 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:57:32 GMT, wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:00:35 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote: [..] >>Where are the numebrs showing a meat died causes fewer animal deaths than a >>plant base one? Do you also believe that pigs and cows tiptoe through the >>meadow, > > Stick with cattle. They might kill a few insects, but they don't do >the damage that growing crops produces. Grass fed beef does accrue more deaths than the flies on its arse, and you know it because you've been shown the evidence of the collateral deaths associated with grass fed beef many times now. Why don't you tell the truth, Harrison? To recap; [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's biggest and most controversial activities is killing coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect western livestock. Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates tens of thousands of predator and "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their dens.] http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html Also, though a customer might switch to grass fed beef on the understanding that he would be reducing the collateral deaths associated with his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that "an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues collateral death from the feed grown to feed them, just like any other steer in the feedlot. [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the most commented upon topic in this docket. We will not belabor all the points of concern which are addressed but will focus on the areas of concern to our cooperative of growers. While Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that you need to define both as what they ARE since that is what is motivating the consumer. While the intent of this language would suggest that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, especially in Feedlots, the language as written is not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with consumer expectations as is borne out in the website comments.] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after their product. Farmers tell them their beef is grass fed but finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away. [Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed, including corn, and finished on rations of grass in feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals that roam where they please or to animals kept in barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards. No one regulates the use of these terms, and given how many years it took to achieve a national definition of "organic," it may be a long time before anyone does.] http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm You've been shown this material which shows the collateral deaths associated with grass fed beef many times now, so why do you keep lying by claiming it doesn't accrue them? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:08:56 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message m... > [..] >>> Go to your la la land and find cows mostly grazing on open prairies. >>==================== >>LOL Hey fool, all beef cows are pasture fed for most of their lives. > > Unlike you, Etter, vegans readily acknowledge the fact > that animals die collaterally during the production of ther > food. They don't lie about the production of their food. > > "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." > "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." > Rick Etter 2003-11-15 > > But evidence proves that that is a long way from > the truth. ================== No twits, it doesn't. Tghere is no ly above. Too bad for you, as usual, killer. Your typical spew below in no way effects the beef I eat. Besides, if you want to talk about animal control, I'll see a couple hundred thousand coyotes out west and see you multiple millions of birds killed for your food crops. You've lost, again twits, but then, that's not a new experience for you, hypocrite. > [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program > is administered by the U.S. Department of > Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health > Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's > biggest and most controversial activities is killing > coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect > western livestock. > > Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government > exterminates tens of thousands of predator and > "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list > of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's > Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 > coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, > and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 > beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black > bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were > killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also > inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used > include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning > animals in their dens.] > http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html > > Also, though a customer might switch to grass > fed beef on the understanding that he would be > reducing the collateral deaths associated with > his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that > "an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days > and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass > fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues > collateral death from the feed grown to feed > them, just like any other steer in the feedlot. > > [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the > most commented upon topic in this docket. We > will not belabor all the points of concern which > are addressed but will focus on the areas of > concern to our cooperative of growers. While > Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method > IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS > NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that > you need to define both as what they ARE since > that is what is motivating the consumer. > > While the intent of this language would suggest > that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, > especially in Feedlots, the language as written is > not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing > 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at > the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef > animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for > 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be > fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under > these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with > consumer expectations as is borne out in the > website comments.] > http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf > > Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after > their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but > finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away. > > [Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe > animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed, > including corn, and finished on rations of grass in > feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still > surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals > that roam where they please or to animals kept in > barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards. > No one regulates the use of these terms, and given > how many years it took to achieve a national > definition of "organic," it may be a long time before > anyone does.] > http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm > > You can keep your grass fed beef, because you > cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths > than the veg one might buy in a supermarket. > > Now, go and have another delusion, hypocrite. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D" > wrote in message ... > On 5 Nov 2004 05:15:19 -0800, (That One Guy) wrote: > >>Hi, >> I used to be vegan for like two weeks a few months ago, since then I >>have relized my mistake. I was getting yelled at for my political >>veiws by the vegans at veganforum.com I can't beleive the way the were >>acting! Anyways, they were all ganging up on me and stuff and now >>they have pushed me away from that way of thinking for ever. > > You shouldn't allow yourself to be bullied so easily. Get yourself > some moral fibre and stand up for what you believe. And besides, > if you were trying to adopt a vegan lifestyle, why were your fellow > vegans on that group yelling at you? It doesn't make sense that > they should yell at you, as you claim, if in fact you were a vegan > at the time. > >> I should have just listened to you from the start, Rick Thanks! > > Yes, you should have, and then you might've seen what a liar he > is and how easily you got taken in by him ---------------------- LOL This from twits, the fool that has never been able to defend his own spew, much less fefute any of the facts I post. Twits here is a deranged, immoral braindead fool. I hear he has only about 2 remaining braincells left due to all the drugs.... .. While he does his best > to attack vegans for the collateral deaths associated with every > morsel of food they eat, he denies the fact that the production of > his accrues them. Take a look at his response to the message > below from "ipse dixit". > > [start ipse dixit to Rick Etter] >> Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated >> with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you >> accept that the *general* production, storage, and >> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral >> deaths. > ============================ > Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period. > [end] > Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m > >> - Matt >>P.S. I will Never go veg again. > > If you have no moral fibre and are easily bullied into doing things > by the likes of Etter, then I believe you and doubt you have what > it takes. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:22:09 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"D" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:08:56 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . .. >> [..] >>>> Go to your la la land and find cows mostly grazing on open prairies. >>>==================== >>>LOL Hey fool, all beef cows are pasture fed for most of their lives. >> >> Unlike you, Etter, vegans readily acknowledge the fact >> that animals die collaterally during the production of ther >> food. They don't lie about the production of their food. >> >> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >> Rick Etter 2003-11-15 >> >> But evidence proves that that is a long way from >> the truth. >================== >No twits, it doesn't. The beef you claim to eat does accrue collateral deaths, whether you choose to believe it or not. The evidence has been shown to you dozens of times, yet you still lie by trying to assert the production of it causes none. You're living in denial while the vegans you try attacking are being honest about the deaths surrounding their food. Keep it up; your hypocrisy and the silence from others from your side is a gift to the honest vegans who see right through the lot of you. >> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program >> is administered by the U.S. Department of >> Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health >> Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's >> biggest and most controversial activities is killing >> coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect >> western livestock. >> >> Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government >> exterminates tens of thousands of predator and >> "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list >> of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's >> Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 >> coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, >> and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 >> beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black >> bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were >> killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also >> inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used >> include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning >> animals in their dens.] >> http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html >> >> Also, though a customer might switch to grass >> fed beef on the understanding that he would be >> reducing the collateral deaths associated with >> his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that >> "an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days >> and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass >> fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues >> collateral death from the feed grown to feed >> them, just like any other steer in the feedlot. >> >> [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the >> most commented upon topic in this docket. We >> will not belabor all the points of concern which >> are addressed but will focus on the areas of >> concern to our cooperative of growers. While >> Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method >> IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS >> NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that >> you need to define both as what they ARE since >> that is what is motivating the consumer. >> >> While the intent of this language would suggest >> that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, >> especially in Feedlots, the language as written is >> not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing >> 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at >> the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef >> animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for >> 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be >> fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under >> these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with >> consumer expectations as is borne out in the >> website comments.] >> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf >> >> Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after >> their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but >> finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away. >> >> [Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe >> animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed, >> including corn, and finished on rations of grass in >> feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still >> surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals >> that roam where they please or to animals kept in >> barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards. >> No one regulates the use of these terms, and given >> how many years it took to achieve a national >> definition of "organic," it may be a long time before >> anyone does.] >> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm >> >> You can keep your grass fed beef, because you >> cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths >> than the veg one might buy in a supermarket. >> >> Now, go and have another delusion, hypocrite. Well, Etter? Try challenging or refuting that evidence for a change instead of just repeating your stupidity. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:22:09 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"D" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:08:56 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . .. >> [..] >>>> Go to your la la land and find cows mostly grazing on open prairies. >>>==================== >>>LOL Hey fool, all beef cows are pasture fed for most of their lives. >> >> Unlike you, Etter, vegans readily acknowledge the fact >> that animals die collaterally during the production of ther >> food. They don't lie about the production of their food. >> >> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >> Rick Etter 2003-11-15 >> >> But evidence proves that that is a long way from >> the truth. >================== >No twits, it doesn't. The beef you claim to eat does accrue collateral deaths, whether you choose to believe it or not. The evidence has been shown to you dozens of times, yet you still lie by trying to assert the production of it causes none. You're living in denial while the vegans you try attacking are being honest about the deaths surrounding their food. Keep it up; your hypocrisy and the silence from others from your side is a gift to the honest vegans who see right through the lot of you. >> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program >> is administered by the U.S. Department of >> Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health >> Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's >> biggest and most controversial activities is killing >> coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect >> western livestock. >> >> Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government >> exterminates tens of thousands of predator and >> "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list >> of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's >> Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 >> coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, >> and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 >> beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black >> bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were >> killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also >> inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used >> include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning >> animals in their dens.] >> http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html >> >> Also, though a customer might switch to grass >> fed beef on the understanding that he would be >> reducing the collateral deaths associated with >> his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that >> "an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days >> and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass >> fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues >> collateral death from the feed grown to feed >> them, just like any other steer in the feedlot. >> >> [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the >> most commented upon topic in this docket. We >> will not belabor all the points of concern which >> are addressed but will focus on the areas of >> concern to our cooperative of growers. While >> Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method >> IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS >> NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that >> you need to define both as what they ARE since >> that is what is motivating the consumer. >> >> While the intent of this language would suggest >> that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, >> especially in Feedlots, the language as written is >> not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing >> 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at >> the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef >> animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for >> 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be >> fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under >> these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with >> consumer expectations as is borne out in the >> website comments.] >> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf >> >> Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after >> their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but >> finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away. >> >> [Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe >> animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed, >> including corn, and finished on rations of grass in >> feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still >> surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals >> that roam where they please or to animals kept in >> barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards. >> No one regulates the use of these terms, and given >> how many years it took to achieve a national >> definition of "organic," it may be a long time before >> anyone does.] >> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm >> >> You can keep your grass fed beef, because you >> cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths >> than the veg one might buy in a supermarket. >> >> Now, go and have another delusion, hypocrite. Well, Etter? Try challenging or refuting that evidence for a change instead of just repeating your stupidity. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:24:34 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"D" > wrote in message ... >> On 5 Nov 2004 05:15:19 -0800, (That One Guy) wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> I used to be vegan for like two weeks a few months ago, since then I >>>have relized my mistake. I was getting yelled at for my political >>>veiws by the vegans at veganforum.com I can't beleive the way the were >>>acting! Anyways, they were all ganging up on me and stuff and now >>>they have pushed me away from that way of thinking for ever. >> >> You shouldn't allow yourself to be bullied so easily. Get yourself >> some moral fibre and stand up for what you believe. And besides, >> if you were trying to adopt a vegan lifestyle, why were your fellow >> vegans on that group yelling at you? It doesn't make sense that >> they should yell at you, as you claim, if in fact you were a vegan >> at the time. >> >>> I should have just listened to you from the start, Rick Thanks! >> >> Yes, you should have, and then you might've seen what a liar he >> is and how easily you got taken in by him >---------------------- >LOL The only joke worth laughing about here is you while trying to deny the collateral deaths surrounding the production of grass fed beef. >> While he does his best >> to attack vegans for the collateral deaths associated with every >> morsel of food they eat, he denies the fact that the production of >> his accrues them. Take a look at his response to the message >> below from "ipse dixit". >> >> [start ipse dixit to Rick Etter] >>> Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated >>> with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you >>> accept that the *general* production, storage, and >>> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral >>> deaths. >> ============================ >> Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period. >> [end] >> Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m Explain to me how sending messages to usenet causes collateral deaths while the "*general* production, storage, and distribution of grass fed beef accumulates" none at all, hypocrite. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:24:34 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"D" > wrote in message ... >> On 5 Nov 2004 05:15:19 -0800, (That One Guy) wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> I used to be vegan for like two weeks a few months ago, since then I >>>have relized my mistake. I was getting yelled at for my political >>>veiws by the vegans at veganforum.com I can't beleive the way the were >>>acting! Anyways, they were all ganging up on me and stuff and now >>>they have pushed me away from that way of thinking for ever. >> >> You shouldn't allow yourself to be bullied so easily. Get yourself >> some moral fibre and stand up for what you believe. And besides, >> if you were trying to adopt a vegan lifestyle, why were your fellow >> vegans on that group yelling at you? It doesn't make sense that >> they should yell at you, as you claim, if in fact you were a vegan >> at the time. >> >>> I should have just listened to you from the start, Rick Thanks! >> >> Yes, you should have, and then you might've seen what a liar he >> is and how easily you got taken in by him >---------------------- >LOL The only joke worth laughing about here is you while trying to deny the collateral deaths surrounding the production of grass fed beef. >> While he does his best >> to attack vegans for the collateral deaths associated with every >> morsel of food they eat, he denies the fact that the production of >> his accrues them. Take a look at his response to the message >> below from "ipse dixit". >> >> [start ipse dixit to Rick Etter] >>> Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated >>> with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you >>> accept that the *general* production, storage, and >>> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral >>> deaths. >> ============================ >> Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period. >> [end] >> Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m Explain to me how sending messages to usenet causes collateral deaths while the "*general* production, storage, and distribution of grass fed beef accumulates" none at all, hypocrite. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:22:09 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>"D" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:08:56 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . com... >>> [..] >>>>> Go to your la la land and find cows mostly grazing on open prairies. >>>>==================== >>>>LOL Hey fool, all beef cows are pasture fed for most of their lives. >>> >>> Unlike you, Etter, vegans readily acknowledge the fact >>> that animals die collaterally during the production of ther >>> food. They don't lie about the production of their food. >>> >>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>> Rick Etter 2003-11-15 >>> >>> But evidence proves that that is a long way from >>> the truth. >>================== >>No twits, it doesn't. > > The beef you claim to eat does accrue collateral deaths, > whether you choose to believe it or not. The evidence > has been shown to you dozens of times, yet you still lie ================ No, I don't. The ADC has no bearing on the beef I eat. Now, as to millions upon millions of birds for crops.... > by trying to assert the production of it causes none. You're > living in denial while the vegans you try attacking are being > honest about the deaths surrounding their food. Keep it up; > your hypocrisy and the silence from others from your side > is a gift to the honest vegans who see right through the lot > of you. > >>> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program >>> is administered by the U.S. Department of >>> Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health >>> Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's >>> biggest and most controversial activities is killing >>> coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect >>> western livestock. >>> >>> Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government >>> exterminates tens of thousands of predator and >>> "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list >>> of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's >>> Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 >>> coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, >>> and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 >>> beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black >>> bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were >>> killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also >>> inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used >>> include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning >>> animals in their dens.] >>> http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html >>> >>> Also, though a customer might switch to grass >>> fed beef on the understanding that he would be >>> reducing the collateral deaths associated with >>> his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that >>> "an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days >>> and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass >>> fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues >>> collateral death from the feed grown to feed >>> them, just like any other steer in the feedlot. >>> >>> [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the >>> most commented upon topic in this docket. We >>> will not belabor all the points of concern which >>> are addressed but will focus on the areas of >>> concern to our cooperative of growers. While >>> Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method >>> IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS >>> NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that >>> you need to define both as what they ARE since >>> that is what is motivating the consumer. >>> >>> While the intent of this language would suggest >>> that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, >>> especially in Feedlots, the language as written is >>> not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing >>> 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at >>> the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef >>> animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for >>> 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be >>> fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under >>> these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with >>> consumer expectations as is borne out in the >>> website comments.] >>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf >>> >>> Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after >>> their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but >>> finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away. >>> >>> [Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe >>> animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed, >>> including corn, and finished on rations of grass in >>> feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still >>> surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals >>> that roam where they please or to animals kept in >>> barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards. >>> No one regulates the use of these terms, and given >>> how many years it took to achieve a national >>> definition of "organic," it may be a long time before >>> anyone does.] >>> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm >>> >>> You can keep your grass fed beef, because you >>> cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths >>> than the veg one might buy in a supermarket. >>> >>> Now, go and have another delusion, hypocrite. > > Well, Etter? Try challenging or refuting that evidence for > a change instead of just repeating your stupidity. ================== Nothing to refute fool. There is no ADC control operations on the beef I eat. Like I said, I'll see your coyotes killed out west and raise you millions and millions of birds. The ADC appears to be in business of killing birds for your crops mostly, hypocrite. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:24:34 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>"D" > wrote in message . .. >>> On 5 Nov 2004 05:15:19 -0800, (That One Guy) wrote: >>> >>>>Hi, >>>> I used to be vegan for like two weeks a few months ago, since then I >>>>have relized my mistake. I was getting yelled at for my political >>>>veiws by the vegans at veganforum.com I can't beleive the way the were >>>>acting! Anyways, they were all ganging up on me and stuff and now >>>>they have pushed me away from that way of thinking for ever. >>> >>> You shouldn't allow yourself to be bullied so easily. Get yourself >>> some moral fibre and stand up for what you believe. And besides, >>> if you were trying to adopt a vegan lifestyle, why were your fellow >>> vegans on that group yelling at you? It doesn't make sense that >>> they should yell at you, as you claim, if in fact you were a vegan >>> at the time. >>> >>>> I should have just listened to you from the start, Rick Thanks! >>> >>> Yes, you should have, and then you might've seen what a liar he >>> is and how easily you got taken in by him >>---------------------- >>LOL > > The only joke worth laughing about here is you while trying > to deny the collateral deaths surrounding the production of > grass fed beef. ==================== Nothing for you there fool. > >>> While he does his best >>> to attack vegans for the collateral deaths associated with every >>> morsel of food they eat, he denies the fact that the production of >>> his accrues them. Take a look at his response to the message >>> below from "ipse dixit". >>> >>> [start ipse dixit to Rick Etter] >>>> Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated >>>> with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you >>>> accept that the *general* production, storage, and >>>> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral >>>> deaths. >>> ============================ >>> Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period. >>> [end] >>> Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m > > Explain to me how sending messages to usenet causes collateral > deaths while the "*general* production, storage, and distribution > of grass fed beef accumulates" none at all, hypocrite. ==================== Ah, you're still too stupid to understand english I see, eh killer? You have once again changed the statement to fit your delsuions, rather than what I said. No where have I sadi that the "...production, storage, and distribution of grass fed beef accumulates..." no deaths. In fact I have already admitted many times that the beef I *eat* does cause CDs. Too bad english isn't a first language for you, eh fool? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:33:26 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"D" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:22:09 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>"D" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:08:56 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . .. >>>> [..] >>>>>> Go to your la la land and find cows mostly grazing on open prairies. >>>>>==================== >>>>>LOL Hey fool, all beef cows are pasture fed for most of their lives. >>>> >>>> Unlike you, Etter, vegans readily acknowledge the fact >>>> that animals die collaterally during the production of ther >>>> food. They don't lie about the production of their food. >>>> >>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>> Rick Etter 2003-11-15 >>>> >>>> But evidence proves that that is a long way from >>>> the truth. >>>================== >>>No twits, it doesn't. >> >> The beef you claim to eat does accrue collateral deaths, >> whether you choose to believe it or not. The evidence >> has been shown to you dozens of times, yet you still lie >================ >No, I don't. The ADC has no bearing on the beef I eat. I doubt that that is true, but, nevertheless, the grass fed beef you claim to eat does accrue collateral deaths. It doesn't slaughter, package and distribute itself to its consumer without causing those collateral deaths you deny exist. Can you see your hypocisy yet? While trying to attack vegan for the collateral deaths associated with their diets, you deny the deaths associated with yours. >Now, as to millions upon millions of birds for crops.... Collateral deaths exist in all food production, but no one denies this fact apart from you, and yet you spend all day, year after year, desperately trying to attack vegans for the collateral deaths associated with theirs. >> by trying to assert the production of it causes none. You're >> living in denial while the vegans you try attacking are being >> honest about the deaths surrounding their food. Keep it up; >> your hypocrisy and the silence from others from your side >> is a gift to the honest vegans who see right through the lot >> of you. >> >>>> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program >>>> is administered by the U.S. Department of >>>> Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health >>>> Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's >>>> biggest and most controversial activities is killing >>>> coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect >>>> western livestock. >>>> >>>> Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government >>>> exterminates tens of thousands of predator and >>>> "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list >>>> of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's >>>> Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 >>>> coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, >>>> and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 >>>> beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black >>>> bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were >>>> killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also >>>> inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used >>>> include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning >>>> animals in their dens.] >>>> http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html >>>> >>>> Also, though a customer might switch to grass >>>> fed beef on the understanding that he would be >>>> reducing the collateral deaths associated with >>>> his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that >>>> "an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days >>>> and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass >>>> fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues >>>> collateral death from the feed grown to feed >>>> them, just like any other steer in the feedlot. >>>> >>>> [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the >>>> most commented upon topic in this docket. We >>>> will not belabor all the points of concern which >>>> are addressed but will focus on the areas of >>>> concern to our cooperative of growers. While >>>> Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method >>>> IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS >>>> NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that >>>> you need to define both as what they ARE since >>>> that is what is motivating the consumer. >>>> >>>> While the intent of this language would suggest >>>> that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, >>>> especially in Feedlots, the language as written is >>>> not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing >>>> 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at >>>> the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef >>>> animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for >>>> 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be >>>> fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under >>>> these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with >>>> consumer expectations as is borne out in the >>>> website comments.] >>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf >>>> >>>> Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after >>>> their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but >>>> finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away. >>>> >>>> [Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe >>>> animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed, >>>> including corn, and finished on rations of grass in >>>> feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still >>>> surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals >>>> that roam where they please or to animals kept in >>>> barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards. >>>> No one regulates the use of these terms, and given >>>> how many years it took to achieve a national >>>> definition of "organic," it may be a long time before >>>> anyone does.] >>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm >>>> >>>> You can keep your grass fed beef, because you >>>> cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths >>>> than the veg one might buy in a supermarket. >>>> >>>> Now, go and have another delusion, hypocrite. >> >> Well, Etter? Try challenging or refuting that evidence for >> a change instead of just repeating your stupidity. >================== >Nothing to refute fool. There certainly is, Etter, because the material I've provided from U.S.D.A. shows that, contrary to your statements; "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." Rick Etter 2003-11-15 the production of grass fed beef does accrue them. You either have to admit grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths or refute the evidence from U.S.D.A. Take your pick, but my guess is that you'll do neither. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:37:36 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"D" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:24:34 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>"D" > wrote in message ... >>>> On 5 Nov 2004 05:15:19 -0800, (That One Guy) wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi, >>>>> I used to be vegan for like two weeks a few months ago, since then I >>>>>have relized my mistake. I was getting yelled at for my political >>>>>veiws by the vegans at veganforum.com I can't beleive the way the were >>>>>acting! Anyways, they were all ganging up on me and stuff and now >>>>>they have pushed me away from that way of thinking for ever. >>>> >>>> You shouldn't allow yourself to be bullied so easily. Get yourself >>>> some moral fibre and stand up for what you believe. And besides, >>>> if you were trying to adopt a vegan lifestyle, why were your fellow >>>> vegans on that group yelling at you? It doesn't make sense that >>>> they should yell at you, as you claim, if in fact you were a vegan >>>> at the time. >>>> >>>>> I should have just listened to you from the start, Rick Thanks! >>>> >>>> Yes, you should have, and then you might've seen what a liar he >>>> is and how easily you got taken in by him >>>---------------------- >>>LOL >> >> The only joke worth laughing about here is you while trying >> to deny the collateral deaths surrounding the production of >> grass fed beef. >==================== >Nothing for you there fool. Why do you deny the fact that grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths? >>>> While he does his best >>>> to attack vegans for the collateral deaths associated with every >>>> morsel of food they eat, he denies the fact that the production of >>>> his accrues them. Take a look at his response to the message >>>> below from "ipse dixit". >>>> >>>> [start ipse dixit to Rick Etter] >>>>> Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated >>>>> with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you >>>>> accept that the *general* production, storage, and >>>>> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral >>>>> deaths. >>>> ============================ >>>> Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period. >>>> [end] >>>> Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m >> >> Explain to me how sending messages to usenet causes collateral >> deaths while the "*general* production, storage, and distribution >> of grass fed beef accumulates" none at all, hypocrite. >==================== >Ah, you're still too stupid to understand english I see, eh killer? You >have once again changed the statement to fit your delsuions, rather than >what I said. Go to the link provided and see that what I've produced here is a cut and paste from the original. >No where have I sadi that the "...production, storage, and >distribution of grass fed beef accumulates..." no deaths. I didn't claim that you did. Bad dodge, Rick. >In fact I have already admitted many times that the beef I *eat* does cause CDs. And that's exactly what I'm referring to: the grass fed beef you claim to eat. I take it it does roam a field, taking up valuable wildlife habitat, that it is slaughtered and prepared, and that it indirectly uses petro chems and electricity? If it doesn't, then it's hardly representative of grass fed beef, and you ought to make that clear when promoting it. Even so, despite this lie of omission, you fail to take into account that this beef you claim to eat takes up valuable habitat where wildlife would otherwise thrive, so to claim your beef doesn't cause or promote collateral deaths is absurd and in fact a lie. > Too bad english isn't a first language for you, eh fool? You're a joke, Rick. Don't you see that? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:37:36 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"D" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:24:34 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>"D" > wrote in message ... >>>> On 5 Nov 2004 05:15:19 -0800, (That One Guy) wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi, >>>>> I used to be vegan for like two weeks a few months ago, since then I >>>>>have relized my mistake. I was getting yelled at for my political >>>>>veiws by the vegans at veganforum.com I can't beleive the way the were >>>>>acting! Anyways, they were all ganging up on me and stuff and now >>>>>they have pushed me away from that way of thinking for ever. >>>> >>>> You shouldn't allow yourself to be bullied so easily. Get yourself >>>> some moral fibre and stand up for what you believe. And besides, >>>> if you were trying to adopt a vegan lifestyle, why were your fellow >>>> vegans on that group yelling at you? It doesn't make sense that >>>> they should yell at you, as you claim, if in fact you were a vegan >>>> at the time. >>>> >>>>> I should have just listened to you from the start, Rick Thanks! >>>> >>>> Yes, you should have, and then you might've seen what a liar he >>>> is and how easily you got taken in by him >>>---------------------- >>>LOL >> >> The only joke worth laughing about here is you while trying >> to deny the collateral deaths surrounding the production of >> grass fed beef. >==================== >Nothing for you there fool. Why do you deny the fact that grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths? >>>> While he does his best >>>> to attack vegans for the collateral deaths associated with every >>>> morsel of food they eat, he denies the fact that the production of >>>> his accrues them. Take a look at his response to the message >>>> below from "ipse dixit". >>>> >>>> [start ipse dixit to Rick Etter] >>>>> Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated >>>>> with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you >>>>> accept that the *general* production, storage, and >>>>> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral >>>>> deaths. >>>> ============================ >>>> Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period. >>>> [end] >>>> Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m >> >> Explain to me how sending messages to usenet causes collateral >> deaths while the "*general* production, storage, and distribution >> of grass fed beef accumulates" none at all, hypocrite. >==================== >Ah, you're still too stupid to understand english I see, eh killer? You >have once again changed the statement to fit your delsuions, rather than >what I said. Go to the link provided and see that what I've produced here is a cut and paste from the original. >No where have I sadi that the "...production, storage, and >distribution of grass fed beef accumulates..." no deaths. I didn't claim that you did. Bad dodge, Rick. >In fact I have already admitted many times that the beef I *eat* does cause CDs. And that's exactly what I'm referring to: the grass fed beef you claim to eat. I take it it does roam a field, taking up valuable wildlife habitat, that it is slaughtered and prepared, and that it indirectly uses petro chems and electricity? If it doesn't, then it's hardly representative of grass fed beef, and you ought to make that clear when promoting it. Even so, despite this lie of omission, you fail to take into account that this beef you claim to eat takes up valuable habitat where wildlife would otherwise thrive, so to claim your beef doesn't cause or promote collateral deaths is absurd and in fact a lie. > Too bad english isn't a first language for you, eh fool? You're a joke, Rick. Don't you see that? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:33:26 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>"D" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:22:09 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>>"D" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:08:56 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>>>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message r.com... >>>>> [..] >>>>>>> Go to your la la land and find cows mostly grazing on open prairies. >>>>>>==================== >>>>>>LOL Hey fool, all beef cows are pasture fed for most of their lives. >>>>> >>>>> Unlike you, Etter, vegans readily acknowledge the fact >>>>> that animals die collaterally during the production of ther >>>>> food. They don't lie about the production of their food. >>>>> >>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>> Rick Etter 2003-11-15 >>>>> >>>>> But evidence proves that that is a long way from >>>>> the truth. >>>>================== >>>>No twits, it doesn't. >>> >>> The beef you claim to eat does accrue collateral deaths, >>> whether you choose to believe it or not. The evidence >>> has been shown to you dozens of times, yet you still lie >>================ >>No, I don't. The ADC has no bearing on the beef I eat. > > I doubt that that is true, ================ You can doubt all you want. Or, you can come look at them, eh killer? but, nevertheless, the grass fed > beef you claim to eat does accrue collateral deaths. It > doesn't slaughter, package and distribute itself to its > consumer without causing those collateral deaths you > deny exist. ================== Again, you have trouble with english, don't you? I never claimed that the beef I *eat* causes no CDs. Too bad you're too stupid to understand english. Can you see your hypocisy yet? While trying > to attack vegan for the collateral deaths associated with > their diets, you deny the deaths associated with yours. > >>Now, as to millions upon millions of birds for crops.... > > Collateral deaths exist in all food production, but no one > denies this fact apart from you, and yet you spend all day, > year after year, desperately trying to attack vegans for the > collateral deaths associated with theirs. > >>> by trying to assert the production of it causes none. You're >>> living in denial while the vegans you try attacking are being >>> honest about the deaths surrounding their food. Keep it up; >>> your hypocrisy and the silence from others from your side >>> is a gift to the honest vegans who see right through the lot >>> of you. >>> >>>>> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program >>>>> is administered by the U.S. Department of >>>>> Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health >>>>> Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's >>>>> biggest and most controversial activities is killing >>>>> coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect >>>>> western livestock. >>>>> >>>>> Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government >>>>> exterminates tens of thousands of predator and >>>>> "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list >>>>> of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's >>>>> Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 >>>>> coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, >>>>> and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 >>>>> beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black >>>>> bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were >>>>> killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also >>>>> inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used >>>>> include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning >>>>> animals in their dens.] >>>>> http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html >>>>> >>>>> Also, though a customer might switch to grass >>>>> fed beef on the understanding that he would be >>>>> reducing the collateral deaths associated with >>>>> his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that >>>>> "an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days >>>>> and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass >>>>> fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues >>>>> collateral death from the feed grown to feed >>>>> them, just like any other steer in the feedlot. >>>>> >>>>> [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the >>>>> most commented upon topic in this docket. We >>>>> will not belabor all the points of concern which >>>>> are addressed but will focus on the areas of >>>>> concern to our cooperative of growers. While >>>>> Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method >>>>> IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS >>>>> NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that >>>>> you need to define both as what they ARE since >>>>> that is what is motivating the consumer. >>>>> >>>>> While the intent of this language would suggest >>>>> that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, >>>>> especially in Feedlots, the language as written is >>>>> not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing >>>>> 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at >>>>> the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef >>>>> animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for >>>>> 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be >>>>> fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under >>>>> these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with >>>>> consumer expectations as is borne out in the >>>>> website comments.] >>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf >>>>> >>>>> Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after >>>>> their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but >>>>> finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away. >>>>> >>>>> [Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe >>>>> animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed, >>>>> including corn, and finished on rations of grass in >>>>> feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still >>>>> surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals >>>>> that roam where they please or to animals kept in >>>>> barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards. >>>>> No one regulates the use of these terms, and given >>>>> how many years it took to achieve a national >>>>> definition of "organic," it may be a long time before >>>>> anyone does.] >>>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm >>>>> >>>>> You can keep your grass fed beef, because you >>>>> cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths >>>>> than the veg one might buy in a supermarket. >>>>> >>>>> Now, go and have another delusion, hypocrite. >>> >>> Well, Etter? Try challenging or refuting that evidence for >>> a change instead of just repeating your stupidity. >>================== >>Nothing to refute fool. > > There certainly is, Etter, because the material I've provided > from U.S.D.A. shows that, contrary to your statements; ================= Nope. the ADC doesn't 'protect' the beef I eat, killer. > > "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." > "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." > Rick Etter 2003-11-15 > > the production of grass fed beef does accrue them. You > either have to admit grass fed beef accrues collateral > deaths or refute the evidence from U.S.D.A. Take your > pick, but my guess is that you'll do neither. ===================== No need to. You haven't shown anything, fool. Except of course your continued ignorance, and lack of english comprehension. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:37:36 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>"D" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:24:34 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>>"D" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On 5 Nov 2004 05:15:19 -0800, (That One Guy) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hi, >>>>>> I used to be vegan for like two weeks a few months ago, since then I >>>>>>have relized my mistake. I was getting yelled at for my political >>>>>>veiws by the vegans at veganforum.com I can't beleive the way the were >>>>>>acting! Anyways, they were all ganging up on me and stuff and now >>>>>>they have pushed me away from that way of thinking for ever. >>>>> >>>>> You shouldn't allow yourself to be bullied so easily. Get yourself >>>>> some moral fibre and stand up for what you believe. And besides, >>>>> if you were trying to adopt a vegan lifestyle, why were your fellow >>>>> vegans on that group yelling at you? It doesn't make sense that >>>>> they should yell at you, as you claim, if in fact you were a vegan >>>>> at the time. >>>>> >>>>>> I should have just listened to you from the start, Rick Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Yes, you should have, and then you might've seen what a liar he >>>>> is and how easily you got taken in by him >>>>---------------------- >>>>LOL >>> >>> The only joke worth laughing about here is you while trying >>> to deny the collateral deaths surrounding the production of >>> grass fed beef. >>==================== >>Nothing for you there fool. > > Why do you deny the fact that grass fed beef accrues collateral > deaths? ================ Nope. I never denied that the beef I *eat* doesn't cause any. > >>>>> While he does his best >>>>> to attack vegans for the collateral deaths associated with every >>>>> morsel of food they eat, he denies the fact that the production of >>>>> his accrues them. Take a look at his response to the message >>>>> below from "ipse dixit". >>>>> >>>>> [start ipse dixit to Rick Etter] >>>>>> Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated >>>>>> with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you >>>>>> accept that the *general* production, storage, and >>>>>> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral >>>>>> deaths. >>>>> ============================ >>>>> Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period. >>>>> [end] >>>>> Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m >>> >>> Explain to me how sending messages to usenet causes collateral >>> deaths while the "*general* production, storage, and distribution >>> of grass fed beef accumulates" none at all, hypocrite. >>==================== >>Ah, you're still too stupid to understand english I see, eh killer? You >>have once again changed the statement to fit your delsuions, rather than >>what I said. > > Go to the link provided and see that what I've produced > here is a cut and paste from the original. ====================== I have fool. The statement you quote above is *YOURS*, killer. > >>No where have I sadi that the "...production, storage, and >>distribution of grass fed beef accumulates..." no deaths. > > I didn't claim that you did. Bad dodge, Rick. ================= That is *YOUR* statement fool. That's what you are saying when you say "...while the "*general* production, storage, and distribution of grass fed beef accumulates" none at all..." You already know full well i have never said that. Really, you should try to keep focused. I know that that is hard to do, what with only 2 remaining braincells and all. > >>In fact I have already admitted many times that the beef I *eat* does >>cause CDs. > > And that's exactly what I'm referring to: the grass fed beef you > claim to eat. I take it it does roam a field, taking up valuable > wildlife habitat, ==================== LOL You really are an ignorant buffoon, aren't you Twits? Crop farms *destroy* wildlife habitat. crop farming is the definition of environmental destruction of native habitats, killer. Cows can graze perfectly in natural, native grasslands. that it is slaughtered and prepared, and that > it indirectly uses petro chems and electricity? If it doesn't, > then it's hardly representative of grass fed beef, and you > ought to make that clear when promoting it. Even so, despite > this lie of omission, you fail to take into account that this beef > you claim to eat takes up valuable habitat where wildlife would > otherwise thrive, so to claim your beef doesn't cause or promote > collateral deaths is absurd and in fact a lie. ====================== Again, you have change the conditions to something I never said. But then, that's all you have anyway, lys, delusions and ignorance. > >> Too bad english isn't a first language for you, eh fool? > > You're a joke, Rick. Don't you see that? ================= I see that you still can't read, twits... > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:09:10 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"D" > wrote in message ... >> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:37:36 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>"D" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:24:34 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>>>"D" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On 5 Nov 2004 05:15:19 -0800, (That One Guy) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi, >>>>>>> I used to be vegan for like two weeks a few months ago, since then I >>>>>>>have relized my mistake. I was getting yelled at for my political >>>>>>>veiws by the vegans at veganforum.com I can't beleive the way the were >>>>>>>acting! Anyways, they were all ganging up on me and stuff and now >>>>>>>they have pushed me away from that way of thinking for ever. >>>>>> >>>>>> You shouldn't allow yourself to be bullied so easily. Get yourself >>>>>> some moral fibre and stand up for what you believe. And besides, >>>>>> if you were trying to adopt a vegan lifestyle, why were your fellow >>>>>> vegans on that group yelling at you? It doesn't make sense that >>>>>> they should yell at you, as you claim, if in fact you were a vegan >>>>>> at the time. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I should have just listened to you from the start, Rick Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, you should have, and then you might've seen what a liar he >>>>>> is and how easily you got taken in by him >>>>>---------------------- >>>>>LOL >>>> >>>> The only joke worth laughing about here is you while trying >>>> to deny the collateral deaths surrounding the production of >>>> grass fed beef. >>>==================== >>>Nothing for you there fool. >> >> Why do you deny the fact that grass fed beef accrues collateral >> deaths? >================ >Nope. I never denied that the beef I *eat* doesn't cause any. You're lying, Etter, and your quotes held in Google archives prove it.You do deny that the beef you eat causes them, and this is while honest vegans readily accept they occur during the production of their food. You're a lying hypocrite. >>>>>> While he does his best >>>>>> to attack vegans for the collateral deaths associated with every >>>>>> morsel of food they eat, he denies the fact that the production of >>>>>> his accrues them. Take a look at his response to the message >>>>>> below from "ipse dixit". >>>>>> >>>>>> [start ipse dixit to Rick Etter] >>>>>>> Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated >>>>>>> with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you >>>>>>> accept that the *general* production, storage, and >>>>>>> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral >>>>>>> deaths. >>>>>> ============================ >>>>>> Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period. >>>>>> [end] >>>>>> Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m >>>> >>>> Explain to me how sending messages to usenet causes collateral >>>> deaths while the "*general* production, storage, and distribution >>>> of grass fed beef accumulates" none at all, hypocrite. >>>==================== >>>Ah, you're still too stupid to understand english I see, eh killer? You >>>have once again changed the statement to fit your delsuions, rather than >>>what I said. >> >> Go to the link provided and see that what I've produced >> here is a cut and paste from the original. >====================== >I have fool. The statement you quote above is *YOURS*, killer. It's yours, Etter, so there's no use you denying it. Go to the link I provided and see for yourself, and you'll realise what a joke you are. >>>No where have I sadi that the "...production, storage, and >>>distribution of grass fed beef accumulates..." no deaths. >> >> I didn't claim that you did. Bad dodge, Rick. >================= >That is *YOUR* statement fool. The statement asks; "Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you accept that the *general* production, storage, and distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral deaths." and you replied; "Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m That answer shows that you deny the collateral deaths associated with the grass fed beef you claim to eat, and this is while you try attacking vegans for the collateral deaths associated with theirs. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds and makes the other corpse eaters who fail to tackle you on this issue hypocrites as well. As I've said before, your lies and hypocrisy is a gift to the vegans you try attacking. >>>In fact I have already admitted many times that the beef I *eat* does >>>cause CDs. >> >> And that's exactly what I'm referring to: the grass fed beef you >> claim to eat. I take it it does roam a field, taking up valuable >> wildlife habitat, >==================== >LOL You really are an ignorant buffoon, aren't you Twits? Crop farms >*destroy* wildlife habitat. We're talking of the grass fed beef you claim to eat rather than crop farming. I knew you'd try to dodge the issue by referring to something else. The grass fed beef you claim to eat takes up valuable wildlife habitat where millions of other animals could thrive, so your assertion that "The production of my beef promotes no CDs" is a lie, and you know it. >> that it is slaughtered and prepared, and that >> it indirectly uses petro chems and electricity? If it doesn't, >> then it's hardly representative of grass fed beef, and you >> ought to make that clear when promoting it. Even so, despite >> this lie of omission, you fail to take into account that this beef >> you claim to eat takes up valuable habitat where wildlife would >> otherwise thrive, so to claim your beef doesn't cause or promote >> collateral deaths is absurd and in fact a lie. >====================== >Again, you have change the conditions to something I never said. Your quotes are in Google archives for anyone to check for themselves. Why do you lie when those lies are so easily verified? Don't you feel a bit stupid, or is it that you don't care what others may think of you anymore? >>> Too bad english isn't a first language for you, eh fool? >> >> You're a joke, Rick. Don't you see that? >================= >I see that you still can't read, twits... I can read perfectly well; well enough to see that you've lied repeatedly regarding your diet on grass fed beef. It does cause collateral deaths, so you'd better get used to that fact if you want to avoid being made a fool of. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:09:10 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"D" > wrote in message ... >> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:37:36 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>"D" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:24:34 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>>>"D" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On 5 Nov 2004 05:15:19 -0800, (That One Guy) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi, >>>>>>> I used to be vegan for like two weeks a few months ago, since then I >>>>>>>have relized my mistake. I was getting yelled at for my political >>>>>>>veiws by the vegans at veganforum.com I can't beleive the way the were >>>>>>>acting! Anyways, they were all ganging up on me and stuff and now >>>>>>>they have pushed me away from that way of thinking for ever. >>>>>> >>>>>> You shouldn't allow yourself to be bullied so easily. Get yourself >>>>>> some moral fibre and stand up for what you believe. And besides, >>>>>> if you were trying to adopt a vegan lifestyle, why were your fellow >>>>>> vegans on that group yelling at you? It doesn't make sense that >>>>>> they should yell at you, as you claim, if in fact you were a vegan >>>>>> at the time. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I should have just listened to you from the start, Rick Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, you should have, and then you might've seen what a liar he >>>>>> is and how easily you got taken in by him >>>>>---------------------- >>>>>LOL >>>> >>>> The only joke worth laughing about here is you while trying >>>> to deny the collateral deaths surrounding the production of >>>> grass fed beef. >>>==================== >>>Nothing for you there fool. >> >> Why do you deny the fact that grass fed beef accrues collateral >> deaths? >================ >Nope. I never denied that the beef I *eat* doesn't cause any. You're lying, Etter, and your quotes held in Google archives prove it.You do deny that the beef you eat causes them, and this is while honest vegans readily accept they occur during the production of their food. You're a lying hypocrite. >>>>>> While he does his best >>>>>> to attack vegans for the collateral deaths associated with every >>>>>> morsel of food they eat, he denies the fact that the production of >>>>>> his accrues them. Take a look at his response to the message >>>>>> below from "ipse dixit". >>>>>> >>>>>> [start ipse dixit to Rick Etter] >>>>>>> Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated >>>>>>> with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you >>>>>>> accept that the *general* production, storage, and >>>>>>> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral >>>>>>> deaths. >>>>>> ============================ >>>>>> Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period. >>>>>> [end] >>>>>> Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m >>>> >>>> Explain to me how sending messages to usenet causes collateral >>>> deaths while the "*general* production, storage, and distribution >>>> of grass fed beef accumulates" none at all, hypocrite. >>>==================== >>>Ah, you're still too stupid to understand english I see, eh killer? You >>>have once again changed the statement to fit your delsuions, rather than >>>what I said. >> >> Go to the link provided and see that what I've produced >> here is a cut and paste from the original. >====================== >I have fool. The statement you quote above is *YOURS*, killer. It's yours, Etter, so there's no use you denying it. Go to the link I provided and see for yourself, and you'll realise what a joke you are. >>>No where have I sadi that the "...production, storage, and >>>distribution of grass fed beef accumulates..." no deaths. >> >> I didn't claim that you did. Bad dodge, Rick. >================= >That is *YOUR* statement fool. The statement asks; "Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you accept that the *general* production, storage, and distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral deaths." and you replied; "Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m That answer shows that you deny the collateral deaths associated with the grass fed beef you claim to eat, and this is while you try attacking vegans for the collateral deaths associated with theirs. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds and makes the other corpse eaters who fail to tackle you on this issue hypocrites as well. As I've said before, your lies and hypocrisy is a gift to the vegans you try attacking. >>>In fact I have already admitted many times that the beef I *eat* does >>>cause CDs. >> >> And that's exactly what I'm referring to: the grass fed beef you >> claim to eat. I take it it does roam a field, taking up valuable >> wildlife habitat, >==================== >LOL You really are an ignorant buffoon, aren't you Twits? Crop farms >*destroy* wildlife habitat. We're talking of the grass fed beef you claim to eat rather than crop farming. I knew you'd try to dodge the issue by referring to something else. The grass fed beef you claim to eat takes up valuable wildlife habitat where millions of other animals could thrive, so your assertion that "The production of my beef promotes no CDs" is a lie, and you know it. >> that it is slaughtered and prepared, and that >> it indirectly uses petro chems and electricity? If it doesn't, >> then it's hardly representative of grass fed beef, and you >> ought to make that clear when promoting it. Even so, despite >> this lie of omission, you fail to take into account that this beef >> you claim to eat takes up valuable habitat where wildlife would >> otherwise thrive, so to claim your beef doesn't cause or promote >> collateral deaths is absurd and in fact a lie. >====================== >Again, you have change the conditions to something I never said. Your quotes are in Google archives for anyone to check for themselves. Why do you lie when those lies are so easily verified? Don't you feel a bit stupid, or is it that you don't care what others may think of you anymore? >>> Too bad english isn't a first language for you, eh fool? >> >> You're a joke, Rick. Don't you see that? >================= >I see that you still can't read, twits... I can read perfectly well; well enough to see that you've lied repeatedly regarding your diet on grass fed beef. It does cause collateral deaths, so you'd better get used to that fact if you want to avoid being made a fool of. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 02:58:31 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"D" > wrote in message ... >> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:33:26 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>"D" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:22:09 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>>>"D" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:08:56 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . .. >>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>> Go to your la la land and find cows mostly grazing on open prairies. >>>>>>>==================== >>>>>>>LOL Hey fool, all beef cows are pasture fed for most of their lives. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unlike you, Etter, vegans readily acknowledge the fact >>>>>> that animals die collaterally during the production of ther >>>>>> food. They don't lie about the production of their food. >>>>>> >>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>>> Rick Etter 2003-11-15 >>>>>> >>>>>> But evidence proves that that is a long way from >>>>>> the truth. >>>>>================== >>>>>No twits, it doesn't. >>>> >>>> The beef you claim to eat does accrue collateral deaths, >>>> whether you choose to believe it or not. The evidence >>>> has been shown to you dozens of times, yet you still lie >>>================ >>>No, I don't. The ADC has no bearing on the beef I eat. >> >> I doubt that that is true, >================ >You can doubt all you want. I have no option but to doubt you, since you've lied repeatedly about your diet for years now and don't look ready to stop yet. >> but, nevertheless, the grass fed >> beef you claim to eat does accrue collateral deaths. It >> doesn't slaughter, package and distribute itself to its >> consumer without causing those collateral deaths you >> deny exist. >================== >Again, you have trouble with english, don't you? I never claimed that the >beef I *eat* causes no CDs. Here's the evidence proving you did, once again. "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." Rick Etter 2003-11-15 [start ipse dixit to Rick Etter] Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you accept that the *general* production, storage, and distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral deaths. ============================ Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period. [end] Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m As we can all see, you're lying through your teeth, Etter. >> Can you see your hypocisy yet? While trying >> to attack vegan for the collateral deaths associated with >> their diets, you deny the deaths associated with yours. >> >>>Now, as to millions upon millions of birds for crops.... >> >> Collateral deaths exist in all food production, but no one >> denies this fact apart from you, and yet you spend all day, >> year after year, desperately trying to attack vegans for the >> collateral deaths associated with theirs. Well, Etter? What have you to say in defence of these lies you keep telling? >>>> by trying to assert the production of it causes none. You're >>>> living in denial while the vegans you try attacking are being >>>> honest about the deaths surrounding their food. Keep it up; >>>> your hypocrisy and the silence from others from your side >>>> is a gift to the honest vegans who see right through the lot >>>> of you. You failed to respond to this as well. Can't you see that while you lie about the production of grass fed beef, you and those in your tent who refuse to tackle you on this issue are lying. Your hypocrisy and the silence from others in your tent is a gift to the honest vegans who see right through the lot of you. >>>>>> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program >>>>>> is administered by the U.S. Department of >>>>>> Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health >>>>>> Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's >>>>>> biggest and most controversial activities is killing >>>>>> coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect >>>>>> western livestock. >>>>>> >>>>>> Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government >>>>>> exterminates tens of thousands of predator and >>>>>> "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list >>>>>> of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's >>>>>> Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 >>>>>> coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, >>>>>> and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 >>>>>> beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black >>>>>> bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were >>>>>> killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also >>>>>> inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used >>>>>> include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning >>>>>> animals in their dens.] >>>>>> http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, though a customer might switch to grass >>>>>> fed beef on the understanding that he would be >>>>>> reducing the collateral deaths associated with >>>>>> his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that >>>>>> "an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days >>>>>> and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass >>>>>> fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues >>>>>> collateral death from the feed grown to feed >>>>>> them, just like any other steer in the feedlot. >>>>>> >>>>>> [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the >>>>>> most commented upon topic in this docket. We >>>>>> will not belabor all the points of concern which >>>>>> are addressed but will focus on the areas of >>>>>> concern to our cooperative of growers. While >>>>>> Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method >>>>>> IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS >>>>>> NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that >>>>>> you need to define both as what they ARE since >>>>>> that is what is motivating the consumer. >>>>>> >>>>>> While the intent of this language would suggest >>>>>> that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, >>>>>> especially in Feedlots, the language as written is >>>>>> not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing >>>>>> 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at >>>>>> the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef >>>>>> animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for >>>>>> 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be >>>>>> fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under >>>>>> these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with >>>>>> consumer expectations as is borne out in the >>>>>> website comments.] >>>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after >>>>>> their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but >>>>>> finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away. >>>>>> >>>>>> [Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe >>>>>> animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed, >>>>>> including corn, and finished on rations of grass in >>>>>> feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still >>>>>> surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals >>>>>> that roam where they please or to animals kept in >>>>>> barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards. >>>>>> No one regulates the use of these terms, and given >>>>>> how many years it took to achieve a national >>>>>> definition of "organic," it may be a long time before >>>>>> anyone does.] >>>>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> You can keep your grass fed beef, because you >>>>>> cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths >>>>>> than the veg one might buy in a supermarket. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, go and have another delusion, hypocrite. >>>> >>>> Well, Etter? Try challenging or refuting that evidence for >>>> a change instead of just repeating your stupidity. >>>================== >>>Nothing to refute fool. >> >> There certainly is, Etter, because the material I've provided >> from U.S.D.A. shows that, contrary to your statements; >================= >Nope. the ADC doesn't 'protect' the beef I eat, killer. I don't believe you. But let's grant you what you want for the sake of argument and conclude that the A.D.C. doesn't protect your beef animals by killing their natural predators; what of the wildlife it destroys by taking up their habitat? That alone causes collateral deaths, so your claim is certainly a lie on that basis. >> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >> Rick Etter 2003-11-15 >> >> the production of grass fed beef does accrue them. You >> either have to admit grass fed beef accrues collateral >> deaths or refute the evidence from U.S.D.A. Take your >> pick, but my guess is that you'll do neither. >===================== >No need to. Yes, there is, but I knew you'd fail to do either. >You haven't shown anything, fool. I've shown, with the help of evidence from U.S.D.A., that your claim is a lie. Grass fed beef does accrue collateral deaths, so you must either refute the evidence or retract your claim. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 02:58:31 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"D" > wrote in message ... >> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:33:26 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>"D" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:22:09 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>>>"D" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:08:56 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . .. >>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>> Go to your la la land and find cows mostly grazing on open prairies. >>>>>>>==================== >>>>>>>LOL Hey fool, all beef cows are pasture fed for most of their lives. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unlike you, Etter, vegans readily acknowledge the fact >>>>>> that animals die collaterally during the production of ther >>>>>> food. They don't lie about the production of their food. >>>>>> >>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>>> Rick Etter 2003-11-15 >>>>>> >>>>>> But evidence proves that that is a long way from >>>>>> the truth. >>>>>================== >>>>>No twits, it doesn't. >>>> >>>> The beef you claim to eat does accrue collateral deaths, >>>> whether you choose to believe it or not. The evidence >>>> has been shown to you dozens of times, yet you still lie >>>================ >>>No, I don't. The ADC has no bearing on the beef I eat. >> >> I doubt that that is true, >================ >You can doubt all you want. I have no option but to doubt you, since you've lied repeatedly about your diet for years now and don't look ready to stop yet. >> but, nevertheless, the grass fed >> beef you claim to eat does accrue collateral deaths. It >> doesn't slaughter, package and distribute itself to its >> consumer without causing those collateral deaths you >> deny exist. >================== >Again, you have trouble with english, don't you? I never claimed that the >beef I *eat* causes no CDs. Here's the evidence proving you did, once again. "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." Rick Etter 2003-11-15 [start ipse dixit to Rick Etter] Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you accept that the *general* production, storage, and distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral deaths. ============================ Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period. [end] Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m As we can all see, you're lying through your teeth, Etter. >> Can you see your hypocisy yet? While trying >> to attack vegan for the collateral deaths associated with >> their diets, you deny the deaths associated with yours. >> >>>Now, as to millions upon millions of birds for crops.... >> >> Collateral deaths exist in all food production, but no one >> denies this fact apart from you, and yet you spend all day, >> year after year, desperately trying to attack vegans for the >> collateral deaths associated with theirs. Well, Etter? What have you to say in defence of these lies you keep telling? >>>> by trying to assert the production of it causes none. You're >>>> living in denial while the vegans you try attacking are being >>>> honest about the deaths surrounding their food. Keep it up; >>>> your hypocrisy and the silence from others from your side >>>> is a gift to the honest vegans who see right through the lot >>>> of you. You failed to respond to this as well. Can't you see that while you lie about the production of grass fed beef, you and those in your tent who refuse to tackle you on this issue are lying. Your hypocrisy and the silence from others in your tent is a gift to the honest vegans who see right through the lot of you. >>>>>> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program >>>>>> is administered by the U.S. Department of >>>>>> Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health >>>>>> Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's >>>>>> biggest and most controversial activities is killing >>>>>> coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect >>>>>> western livestock. >>>>>> >>>>>> Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government >>>>>> exterminates tens of thousands of predator and >>>>>> "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list >>>>>> of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's >>>>>> Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 >>>>>> coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, >>>>>> and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 >>>>>> beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black >>>>>> bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were >>>>>> killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also >>>>>> inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used >>>>>> include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning >>>>>> animals in their dens.] >>>>>> http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, though a customer might switch to grass >>>>>> fed beef on the understanding that he would be >>>>>> reducing the collateral deaths associated with >>>>>> his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that >>>>>> "an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days >>>>>> and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass >>>>>> fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues >>>>>> collateral death from the feed grown to feed >>>>>> them, just like any other steer in the feedlot. >>>>>> >>>>>> [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the >>>>>> most commented upon topic in this docket. We >>>>>> will not belabor all the points of concern which >>>>>> are addressed but will focus on the areas of >>>>>> concern to our cooperative of growers. While >>>>>> Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method >>>>>> IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS >>>>>> NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that >>>>>> you need to define both as what they ARE since >>>>>> that is what is motivating the consumer. >>>>>> >>>>>> While the intent of this language would suggest >>>>>> that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, >>>>>> especially in Feedlots, the language as written is >>>>>> not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing >>>>>> 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at >>>>>> the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef >>>>>> animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for >>>>>> 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be >>>>>> fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under >>>>>> these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with >>>>>> consumer expectations as is borne out in the >>>>>> website comments.] >>>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after >>>>>> their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but >>>>>> finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away. >>>>>> >>>>>> [Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe >>>>>> animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed, >>>>>> including corn, and finished on rations of grass in >>>>>> feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still >>>>>> surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals >>>>>> that roam where they please or to animals kept in >>>>>> barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards. >>>>>> No one regulates the use of these terms, and given >>>>>> how many years it took to achieve a national >>>>>> definition of "organic," it may be a long time before >>>>>> anyone does.] >>>>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> You can keep your grass fed beef, because you >>>>>> cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths >>>>>> than the veg one might buy in a supermarket. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, go and have another delusion, hypocrite. >>>> >>>> Well, Etter? Try challenging or refuting that evidence for >>>> a change instead of just repeating your stupidity. >>>================== >>>Nothing to refute fool. >> >> There certainly is, Etter, because the material I've provided >> from U.S.D.A. shows that, contrary to your statements; >================= >Nope. the ADC doesn't 'protect' the beef I eat, killer. I don't believe you. But let's grant you what you want for the sake of argument and conclude that the A.D.C. doesn't protect your beef animals by killing their natural predators; what of the wildlife it destroys by taking up their habitat? That alone causes collateral deaths, so your claim is certainly a lie on that basis. >> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >> Rick Etter 2003-11-15 >> >> the production of grass fed beef does accrue them. You >> either have to admit grass fed beef accrues collateral >> deaths or refute the evidence from U.S.D.A. Take your >> pick, but my guess is that you'll do neither. >===================== >No need to. Yes, there is, but I knew you'd fail to do either. >You haven't shown anything, fool. I've shown, with the help of evidence from U.S.D.A., that your claim is a lie. Grass fed beef does accrue collateral deaths, so you must either refute the evidence or retract your claim. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:31:12 +0000, D > wrote:
>You've been shown this material which shows the collateral deaths associated >with grass fed beef many times now, so why do you keep lying by claiming it >doesn't accrue them? They don't always occur. I would have no problem finding grass raised beef that did not involve the killing of predators. In fact, I'd have more trouble getting grass raised beef that did involve the killing of predators. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:31:12 +0000, D > wrote:
>You've been shown this material which shows the collateral deaths associated >with grass fed beef many times now, so why do you keep lying by claiming it >doesn't accrue them? They don't always occur. I would have no problem finding grass raised beef that did not involve the killing of predators. In fact, I'd have more trouble getting grass raised beef that did involve the killing of predators. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:21:20 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:02:06 GMT, wrote: > >>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:31:12 +0000, D > wrote: >> >>>You've been shown this material which shows the collateral deaths associated >>>with grass fed beef many times now, so why do you keep lying by claiming it >>>doesn't accrue them? >> >>They don't always occur. > >Then, likewise, you must concede that collateral deaths in >crop farming don't always occur as well. That's why I say some types of meat involve fewer deaths than some types of vegetable products. >>I would have no problem finding grass raised >>beef that did not involve the killing of predators. > >The collateral deaths associated with grass fed beef include >more than just their natural predators. They include the >animals which are left without their habitat, The wildlife displaced when grazing areas are created for cattle occur one time, not every year like in the production of your vegetables. >those associated >with power generation for their slaughter, freezing, packaging >and distribution. You've been told of these deaths countless >times, yet you still prefer to lie by asserting grass fed beef >accumulates no collateral deaths at all. Present your example(s) of me asserting that. >It does accumulate >them, so when claiming they don't, you lie, Harrison. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:01:52 GMT, wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:21:20 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:02:06 GMT, wrote: >>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:31:12 +0000, D > wrote: >>> >>>>You've been shown this material which shows the collateral deaths associated >>>>with grass fed beef many times now, so why do you keep lying by claiming it >>>>doesn't accrue them? >>> >>>They don't always occur. >> >>Then, likewise, you must concede that collateral deaths in >>crop farming don't always occur as well. > > That's why I say some types of meat involve fewer deaths than some types >of vegetable products. Your problem is that you cannot say how many animals die collaterally for either diet, but, being the imbecile you are you never did take Jon's advice and quit the counting game. >>>I would have no problem finding grass raised >>>beef that did not involve the killing of predators. >> >>The collateral deaths associated with grass fed beef include >>more than just their natural predators. They include the >>animals which are left without their habitat, > > The wildlife displaced when grazing areas are created for cattle occur >one time, not every year like in the production of your vegetables. Whether that displacement happens once or a hundred times, collateral deaths occur during the production and promotion of grass fed beef because of it. >>those associated >>with power generation for their slaughter, freezing, packaging >>and distribution. You've been told of these deaths countless >>times, yet you still prefer to lie by asserting grass fed beef >>accumulates no collateral deaths at all. > > Present your example(s) of me asserting that. You earlier only referred to just a few bugs, completely failing to mention any mammals, so when lying in this way you are asserting no collateral deaths occur apart from those few bugs, by implication. Of course, if you're willing to be honest and go on record as saying untold numbers of collateral deaths accrue due to grass fed beef production, then that would be a first for you. >>It does accumulate >>them, so when claiming they don't, you lie, Harrison. Well, Harrison? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:01:52 GMT, wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:21:20 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:02:06 GMT, wrote: >>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:31:12 +0000, D > wrote: >>> >>>>You've been shown this material which shows the collateral deaths associated >>>>with grass fed beef many times now, so why do you keep lying by claiming it >>>>doesn't accrue them? >>> >>>They don't always occur. >> >>Then, likewise, you must concede that collateral deaths in >>crop farming don't always occur as well. > > That's why I say some types of meat involve fewer deaths than some types >of vegetable products. Your problem is that you cannot say how many animals die collaterally for either diet, but, being the imbecile you are you never did take Jon's advice and quit the counting game. >>>I would have no problem finding grass raised >>>beef that did not involve the killing of predators. >> >>The collateral deaths associated with grass fed beef include >>more than just their natural predators. They include the >>animals which are left without their habitat, > > The wildlife displaced when grazing areas are created for cattle occur >one time, not every year like in the production of your vegetables. Whether that displacement happens once or a hundred times, collateral deaths occur during the production and promotion of grass fed beef because of it. >>those associated >>with power generation for their slaughter, freezing, packaging >>and distribution. You've been told of these deaths countless >>times, yet you still prefer to lie by asserting grass fed beef >>accumulates no collateral deaths at all. > > Present your example(s) of me asserting that. You earlier only referred to just a few bugs, completely failing to mention any mammals, so when lying in this way you are asserting no collateral deaths occur apart from those few bugs, by implication. Of course, if you're willing to be honest and go on record as saying untold numbers of collateral deaths accrue due to grass fed beef production, then that would be a first for you. >>It does accumulate >>them, so when claiming they don't, you lie, Harrison. Well, Harrison? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:19:59 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:01:52 GMT, wrote: >>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:21:20 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:02:06 GMT, wrote: >>>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:31:12 +0000, D > wrote: >>>> >>>>>You've been shown this material which shows the collateral deaths associated >>>>>with grass fed beef many times now, so why do you keep lying by claiming it >>>>>doesn't accrue them? >>>> >>>>They don't always occur. >>> >>>Then, likewise, you must concede that collateral deaths in >>>crop farming don't always occur as well. >> >> That's why I say some types of meat involve fewer deaths than some types >>of vegetable products. > >Your problem is that you cannot say how many animals >die collaterally for either diet, but, being the imbecile you >are you never did take Jon's advice and quit the counting >game. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of vegetable products. You "ARAs" hate to see it pointed out, meaning that it must be a good thing to point out. The truth is not the friend of "AR" imo, and that impression is reinforced every time I see one of you object to seeing certain facts pointed out. >>>>I would have no problem finding grass raised >>>>beef that did not involve the killing of predators. >>> >>>The collateral deaths associated with grass fed beef include >>>more than just their natural predators. They include the >>>animals which are left without their habitat, >> >> The wildlife displaced when grazing areas are created for cattle occur >>one time, not every year like in the production of your vegetables. > >Whether that displacement happens once or a hundred >times, collateral deaths occur during the production and >promotion of grass fed beef But not as many as occur during the production of tofu and rice milk. >because of it. > >>>those associated >>>with power generation for their slaughter, freezing, packaging >>>and distribution. You've been told of these deaths countless >>>times, yet you still prefer to lie by asserting grass fed beef >>>accumulates no collateral deaths at all. >> >> Present your example(s) of me asserting that. > >You earlier only referred to just a few bugs, completely >failing to mention any mammals, I was referring to cases in which only a few bugs are killed, which is the case in all grass raised beef that I've been associated with. >so when lying in this way >you are asserting no collateral deaths occur apart from >those few bugs, by implication. Of course, if you're willing >to be honest and go on record as saying untold numbers of >collateral deaths accrue due to grass fed beef production, >then that would be a first for you. > >>>It does accumulate >>>them, so when claiming they don't, you lie, Harrison. > >Well, Harrison? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message >. ..
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:19:59 +0000, Derek > wrote: > > >On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:01:52 GMT, wrote: > >>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:21:20 +0000, Derek > wrote: > >>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:02:06 GMT, wrote: > >>>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:31:12 +0000, D > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>You've been shown this material which shows the collateral deaths associated > >>>>>with grass fed beef many times now, so why do you keep lying by claiming it > >>>>>doesn't accrue them? > >>>> > >>>>They don't always occur. > >>> > >>>Then, likewise, you must concede that collateral deaths in > >>>crop farming don't always occur as well. > >> > >> That's why I say some types of meat involve fewer deaths than some types > >>of vegetable products. > > > >Your problem is that you cannot say how many animals > >die collaterally for either diet, but, being the imbecile you > >are you never did take Jon's advice and quit the counting > >game. > > Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types > of vegetable products. You "ARAs" hate to see it pointed out, meaning > that it must be a good thing to point out. The truth is not the friend of > "AR" imo, and that impression is reinforced every time I see one of you > object to seeing certain facts pointed out. > > >>>>I would have no problem finding grass raised > >>>>beef that did not involve the killing of predators. > >>> > >>>The collateral deaths associated with grass fed beef include > >>>more than just their natural predators. They include the > >>>animals which are left without their habitat, > >> > >> The wildlife displaced when grazing areas are created for cattle occur > >>one time, not every year like in the production of your vegetables. > > > >Whether that displacement happens once or a hundred > >times, collateral deaths occur during the production and > >promotion of grass fed beef > > But not as many as occur during the production of tofu and > rice milk. Perhaps you could get the Field Mouse Genius to provide you with the photographic proof with which you will convince us of that claim? > >because of it. > > > >>>those associated > >>>with power generation for their slaughter, freezing, packaging > >>>and distribution. You've been told of these deaths countless > >>>times, yet you still prefer to lie by asserting grass fed beef > >>>accumulates no collateral deaths at all. > >> > >> Present your example(s) of me asserting that. > > > >You earlier only referred to just a few bugs, completely > >failing to mention any mammals, > > I was referring to cases in which only a few bugs are killed, > which is the case in all grass raised beef that I've been > associated with. > > >so when lying in this way > >you are asserting no collateral deaths occur apart from > >those few bugs, by implication. Of course, if you're willing > >to be honest and go on record as saying untold numbers of > >collateral deaths accrue due to grass fed beef production, > >then that would be a first for you. > > > >>>It does accumulate > >>>them, so when claiming they don't, you lie, Harrison. > > > >Well, Harrison? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message m... > wrote in message > >. .. snip... > >> But not as many as occur during the production of tofu and >> rice milk. > > > > Perhaps you could get the Field Mouse Genius to provide you with the > photographic proof with which you will convince us of that claim? > ======================== You still on about this bit of foolishness? Just try reading the sites I have posted from reputable sources, not the religious ones you like. I see you're part of the brainwashed consumer-ad driven sheeple that don't believe anything they don't see on TV, eh killer? btw, You've never seen 'air' either, and you can't photograph it, so I guess to you that means it doesn't exist. snip... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
rick etter wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > m... > wrote in message >... > > > > > snip... > > > > >>> But not as many as occur during the production of tofu and >>>rice milk. >> >> >> >>Perhaps you could get the Field Mouse Genius to provide you with the >>photographic proof with which you will convince us of that claim? >>======================== > > You still on about this bit of foolishness? Just try reading the sites I > have posted from reputable sources, not the religious ones you like. Like the NY Times Article I posted. Or the scientific references about the cause of the Sahara Desert? Science sir. Or http://www.wildflowers-and-weeds.com/sahara.htm has many excellent university and main stream references. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wi...pa/pa1327.html Or is National Geographic a "foolish, religious" press? It's basic archaeologic knowledge the sahara was a fertile growing area. Do you deny that? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Nov 2004 13:14:49 -0800, (Ron) wrote:
wrote in message >. .. >> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:19:59 +0000, Derek > wrote: >> >> >On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:01:52 GMT, wrote: >> >>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:21:20 +0000, Derek > wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:02:06 GMT, wrote: >> >>>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:31:12 +0000, D > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>You've been shown this material which shows the collateral deaths associated >> >>>>>with grass fed beef many times now, so why do you keep lying by claiming it >> >>>>>doesn't accrue them? >> >>>> >> >>>>They don't always occur. >> >>> >> >>>Then, likewise, you must concede that collateral deaths in >> >>>crop farming don't always occur as well. >> >> >> >> That's why I say some types of meat involve fewer deaths than some types >> >>of vegetable products. >> > >> >Your problem is that you cannot say how many animals >> >die collaterally for either diet, but, being the imbecile you >> >are you never did take Jon's advice and quit the counting >> >game. >> >> Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types >> of vegetable products. You "ARAs" hate to see it pointed out, meaning >> that it must be a good thing to point out. The truth is not the friend of >> "AR" imo, and that impression is reinforced every time I see one of you >> object to seeing certain facts pointed out. >> >> >>>>I would have no problem finding grass raised >> >>>>beef that did not involve the killing of predators. >> >>> >> >>>The collateral deaths associated with grass fed beef include >> >>>more than just their natural predators. They include the >> >>>animals which are left without their habitat, >> >> >> >> The wildlife displaced when grazing areas are created for cattle occur >> >>one time, not every year like in the production of your vegetables. >> > >> >Whether that displacement happens once or a hundred >> >times, collateral deaths occur during the production and >> >promotion of grass fed beef >> > > >> But not as many as occur during the production of tofu and >> rice milk. > > > >Perhaps you could get the Field Mouse Genius to provide you with the >photographic proof with which you will convince us of that claim? And then what? To begin with, it's hard to believe that anyone but a person with a severe mental handicap is too stupid to understand that plowing and harrowing a field, then running the equipment over it to plant seed, then flooding the area, then treating it with *icides, later draining it, then running more equipment over it to remove what has become food and shelter for what animals survive, causes the deaths of more animals than cattle do by eating grass. But, let us consider that maybe you really are too stupid to understand how that could be. If you really are so incredibly stupid as to not be able to understand something that simple, then how could anyone explain it in a way that would make you capable of understanding? If someone said: The front wheels of the tractor come first. Carrying as much weight as they do, animals who are run over by them are often crushed and killed. After the front wheels come the rear wheels, which are larger and will crush more animals than the front. After the rear wheels comes the plow, which has steel blades that go into the ground and kill animals they come in contact with, and turn the ground upside down exposing some animals who are killed by predators. Later comes the harrow.... Meanwhile cattle in another field eat grass, and kill almost no animals at all. But if you're too stupid to understand then having it explained isn't going to make you capable of understanding. Now let us consider that maybe you really are *not* too stupid to understand it, which is more likely the case. If you really are not so incredibly stupid, that means that you do understand it but want to pretend that you don't. So we are left to wonder why you cling to lies as is often/usually the case with veg*ns, because you guys never will explain why you do it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Nov 2004 13:14:49 -0800, (Ron) wrote:
wrote in message >. .. >> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:19:59 +0000, Derek > wrote: >> >> >On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:01:52 GMT, wrote: >> >>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:21:20 +0000, Derek > wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:02:06 GMT, wrote: >> >>>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:31:12 +0000, D > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>You've been shown this material which shows the collateral deaths associated >> >>>>>with grass fed beef many times now, so why do you keep lying by claiming it >> >>>>>doesn't accrue them? >> >>>> >> >>>>They don't always occur. >> >>> >> >>>Then, likewise, you must concede that collateral deaths in >> >>>crop farming don't always occur as well. >> >> >> >> That's why I say some types of meat involve fewer deaths than some types >> >>of vegetable products. >> > >> >Your problem is that you cannot say how many animals >> >die collaterally for either diet, but, being the imbecile you >> >are you never did take Jon's advice and quit the counting >> >game. >> >> Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types >> of vegetable products. You "ARAs" hate to see it pointed out, meaning >> that it must be a good thing to point out. The truth is not the friend of >> "AR" imo, and that impression is reinforced every time I see one of you >> object to seeing certain facts pointed out. >> >> >>>>I would have no problem finding grass raised >> >>>>beef that did not involve the killing of predators. >> >>> >> >>>The collateral deaths associated with grass fed beef include >> >>>more than just their natural predators. They include the >> >>>animals which are left without their habitat, >> >> >> >> The wildlife displaced when grazing areas are created for cattle occur >> >>one time, not every year like in the production of your vegetables. >> > >> >Whether that displacement happens once or a hundred >> >times, collateral deaths occur during the production and >> >promotion of grass fed beef >> > > >> But not as many as occur during the production of tofu and >> rice milk. > > > >Perhaps you could get the Field Mouse Genius to provide you with the >photographic proof with which you will convince us of that claim? And then what? To begin with, it's hard to believe that anyone but a person with a severe mental handicap is too stupid to understand that plowing and harrowing a field, then running the equipment over it to plant seed, then flooding the area, then treating it with *icides, later draining it, then running more equipment over it to remove what has become food and shelter for what animals survive, causes the deaths of more animals than cattle do by eating grass. But, let us consider that maybe you really are too stupid to understand how that could be. If you really are so incredibly stupid as to not be able to understand something that simple, then how could anyone explain it in a way that would make you capable of understanding? If someone said: The front wheels of the tractor come first. Carrying as much weight as they do, animals who are run over by them are often crushed and killed. After the front wheels come the rear wheels, which are larger and will crush more animals than the front. After the rear wheels comes the plow, which has steel blades that go into the ground and kill animals they come in contact with, and turn the ground upside down exposing some animals who are killed by predators. Later comes the harrow.... Meanwhile cattle in another field eat grass, and kill almost no animals at all. But if you're too stupid to understand then having it explained isn't going to make you capable of understanding. Now let us consider that maybe you really are *not* too stupid to understand it, which is more likely the case. If you really are not so incredibly stupid, that means that you do understand it but want to pretend that you don't. So we are left to wonder why you cling to lies as is often/usually the case with veg*ns, because you guys never will explain why you do it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:00:57 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote:
> > >rick etter wrote: >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> m... >> wrote in message m>... >> >> >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >>>> But not as many as occur during the production of tofu and >>>>rice milk. >>> >>> >>> >>>Perhaps you could get the Field Mouse Genius to provide you with the >>>photographic proof with which you will convince us of that claim? >>>======================== >> >> You still on about this bit of foolishness? Just try reading the sites I >> have posted from reputable sources, not the religious ones you like. >Like the NY Times Article I posted. >Or the scientific references about the cause of the Sahara Desert? >Science sir. > > >Or >http://www.wildflowers-and-weeds.com/sahara.htm __________________________________________________ _______ [...] But a few innovative souls like Don and Cleo Shaules, near Billings, Montana, have embraced the new ideas. They mimic the historical sequence of grazing with the aid of carefully laid out fences, to put more animals in smaller spaces for shorter periods of time. Additional impact may be achieved by herding the animals, or by putting feed or supplements in areas where impact is especially desired. The impact of the animals effectively breaks down old plants while also inoculating the landscape with bacteria in the form of manure. With heavy animal impact the Shaules have successfully trampled cactus and sagebrush into the dirt, while "rototilling" the soil to favor new seedlings. The rich, brown soil humus increased from 1/4 inch up to 1 1/2 inches in just ten years, and the Shaules have been able to more than double their livestock numbers. [...] ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >has many excellent university and main stream references. >http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wi...pa/pa1327.html >Or is National Geographic a "foolish, religious" press? > >It's basic archaeologic knowledge the sahara was a fertile growing area. >Do you deny that? I don't. And apparently a good way of getting it back in production is by raising livestock there. Another condition where it's better to raise meat than vegetables. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:00:57 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote:
> > >rick etter wrote: >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> m... >> wrote in message m>... >> >> >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >>>> But not as many as occur during the production of tofu and >>>>rice milk. >>> >>> >>> >>>Perhaps you could get the Field Mouse Genius to provide you with the >>>photographic proof with which you will convince us of that claim? >>>======================== >> >> You still on about this bit of foolishness? Just try reading the sites I >> have posted from reputable sources, not the religious ones you like. >Like the NY Times Article I posted. >Or the scientific references about the cause of the Sahara Desert? >Science sir. > > >Or >http://www.wildflowers-and-weeds.com/sahara.htm __________________________________________________ _______ [...] But a few innovative souls like Don and Cleo Shaules, near Billings, Montana, have embraced the new ideas. They mimic the historical sequence of grazing with the aid of carefully laid out fences, to put more animals in smaller spaces for shorter periods of time. Additional impact may be achieved by herding the animals, or by putting feed or supplements in areas where impact is especially desired. The impact of the animals effectively breaks down old plants while also inoculating the landscape with bacteria in the form of manure. With heavy animal impact the Shaules have successfully trampled cactus and sagebrush into the dirt, while "rototilling" the soil to favor new seedlings. The rich, brown soil humus increased from 1/4 inch up to 1 1/2 inches in just ten years, and the Shaules have been able to more than double their livestock numbers. [...] ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >has many excellent university and main stream references. >http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wi...pa/pa1327.html >Or is National Geographic a "foolish, religious" press? > >It's basic archaeologic knowledge the sahara was a fertile growing area. >Do you deny that? I don't. And apparently a good way of getting it back in production is by raising livestock there. Another condition where it's better to raise meat than vegetables. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote: > On 25 Nov 2004 13:14:49 -0800, (Ron) wrote: > > wrote in message >. .. >> >>>On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:19:59 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:01:52 GMT, wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:21:20 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:02:06 GMT, wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:31:12 +0000, D > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You've been shown this material which shows the collateral deaths associated >>>>>>>>with grass fed beef many times now, so why do you keep lying by claiming it >>>>>>>>doesn't accrue them? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>They don't always occur. >>>>>> >>>>>>Then, likewise, you must concede that collateral deaths in >>>>>>crop farming don't always occur as well. >>>>> >>>>> That's why I say some types of meat involve fewer deaths than some types >>>>>of vegetable products. >>>> >>>>Your problem is that you cannot say how many animals >>>>die collaterally for either diet, but, being the imbecile you >>>>are you never did take Jon's advice and quit the counting >>>>game. >>> >>> Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types >>>of vegetable products. You "ARAs" hate to see it pointed out, meaning >>>that it must be a good thing to point out. The truth is not the friend of >>>"AR" imo, and that impression is reinforced every time I see one of you >>>object to seeing certain facts pointed out. >>> >>> >>>>>>>I would have no problem finding grass raised >>>>>>>beef that did not involve the killing of predators. >>>>>> >>>>>>The collateral deaths associated with grass fed beef include >>>>>>more than just their natural predators. They include the >>>>>>animals which are left without their habitat, >>>>> >>>>> The wildlife displaced when grazing areas are created for cattle occur >>>>>one time, not every year like in the production of your vegetables. >>>> >>>>Whether that displacement happens once or a hundred >>>>times, collateral deaths occur during the production and >>>>promotion of grass fed beef >>> >> >>> But not as many as occur during the production of tofu and >>>rice milk. >> >> >> >>Perhaps you could get the Field Mouse Genius to provide you with the >>photographic proof with which you will convince us of that claim? > > > And then what? To begin with, it's hard to believe that anyone > but a person with a severe mental handicap is too stupid to understand > that plowing and harrowing a field, then running the equipment over it > to plant seed, then flooding the area, then treating it with *icides, later > draining it, then running more equipment over it to remove what has > become food and shelter for what animals survive, causes the deaths > of more animals than cattle do by eating grass. > But, let us consider that maybe you really are too stupid to understand > how that could be. If you really are so incredibly stupid as to not be able > to understand something that simple, then how could anyone explain it > in a way that would make you capable of understanding? If someone > said: The front wheels of the tractor come first. Carrying as much weight > as they do, animals who are run over by them are often crushed and > killed. After the front wheels come the rear wheels, which are larger > and will crush more animals than the front. After the rear wheels comes > the plow, which has steel blades that go into the ground and kill animals > they come in contact with, and turn the ground upside down exposing > some animals who are killed by predators. Later comes the harrow.... > Meanwhile cattle in another field eat grass, and kill almost no animals > at all. But if you're too stupid to understand then having it explained > isn't going to make you capable of understanding. > Now let us consider that maybe you really are *not* too stupid to > understand it, which is more likely the case. If you really are not so > incredibly stupid, that means that you do understand it but want to > pretend that you don't. So we are left to wonder why you cling to lies > as is often/usually the case with veg*ns, because you guys never > will explain why you do it. > The problem is first that most cattle are not grazers, but rather eat corn. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message ... > > > rick etter wrote: >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> m... >> wrote in message m>... >> >> >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >>>> But not as many as occur during the production of tofu and >>>>rice milk. >>> >>> >>> >>>Perhaps you could get the Field Mouse Genius to provide you with the >>>photographic proof with which you will convince us of that claim? >>>======================== >> >> You still on about this bit of foolishness? Just try reading the sites >> I have posted from reputable sources, not the religious ones you like. > Like the NY Times Article I posted. > Or the scientific references about the cause of the Sahara Desert? > Science sir. ================== None of which has any relation to the food you or I or ronny-boy eats. Thanks for proving yet again that you cannot discuss the impact of your diet truthfully. > > > Or > http://www.wildflowers-and-weeds.com/sahara.htm > has many excellent university and main stream references. > http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wi...pa/pa1327.html > Or is National Geographic a "foolish, religious" press? > > It's basic archaeologic knowledge the sahara was a fertile growing area. > Do you deny that? > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message ... > > > rick etter wrote: >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> m... >> wrote in message m>... >> >> >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >>>> But not as many as occur during the production of tofu and >>>>rice milk. >>> >>> >>> >>>Perhaps you could get the Field Mouse Genius to provide you with the >>>photographic proof with which you will convince us of that claim? >>>======================== >> >> You still on about this bit of foolishness? Just try reading the sites >> I have posted from reputable sources, not the religious ones you like. > Like the NY Times Article I posted. > Or the scientific references about the cause of the Sahara Desert? > Science sir. ================== None of which has any relation to the food you or I or ronny-boy eats. Thanks for proving yet again that you cannot discuss the impact of your diet truthfully. > > > Or > http://www.wildflowers-and-weeds.com/sahara.htm > has many excellent university and main stream references. > http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wi...pa/pa1327.html > Or is National Geographic a "foolish, religious" press? > > It's basic archaeologic knowledge the sahara was a fertile growing area. > Do you deny that? > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . .. snippage... >> Now let us consider that maybe you really are *not* too stupid to >> understand it, which is more likely the case. If you really are not so >> incredibly stupid, that means that you do understand it but want to >> pretend that you don't. So we are left to wonder why you cling to lies as >> is often/usually the case with veg*ns, because you guys never >> will explain why you do it. >> > The problem is first that most cattle are not grazers, but rather eat > corn. ================== No, fool. All beef cattle are grazers for most of their lives. They only go to feed lots for the last few weeks. And, dispite your limited knowledge, many beef cows don't go to feed at all. The truth is, which you don't like, there is no need to feed *any* grain crops to beef cattle. Kinda explodes you're whole mythology of vegan spew... > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . .. snippage... >> Now let us consider that maybe you really are *not* too stupid to >> understand it, which is more likely the case. If you really are not so >> incredibly stupid, that means that you do understand it but want to >> pretend that you don't. So we are left to wonder why you cling to lies as >> is often/usually the case with veg*ns, because you guys never >> will explain why you do it. >> > The problem is first that most cattle are not grazers, but rather eat > corn. ================== No, fool. All beef cattle are grazers for most of their lives. They only go to feed lots for the last few weeks. And, dispite your limited knowledge, many beef cows don't go to feed at all. The truth is, which you don't like, there is no need to feed *any* grain crops to beef cattle. Kinda explodes you're whole mythology of vegan spew... > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
rick etter wrote: > "Beach Runner" > wrote in message > ... > >> >>rick etter wrote: >> >>>"Ron" > wrote in message .com... >>> >>> wrote in message om>... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>snip... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> But not as many as occur during the production of tofu and >>>>>rice milk. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Perhaps you could get the Field Mouse Genius to provide you with the >>>>photographic proof with which you will convince us of that claim? >>>>======================== >>> >>>You still on about this bit of foolishness? Just try reading the sites >>>I have posted from reputable sources, not the religious ones you like. >> >>Like the NY Times Article I posted. >>Or the scientific references about the cause of the Sahara Desert? >>Science sir. > > ================== > None of which has any relation to the food you or I or ronny-boy eats. > Thanks for proving yet again that you cannot discuss the impact of your diet > truthfully. > > I guess you must have missed the difference between natural grazing animals effect on the environment versus your cattle grazing. Read them again. Of course, very very few cattle eat in open fields anymore, they eat feed instead. But then, I still think that someone who insists on going to VEGAN discussion group to insult people and be disagreeable has some type of personality disorder. > >> >>Or >>http://www.wildflowers-and-weeds.com/sahara.htm >>has many excellent university and main stream references. >>http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wi...pa/pa1327.html >>Or is National Geographic a "foolish, religious" press? >> >>It's basic archaeologic knowledge the sahara was a fertile growing area. >>Do you deny that? >> >> > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message ... > > > rick etter wrote: > >> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>> >>>rick etter wrote: >>> >>>>"Ron" > wrote in message e.com... >>>> >>>> wrote in message >>>>>news:<oec2q0pap2a0m9eql84sra2nee4v2kcdpq@4ax. com>... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>snip... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> But not as many as occur during the production of tofu and >>>>>>rice milk. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Perhaps you could get the Field Mouse Genius to provide you with the >>>>>photographic proof with which you will convince us of that claim? >>>>>======================== >>>> >>>>You still on about this bit of foolishness? Just try reading the sites >>>>I have posted from reputable sources, not the religious ones you like. >>> >>>Like the NY Times Article I posted. >>>Or the scientific references about the cause of the Sahara Desert? >>>Science sir. >> >> ================== >> None of which has any relation to the food you or I or ronny-boy eats. >> Thanks for proving yet again that you cannot discuss the impact of your >> diet truthfully. >> >> > > I guess you must have missed the difference between natural grazing > animals effect on the environment versus your cattle grazing. Read them > again. =============== You read them, fool. Tell me how your crop production isn't the definition of habitat destruction. Of course, very very few cattle eat in open fields anymore, > they eat feed instead. ======================= Moron. try to learn a little about the subject before you continue to display your total ignorance. All beff cows are grazed for most of their lives. > > But then, I still think that someone who insists on going to VEGAN > discussion group to insult people and be disagreeable has some type of > personality disorder. ================ LOL And vegans should know disorders, eh killer? Veganism is the very definition of the term... > > > >> >>> >>>Or >>>http://www.wildflowers-and-weeds.com/sahara.htm >>>has many excellent university and main stream references. >>>http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wi...pa/pa1327.html >>>Or is National Geographic a "foolish, religious" press? >>> >>>It's basic archaeologic knowledge the sahara was a fertile growing area. >>>Do you deny that? >>> >>> >> >> |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Rick Etter's denial and the anti's on-going silence over it | Vegan | |||
| usual suspect and rick etter | Vegan | |||
| Etter needs attention................ | Vegan | |||
| "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." Rick Etter | Vegan | |||
| Rick Etter's denial of the collateral deaths accrued during the production of grass fed beef | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
