 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
"Reynard" > wrote in message
... > On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:42:15 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > > >Scented Nectar wrote: > [..] > >ALL your thoughts and feelings upon others. That goes for your aesthetic > >complaints based on half-truths (which are still lies) about chicken > >tumors, > > [The USDA is imposing new rules reclassifying > as "safe for human consumption" animal carcasses > with cancers, tumors and open sores. Gross. That's got to dangerous, medically speaking. > Federal meat inspectors and consumer groups are > protesting the move to classify tumors and open > sores as aesthetic problems, which permits the meat > to get the government's purple seal of approval as a > wholesome food product. > "I don't want to eat pus from a chicken that has > pneumonia. I think it's gross," said Wenonah Hauter, > director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and > Environment Program. "Most Americans don't want > to eat this sort of contamination in their meals." > > Delmer Jones, a federal food inspector for 41 years > who lives in Renlap, Ala., said he's so revolted by > the lowering of food wholesomeness standards that > he doesn't buy meat at the supermarket anymore > because he doesn't trust that it is safe to eat.] > http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/23/diseased_meat.htm That is so gross. It's bad enough that it's dead body parts, but sick ones, it's even worse. > [..] > >> Tell me, I'm very curious, why don't YOU eat meat? > > > >I have some aesthetic objections (texture). > > > Yet you've earlier stated that your reasons were "primarily > for health reasons", "reduced pollution" and that "no animals > must die for my nourishment or enjoyment." > > "I am vegan primarily for health reasons; that there are > other benefits (reduced pollution, less harm to animals, > etc.) is also very appealing." > 'usual suspect' Thu, 09 May 2002 > > and > > "I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan > are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live > a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of > meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my > environment, and the whole world. Is that first part > selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other, > more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal > must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less > pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.) > mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and > without serious health problems associated with an > animal-based diet?" > 'usual suspect' Date: 2002-09-09 Ah, then he lied about aesthetics being his main reason. Could he be a vegan with the unfortunate job of being a lobbyist for the cattle industry, and he's paid to come in here and speak against who he himself is?  Justkidding of course. That would be too nuts. SN http://www.scentednectar.com A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> Yeah, that organic shit is evil <rolling eyes> Seven times the number of applications as synthetic. Just as lethal. Perhaps more so. You want to be a guinea pig, it's your body. Just stop lying that it's free of pesticides. >>>What animal consumes most >>>of the tons and tons of hay crops grown and harvested >>>each year? >> >>Since you're not yet vegan, I would point to all that milk and cheese >>you consume. All that hay isn't just for meat, missy. > > Don't forget, I may be not 100% vegan yet, but I'm getting there. Oh, I've noticed. You have the "I have an agenda so don't confuse me with facts" mindset down pretty well. > All that hay also isn't just for milk. It's for both milk and meat, > but I think we both know that. How long do beef cattle live and eat? About two (really 15-18 months, but I'll generously round up). How long do dairy cattle live and eat? Up to 20 years (most are destroyed, though, by age 12). Per animal over the course of a lifetime, much more hay is consumed by dairy cattle. > How many cds does a hay reaping machine cause? For you vegans, one should be too many. You're hypocrites, though, so does it matter? > And since you claim animals are on a 3 or 4 to 1 > ratio, then it takes 3 or 4 times the crop pounds to produce 1 pound > of meat. That's 3 to 4 times the cds when comparing meat and > vegan food production. Wrong, and this is the irony of why I posted those species (rabbit, turkey, chicken): none of them graze. Now try to figure out what a grass-fed ruminant eats. Pretty close to the diet of wild game. The feed:weight argument used by vegans doesn't apply to grazed ruminants or to wild game, yet you continue to say it adds up CDs. Why? <...> > The religion bullshit is getting tiring. Then stop promoting it. Stop wishing everyone were just like you. Accept that others eat, and enjoy, meat. Respect them. > As for the ratios, I've shown > you above how even your lowered ratios, which I'm granting you > still cause tons more cds. No, you aren't. >>>Tell me, I'm very curious, why don't YOU eat meat? >> >>I have some aesthetic objections (texture). > > Yeah, right. There's many different textures to meat (eg > liver vs. steak), also I think you said you don't eat any > animal product but honey. So is it the texture you > don't like with cheese and milk? How about eggs. Cheese is generally made with whole milk, and I'm not into saturated fats. As for milk, it's something I've never really enjoyed. I consume egg whites occasionally in various vegetarian foods, such as fake sausages (Boca, Yves, etc.), that my girlfriend prepares or that my family may offer when I visit. > All of the above have different textures, so what is > your reason really? See above. > I'm guessing you know vegan is healthiest but won't > admit it because, I don't know, maybe this hatred of > vegans, and not wanting to dissappoint cowboy daddy? Wrong. See above. >>Cholesterol is a type of fat that is crucial to many metabolic > > Well, you better get back to eating meat then, I guess. Stupid bitch, you snipped the rest of the statement. Your body -- yes, YOURS -- produces cholesterol. Some people produce way too much regardless of diet. Dietary cholesterol intake is not directly linked to serum levels. Foods that do elevate serum cholesterol are saturated fats; the worst is "vegan" transfats. Saturated fats elevate both LDL and HDL. Transfats increase mainly LDL levels and affect the ratio between HDL and LDL. That ratio is one of the factors cardiologists look at to determine if someone is at risk of coronary artery disease. Some foods high in cholesterol, including certain kinds of seafood, are often recommended by cardiologists and nutritionists to people at risk of heart disease. Why? Because the fats (especially omega-3 fatty acids) in the fish help elevate HDL which in turn helps reduce LDL. The same fat profiles found in those certain fish are found in wild game and grass-fed beef. http://tinyurl.com/6lynr <...> >>You sound like their ****ing propaganda, verbatim. The videos and >>websites you use to cater your disgusting fetish are of the offenders, >>the exceptions to the rule. When was the last time you actually >>visited a farm? Many still allow visitors. > > They are not the exception. They are the horrible norm. Thank you for proving that you get your disinformation from activists. If those were the norm, regulators and inspectors would be shutting down farms right and left. The fact that those videos are used in criminal investigations should tell you something about how uncommon such abuses are. >>Bullshit. It takes no more feed to put a pound on a rabbit, chicken, >>turkey, or pig than on a human being. I proved that to you by giving >>you examples. All you've done is grumble and snip. Admit you were wrong. > > Even using and blindly accepting your revised ratios, Not mine, those were data from two distinguished professional agricultural extension agencies at major universities. I admitted the one about turkeys appeared to be more questionable, but it was in line with other data. > it still takes 3 > to 4 times the pounds in crop/fodder growth for every pound of > meat. That's 3 to 4 times the cds in a pound of meat compared > to a pound of vegan fare. No, it doesn't. If the same feed were suitable for your consumption, you would process the same food and come up with unused or unusable wastes. Consider that if you were to make tofu from 3 pounds of soy, you would have less than half a pound of tofu. Let's compare sirloin steak to a "fake meat" like seitan (wheat gluten). Before one ends up with edible seitan, whole wheat has to be milled into flour and then gluten is extracted by "washing" the starch out of dough. Gluten makes up a small portion of wheat flour, so seitan is a very inefficient use of wheat flour. It takes six to eight pounds of flour to make one pound of seitan -- how much corn does it take to add a pound to a steer on a finishing diet? The resulting protein in the seitan isn't even complete, meaning it lacks certain essential amino acids. The same is true with tofu. The finished product doesn't equate to a pound-for-pound use of soybeans. Soybeans are boiled, milled, and strained to make soy milk; the pulp, often called okara, can be consumed in other products, but many tofu makers discard it (including to meat producers). A coagulant is added to the soy milk. The curdle is pressed. The water remaining from the coagulation and pressing is discarded. It's a wasteful process. Tofu, like seitan, lacks certain essential amino acids. That's your solution to grazing ruminants? Again, your solutions are worse than you claim the original problem is. >>So do vegans. See the links I've provided in other threads about the >>correlations between sprouts and raw produce and food-borne illness. > > Basic sanitation is important even if one is vegan and has less > food poisoning possibilities. Without basic sanitation you're gonna > run into trouble no matter what you eat. Wash your veggies, rinse your > rice, feed your sprouts clean water, etc. By the way, vegetarian > restaurants get lower insurance premiums because > the food is seen as relatively safer than meat. According to whom? >>>Who is eating the multi million dollar hay growing industry? >> >>You are. Milk, cheese, butter... > > Yep, it goes to the cows, the meat ones too. I'm pleased to say that > I'm almost fully vegan now. That's very self-righteous of you, but it comes with the territory. > While I still have a little more to do, at > least I recognise the harm and illness that animal farming brings. Again, very self-righteous of you. It's part and parcel of being vegan. <...> > I don't buy your reason of aesthetics. **** you, ****. That's the reason. > Also, you contradict yourself. No, I don't. > You say it's an issue of health, but then you say it's harder to be > healthy without eating meats. I don't say it's harder, the ADA does. I agree with them: Plant foods contain only nonheme iron, which is more sensitive than heme iron to both inhibitors and enhancers of iron absorption. Inhibitors of iron absorption include phytate; calcium; teas, including some herb teas; coffee; cocoa; some spices; and fiber...Recommended iron intakes for vegetarians are 1.8 times those of nonvegetarians because of lower bioavailability of iron from a vegetarian diet. http://www.eatright.org/Public/Gover...s/92_17084.cfm Do you plan your diet out well so you have a good idea how much iron and zinc you're taking in? Is it the recommended 1.8x of that you'd consume if you were eating a little bit of meat? >>>Actually to hell with the counting game. >> >>It demonstrates how bankrupt and vapid your philosophy is. > > No it just demonstrates that I'm getting bored with > your repetitive refusals to see logic. If I have to > explain things again, forget it after a while, you know? You've yet to explain ANYTHING. All you've done is regurgitate the same old cliches about not eating meat makes you healthier and not wanting dead bodies, whether through the internet or whatever. You've not supported ANY of your assertions. When evidence is offered which disabuses your errors, you bury your ugly head deeper in the sand. You are unimaginative, gullible, and intellectually slothful. You're a true believer in the false religion of veganism. >>NO, you daft bitch. > > Hey, calm down Beavis I'm Beavis, and you're my little friend... hehe-heh-hehe. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 16:14:35 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:42:15 GMT, usual suspect >wrote: >> >> >Scented Nectar wrote: >> [..] >> >ALL your thoughts and feelings upon others. That >> >goes for your aesthetic complaints based on half-truths >> >(which are still lies) about chicken tumors, >> >> [The USDA is imposing new rules reclassifying >> as "safe for human consumption" animal carcasses >> with cancers, tumors and open sores. > >Gross. That's got to dangerous, medically speaking. If the meat is cooked thoroughly I doubt any harm would come to those who eat it. As disgusting as it is, USDA's commercial decision to include cancers, tumours and open sores as "wholesome" fare isn't surprising, and neither is the meatarian's lack of concern over it. Meatarians will eat just about anything. >> Federal meat inspectors and consumer groups are >> protesting the move to classify tumors and open >> sores as aesthetic problems, which permits the meat >> to get the government's purple seal of approval as a >> wholesome food product. > >> "I don't want to eat pus from a chicken that has >> pneumonia. I think it's gross," said Wenonah Hauter, >> director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and >> Environment Program. "Most Americans don't want >> to eat this sort of contamination in their meals." >> >> Delmer Jones, a federal food inspector for 41 years >> who lives in Renlap, Ala., said he's so revolted by >> the lowering of food wholesomeness standards that >> he doesn't buy meat at the supermarket anymore >> because he doesn't trust that it is safe to eat.] >> http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/23/diseased_meat.htm > >That is so gross. It's bad enough that it's dead >body parts, but sick ones, it's even worse. Not that the average meatarian will mind though. >> >> Tell me, I'm very curious, why don't YOU eat meat? >> > >> >I have some aesthetic objections (texture). >> > >> Yet you've earlier stated that your reasons were "primarily >> for health reasons", "reduced pollution" and that "no animals >> must die for my nourishment or enjoyment." >> >> "I am vegan primarily for health reasons; that there are >> other benefits (reduced pollution, less harm to animals, >> etc.) is also very appealing." >> 'usual suspect' Thu, 09 May 2002 >> >> and >> >> "I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan >> are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live >> a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of >> meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my >> environment, and the whole world. Is that first part >> selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other, >> more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal >> must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less >> pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.) >> mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and >> without serious health problems associated with an >> animal-based diet?" >> 'usual suspect' Date: 2002-09-09 > >Ah, then he lied about aesthetics being his main reason. He certainly did. >Could he be a vegan with the unfortunate job of being >a lobbyist for the cattle industry, and he's paid to come >in here and speak against who he himself is? Just>kidding of course. That would be too nuts. Usual suspect has been a long-standing participant on these vegan and animal-related groups, but like Dutch he folded under Jonathan Ball's constant pressure and became one of a small number of his water boys ever since. Since self-confessed vegan, USuspect's recent mesalliance with Jonathan after catching Dutch's nasty cold, I thought it might be in everyone's interest to refresh their memories on his earlier views before Jonathan told him how to start thinking his way. By the end of this post you'll see that usual suspect, although temporarily misguided by the Anti's disinformation, is in fact a closet ARA. Through his attempts to conceal this fact and stay on Jonathan's good side, he has had to make several changes in position, and this can be shown by the quotes I've brought here to demonstrate his many inconsistencies. DENYING THE ANTECEDENT "I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my environment, and the whole world. Is that first part selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other, more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.) mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and without serious health problems associated with an animal-based diet?" usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09 From that, only a year or so ago, USuspect clearly believed his vegan lifestyle had "selfless consequences", namely that "no animal must die for his nourishment or enjoyment," so why does he now insist that my vegan lifestyle kills animals while his doesn't? Also, in response to Jonathan's pressure that he accept animals die for his benefit, he tackles Jon's CD argument with nothing but a whimper. [Jonathan Ball] > Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent: > If I eat meat, animals died for my diet. > I don't eat meat. > Therefore, no animals died for my diet. [usual suspect] That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra). It has one glaring problem: it's just not true. [end] But now, for some unfathomable reason, his logical reasoning tells him that Jon's illogical argument is valid and sound. How's that for inconsistency? ANIMAL RIGHTS He also believes that animals, though oughtn't be given rights, must be protected as human children are, and not be killed for our own benefit; "I personally subscribe to a more COMMON law position that animals should not be granted rights but protection under the law (same as used to apply to minors)..." usual suspect Date: 2002-06-11 But, if he once believed animals should to be given protection using the SAME LAWS as used to apply to minors, why does he advocate animal research and testing on them? Also, while holding such beliefs, why does he criticise others when protesting against how these fellow *minors* are being treated? Only a short while ago he wrote; "When was the last time you visited a family or factory farm? Tell us about the conditions you observed. Did they have someone roaming around, willfully causing harm to the animals? Or were the animals well-fed, able to move around, etc.?" usual suspect Date: 2003-09-08 What sort of "protection under the law (same as used to apply to minors)..." is he thinking about if it allows the eating and use of them for research? This last statement is particularly interesting, seeing as it was written by someone who refutes the idea of animal rights; "I also favor humane treatment, which to me means not killing them simply for my own benefit." usual suspect 2002-10-09 What's wrong with killing animals for one's own benefit, unless that person is a firm believer in that our benefit cannot trump the inherent rights of an animal? USuspect is a closet ARA but faced with the terrifying prospect of crossing Jonathan Ball (currently posting as Ted Bell). |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 16:14:35 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:42:15 GMT, usual suspect >wrote: >> >> >Scented Nectar wrote: >> [..] >> >ALL your thoughts and feelings upon others. That >> >goes for your aesthetic complaints based on half-truths >> >(which are still lies) about chicken tumors, >> >> [The USDA is imposing new rules reclassifying >> as "safe for human consumption" animal carcasses >> with cancers, tumors and open sores. > >Gross. That's got to dangerous, medically speaking. If the meat is cooked thoroughly I doubt any harm would come to those who eat it. As disgusting as it is, USDA's commercial decision to include cancers, tumours and open sores as "wholesome" fare isn't surprising, and neither is the meatarian's lack of concern over it. Meatarians will eat just about anything. >> Federal meat inspectors and consumer groups are >> protesting the move to classify tumors and open >> sores as aesthetic problems, which permits the meat >> to get the government's purple seal of approval as a >> wholesome food product. > >> "I don't want to eat pus from a chicken that has >> pneumonia. I think it's gross," said Wenonah Hauter, >> director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and >> Environment Program. "Most Americans don't want >> to eat this sort of contamination in their meals." >> >> Delmer Jones, a federal food inspector for 41 years >> who lives in Renlap, Ala., said he's so revolted by >> the lowering of food wholesomeness standards that >> he doesn't buy meat at the supermarket anymore >> because he doesn't trust that it is safe to eat.] >> http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/23/diseased_meat.htm > >That is so gross. It's bad enough that it's dead >body parts, but sick ones, it's even worse. Not that the average meatarian will mind though. >> >> Tell me, I'm very curious, why don't YOU eat meat? >> > >> >I have some aesthetic objections (texture). >> > >> Yet you've earlier stated that your reasons were "primarily >> for health reasons", "reduced pollution" and that "no animals >> must die for my nourishment or enjoyment." >> >> "I am vegan primarily for health reasons; that there are >> other benefits (reduced pollution, less harm to animals, >> etc.) is also very appealing." >> 'usual suspect' Thu, 09 May 2002 >> >> and >> >> "I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan >> are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live >> a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of >> meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my >> environment, and the whole world. Is that first part >> selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other, >> more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal >> must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less >> pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.) >> mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and >> without serious health problems associated with an >> animal-based diet?" >> 'usual suspect' Date: 2002-09-09 > >Ah, then he lied about aesthetics being his main reason. He certainly did. >Could he be a vegan with the unfortunate job of being >a lobbyist for the cattle industry, and he's paid to come >in here and speak against who he himself is? Just>kidding of course. That would be too nuts. Usual suspect has been a long-standing participant on these vegan and animal-related groups, but like Dutch he folded under Jonathan Ball's constant pressure and became one of a small number of his water boys ever since. Since self-confessed vegan, USuspect's recent mesalliance with Jonathan after catching Dutch's nasty cold, I thought it might be in everyone's interest to refresh their memories on his earlier views before Jonathan told him how to start thinking his way. By the end of this post you'll see that usual suspect, although temporarily misguided by the Anti's disinformation, is in fact a closet ARA. Through his attempts to conceal this fact and stay on Jonathan's good side, he has had to make several changes in position, and this can be shown by the quotes I've brought here to demonstrate his many inconsistencies. DENYING THE ANTECEDENT "I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my environment, and the whole world. Is that first part selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other, more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.) mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and without serious health problems associated with an animal-based diet?" usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09 From that, only a year or so ago, USuspect clearly believed his vegan lifestyle had "selfless consequences", namely that "no animal must die for his nourishment or enjoyment," so why does he now insist that my vegan lifestyle kills animals while his doesn't? Also, in response to Jonathan's pressure that he accept animals die for his benefit, he tackles Jon's CD argument with nothing but a whimper. [Jonathan Ball] > Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent: > If I eat meat, animals died for my diet. > I don't eat meat. > Therefore, no animals died for my diet. [usual suspect] That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra). It has one glaring problem: it's just not true. [end] But now, for some unfathomable reason, his logical reasoning tells him that Jon's illogical argument is valid and sound. How's that for inconsistency? ANIMAL RIGHTS He also believes that animals, though oughtn't be given rights, must be protected as human children are, and not be killed for our own benefit; "I personally subscribe to a more COMMON law position that animals should not be granted rights but protection under the law (same as used to apply to minors)..." usual suspect Date: 2002-06-11 But, if he once believed animals should to be given protection using the SAME LAWS as used to apply to minors, why does he advocate animal research and testing on them? Also, while holding such beliefs, why does he criticise others when protesting against how these fellow *minors* are being treated? Only a short while ago he wrote; "When was the last time you visited a family or factory farm? Tell us about the conditions you observed. Did they have someone roaming around, willfully causing harm to the animals? Or were the animals well-fed, able to move around, etc.?" usual suspect Date: 2003-09-08 What sort of "protection under the law (same as used to apply to minors)..." is he thinking about if it allows the eating and use of them for research? This last statement is particularly interesting, seeing as it was written by someone who refutes the idea of animal rights; "I also favor humane treatment, which to me means not killing them simply for my own benefit." usual suspect 2002-10-09 What's wrong with killing animals for one's own benefit, unless that person is a firm believer in that our benefit cannot trump the inherent rights of an animal? USuspect is a closet ARA but faced with the terrifying prospect of crossing Jonathan Ball (currently posting as Ted Bell). |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented **** wrote:
<...> >>>Absense of market matters greatly to the market. >> >>Demand is not going to decrease to the point of absence. > > It's lessening and that's a good thing. Increasing. >>What numbers? Perhaps you don't pay attention to commodities futures, >>but demand for meat is up. Way up. > > In the stock market, things go up and they go down. I said commodities, not securities. > Let's see what the longterm will bring. It's been rising steadily and strongly the last four years. >>Regardless, YOU are the one demanding tropical produce. Where are you >>in Canada? I'm pretty sure bananas or plantains grow even along your >>southern border. They're hard enough to grow on ours, and I live in >>south central Texas. > > You live in one of the most hardassed about meat eating states > there is. Not really, and it's pretty elitist of you to suggest that. I live in Austin, which is consistently rated one of the healthiest cities in the US. A large segment of our population is vegetarian, and I suspect we have more vegetarian restaurants per capita than other similarly sized cities. > I know a vegan Texan who had to move in order to > not get picked on for her choices in food. Bullshit. You're a ****ing liar, or else she is if she exists. > I guess if I were > you, I pretend aesthetics or maybe allergies too, so your > cowfolk won't lock you in the local loony bin. You have no idea what you're saying because you're a ****ing elitist snob. People here aren't locked up because of what they eat or don't eat, you sorry lying sack of shit. >>You're the one who mentioned two ingredients you suggested were better >>than meat: plantains and rice. I didn't natter, I explained that those >>foods don't end up on your plate without casualties. Instead of >>accepting responsibility for your decisions, you seek to shoot the >>messenger. YOU are the one making statements of moral superiority >>about your diet. YOUR diet is at least as bad as any other since you still >>kill and wound animals in the process. > > A meat diet is at least 3 to 4 times worse when it comes to cds Wrong. You're swerving off the issue of grazed beef and other grazed ruminants. Those diets are responsible for far less CDs than a vegan diet. Go back and read the articles about Professor Davis. > so vegan IS always better. No, it never is. > Who cares about your 1001 theory > when there are so many additional cds in meat production. There are more CDs in a "vegan" diet than in one containing grazed ruminants and locally-grown produce. You don't even go for the locally-grown part of that -- you heap CDs upon CDs. Your curried plantains alone equal more death than if you were to eat locally-grown beef and produce. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented **** wrote:
<...> >>>Absense of market matters greatly to the market. >> >>Demand is not going to decrease to the point of absence. > > It's lessening and that's a good thing. Increasing. >>What numbers? Perhaps you don't pay attention to commodities futures, >>but demand for meat is up. Way up. > > In the stock market, things go up and they go down. I said commodities, not securities. > Let's see what the longterm will bring. It's been rising steadily and strongly the last four years. >>Regardless, YOU are the one demanding tropical produce. Where are you >>in Canada? I'm pretty sure bananas or plantains grow even along your >>southern border. They're hard enough to grow on ours, and I live in >>south central Texas. > > You live in one of the most hardassed about meat eating states > there is. Not really, and it's pretty elitist of you to suggest that. I live in Austin, which is consistently rated one of the healthiest cities in the US. A large segment of our population is vegetarian, and I suspect we have more vegetarian restaurants per capita than other similarly sized cities. > I know a vegan Texan who had to move in order to > not get picked on for her choices in food. Bullshit. You're a ****ing liar, or else she is if she exists. > I guess if I were > you, I pretend aesthetics or maybe allergies too, so your > cowfolk won't lock you in the local loony bin. You have no idea what you're saying because you're a ****ing elitist snob. People here aren't locked up because of what they eat or don't eat, you sorry lying sack of shit. >>You're the one who mentioned two ingredients you suggested were better >>than meat: plantains and rice. I didn't natter, I explained that those >>foods don't end up on your plate without casualties. Instead of >>accepting responsibility for your decisions, you seek to shoot the >>messenger. YOU are the one making statements of moral superiority >>about your diet. YOUR diet is at least as bad as any other since you still >>kill and wound animals in the process. > > A meat diet is at least 3 to 4 times worse when it comes to cds Wrong. You're swerving off the issue of grazed beef and other grazed ruminants. Those diets are responsible for far less CDs than a vegan diet. Go back and read the articles about Professor Davis. > so vegan IS always better. No, it never is. > Who cares about your 1001 theory > when there are so many additional cds in meat production. There are more CDs in a "vegan" diet than in one containing grazed ruminants and locally-grown produce. You don't even go for the locally-grown part of that -- you heap CDs upon CDs. Your curried plantains alone equal more death than if you were to eat locally-grown beef and produce. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > >> ================== >> No, it's spot on, killer. YOU do nothing to make a difference. > > Yeah, ok moron. By not eating a chicken, that's one less > that's raised just to live horribly and then be killed. ========================== And what did you replace it with, killer? Whatever it was it didn't just fall out of the sky like manna from heaven, fool. > > >> > But you don't believe any food is truly vegan, >> ====================== >> Yes, I do. But YOU don't eat it. YOU are too concerned with YOUR >> convnience and selfishness to bother actually trying to make a > difference. > > And what's this magic vegan food that you're so sure I don't eat? > I almost suspect you're gonna tell me it's meat!!! ================== The right kinds of meat are better than the supermart crap you eat now, killer. > > >> ======================== >> You just can't help yourself with lying, can you killer? Again, > there is >> no necessity to feed any crops to beef cows. Why is that too hard > for your >> 2 braincells to understand? > > Yet even 'range' cows are supplemented all the time. ===================== No, they are not fool. Try just once to get past your propaganda brainwashing, can you? I doubt it. There > is no necessity to have cds in growing vegan food. ========================== And just what would those be? Bananas? Rice? Potatoes? > >> Some >> > do it for health or religion. >> ================= >> For health they are not vegan then fool. Try to learn what you';re > talking >> about. As for religion, veganism IS a religion. > > You idiot. If someone becomes vegan for health > reasons, then they ARE a vegan. ====================== No, they are not, fool. They are vegetarian. veganism is not a diet. Try to learn something before you display your total ignorance. Oops, too late/.. And stop your > nonsense about veganism being a religion. ===================== Exactly what it is, killer. Based on faith that your diet can 'save' the world. Nothing you can prove. Nothing you can touch. Nothing you can see. Faith. ie religion. > >> > I think what you're trying to spell is 'lies', not 'lys'. >> ================== >> LOL I see you cannot use your computer either, eh killer? I spell > it >> 'lys' as a tribute to one of the loonier vegan fools to ever grace us > with >> her presence. She actually used that as her name for awhile, until > even she >> realized the lies she was spewing.... > > So, what you're saying is you can't let go of > referencing her? ================== No, it's a tribute! Can't you read? > >> > For starters, the meat would be unhealthy. >> ===================== >> No, it is not. You continue to ly. > > Well, let's just put our beliefs where our > mouths are. You eat your body parts and > I'll eat my veg diet. If you really believe > your garbage about meat, then eat up. > Cheers. ================= That's he point. You're still full of ignorance, delusion, hate nad lys. And, on top of that, you still needlessly kill animals and pretend that you don't. > >> Mmm, >> > picture plantain curry over basmati rice. >> ============== >> I picture alot of dead animals, how about you? > > I'm sorry to hear that. Maybe it's because you > put them on your plate and see them so > frequently. I picture nicer things, generally. =============== LOL Only because you pretend the blood isn't there, hypocrite. > >> > Do you know how much land that would free up >> > for other uses, or for letting it go back to nature? >> ================== >> Do you know how much it would take in environmental damage elsewhere > to turn >> those lands into productive croplands? You truly are ignorant, > killer. > > Only a moron would try and find something > wrong with freeing up land. ===================== Only an idiot would try to 'free up' scrub land to turn it into cropland. Your crop lands are the definition of environmental damage you fool. rangelands and pasture are just what they were, and can stay, as long as blood thirsty vegan loons don't get their hands on it for crop production. > >> > No hypocracy here. Did I say I believed factory farming >> > was good? No. However, meat farming causes more >> > total deaths than farming for vegans. >> ======================== >> Prove it then fool. It should be easy, right killer? tatement is > all >> inclusive. Be sure to compare eating game to growing you mono-culture >> crops. Then get back with us, killer. > > Eating game should be compared with stuff like > picking wild berries. If you want to compare meat > with monoculture crops, then compare it to factory > farms. Let's make sure we compare apples to apples > and oranges to oranges. > >> > I am part of the change. The change in the planet >> > towards a more vegetarian diet. It is happening. >> ================ >> No, it's not. You too small a group of ineffective loons... > > Not so small, and growing every day. ================= LOL Not hardly.... > >> > Talk about hate in posts! You've got a bit in there >> > yourself, don't you? I have no sympathy to the >> > angst of hunters, or meat eaters who get E.coli, etc, >> ===================== >> Of course you don't. It's part of the vegan hate filled religion. > Thanks >> for proving it yet again, killer. > > There is no vegan religion, nutcase. ================== It is a religion. Look up the real definition of vegan you ignorant dolt. > >> > Prove otherwise please, and don't forget, plant products >> > can be grown with peaceful harvests (no cds) >> ======================= >> Not in the quantities necessary to feed your lard butt. > > Says who? You? And isn't calling me lard butt kind > of ridiculous? After all, I'm sure you use a lot more > lard than I ever have or will. ================= Nope. And you buy your food at the supermart. Blood-drenched and soggy.... > >> > I'm pleased to report that I cause way less >> > deaths than back in my meat eating days. >> ======================= >> maybe, maybe not. But you still don't know. And, you could do > better. > > Well, thanks for admitting that you don't know > whether I'm causing less deaths. ================= No, I said you don't know. I know you are causing more than if you ate the right meat-included diet. I also know that you do not, and will not eat a vegan diet that might kill less because *you* are too concerned with your convenience and entertainemnt to make the changes in your lifestyle that would be necessary. > >> > No irony or hypocracy. I provide a resource >> > for ALL types of vegetarians. >> ====================== >> Then They are not vegetarian you ignorant dolt. No matter how many >> adjectives you put in front of the word, if it includes meat then you > are >> *NOT* a vegetarian in any sense. > > Hellooooo. None of the types of vegetarians I > refer to eat meat. Some eat milk and/or eggs. ================== Then thay are not vegatarian, period. Like I said, adding adjectives to the front of the word doesn't change the real word, just makes the idiot that says them feel better about being too lazy to make the change. > The word vegan is used for diets with no animal > products whatsoever. ==================== No, fool. vegetarian is the word for no animal product *DIETS*. Vegan is the word for a *lifestyle*, not a diet. Try learning something for a change. > > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com > A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites. > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > >> ================== >> No, it's spot on, killer. YOU do nothing to make a difference. > > Yeah, ok moron. By not eating a chicken, that's one less > that's raised just to live horribly and then be killed. ========================== And what did you replace it with, killer? Whatever it was it didn't just fall out of the sky like manna from heaven, fool. > > >> > But you don't believe any food is truly vegan, >> ====================== >> Yes, I do. But YOU don't eat it. YOU are too concerned with YOUR >> convnience and selfishness to bother actually trying to make a > difference. > > And what's this magic vegan food that you're so sure I don't eat? > I almost suspect you're gonna tell me it's meat!!! ================== The right kinds of meat are better than the supermart crap you eat now, killer. > > >> ======================== >> You just can't help yourself with lying, can you killer? Again, > there is >> no necessity to feed any crops to beef cows. Why is that too hard > for your >> 2 braincells to understand? > > Yet even 'range' cows are supplemented all the time. ===================== No, they are not fool. Try just once to get past your propaganda brainwashing, can you? I doubt it. There > is no necessity to have cds in growing vegan food. ========================== And just what would those be? Bananas? Rice? Potatoes? > >> Some >> > do it for health or religion. >> ================= >> For health they are not vegan then fool. Try to learn what you';re > talking >> about. As for religion, veganism IS a religion. > > You idiot. If someone becomes vegan for health > reasons, then they ARE a vegan. ====================== No, they are not, fool. They are vegetarian. veganism is not a diet. Try to learn something before you display your total ignorance. Oops, too late/.. And stop your > nonsense about veganism being a religion. ===================== Exactly what it is, killer. Based on faith that your diet can 'save' the world. Nothing you can prove. Nothing you can touch. Nothing you can see. Faith. ie religion. > >> > I think what you're trying to spell is 'lies', not 'lys'. >> ================== >> LOL I see you cannot use your computer either, eh killer? I spell > it >> 'lys' as a tribute to one of the loonier vegan fools to ever grace us > with >> her presence. She actually used that as her name for awhile, until > even she >> realized the lies she was spewing.... > > So, what you're saying is you can't let go of > referencing her? ================== No, it's a tribute! Can't you read? > >> > For starters, the meat would be unhealthy. >> ===================== >> No, it is not. You continue to ly. > > Well, let's just put our beliefs where our > mouths are. You eat your body parts and > I'll eat my veg diet. If you really believe > your garbage about meat, then eat up. > Cheers. ================= That's he point. You're still full of ignorance, delusion, hate nad lys. And, on top of that, you still needlessly kill animals and pretend that you don't. > >> Mmm, >> > picture plantain curry over basmati rice. >> ============== >> I picture alot of dead animals, how about you? > > I'm sorry to hear that. Maybe it's because you > put them on your plate and see them so > frequently. I picture nicer things, generally. =============== LOL Only because you pretend the blood isn't there, hypocrite. > >> > Do you know how much land that would free up >> > for other uses, or for letting it go back to nature? >> ================== >> Do you know how much it would take in environmental damage elsewhere > to turn >> those lands into productive croplands? You truly are ignorant, > killer. > > Only a moron would try and find something > wrong with freeing up land. ===================== Only an idiot would try to 'free up' scrub land to turn it into cropland. Your crop lands are the definition of environmental damage you fool. rangelands and pasture are just what they were, and can stay, as long as blood thirsty vegan loons don't get their hands on it for crop production. > >> > No hypocracy here. Did I say I believed factory farming >> > was good? No. However, meat farming causes more >> > total deaths than farming for vegans. >> ======================== >> Prove it then fool. It should be easy, right killer? tatement is > all >> inclusive. Be sure to compare eating game to growing you mono-culture >> crops. Then get back with us, killer. > > Eating game should be compared with stuff like > picking wild berries. If you want to compare meat > with monoculture crops, then compare it to factory > farms. Let's make sure we compare apples to apples > and oranges to oranges. > >> > I am part of the change. The change in the planet >> > towards a more vegetarian diet. It is happening. >> ================ >> No, it's not. You too small a group of ineffective loons... > > Not so small, and growing every day. ================= LOL Not hardly.... > >> > Talk about hate in posts! You've got a bit in there >> > yourself, don't you? I have no sympathy to the >> > angst of hunters, or meat eaters who get E.coli, etc, >> ===================== >> Of course you don't. It's part of the vegan hate filled religion. > Thanks >> for proving it yet again, killer. > > There is no vegan religion, nutcase. ================== It is a religion. Look up the real definition of vegan you ignorant dolt. > >> > Prove otherwise please, and don't forget, plant products >> > can be grown with peaceful harvests (no cds) >> ======================= >> Not in the quantities necessary to feed your lard butt. > > Says who? You? And isn't calling me lard butt kind > of ridiculous? After all, I'm sure you use a lot more > lard than I ever have or will. ================= Nope. And you buy your food at the supermart. Blood-drenched and soggy.... > >> > I'm pleased to report that I cause way less >> > deaths than back in my meat eating days. >> ======================= >> maybe, maybe not. But you still don't know. And, you could do > better. > > Well, thanks for admitting that you don't know > whether I'm causing less deaths. ================= No, I said you don't know. I know you are causing more than if you ate the right meat-included diet. I also know that you do not, and will not eat a vegan diet that might kill less because *you* are too concerned with your convenience and entertainemnt to make the changes in your lifestyle that would be necessary. > >> > No irony or hypocracy. I provide a resource >> > for ALL types of vegetarians. >> ====================== >> Then They are not vegetarian you ignorant dolt. No matter how many >> adjectives you put in front of the word, if it includes meat then you > are >> *NOT* a vegetarian in any sense. > > Hellooooo. None of the types of vegetarians I > refer to eat meat. Some eat milk and/or eggs. ================== Then thay are not vegatarian, period. Like I said, adding adjectives to the front of the word doesn't change the real word, just makes the idiot that says them feel better about being too lazy to make the change. > The word vegan is used for diets with no animal > products whatsoever. ==================== No, fool. vegetarian is the word for no animal product *DIETS*. Vegan is the word for a *lifestyle*, not a diet. Try learning something for a change. > > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com > A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites. > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > snippage of idiocy... Did I call your hand, or what.... I see you can't refute the facts, or defend your ignorance. So, you dishonestly snip out what you don't like, can't respond to, eh hypocrite? I predict you'll ignore and snip, again.... typical for vegan loons... Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and pesticides. Animals die. http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135 http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf http://www.towerkill.com/index.html http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5 http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > snippage of idiocy... Did I call your hand, or what.... I see you can't refute the facts, or defend your ignorance. So, you dishonestly snip out what you don't like, can't respond to, eh hypocrite? I predict you'll ignore and snip, again.... typical for vegan loons... Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and pesticides. Animals die. http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135 http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf http://www.towerkill.com/index.html http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5 http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
rick etter wrote:
> > snippage of idiocy... > > Did I call your hand, or what.... I see you can't refute the facts, or > defend your ignorance. So, you dishonestly snip out what you don't like, > can't respond to, eh hypocrite? I noticed she's doing that a lot now. > I predict you'll ignore and snip, again.... typical for vegan loons... > > Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and > pesticides. Animals die. > http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html > http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html > http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html > http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm > http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm > http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html > http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm > http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf > http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm > http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html > http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm > http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html > http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ > http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html > http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm > > http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm > http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html > http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html > http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html > http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html > http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html > http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm > http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html > http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm > > > > http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135 > http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html > http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf > http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf > http://www.towerkill.com/index.html > http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm > http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm > http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml > http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html > http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c > http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html > http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm > http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm > http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml > http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5 > http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html > > Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, > here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. > http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html > http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ > http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm > > To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, > here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there > can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. > http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs > /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 > http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf > http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html > http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html > > > To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and > maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple > dealing with power and communications. > http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html > http://www.towerkill.com/index.html > > > >> > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
rick etter wrote:
> > snippage of idiocy... > > Did I call your hand, or what.... I see you can't refute the facts, or > defend your ignorance. So, you dishonestly snip out what you don't like, > can't respond to, eh hypocrite? I noticed she's doing that a lot now. > I predict you'll ignore and snip, again.... typical for vegan loons... > > Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and > pesticides. Animals die. > http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html > http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html > http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html > http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm > http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm > http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html > http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm > http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf > http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm > http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html > http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm > http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html > http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ > http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html > http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm > > http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm > http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html > http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html > http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html > http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html > http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html > http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm > http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html > http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm > > > > http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135 > http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html > http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf > http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf > http://www.towerkill.com/index.html > http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm > http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm > http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml > http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html > http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c > http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html > http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm > http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm > http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml > http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5 > http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html > > Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, > here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. > http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html > http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ > http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm > > To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, > here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there > can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. > http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs > /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 > http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf > http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html > http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html > > > To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and > maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple > dealing with power and communications. > http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html > http://www.towerkill.com/index.html > > > >> > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... snippage... > > Stop pretending vegetation is to blame. Those cargo ships > ship meat just as readily. ================ You are to blame, you ignorant dolt. We don't import the massive amounts of meat that we do veggies. We have more than enough, and despite your propaganda spews to the contrary, McDs ins't importing SA beef burgers. > >> As for your rice, many ethical vegans would take you to task. Rice is > one of the >> deadliest crops, resulting in more CDs than other grains: > > Solution: Grow it differently and humanely. > Wrong solution: Natter about any food a vegan mentions. ================== LOL Talk about wrong solutions!!!! that's ezxactly what you and every other usenet vegan here does, fool. You go on and on about meat eaters, and totally ignore you own impact. Witness your total lack of knowledge of banans, rice, and any other crop you eat! You are the poster child of ignorance and delusion of vegans. > >> You seem to have plenty time for that, with your hand buried deep in > the sand >> and all. Time for you to picture the reality of your decisions -- of > ships >> burning gallons of diesel per hour to bring you tropical fruits, of > combines >> harvesting frogs and turtles along with your rice, and of all the > other animals >> that die so you can say you don't eat flesh. Your rhetoric will never > match the >> reality of your harm to other species and the environment. > > Ok., mr.doomsday, I think your saying that EVERYTHING causes > death so why am I even bothering being vegan? Let's go over to > the health side of things. How come YOU don't eat meat, huh? > ============================ You diet is not automatically healthier, killer. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... snippage... > > Stop pretending vegetation is to blame. Those cargo ships > ship meat just as readily. ================ You are to blame, you ignorant dolt. We don't import the massive amounts of meat that we do veggies. We have more than enough, and despite your propaganda spews to the contrary, McDs ins't importing SA beef burgers. > >> As for your rice, many ethical vegans would take you to task. Rice is > one of the >> deadliest crops, resulting in more CDs than other grains: > > Solution: Grow it differently and humanely. > Wrong solution: Natter about any food a vegan mentions. ================== LOL Talk about wrong solutions!!!! that's ezxactly what you and every other usenet vegan here does, fool. You go on and on about meat eaters, and totally ignore you own impact. Witness your total lack of knowledge of banans, rice, and any other crop you eat! You are the poster child of ignorance and delusion of vegans. > >> You seem to have plenty time for that, with your hand buried deep in > the sand >> and all. Time for you to picture the reality of your decisions -- of > ships >> burning gallons of diesel per hour to bring you tropical fruits, of > combines >> harvesting frogs and turtles along with your rice, and of all the > other animals >> that die so you can say you don't eat flesh. Your rhetoric will never > match the >> reality of your harm to other species and the environment. > > Ok., mr.doomsday, I think your saying that EVERYTHING causes > death so why am I even bothering being vegan? Let's go over to > the health side of things. How come YOU don't eat meat, huh? > ============================ You diet is not automatically healthier, killer. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message news  > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... >> Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> NOTE YOUR SNIPS, WITCH. > > Oops. Did I cut a little close to the bone? - no pun intended! ================= No, you're just a dishonest little vegan that doesn't have anything except their dishonesty and ignorance to show us. > >> >>Wrong. It's one more farmer who has little or no reason to raise his >> >>chickens free-range or through another humane, sustainable method > you may >> >>approve. You've >> > >> > Good. >> >> You think being self-marginalized is a good thing? > > Um, you still don't get it do you. > >> >>withdrawn from that market. You and your childish sentiments about > how >> >>animals are treated (based on propaganda rather than fact) no longer > matter to >> >>the market. You're self-marginalized. >> > >> > Absense of market matters greatly to the market. >> >> Demand is not going to decrease to the point of absence. > > It's lessening and that's a good thing. > >> What numbers? Perhaps you don't pay attention to commodities futures, >> but demand for meat is up. Way up. > > In the stock market, things go up and they go down. > Let's see what the longterm will bring. > >> Regardless, YOU are the one demanding tropical produce. Where are you > in >> Canada? I'm pretty sure bananas or plantains grow even along your >> southern border. They're hard enough to grow on ours, and I live in >> south central Texas. > > You live in one of the most hardassed about meat eating states > there is. I know a vegan Texan who had to move in order to > not get picked on for her choices in food. I guess if I were > you, I pretend aesthetics or maybe allergies too, so your > cowfolk won't lock you in the local loony bin. > >> You're the one who mentioned two ingredients you suggested were better >> than meat: plantains and rice. I didn't natter, I explained that those >> foods don't end up on your plate without casualties. Instead of >> accepting responsibility for your decisions, you seek to shoot the >> messenger. YOU are the one making statements of moral superiority > about >> your diet. YOUR diet is at least as bad as any other since you still >> kill and wound animals in the process. > > A meat diet is at least 3 to 4 times worse when it comes to cds ==================== Prove it killer. I've asked you to prove this several times now. Come on, show us the data.... > so vegan IS always better. ================ Prove it, littlle boy.... Come on, give it a shot. pun intended... Who cares about your 1001 theory > when there are so many additional cds in meat production. ================= No, there are not. Prove to me all the massive CDs in say, game. > > > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com > A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites > irony and hypocrisy run amok.... > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:52:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Scented **** wrote: Was that really necessary? >> A meat diet is at least 3 to 4 times worse when it comes to cds > >Wrong. You're swerving off the issue of grazed beef and other grazed >ruminants. Those diets are responsible for far less CDs than a vegan >diet. Go back and read the articles about Professor Davis. Davis' account is mere anecdotal evidence which hasn't even been peer-reviewed. Here's a critique of Davis' guess work. [Nettie Schwager, a member of the OSU Vegetarian Resource Network (VRN) felt that Davis' numbers might be missing some important animal deaths. "I think that he is missing some of the fatalities due to Animal Damage Control, due to destruction of habitat; it takes a lot more land to raise cows (than grow crops). Another area which he doesn't mention ... is we do a lot of medical research on animals. If you eat a plant-based diet, you can prevent a lot of the diseases that we are doing this animal research on," Schwager said. Schwager feels as though the vegan model still presents the least harm. "The kindest thing (to animals) would be a vegan diet, the second thing would be Steven Davis' proposal, and the absolute worst is the current situation," Schwager said. Dean Youngquist, a Botany major and member of the VRN pointed out another possible way to reduce animal deaths. "(Davis) didn't consider at all the possibility of redesigning the farming implements or the farming methods in order to avoid killing the animals," Youngquist said. Davis found very few numbers and little research about how many animals die in the field to base his findings on, and he believes that more research needs to be done on the subject to get increasingly accurate numbers regarding the field animals.] http://barometer.orst.edu/vnews/disp...4?in_archive=1 Until Davis' anecdotal evidence is peer reviewed it cannot be accepted as credible. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:52:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Scented **** wrote: Was that really necessary? >> A meat diet is at least 3 to 4 times worse when it comes to cds > >Wrong. You're swerving off the issue of grazed beef and other grazed >ruminants. Those diets are responsible for far less CDs than a vegan >diet. Go back and read the articles about Professor Davis. Davis' account is mere anecdotal evidence which hasn't even been peer-reviewed. Here's a critique of Davis' guess work. [Nettie Schwager, a member of the OSU Vegetarian Resource Network (VRN) felt that Davis' numbers might be missing some important animal deaths. "I think that he is missing some of the fatalities due to Animal Damage Control, due to destruction of habitat; it takes a lot more land to raise cows (than grow crops). Another area which he doesn't mention ... is we do a lot of medical research on animals. If you eat a plant-based diet, you can prevent a lot of the diseases that we are doing this animal research on," Schwager said. Schwager feels as though the vegan model still presents the least harm. "The kindest thing (to animals) would be a vegan diet, the second thing would be Steven Davis' proposal, and the absolute worst is the current situation," Schwager said. Dean Youngquist, a Botany major and member of the VRN pointed out another possible way to reduce animal deaths. "(Davis) didn't consider at all the possibility of redesigning the farming implements or the farming methods in order to avoid killing the animals," Youngquist said. Davis found very few numbers and little research about how many animals die in the field to base his findings on, and he believes that more research needs to be done on the subject to get increasingly accurate numbers regarding the field animals.] http://barometer.orst.edu/vnews/disp...4?in_archive=1 Until Davis' anecdotal evidence is peer reviewed it cannot be accepted as credible. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>======================== >>>>You just can't help yourself with lying, can you killer? Again, >>>>there is >>>>no necessity to feed any crops to beef cows. Why is that too hard >>>>for your 2 braincells to understand? >>> >>>Two? Is she pregnant? >> >> Stupid insults like that is why no one likes >> you here. > > It was far more amusing than the lame attempts of "sarcasm" you used in > your reply to me the other day. > >> I'll bet you're in a lot of killfiles. > > Only for individuals disinterested in the pursuit of truth and knowledge, > not to mention those with no sense of humor. I'm sure I'll end up in yours > before long for both reasons. ================== So, this is a she-bitten birdbrain? That explains alot.... But, that aside, i'm sure she's close to running away. She's already proven that the truth means nothing... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>======================== >>>>You just can't help yourself with lying, can you killer? Again, >>>>there is >>>>no necessity to feed any crops to beef cows. Why is that too hard >>>>for your 2 braincells to understand? >>> >>>Two? Is she pregnant? >> >> Stupid insults like that is why no one likes >> you here. > > It was far more amusing than the lame attempts of "sarcasm" you used in > your reply to me the other day. > >> I'll bet you're in a lot of killfiles. > > Only for individuals disinterested in the pursuit of truth and knowledge, > not to mention those with no sense of humor. I'm sure I'll end up in yours > before long for both reasons. ================== So, this is a she-bitten birdbrain? That explains alot.... But, that aside, i'm sure she's close to running away. She's already proven that the truth means nothing... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:57:04 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and >pesticides. Animals die. >http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm >http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html >http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm >http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html >http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html >http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm >http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm >http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html >http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm >http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf >http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm >http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html >http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm >http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html >http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ >http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html >http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm > >http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm >http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html >http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html >http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html >http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html >http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html >http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm >http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html >http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm > > > >http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135 >http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html >http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf >http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf >http://www.towerkill.com/index.html >http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm >http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm >http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml >http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html >http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c >http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html >http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm >http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm >http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml >http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5 >http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html > >Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, >here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. >http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html >http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ >http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm > >To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, >here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there >can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. >http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs >/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 >http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf >http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html >http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html > > >To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and >maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple >dealing with power and communications. >http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html >http://www.towerkill.com/index.html All you provided were a bunch of links to pesticide websites and from them claimed billions and billions of collateral deaths must exist. That's isn't proof to support your inflated numbers. Using your method, all I need do is provide a bunch of links to websites selling guns or poisons and then claim billions of people are being murdered. Besides, if you had actually bothered to read some of those webpages you would've seen they don't make any guarantees on your inflated numbers anyway. In fact, they ruin your claims because they concede that the numbers killed by their products are mere estimates and that some of the kills found during their experiments were a fluke due to unusual weather conditions. Read the first two. "Complicating the picture, our ability to estimate when, how and how readily a particular pesticide might harm birds or other wildlife species is far from perfect." http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm "The kills were a fluke caused by unusual weather conditions, says Wayne MacKinnon of the Department of Agriculture." http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html You're a joke, Rick. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:57:04 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and >pesticides. Animals die. >http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm >http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html >http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm >http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html >http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html >http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm >http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm >http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html >http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm >http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf >http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm >http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html >http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm >http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html >http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ >http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html >http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm > >http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm >http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html >http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html >http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html >http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html >http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html >http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm >http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html >http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm > > > >http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135 >http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html >http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf >http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf >http://www.towerkill.com/index.html >http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm >http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm >http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml >http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html >http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c >http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html >http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm >http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm >http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml >http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5 >http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html > >Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, >here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. >http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html >http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ >http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm > >To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, >here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there >can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. >http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs >/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 >http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf >http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html >http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html > > >To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and >maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple >dealing with power and communications. >http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html >http://www.towerkill.com/index.html All you provided were a bunch of links to pesticide websites and from them claimed billions and billions of collateral deaths must exist. That's isn't proof to support your inflated numbers. Using your method, all I need do is provide a bunch of links to websites selling guns or poisons and then claim billions of people are being murdered. Besides, if you had actually bothered to read some of those webpages you would've seen they don't make any guarantees on your inflated numbers anyway. In fact, they ruin your claims because they concede that the numbers killed by their products are mere estimates and that some of the kills found during their experiments were a fluke due to unusual weather conditions. Read the first two. "Complicating the picture, our ability to estimate when, how and how readily a particular pesticide might harm birds or other wildlife species is far from perfect." http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm "The kills were a fluke caused by unusual weather conditions, says Wayne MacKinnon of the Department of Agriculture." http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html You're a joke, Rick. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
rick etter wrote:
>>>>>======================== >>>>>You just can't help yourself with lying, can you killer? Again, >>>>>there is >>>>>no necessity to feed any crops to beef cows. Why is that too hard >>>>>for your 2 braincells to understand? >>>> >>>>Two? Is she pregnant? >>> >>>Stupid insults like that is why no one likes >>>you here. >> >>It was far more amusing than the lame attempts of "sarcasm" you used in >>your reply to me the other day. >> >> >>>I'll bet you're in a lot of killfiles. >> >>Only for individuals disinterested in the pursuit of truth and knowledge, >>not to mention those with no sense of humor. I'm sure I'll end up in yours >>before long for both reasons. > > ================== > So, this is a she-bitten birdbrain? Yes. > That explains alot.... But, that > aside, i'm sure she's close to running away. She's already proven that the > truth means nothing... Her rampant snipping shows at least that much about her. I'm checking out her recipes now. Lots of rice, lots of soy. One recipe calls for 2 whole packages Yves Italian fake ground round -- that's almost enough soy to make a boy grow tits. Wait a second, that same recipe calls for three cups of rice. Frog killer!!! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
rick etter wrote:
>>>>>======================== >>>>>You just can't help yourself with lying, can you killer? Again, >>>>>there is >>>>>no necessity to feed any crops to beef cows. Why is that too hard >>>>>for your 2 braincells to understand? >>>> >>>>Two? Is she pregnant? >>> >>>Stupid insults like that is why no one likes >>>you here. >> >>It was far more amusing than the lame attempts of "sarcasm" you used in >>your reply to me the other day. >> >> >>>I'll bet you're in a lot of killfiles. >> >>Only for individuals disinterested in the pursuit of truth and knowledge, >>not to mention those with no sense of humor. I'm sure I'll end up in yours >>before long for both reasons. > > ================== > So, this is a she-bitten birdbrain? Yes. > That explains alot.... But, that > aside, i'm sure she's close to running away. She's already proven that the > truth means nothing... Her rampant snipping shows at least that much about her. I'm checking out her recipes now. Lots of rice, lots of soy. One recipe calls for 2 whole packages Yves Italian fake ground round -- that's almost enough soy to make a boy grow tits. Wait a second, that same recipe calls for three cups of rice. Frog killer!!! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Retard wrote:
>>>A meat diet is at least 3 to 4 times worse when it comes to cds >> >>Wrong. You're swerving off the issue of grazed beef and other grazed >>ruminants. Those diets are responsible for far less CDs than a vegan >>diet. Go back and read the articles about Professor Davis. > > Davis' account is spot on. I know, you fat ****, now **** off. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Retard wrote:
>>>A meat diet is at least 3 to 4 times worse when it comes to cds >> >>Wrong. You're swerving off the issue of grazed beef and other grazed >>ruminants. Those diets are responsible for far less CDs than a vegan >>diet. Go back and read the articles about Professor Davis. > > Davis' account is spot on. I know, you fat ****, now **** off. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Retard wrote:
>>>A meat diet is at least 3 to 4 times worse when it comes to cds >> >>Wrong. You're swerving off the issue of grazed beef and other grazed >>ruminants. Those diets are responsible for far less CDs than a vegan >>diet. Go back and read the articles about Professor Davis. > > Davis' account is spot on. I know, you fat ****, now **** off. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented **** wrote: What the...Get your nose out of my crotch, you mangy troll!!! > Increasing. From a decrease. It will probably go up and down, but eventually more down, I think. > > Let's see what the longterm will bring. > > It's been rising steadily and strongly the last four years. Longterm, not short term. > Not really, and it's pretty elitist of you to suggest that. I live in > Austin, which is consistently rated one of the healthiest cities in the > US. A large segment of our population is vegetarian, and I suspect we > have more vegetarian restaurants per capita than other similarly sized > cities. Well, good for Austin. That's a pleasant surprise. > > so vegan IS always better. > > No, it never is. Is too. > > Who cares about your 1001 theory > > when there are so many additional cds in meat production. > > There are more CDs in a "vegan" diet than in one containing grazed > ruminants and locally-grown produce. You don't even go for the > locally-grown part of that -- you heap CDs upon CDs. Your curried > plantains alone equal more death than if you were to eat locally-grown > beef and produce. Maybe more cds than the local produce, but not more than the local beef. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> > Haha, one type of drug, only banned from 2 types >> > of food animals. What about all the DES in beef? >> > And let's not even get started about antibiotics!! >> ======================== >> LOL The beef I eat has none. Care to try again, killer? All your > veggies >> have been poisoned with pesticides.... > > How about your chicken, or your farmed fish? ======================= The chickens run around th eyard out back. Seems they are over on my property than their own. Slaughter was just last month. Man was that some good eatin'. > I have organic veggies availlable to me that > I'm very satisfied are safe and healthy. > ================== LOL I see you had to say 'available' because you are too concerned with your conveninece and expense to actually eat them. Besides, I'd be looking into those organics if I were you. Organic does not mean cruelty-free, or pesticide/chemical free, killer. >> ========================== >> Let's look at your crops, eh killer? Washington state, Potatoes, >> 13,445,000 pounds of all types of chemicals used for that crop. One > state, >> one crop. >> But wait, let's go to Idaho. One state, one crop, potatoes, > 30,697,000 >> pounds of chemicals of all types. Asparagus, Michigan, 68,000 # > herbicides, >> 38,000# of insecticides, 63,000 # of fungicides. Brocolli, > California, >> 148,900# of herbicides, 234,800 # insecticides. Lettuce, > california, >> 139,900# herbicide,423,800# insecticide, 439,800# fungicide. get the > fell >> yet? Grass fed beef and game have nothing near this kind of > environmental >> damage. >> Just looking at pesticides alone, over 2 billion pounds in the US. > Grass >> fed beef and game uses practically none of that. Your veggies however > are a >> different matter. 1.2 pounds per acre average on soy beans. 74.2 > million >> acres planted, ummm almost 90 millions pounds of pesticides, just for > your >> tofu..... > > I'm sure no one here would disagree that that's a > bad thing. I'll bet most people in this newsgroup > buy organic whenever possible. ==================== ROTFLMAO Remember what I said about learning something before you spew your ignorance. Well, here's a perfect example. Care to discuss the amount of organic pesticides used on "organic" crops in the US? Let's have some fun and give it a go, what do you say? Let's do of the top 2 organic pesticides, oil as an insecticide, and sulfur, as a fungicide. Oil, 102 millions pounds. sulfur. 78 millions pounds. These 2 account for 23% of *all* pesticides used in the US. But, they are the most readily used ones. Bt is, but it cannot be measured in pounds so the comparison cannot be made. Now, if these two chemicals already account for 23% of all pesticides used, and organic farming is only about 3% of total farming, where do you figure those nubers will go if at tghe snap of a finger all farming went organic? Personnaly, I'm not ready for the massive increase of chems that would be sprayed, as I feel there are already too many! that's one reason why I substitute gras-fed beef and game for 100s of 1000s of veggies calories. Too bad you can't say the same, eh killer? Looks to me like you are part of the problem of chemical usage, not the solution. Organic pesticides can also be deadlier than synthetics. peruse this at your convenience. I know you'll just snip it out since it has too much truth for you though... http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf By the way, you > being a meat eater, surely you must eat plant > foods as well, don't you? Hayfields for cattle > are sprayed with broadleaf herbacides to leave > just the hay, aren't they? ===================== All veggies are massively sprayed with poisons, aren't they? Even the ones grown in backyard gardens and window boxes, right killer? > >> ===================== >> Then show your dat. Show how many CDs occur in rangeland, pastures > when >> grass is doing what it does naturally, grow. Then compare that to > your >> crops, which do not grow natuarlly in nice neat rows without lots of > massive >> inputs from the petro-chemical industry. > > Nah, you show yours first, but show it for the organic > farms I prefer to buy from and support. ====================== LOL I posted info on animal death and suffering fool. Remember? *YOU* dishonestly snipped it out. Now it's your turn. Show it, killer. See above for the support you 'give' to the chemical industry.... > >> > Nope. There's always going to be more cds from animal food than > vegan >> > foods. >> ================= >> prove that little been of falshood, killer. > > Only if you'll accept the comparison of apples > to apples instead of oranges. I've already > explained in previous posts to you and > Usual. ================== No, you have not, killer. You have made a direct statement before, that a vegan diet is always better. A statement that you cannot back up. > >> > And maybe you're unaware of organically >> > grown, and peacefully harvested farming >> > practices. That's what you should be >> > comparing your scrub beef to. >> ===================== >> Maybe you're too stupid to understand that organic does not mean >> cruelty-free, eh killer? It has exactly the same machine operations, > and >> still uses chemicals. Many of which are more deadly that the > sythetics that >> they are supposed to replace. they often entail even more CDs because > thay >> require multiple applications per growing season. Each pass through > the >> fields with the machines means more animals die, hypocrite. > > Organic gardening does not require more applications > then inorganic. ====================== Yes, they do. Remember again about learning something before displaying your ignorance? Maybe even less if companion planting > is practised. Also, most organic farms are rather small > and are less likely to use heavy machinery when spraying > or harvesting. ====================== Yeah, right. See above about the chemical industry you support, hypocrite... > >> > Prove the 1:1000s ratio please. Do you really >> > think your meat eating has no cds? >> ====================== >> No, just not as many as your vegan diet, killer. > > I think you're forgetting to compare the right things > with each other. ================== No, I'm not. You are constantly making staements your brain cannot back up. > >> > Well now, you just go ahead and eat all that >> > dead body stuff. We'll see who's healthier. >> =============== >> Sure. tell us who the longest lived groups of people are on earth, > killer. >> hint, they aren't vegans..... > > We'll see. There's entire generations of vegans in > current times. It will take a while, but let's see what age > they live to. ===================== Ignorant dolt. There have been 'generations' of vegans for longer than the current fad your on, killer. 1000s of years, and they still aren't at the top of the lists. facts just don't get along with you, do they? Are you allergic to them, or what? > >> > http://www.scentednectar.com >> > A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites. >> > >> ================ >> Irony and hypocrisy display..... > > Er, thanks for visiting my site. Have a > nice day. ==================== Ever more irony and hypocrisy, but now add complete ignorance... > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Oops. Did I cut a little close to the bone? - no pun intended!
> ================= > No, you're just a dishonest little vegan that doesn't have anything except > their dishonesty and ignorance to show us. I did nothing dishonest. And the only thing I'm ignorant of is, what the freak are you talking about. > > A meat diet is at least 3 to 4 times worse when it comes to cds > ==================== > Prove it killer. I've asked you to prove this several times now. Come on, > show us the data.... I already have, using your friend Usual's data My conclusion (which gives your side benefit of the doubt) was that meat causes 3 to 4 times the cds as vegan crops > > so vegan IS always better. > ================ > Prove it, littlle boy.... Come on, give it a shot. pun intended... See above. In my experience, only those who are unsure of their own masculinity need to call someone 'little boy' > Who cares about your 1001 theory > > when there are so many additional cds in meat production. > ================= > No, there are not. Prove to me all the massive CDs in say, game. Your wild game probably has the same or more cds than say, wild berries. Let's keep the apples with the apples. SN http://www.scentednectar.com A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... >> information I provided that organic foods may be more dangerous -- and >> cause more CDs -- than conventional foods because organic does NOT > mean >> free of all pesticides or herbicides, just free of synthetic ones. > > Yeah, that organic shit is evil <rolling eyes> ===================== Yes, as regards to the implied non-use of 'cides by idiots like you when they really use massive amounts, and would take even more if it were the norm. > >> > What animal consumes most >> > of the tons and tons of hay crops grown and harvested >> > each year? >> >> Since you're not yet vegan, I would point to all that milk and cheese >> you consume. All that hay isn't just for meat, missy. > > Don't forget, I may be not 100% vegan yet, but I'm getting there. ================== LOL Not as long as you are posting your ignorance to usenet you're not. Again, veganism is a lifestyle, NOT a diet. > All that hay also isn't just for milk. It's for both milk and meat, > but I think we both know that. How many cds does a hay reaping > machine cause? And since you claim animals are on a 3 or 4 to 1 > ratio, then it takes 3 or 4 times the crop pounds to produce 1 pound > of meat. That's 3 to 4 times the cds when comparing meat and > vegan food production. ==================== Show your data, killer. prove it... > >> > While I would like to see everyone become vegan, they're not. >> >> Aha, you admit that you have some zeal for proseletyzing others and >> wishing they were JUST LIKE YOU -- veganism is a religion. You not > only >> want others converted to be JUST LIKE YOU, you're prepared to dictate >> ALL your thoughts and feelings upon others. That goes for your > aesthetic >> complaints based on half-truths (which are still lies) about chicken >> tumors, your parroting of propaganda about DES (*two* ****ing samples > in >> Switzerland -- and the stuff is already banned for use in cattle in > the >> US), and your fantastical deceit about how "we could return land to >> nature if we stopped feeding livestock" (I gave you clear information >> which shows that the feed:weight ratios you offered were utter > bullshit). > > The religion bullshit is getting tiring. As for the ratios, I've shown > you above how even your lowered ratios, which I'm granting you > still cause tons more cds. ================== No, you haven't shown anything because you still insist on animal death and suffering that isn't there. snippage of typical spew and lys... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... >> information I provided that organic foods may be more dangerous -- and >> cause more CDs -- than conventional foods because organic does NOT > mean >> free of all pesticides or herbicides, just free of synthetic ones. > > Yeah, that organic shit is evil <rolling eyes> ===================== Yes, as regards to the implied non-use of 'cides by idiots like you when they really use massive amounts, and would take even more if it were the norm. > >> > What animal consumes most >> > of the tons and tons of hay crops grown and harvested >> > each year? >> >> Since you're not yet vegan, I would point to all that milk and cheese >> you consume. All that hay isn't just for meat, missy. > > Don't forget, I may be not 100% vegan yet, but I'm getting there. ================== LOL Not as long as you are posting your ignorance to usenet you're not. Again, veganism is a lifestyle, NOT a diet. > All that hay also isn't just for milk. It's for both milk and meat, > but I think we both know that. How many cds does a hay reaping > machine cause? And since you claim animals are on a 3 or 4 to 1 > ratio, then it takes 3 or 4 times the crop pounds to produce 1 pound > of meat. That's 3 to 4 times the cds when comparing meat and > vegan food production. ==================== Show your data, killer. prove it... > >> > While I would like to see everyone become vegan, they're not. >> >> Aha, you admit that you have some zeal for proseletyzing others and >> wishing they were JUST LIKE YOU -- veganism is a religion. You not > only >> want others converted to be JUST LIKE YOU, you're prepared to dictate >> ALL your thoughts and feelings upon others. That goes for your > aesthetic >> complaints based on half-truths (which are still lies) about chicken >> tumors, your parroting of propaganda about DES (*two* ****ing samples > in >> Switzerland -- and the stuff is already banned for use in cattle in > the >> US), and your fantastical deceit about how "we could return land to >> nature if we stopped feeding livestock" (I gave you clear information >> which shows that the feed:weight ratios you offered were utter > bullshit). > > The religion bullshit is getting tiring. As for the ratios, I've shown > you above how even your lowered ratios, which I'm granting you > still cause tons more cds. ================== No, you haven't shown anything because you still insist on animal death and suffering that isn't there. snippage of typical spew and lys... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>Scented **** wrote: > > What the...Get your nose out of my crotch, you mangy troll!!! You *WISH* my nose were anywhere near your crotch. Go douche and stop polluting us with every cold front. >>Increasing. > > From a decrease. No, from a point of stagnation. > It will probably go up and down, > but eventually more down, I think. On what basis do you think that? Demand for meat has increased despite concerns over BSE, despite scaremongering about cholesterol, and despite the lunacy of vegan and animal rights activists. >>>Let's see what the longterm will bring. >> >>It's been rising steadily and strongly the last four years. > > Longterm, not short term. It's been rising over an even longer term. It's risen strongly in the last four years with all the pseudoscience from low-carb dieting advocates. >>Not really, and it's pretty elitist of you to suggest that. I live in >>Austin, which is consistently rated one of the healthiest cities in >>the US. A large segment of our population is vegetarian, and I suspect we >>have more vegetarian restaurants per capita than other similarly sized >>cities. > > Well, good for Austin. That's a pleasant surprise. Why should you be surprised? Just shows what a ****ing snob you are about other people from other places. Asshole. >>>so vegan IS always better. >> >>No, it never is. > > Is too. Nope. I've given you ample opportunity to pony up some evidence in support of such claims, yet you're still BSing your way through this discussion. >>>Who cares about your 1001 theory >>>when there are so many additional cds in meat production. >> >>There are more CDs in a "vegan" diet than in one containing grazed >>ruminants and locally-grown produce. You don't even go for the >>locally-grown part of that -- you heap CDs upon CDs. Your curried >>plantains alone equal more death than if you were to eat locally-grown >>beef and produce. > > Maybe more cds than the local produce, No maybe about it, Karen. Definitely. > but not more than the local beef. One cow death would provide you with hundreds of meals. The pesticides alone from plantain production kill more than one animal. So if the standard is how many deaths your dietary choices cause, you lose at the stage of production -- we'd not even have to try to total up the deaths and injuries caused by transporting and storing the plantains. PS: Your cat is cute, but it looks like you have cankles. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>Scented **** wrote: > > What the...Get your nose out of my crotch, you mangy troll!!! You *WISH* my nose were anywhere near your crotch. Go douche and stop polluting us with every cold front. >>Increasing. > > From a decrease. No, from a point of stagnation. > It will probably go up and down, > but eventually more down, I think. On what basis do you think that? Demand for meat has increased despite concerns over BSE, despite scaremongering about cholesterol, and despite the lunacy of vegan and animal rights activists. >>>Let's see what the longterm will bring. >> >>It's been rising steadily and strongly the last four years. > > Longterm, not short term. It's been rising over an even longer term. It's risen strongly in the last four years with all the pseudoscience from low-carb dieting advocates. >>Not really, and it's pretty elitist of you to suggest that. I live in >>Austin, which is consistently rated one of the healthiest cities in >>the US. A large segment of our population is vegetarian, and I suspect we >>have more vegetarian restaurants per capita than other similarly sized >>cities. > > Well, good for Austin. That's a pleasant surprise. Why should you be surprised? Just shows what a ****ing snob you are about other people from other places. Asshole. >>>so vegan IS always better. >> >>No, it never is. > > Is too. Nope. I've given you ample opportunity to pony up some evidence in support of such claims, yet you're still BSing your way through this discussion. >>>Who cares about your 1001 theory >>>when there are so many additional cds in meat production. >> >>There are more CDs in a "vegan" diet than in one containing grazed >>ruminants and locally-grown produce. You don't even go for the >>locally-grown part of that -- you heap CDs upon CDs. Your curried >>plantains alone equal more death than if you were to eat locally-grown >>beef and produce. > > Maybe more cds than the local produce, No maybe about it, Karen. Definitely. > but not more than the local beef. One cow death would provide you with hundreds of meals. The pesticides alone from plantain production kill more than one animal. So if the standard is how many deaths your dietary choices cause, you lose at the stage of production -- we'd not even have to try to total up the deaths and injuries caused by transporting and storing the plantains. PS: Your cat is cute, but it looks like you have cankles. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Stop pretending vegetation is to blame. Those cargo ships
> > ship meat just as readily. > ================ > You are to blame, you ignorant dolt. We don't import the massive amounts of > meat that we do veggies. We have more than enough, and despite your > propaganda spews to the contrary, McDs ins't importing SA beef burgers. There's a large meat export industry to other countries. > > Solution: Grow it differently and humanely. > > Wrong solution: Natter about any food a vegan mentions. > ================== > LOL Talk about wrong solutions!!!! that's ezxactly what you and every > other usenet vegan here does, fool. You go on and on about meat eaters, and > totally ignore you own impact. Witness your total lack of knowledge of > banans, rice, and any other crop you eat! You are the poster child of > ignorance and delusion of vegans. You're getting tiring with your crazy insults and refusal to see the facts. > > Ok., mr.doomsday, I think your saying that EVERYTHING causes > > death so why am I even bothering being vegan? Let's go over to > > the health side of things. How come YOU don't eat meat, huh? > > ============================ > You diet is not automatically healthier, killer. I believe it is. You can believe whatever you want. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Stop pretending vegetation is to blame. Those cargo ships
> > ship meat just as readily. > ================ > You are to blame, you ignorant dolt. We don't import the massive amounts of > meat that we do veggies. We have more than enough, and despite your > propaganda spews to the contrary, McDs ins't importing SA beef burgers. There's a large meat export industry to other countries. > > Solution: Grow it differently and humanely. > > Wrong solution: Natter about any food a vegan mentions. > ================== > LOL Talk about wrong solutions!!!! that's ezxactly what you and every > other usenet vegan here does, fool. You go on and on about meat eaters, and > totally ignore you own impact. Witness your total lack of knowledge of > banans, rice, and any other crop you eat! You are the poster child of > ignorance and delusion of vegans. You're getting tiring with your crazy insults and refusal to see the facts. > > Ok., mr.doomsday, I think your saying that EVERYTHING causes > > death so why am I even bothering being vegan? Let's go over to > > the health side of things. How come YOU don't eat meat, huh? > > ============================ > You diet is not automatically healthier, killer. I believe it is. You can believe whatever you want. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Stop pretending vegetation is to blame. Those cargo ships
> > ship meat just as readily. > ================ > You are to blame, you ignorant dolt. We don't import the massive amounts of > meat that we do veggies. We have more than enough, and despite your > propaganda spews to the contrary, McDs ins't importing SA beef burgers. There's a large meat export industry to other countries. > > Solution: Grow it differently and humanely. > > Wrong solution: Natter about any food a vegan mentions. > ================== > LOL Talk about wrong solutions!!!! that's ezxactly what you and every > other usenet vegan here does, fool. You go on and on about meat eaters, and > totally ignore you own impact. Witness your total lack of knowledge of > banans, rice, and any other crop you eat! You are the poster child of > ignorance and delusion of vegans. You're getting tiring with your crazy insults and refusal to see the facts. > > Ok., mr.doomsday, I think your saying that EVERYTHING causes > > death so why am I even bothering being vegan? Let's go over to > > the health side of things. How come YOU don't eat meat, huh? > > ============================ > You diet is not automatically healthier, killer. I believe it is. You can believe whatever you want. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
<...> >>PS: Your cat is cute, but it looks like you have cankles > > Is that a made up word for 'baggy socks around > the ankles'? That's my best guess as the online > Websters doesn't recognise that word. calves + ankles = cankles Condition of fat, stubby legs commonly found on aging women. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> 1. That grass-fed beef and meat from other grazed animals is widely > available in >> grocery stores. > > So are organic produce and grains/nuts/seeds. ===================== And, again, organic does not mean cruelty-free or pesticide free. Are you really this challenged? > >> 2. That all beef cattle are primarily grazed. > > On unseeded fields? What animal consumes most > of the tons and tons of hay crops grown and harvested > each year? ====================== cattle. But show where cows must be fed hay? > >> 3. That grain-finishing of beef cattle is to satisfy consumer demand > for marbled >> meat. > > It doesn't matter to me that it's to satisfy consumer demand. > Should it? While I would like to see everyone become > vegan, they're not. ==================== No, they're not. And thank goodness for the world's sake that they aren't. > >> 4. You'd said previously you believe veganism to be the "healthiest > choice." I >> asked you to support your belief. > > I have no links to give you, having not saved what I've > read in various science news sites. ================ Of course you don't. Ignorance is bliss, eh killer? Man, you must be really happy... > > What I've read has led me to conclude that for > me, a vegan diet would be healthiest. > > Tell me, I'm very curious, why don't YOU eat meat? > I'm guessing health reasons but maybe not, since > you're putting that down. > >> Steroids are "more than one type of drug." > > Okay...they are one category, one sort, one kind, whatever. > >> > And let's not even get started about antibiotics!! >> >> Why not? Would you rather cattle and other livestock suffer from > infections? > > They are not given only to those with infections. It's > standard practice to dose them all. Since they stand > in dirty feedlots all day overeating, maybe it is > necessary. ========================== Why do you insist you perpetrating all these lys? You make these ignorant statemenst then wonder why anybody questions your sanity. All cows are not given antibiotics. Man, you really are stupid... > >> I wish you'd taken the time to respond to this point, which I believe > devastates >> your wild-assed claims about feed:meat. > > Even if my ratios are off, it still takes way more times > the crops to make a pound of meat than vegan > people food. ================= No, it does not. Again, show me where any crops are needed to be fed to cows. > >> Ipse dixit. Not in the case of grazed ruminants, wild game, and fish. > > Actually, many fish are farmed nowadays. They have > frequent disease outbreaks. ========================== So, using you own ignorance, we can now say that all veggies are doused in chemicals from seed to store? That's the kind of (il)logic you're using, fool. If one thing is raised/grown one way, they all things are raised/grown that way. > >> One-thousand compounded by one is still one-thousand. Your diet will > still have >> 1000 deaths attributed to it whether you eat the animals or not. Your > silly >> argument then objects to the 1001th death -- simply because it results > in >> something someone is willing to eat (though it's possible David > Harrison may >> walk through a field and pick up a run-over possum for supper, just as > he does >> with road kill), and which provides far more meals that the CDs > attributed to >> your selfish -- NOT compassionate -- vegan diet ever will. > > Face it. Meat causes more cds. Who is eating the multi > million dollar hay growing industry? ======================== Prove you claims, again, killer. you cannot. Because a vegan diet does not automatically mean no/fewer/less animal deaths. > >> > and peacefully harvested farming practices. >> >> You live in a fantasy world. You have NO idea what occurs in farming, > else you >> wouldn't make such fantastical statements about "peaceful harvests." > > Maybe your perfect cattle are the fantasy. ============== Nope. can see them everyday. Happily grazing pastures.... > >> > That's what you should be comparing your scrub beef to. >> >> Grass-fed beef is an economically viable product. "Peacefully > harvested" rice is >> an oxymoron. See if you can find some. > > Availlability doesn't change the need to compare apples to apples > and not oranges. ===================== Then m,ake tghe comparison, fool. You can't, and you won't. You'd lose. > >> >>Their diet: One dead animal is many meals. >> >>Your diet: One meal is many dead animals. >> >> You should've addressed this point. You really, really should've. > > Really, really? Quite simply, you're wrong. > >> I don't eat meat. > > Why not? If you answer nothing else, at least > please answer this. You're so defensive about > meat eating, why on earth don't you do it > yourself??? > >> You already accept the premise that animals die in the course of food >> production, including for a "vegan" diet. You are willing to enter a > counting >> game -- just as you did by suggesting that those who actually eat an > animal >> killed in the course of food production kill "plus one" to your diet. > > Actually to hell with the counting game. We're counting > different things, me and you. I compare apples to apples. ======================= No fool. We're discussing meat and veggies. All meats, and all veggies. Availablity does matter to the person that is *REALLY* looking to decrease their impact on animals and the environment. I realize that those of you that are just into this so you can focus only on what you think others are doing, and not really making any changes that make a difference, are just delusion religious fanatics. > >> >>>My guess on that one, is that they chose to be veg for >> >>>the wrong reasons. >> >> >> >>Wait a second. If it's more ethical and compassionate, how could it > be >> >>the wrong reason? >> > >> > Please read me more carefully. >> >> I have read you very, very carefully. Perhaps I've also cut you too > much slack, >> but I'm a very generous person like that. You have waxed on and on > about the >> virtues of veganism. You've tried to suggest that it's ethical, > compassionate, >> AND -- this is MOST important -- the "healthiest choice." How could > embracing >> such a healthy philosophy ever be "wrong"? > > Who's touting a philosophy? I don't see this > vegan religion that you do. ===================== Then again, you don't really know the meaning of the term. Try some education.... I simply said that > an anorexic turning veggie is probably doing > it for the wrong reason, that being weight loss. > >> >> > The wrong reason >> > was for weight reduction. This is something that is >> > unhealthy for an anorexic. Where did you think I >> > said they did it for ethical or compassionate >> > reasons. >> >> You've certainly enumerated those ideals when describing veganism. So > are you >> now saying that vegan activists should stop promoting weight loss as a > benefit >> of their little pseudo-philosophy? It's one of the first ones they > prattle about >> in their propaganda: >> Health benefits are one of the main reasons why everyone should become > a >> vegan. The primary benefits a weight loss... >> http://library.thinkquest.org/C004833/health_en.shtml > > But a moment ago, you were questioning my > belief in it being healthy. Now you agree with it? > > Why don't you eat meat? Do you eat dairy > or eggs? Gelatin? What is your ideal diet, Usual? > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> 1. That grass-fed beef and meat from other grazed animals is widely > available in >> grocery stores. > > So are organic produce and grains/nuts/seeds. ===================== And, again, organic does not mean cruelty-free or pesticide free. Are you really this challenged? > >> 2. That all beef cattle are primarily grazed. > > On unseeded fields? What animal consumes most > of the tons and tons of hay crops grown and harvested > each year? ====================== cattle. But show where cows must be fed hay? > >> 3. That grain-finishing of beef cattle is to satisfy consumer demand > for marbled >> meat. > > It doesn't matter to me that it's to satisfy consumer demand. > Should it? While I would like to see everyone become > vegan, they're not. ==================== No, they're not. And thank goodness for the world's sake that they aren't. > >> 4. You'd said previously you believe veganism to be the "healthiest > choice." I >> asked you to support your belief. > > I have no links to give you, having not saved what I've > read in various science news sites. ================ Of course you don't. Ignorance is bliss, eh killer? Man, you must be really happy... > > What I've read has led me to conclude that for > me, a vegan diet would be healthiest. > > Tell me, I'm very curious, why don't YOU eat meat? > I'm guessing health reasons but maybe not, since > you're putting that down. > >> Steroids are "more than one type of drug." > > Okay...they are one category, one sort, one kind, whatever. > >> > And let's not even get started about antibiotics!! >> >> Why not? Would you rather cattle and other livestock suffer from > infections? > > They are not given only to those with infections. It's > standard practice to dose them all. Since they stand > in dirty feedlots all day overeating, maybe it is > necessary. ========================== Why do you insist you perpetrating all these lys? You make these ignorant statemenst then wonder why anybody questions your sanity. All cows are not given antibiotics. Man, you really are stupid... > >> I wish you'd taken the time to respond to this point, which I believe > devastates >> your wild-assed claims about feed:meat. > > Even if my ratios are off, it still takes way more times > the crops to make a pound of meat than vegan > people food. ================= No, it does not. Again, show me where any crops are needed to be fed to cows. > >> Ipse dixit. Not in the case of grazed ruminants, wild game, and fish. > > Actually, many fish are farmed nowadays. They have > frequent disease outbreaks. ========================== So, using you own ignorance, we can now say that all veggies are doused in chemicals from seed to store? That's the kind of (il)logic you're using, fool. If one thing is raised/grown one way, they all things are raised/grown that way. > >> One-thousand compounded by one is still one-thousand. Your diet will > still have >> 1000 deaths attributed to it whether you eat the animals or not. Your > silly >> argument then objects to the 1001th death -- simply because it results > in >> something someone is willing to eat (though it's possible David > Harrison may >> walk through a field and pick up a run-over possum for supper, just as > he does >> with road kill), and which provides far more meals that the CDs > attributed to >> your selfish -- NOT compassionate -- vegan diet ever will. > > Face it. Meat causes more cds. Who is eating the multi > million dollar hay growing industry? ======================== Prove you claims, again, killer. you cannot. Because a vegan diet does not automatically mean no/fewer/less animal deaths. > >> > and peacefully harvested farming practices. >> >> You live in a fantasy world. You have NO idea what occurs in farming, > else you >> wouldn't make such fantastical statements about "peaceful harvests." > > Maybe your perfect cattle are the fantasy. ============== Nope. can see them everyday. Happily grazing pastures.... > >> > That's what you should be comparing your scrub beef to. >> >> Grass-fed beef is an economically viable product. "Peacefully > harvested" rice is >> an oxymoron. See if you can find some. > > Availlability doesn't change the need to compare apples to apples > and not oranges. ===================== Then m,ake tghe comparison, fool. You can't, and you won't. You'd lose. > >> >>Their diet: One dead animal is many meals. >> >>Your diet: One meal is many dead animals. >> >> You should've addressed this point. You really, really should've. > > Really, really? Quite simply, you're wrong. > >> I don't eat meat. > > Why not? If you answer nothing else, at least > please answer this. You're so defensive about > meat eating, why on earth don't you do it > yourself??? > >> You already accept the premise that animals die in the course of food >> production, including for a "vegan" diet. You are willing to enter a > counting >> game -- just as you did by suggesting that those who actually eat an > animal >> killed in the course of food production kill "plus one" to your diet. > > Actually to hell with the counting game. We're counting > different things, me and you. I compare apples to apples. ======================= No fool. We're discussing meat and veggies. All meats, and all veggies. Availablity does matter to the person that is *REALLY* looking to decrease their impact on animals and the environment. I realize that those of you that are just into this so you can focus only on what you think others are doing, and not really making any changes that make a difference, are just delusion religious fanatics. > >> >>>My guess on that one, is that they chose to be veg for >> >>>the wrong reasons. >> >> >> >>Wait a second. If it's more ethical and compassionate, how could it > be >> >>the wrong reason? >> > >> > Please read me more carefully. >> >> I have read you very, very carefully. Perhaps I've also cut you too > much slack, >> but I'm a very generous person like that. You have waxed on and on > about the >> virtues of veganism. You've tried to suggest that it's ethical, > compassionate, >> AND -- this is MOST important -- the "healthiest choice." How could > embracing >> such a healthy philosophy ever be "wrong"? > > Who's touting a philosophy? I don't see this > vegan religion that you do. ===================== Then again, you don't really know the meaning of the term. Try some education.... I simply said that > an anorexic turning veggie is probably doing > it for the wrong reason, that being weight loss. > >> >> > The wrong reason >> > was for weight reduction. This is something that is >> > unhealthy for an anorexic. Where did you think I >> > said they did it for ethical or compassionate >> > reasons. >> >> You've certainly enumerated those ideals when describing veganism. So > are you >> now saying that vegan activists should stop promoting weight loss as a > benefit >> of their little pseudo-philosophy? It's one of the first ones they > prattle about >> in their propaganda: >> Health benefits are one of the main reasons why everyone should become > a >> vegan. The primary benefits a weight loss... >> http://library.thinkquest.org/C004833/health_en.shtml > > But a moment ago, you were questioning my > belief in it being healthy. Now you agree with it? > > Why don't you eat meat? Do you eat dairy > or eggs? Gelatin? What is your ideal diet, Usual? > > > |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| attn: fabe - extremely perfect posts - cegsu zot - (1/1) | Asian Cooking | |||
| Annoying sigs at end of posts (was Terry Birds "Could we please Learn to trim our posts" | General Cooking | |||
| Ping: Scented Nectar | Vegan | |||
| No trick, no "engineering" - 'Scented Nectar' believed stupid nonsense | Vegan | |||
| Scented Candles from Candleland-Scented Candles to Indulge Your Candle Craving! | Marketplace | |||
Linear Mode
