It would be a step of for you. Though apathy is pathetic and not worthy of
respect, it's still more respectable than your anti-consideration.

>> Do you remember Didderot? We discussed that same sort
>> of thing through email, and he's one of the only people I've discussed
>> this with
>> through email. He tried specifically to be a humane farmer, and
>> appreciating
>> lives of positive value for livestock was so much a part of his life that
>> he had
>> never known anything else. The same is true of most of the farmers I've
>> known in
>> person.
>> There was also a guy who did the same thing more specifically with
>> animals...Didderot was more of a crop farmer, mostly rice. That guy came
>> in to
>> tell people about humanely raised and grass raised animal products, but
>> wouldn't
>> tell people exactly where they could get them until they emailed him a few
>> times
>> and he sort of screened them specifically because of eliminationist
>> terrorism.
>> So since you're "they're" champion, tell me why ANYONE who specifically
>> raises
>> animals humanely should have to worry about that making him a special
>> target for
>> eliminationist terrorism. Go:
>
>That question has nothing to do with me, and you know it.

It does have to do with you people as a group, and again you are right to
feel ashamed about it.

>>>>>>>>>stick to them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do. I stick to all of them...the ones you like and the ones you
>>>>>>>> hate.
>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>> surprising that you can appreciate this aspect though, since it
>>>>>>>> works
>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>> the misnomer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe that should clue you in, I don't support the /so-called/
>>>>>>>"misnomer".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You did openly when you first began posting
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not the issue and you know it.
>>>>
>>>> Why you began to lie is a big issue to both of us, but in different
>>>> ways.
>>>> You wanted to be like Goo, so he told you to start lying about your true
>>>> position. He let you know that no one who is in favor of AW over
>>>> elimination and
>>>> has good reasons to feel that way, could respect the oppinion of
>>>> eliminationists. So he advised you to just start lying and say that
>>>> you're
>>>> in
>>>> favor of AW, and that you began eating meat, in an attempt to get true
>>>> AW
>>>> supporting meat consumers to respect you. While that was going on Goo
>>>> made
>>>> a
>>>> point of chasing off all of the true AW supporters that he could, so now
>>>> I'm the
>>>> only one left. Now I'm the only audience you and Goo who are just
>>>> dishonest
>>>> eliminationists have left, and I know you're eliminationists. So you and
>>>> Goo
>>>> still denying it at this point is about as stupid as it gets.
>>>
>>>Calling he and I ARAs is as stupid as it gets.
>>
>> As you make such remarks, keep in mind the fact that I have absolutely
>> no
>> reason at all to think you are not an eliminationist, nor do I have any
>> reason
>> to believe the Goober is not. While keeping that in mind also consider the
>> fact
>> that I have MANY reasons to believe Goo is an eliminationist, and several
>> reasons to believe that you are also.
>
>Stupid

They're all stupid, as I've been pointing out to you the entire time. The
very idea that anti-consideration is better than apathy is stupid, and the idea
that anti-consideration is better than having consideration is very very very
stupid. It's so stupid in fact that after what must have been at least a hundred
challenges you never been able to even attempt to explain how you want people to
think anti-consideration is superior to having consideration.

>> . . .
>>>>>>>> You acted like you could
>>>>>>>> appreciate
>>>>>>>> life for
>>>>>>>> some wildlife in the past, but then you acted that way toward
>>>>>>>> livestock
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>> before your unlearning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I only "unlearn" wrong ideas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're now saying you don't appreciate lives of positive value
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> livestock even when you want to think eliminationists are responsible
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> being that way?
>>>>>
>>>>>As far as I can decode your tortured prose, that sounds like what you're
>>>>>doing,
>>>>
>>>> You lie that I never appreciate them. You can't even keep your own
>>>> lies
>>>> straight.
>>>
>>>You don't appreciate lives of positive value when "eliminationists" have
>>>contributed to them,
>>
>> Yes I do. That does nothing to prevent it for me, so you lied again.
>
>You hadn't done so when I wrote that, so it wasn't a lie.

Yes it was. I always appreciate the lives of positive value. I just don't
always appreciate eliminationists even if they had something to do with getting
them that way. I'll say that I think more poorly toward outfits like Burger King
for not making a point of providing lives of positive value on their own without
having to be terrorised into it, than I do toward PeTA for the things they do.

>You've changed
>your tune, partially.
>>
>>>which is what you just accused me of.
>>
>> For ten years you said you had no appreciation for the lives of any
>> livestock animals or anything else that has ever lived.
>
>Your so-called "appreciation" is self-serving bullshit.

You're again indicating that you can't appreciate lives of positive value
even when you want to believe eliminationists had something to do with it. You
just can't keep your bullshit straight.

>> Then, recently you kind
>> of sort of very halfassly started maunderings and pewls that could lead a
>> person
>> that you might possibly be able to appreciate lives of positive value for
>> some
>> livestock but ONLY IF they were positive due to the influence of
>> eliminationists. Then YOU seemed to start backing away from that too:
>
>
>>
>> "I only "unlearn" wrong ideas." - Goo
>>
>>>You appreciate the meat, period.
>>
>> That lie makes your other lie...LOL...meaningless. You people really do
>> suck
>> at this.
>>
>>>> You BOAST that you can't appreciate them. Are you boasting that you
>>>> can't
>>>> appreciate them even when you want to think eliminationists had
>>>> something
>>>> to do
>>>> with them?
>>>
>>>You
>>
>> Do you want us to believe you can:
>>
>> a. never appreciate them.
>>
>> b. appreciate them only when you think eliminationists had something to do
>> with
>> making them of positive value.
>>
>> c. appreciate them when you think eliminationists had something to do with
>> making them of positive value and also under some other circumstances. If
>> so,
>> explain which other circumstances and why.
>
>Your so-called "appreciation" is self-serving bullshit.

So you can't appreciate lives of positive value even when you want to think
your beloved PeTA had something to do with it.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:16:28 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:43:48 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:42:50 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:37:38 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:09:02 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:54:16 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
>>>>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
>>>>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping yourself,
>>>>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to something that
>>>>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to less wildlife
>>>>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and surely less
>>>>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you don't want to
>>>>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You must be kidding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such facts amusing
>>>>>>somehow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>>>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc large
>>>>>>areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle are by
>>>>>>eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>>>
>>>>>It isn't necessary to do any of that
>>>>
>>>> It's done whether it's necessary or not Goob.
>>>
>>>It isn't necessary to do it
>>
>> But you can't tell veg*ns where they can get tofu and soy milk etc that was
>>produced without plowing etc Goo, so soy products which involve it are the only
>>choice. The same is true for rice products also Goob.
>
>You're presenting a false choice. The choice is *NOT* between
>environmentally destructive vegetable farming or environmentally benign
>grass fed beef.

LOL!!! I mean: it is when it's between environmentally destructive vegetable
farming or environmentally benign grass fed beef, Goob.

>What percentage of beef produced in the US is strictly grass-fed, ****wit?

It doesn't matter about the price of bananas in China, Goo.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:13:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>Your so-called "appreciation" is self-serving bullshit.
>
> So you can't appreciate lives of positive value even when you want to
> think
> your beloved PeTA had something to do with it.

I said /your/ so-called "appreciation" is self-serving bullshit, not PeTA's.

On 9/28/2011 1:56 PM, dh@. wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping yourself,
>>>>>>>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to something that
>>>>>>>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to less wildlife
>>>>>>>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and surely less
>>>>>>>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you don't want to
>>>>>>>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You must be kidding.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What I pointed out is true,

No, it is not.


>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>>>>>> our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc large
>>>>>>>>> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle are by
>>>>>>>>> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It isn't necessary to do any of that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's done whether it's necessary or not Goob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't necessary to do it
>>>>>
>>>>> But you can't tell veg*ns where they can get tofu and soy milk etc that was
>>>>> produced without plowing etc Goo, so soy products which involve it are the only
>>>>> choice. The same is true for rice products also Goob.
>>>>
>>>> You're presenting a false choice. The choice is *NOT* between
>>>> environmentally destructive vegetable farming or environmentally benign
>>>> grass fed beef.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! I mean: it is when
>>
>> ****wit: that's never the choice.
>
> In contrast to that blatant lie:

Not a lie, ****wit. That isn't the choice: proved.

Cholesterol Content of Common Foods in milligrams per 100 gram portion

PLANT FOOD

All grains 0
All vegetables 0
All nuts 0
All seeds 0
All legumes 0
All vegetable oils 0

ANIMAL FOOD

Eggs, whole 550
Kidney, beef 375
Liver, beef 300
Butter 250
Oysters 200
Cream Cheese 120
Lard 95
Beefsteak 70
Lamb 70
Pork 70
Chicken 60
Ice Cream 45

Pennington, J., Food Values of Portions Commonly Used,
Harper & Row, N.Y., 1985.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

On 9/28/2011 12:05 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Cholesterol Content of Common Foods in milligrams per 100 gram portion

Not important. What's important is saturated fat.

Dr Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> Cholesterol Content of Common Foods in milligrams per 100 gram portion
>
> PLANT FOOD
>
> All grains 0
> All vegetables 0
> All nuts 0
> All seeds 0
> All legumes 0
> All vegetable oils 0
>
> ANIMAL FOOD
>
> Eggs, whole 550
> Kidney, beef 375
> Liver, beef 300
> Butter 250
> Oysters 200
> Cream Cheese 120
> Lard 95
> Beefsteak 70
> Lamb 70
> Pork 70
> Chicken 60
> Ice Cream 45
>
> Pennington, J., Food Values of Portions Commonly Used,
> Harper & Row, N.Y., 1985.

Cholesterol is a waxy substance that's found in the fats (lipids) in
your blood. While your body needs cholesterol to continue building
healthy cells, having high cholesterol can increase your risk of
heart disease.

By Mayo Clinic staff

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hig...sterol/DS00178

High levels of cholesterol in the blood can increase your risk of
heart disease.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cholesterol.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:01:26 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:32:32 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:16:28 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:43:48 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:42:50 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:37:38 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:09:02 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:54:16 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
>>>>>>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
>>>>>>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping yourself,
>>>>>>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to something that
>>>>>>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to less wildlife
>>>>>>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and surely less
>>>>>>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you don't want to
>>>>>>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You must be kidding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such facts amusing
>>>>>>>>somehow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>>>>>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc large
>>>>>>>>areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle are by
>>>>>>>>eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It isn't necessary to do any of that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's done whether it's necessary or not Goob.
>>>>>
>>>>>It isn't necessary to do it
>>>>
>>>> But you can't tell veg*ns where they can get tofu and soy milk etc that was
>>>>produced without plowing etc Goo, so soy products which involve it are the only
>>>>choice. The same is true for rice products also Goob.
>>>
>>>You're presenting a false choice. The choice is *NOT* between
>>>environmentally destructive vegetable farming or environmentally benign
>>>grass fed beef.
>>
>> LOL!!! I mean: it is when it's between environmentally destructive vegetable
>>farming or environmentally benign grass fed beef, Goob.
>
>****wit: that's never the choice.

In contrast to that blatant lie: it is when it is Goo.

>>>What percentage of beef produced in the US is strictly grass-fed, ****wit?
>>
>> It doesn't matter about the price of bananas in China, Goo.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:13:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:31:42 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:13:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:10:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> You BOAST that you can't appreciate them. Are you boasting that you
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> appreciate them even when you want to think eliminationists had
>>>>>> something
>>>>>> to do
>>>>>> with them?
>>>>>
>>>>>You
>>>>
>>>> Do you want us to believe you can:
>>>>
>>>> a. never appreciate them.
>>>>
>>>> b. appreciate them only when you think eliminationists had something to do
>>>> with
>>>> making them of positive value.
>>>>
>>>> c. appreciate them when you think eliminationists had something to do with
>>>> making them of positive value and also under some other circumstances. If
>>>> so,
>>>> explain which other circumstances and why.
>>>
>>>Your so-called "appreciation" is self-serving bullshit.
>>
>> So you can't appreciate lives of positive value even when you want to think
>>your beloved PeTA had something to do with it.
>
>I said /your/ so-called "appreciation" is self-serving

I accept that to mean you can't appreciate lives of positive value even when
you want to think eliminationists had something to do with them being that way.

> Cholesterol Content of Common Foods in milligrams per 100 gram portion
>
> PLANT FOOD
>
> All grains 0
> All vegetables 0
> All nuts 0
> All seeds 0
> All legumes 0
> All vegetable oils 0
>
> ANIMAL FOOD
>
> Eggs, whole 550
> Kidney, beef 375
> Liver, beef 300
> Butter 250
> Oysters 200
> Cream Cheese 120
> Lard 95
> Beefsteak 70
> Lamb 70
> Pork 70
> Chicken 60
> Ice Cream 45
"Cholesterol is a waxy substance that's found in the fats (lipids) in
your blood. While your body needs cholesterol to continue building
healthy cells, having high cholesterol can increase your risk of heart
disease."

The largest source of cholesterol is what the human body produces, we
too are animals after all.

There is only a problem when what the body produces and any eaten is in
excess of its normal function.

That is why the level of cholesterol is at a very high rate in india
along with a high rate of obesity which has the highest rate of heart
related diseases and diabetes. And that rate comes from a plant diet
just as easily as one that includes animal products.

On 9/28/2011 2:59 PM, wrote:
>> Cholesterol Content of Common Foods in milligrams per 100 gram portion
>>
>> PLANT FOOD
>>
>> All grains 0
>> All vegetables 0
>> All nuts 0
>> All seeds 0
>> All legumes 0
>> All vegetable oils 0
>>
>> ANIMAL FOOD
>>
>> Eggs, whole 550
>> Kidney, beef 375
>> Liver, beef 300
>> Butter 250
>> Oysters 200
>> Cream Cheese 120
>> Lard 95
>> Beefsteak 70
>> Lamb 70
>> Pork 70
>> Chicken 60
>> Ice Cream 45
> "Cholesterol is a waxy substance that's found in the fats (lipids) in
> your blood. While your body needs cholesterol to continue building
> healthy cells, having high cholesterol can increase your risk of heart
> disease."
>
> The largest source of cholesterol is what the human body produces, we
> too are animals after all.

That is correct. Saturated fat intake is what causes higher cholesterol
production in the body.

Dr Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > Cholesterol Content of Common Foods in milligrams per 100 gram portion
> >
> > PLANT FOOD
> >
> > All grains 0
> > All vegetables 0
> > All nuts 0
> > All seeds 0
> > All legumes 0
> > All vegetable oils 0
> >
> > ANIMAL FOOD
> >
> > Eggs, whole 550
> > Kidney, beef 375
> > Liver, beef 300
> > Butter 250
> > Oysters 200
> > Cream Cheese 120
> > Lard 95
> > Beefsteak 70
> > Lamb 70
> > Pork 70
> > Chicken 60
> > Ice Cream 45
> >
> > Pennington, J., Food Values of Portions Commonly Used,
> > Harper & Row, N.Y., 1985.
>
> Cholesterol is a waxy substance that's found in the fats (lipids) in
> your blood. While your body needs cholesterol to continue building
> healthy cells, having high cholesterol can increase your risk of
> heart disease.
>
> By Mayo Clinic staff
>
> http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hig...sterol/DS00178
>
> High levels of cholesterol in the blood can increase your risk of
> heart disease.
>
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cholesterol.html

Dr. Dean Ornish discusses the relationship between dietary
cholesterol and blood cholesterol:

International cardiology authority Dr. Dean Ornish concluded:

"There is a genetic variability in how efficiently (or inefficiently)
a person metabolizes dietary saturated fat and cholesterol. Some
people can eat almost anything yet their blood cholesterol levels do
not increase very much. (These are the people who sometimes live to
be one hundred, and when interviewed attribute their longevity to the
twelve eggs and sausage they have been eating for breakfast every
morning.) Others find that even a small amount of dietary fat or
cholesterol makes their blood cholesterol levels increase. Most
people are somewhere in between on this spectrum.

"Why? Drs. Michael Brown and Joseph Goldstein won the Nobel Prize in
Medicine in 1985 for their discovery of LDL-cholesterol receptors.
These receptors are located primarily in liver cells, and they bind
and remove cholesterol from the bloodstream.

"The more cholesterol receptors you have, the more efficiently you
can metabolize and remove cholesterol from your blood. The fewer
cholesterol receptors you have, the more your blood cholesterol level
will increase when you eat saturated fat and cholesterol.

"The number of cholesterol receptors is, in part, genetically
determined. However, if the amount of saturated fat and cholesterol
in your diet is low enough, then your blood cholesterol level will be
low even if you don't have very many cholesterol receptors. In other
words, even if you are not very efficient at removing fat and
cholesterol from your blood, it doesn't matter if you don't eat very
much of it.

"The amount of fat and cholesterol in the diet described in this book
is so low that these genetic differences become much less important.
As a result, almost everyone in our program showed significant
reductions in their cholesterol levels. . . ."

End of excerpts from: Ornish, D., Dr. Dean Ornish's Program For
Reversing Heart Disease, Random House, New York, 1990, page 61.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti