Scented Nectar wrote:
> > >>>Neither of us is
> > >>>going to convince the other one.
> > >>
> > >>I will convince you if you stick around and don't turn
> > >>chickenshit and run away.
> > >
> > >
> > > You won't convince me. I'll only 'run away' if I get
> > > bored with these debates, it won't be from being
> > > 'chickenshit'.
> >
> > You ARE chickenshit already; the only question is when
> > you'll get fed up with the beating.
>
> The beating?!? Is that how you see these debates?
> I've been calling it 'playing with the trolls'.
>
> You take your anti-vegan stuff too far. It's
> like there's an actual hatered going on.
> Lighten up. Vegans aren't demons.

But you are hypocrites. Filthy, stinking hypocrites. Without
exception.

>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

rick etter wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > rick etter wrote:
> >
> >> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> >> nk.net...
> >>
> >>>rick etter wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>The fact remains that most organic pesticides are used for
organic
> >>>>>>farming.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That is not established as a fact, and it probably isn't true.
Most of
> >>>>>the organic pesticides, e.g. sulfur, copper and oil, are used by

> >>>>>conventional - i.e., non-organic - farms.
> >>>>
> >>>>=====================
> >>>>I don't agree.
> >>>
> >>>It doesn't matter if you agree or not. Either conventional farms
use
> >>>some organic pesticides, or they don't. The fact is, they do, and
they
> >>>use lots of them.
> >>
> >> ====================
> >> Then show the numbers. Again, I know no farmers that use them.
they are
> >> too expensive to buy, and to apply.
> >
> > You don't know what you're talking about. The reason so much is
used is
> > because it's CHEAP.
> >
> > Sulfur is a naturally occurring element widely used
> > as a fungicide in both conventional and organic
> > farming. From 1991 to 1995, it had the highest use
> > in pounds applied and the largest increase in pounds
> > used (Table 1). It also had the highest use and
> > greatest increase in number of applications and
> > acres treated (Appendix Tables 1 - 3).
> > http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/dprdocs/puranal.htm
> >
> > The stuff is used by conventional farmers, and because the account
for 97%
> > of farming output, MOST of it is used by conventional farmers.
Organic
> > farmers may use it at a higher *rate*, but the do NOT account for
the
> > majority of the use.
> ==================
> Then you cannot disagree with the gist of my post. If we were to go
all
> organic, we'd use far more chemicals.

The gist of your post was that organic farms accounted for most
pesticide use. Your point was wrong.

I'm not particularly concerned about using "more" pesticides,
particularly if 100 pounds of sulfur is less toxic to humans than the
1/2 pound of some synthetic that might take its place.

You're trying to play a dishonest game here.

>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>>I don't know any farmers that use them,
> >
> > A classic appeal to ignorance argument; a fallacy. Just because you
don't
> > know any - more correctly, you don't know of their usage - doesn't
mean it
> > isn't used, including by farmers you presumably know. I rather
doubt any
> > farmers you know blurt out, when they first see you, "I used some
sulfur
> > today."
> >
> >>>>but I don't know 1000s of farmers across the country. The fact
of the
> >>>>page remains though, if *all* farms were to switch to organic,
which is
> >>>>what the loons cry for, then the amounts of pestcides would
increase
> >>>>greatly.
> >>>
> >>>That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, though. If the choice
is
> >>>between 100 million pounds of sulfur, or 1 million pounds of some
> >>>synthetic, but the synthetic is 200 times as persistently toxic
per
> >>>pound, then perhaps we should use the sulfur, if persistent
toxicity is
> >>>the relevant criterion.
> >>
> >> ====================
> >> Many organic pesticides are as toxic,
> >
> > I certainly hope so! Why else would they be used?
> =======================
> Yes, why? When there are perfectly good sytnthetic ones that do a
better
> job at targeting the specific pests instead of killing willy nilly
anything
> that gets in the way. Many are used only because of the "label" that
says
> organic! Their one 'strength' is their lack of persistance, which
is what
> means they have to be applied repeatedly.

That may not be a bad thing. You're assuming it is, and you don't have
any legitimate basis for the assumption.

>
> "...Rapid break down may be desirable from a health and an
environmental
> stand point, but it also creates a need for precise timing and/or
more
> frequent applications. Not all BI's are less toxic than all
synthetics and
> should be handled accordingly.
> BI's tend to cost more than synthetic insecticides, and are not as
readily
> available. Potency often varies from among batches. Tolerances for
residues
> of some materials have not been established. Some are not
registered for
> use in certain states...."
> http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ipmnet/4-2art1.htm
>
> >
> >> or more so than synthetics.
> >
> > Probably not. That's why you generally need to use less of a
synthetic.
> ====================
> No, it is not. You need less because they target the pest and/or
have a
> persistance that allows for killing multiple generations. Overall
toxicity
> isn't what they are after.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > The key thing, also found in that document I cited and linked
above, is
> > that the organics are generally LESS toxic to humans. That's a big
part
> > of why their use is increasing, INCLUDING by conventional farmers.
> >
> >
> >> The problem arises because many organics are completely
unregutated
> >
> > No, they aren't. That report I cited and linked above is from the
> > California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
> =======================
> You cite one state.

Yes: just happens to be the BIGGEST state in the country in terms of
the value of its agricultural produce, BY FAR, and also the biggest
absolute producer of too many crops to mention.

Your point is...?

> And, the report never mentions organic pesticides like
> pyrethrum, neem, sabadilla, and rotenone.

So? It does mention the organics that probably account for 80% or so
of all organic pesticides.

> And the irony that some of these are imported from tropical areas is
even
> better.

What's "ironic" [sic] about that?


>
>
> >
> >> and their useage is not well tracked like synthetics.
> >
> > You are just going from bad to worse. That statement is simply
FALSE.
> >
> > Just stop. You don't know what you're talking about.
> ==============
> Yes, I do.
> "...Surprisingly, government regulators and authorities have no
statistics
> at all on the use of any organic pesticide other than oil, sulfur,
Bt, and
> copper, despite the fact that millions of pounds of these other
organic
> pesticides are used every year in the United States...."
>
> And, many have not been tested for their complete toxicity.
> "...Insufficient data exist on botanical insecticides, both in terms
of
> effectiveness and chronic (long-term) toxicity..."
> http://www.pesticidesafety.uiuc.edu/...ml/v17n304.pdf.

rick etter wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > rick etter wrote:
> >
> >> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> >> nk.net...
> >>
> >>>rick etter wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>The fact remains that most organic pesticides are used for
organic
> >>>>>>farming.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That is not established as a fact, and it probably isn't true.
Most of
> >>>>>the organic pesticides, e.g. sulfur, copper and oil, are used by

> >>>>>conventional - i.e., non-organic - farms.
> >>>>
> >>>>=====================
> >>>>I don't agree.
> >>>
> >>>It doesn't matter if you agree or not. Either conventional farms
use
> >>>some organic pesticides, or they don't. The fact is, they do, and
they
> >>>use lots of them.
> >>
> >> ====================
> >> Then show the numbers. Again, I know no farmers that use them.
they are
> >> too expensive to buy, and to apply.
> >
> > You don't know what you're talking about. The reason so much is
used is
> > because it's CHEAP.
> >
> > Sulfur is a naturally occurring element widely used
> > as a fungicide in both conventional and organic
> > farming. From 1991 to 1995, it had the highest use
> > in pounds applied and the largest increase in pounds
> > used (Table 1). It also had the highest use and
> > greatest increase in number of applications and
> > acres treated (Appendix Tables 1 - 3).
> > http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/dprdocs/puranal.htm
> >
> > The stuff is used by conventional farmers, and because the account
for 97%
> > of farming output, MOST of it is used by conventional farmers.
Organic
> > farmers may use it at a higher *rate*, but the do NOT account for
the
> > majority of the use.
> ==================
> Then you cannot disagree with the gist of my post. If we were to go
all
> organic, we'd use far more chemicals.

The gist of your post was that organic farms accounted for most
pesticide use. Your point was wrong.

I'm not particularly concerned about using "more" pesticides,
particularly if 100 pounds of sulfur is less toxic to humans than the
1/2 pound of some synthetic that might take its place.

You're trying to play a dishonest game here.

>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>>I don't know any farmers that use them,
> >
> > A classic appeal to ignorance argument; a fallacy. Just because you
don't
> > know any - more correctly, you don't know of their usage - doesn't
mean it
> > isn't used, including by farmers you presumably know. I rather
doubt any
> > farmers you know blurt out, when they first see you, "I used some
sulfur
> > today."
> >
> >>>>but I don't know 1000s of farmers across the country. The fact
of the
> >>>>page remains though, if *all* farms were to switch to organic,
which is
> >>>>what the loons cry for, then the amounts of pestcides would
increase
> >>>>greatly.
> >>>
> >>>That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, though. If the choice
is
> >>>between 100 million pounds of sulfur, or 1 million pounds of some
> >>>synthetic, but the synthetic is 200 times as persistently toxic
per
> >>>pound, then perhaps we should use the sulfur, if persistent
toxicity is
> >>>the relevant criterion.
> >>
> >> ====================
> >> Many organic pesticides are as toxic,
> >
> > I certainly hope so! Why else would they be used?
> =======================
> Yes, why? When there are perfectly good sytnthetic ones that do a
better
> job at targeting the specific pests instead of killing willy nilly
anything
> that gets in the way. Many are used only because of the "label" that
says
> organic! Their one 'strength' is their lack of persistance, which
is what
> means they have to be applied repeatedly.

That may not be a bad thing. You're assuming it is, and you don't have
any legitimate basis for the assumption.

>
> "...Rapid break down may be desirable from a health and an
environmental
> stand point, but it also creates a need for precise timing and/or
more
> frequent applications. Not all BI's are less toxic than all
synthetics and
> should be handled accordingly.
> BI's tend to cost more than synthetic insecticides, and are not as
readily
> available. Potency often varies from among batches. Tolerances for
residues
> of some materials have not been established. Some are not
registered for
> use in certain states...."
> http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ipmnet/4-2art1.htm
>
> >
> >> or more so than synthetics.
> >
> > Probably not. That's why you generally need to use less of a
synthetic.
> ====================
> No, it is not. You need less because they target the pest and/or
have a
> persistance that allows for killing multiple generations. Overall
toxicity
> isn't what they are after.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > The key thing, also found in that document I cited and linked
above, is
> > that the organics are generally LESS toxic to humans. That's a big
part
> > of why their use is increasing, INCLUDING by conventional farmers.
> >
> >
> >> The problem arises because many organics are completely
unregutated
> >
> > No, they aren't. That report I cited and linked above is from the
> > California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
> =======================
> You cite one state.

Yes: just happens to be the BIGGEST state in the country in terms of
the value of its agricultural produce, BY FAR, and also the biggest
absolute producer of too many crops to mention.

Your point is...?

> And, the report never mentions organic pesticides like
> pyrethrum, neem, sabadilla, and rotenone.

So? It does mention the organics that probably account for 80% or so
of all organic pesticides.

> And the irony that some of these are imported from tropical areas is
even
> better.

What's "ironic" [sic] about that?


>
>
> >
> >> and their useage is not well tracked like synthetics.
> >
> > You are just going from bad to worse. That statement is simply
FALSE.
> >
> > Just stop. You don't know what you're talking about.
> ==============
> Yes, I do.
> "...Surprisingly, government regulators and authorities have no
statistics
> at all on the use of any organic pesticide other than oil, sulfur,
Bt, and
> copper, despite the fact that millions of pounds of these other
organic
> pesticides are used every year in the United States...."
>
> And, many have not been tested for their complete toxicity.
> "...Insufficient data exist on botanical insecticides, both in terms
of
> effectiveness and chronic (long-term) toxicity..."
> http://www.pesticidesafety.uiuc.edu/...ml/v17n304.pdf.

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> rick etter wrote:

snippage...

>> >
>> > The stuff is used by conventional farmers, and because the account
> for 97%
>> > of farming output, MOST of it is used by conventional farmers.
> Organic
>> > farmers may use it at a higher *rate*, but the do NOT account for
> the
>> > majority of the use.
>> ==================
>> Then you cannot disagree with the gist of my post. If we were to go
> all
>> organic, we'd use far more chemicals.
>
> The gist of your post was that organic farms accounted for most
> pesticide use. Your point was wrong.
==========================
I conceded that that was an error. The gist is that growing organic does
require more pseticdes per acre than conventional farming still stands.


>
> I'm not particularly concerned about using "more" pesticides,
> particularly if 100 pounds of sulfur is less toxic to humans than the
> 1/2 pound of some synthetic that might take its place.
=====================
That page only talked about oil and sulfer as pesticides because the gov
doesn't keep statistics on many organics because of their lobbying groups.
The page you cited never talked about nicotine, pyrethrum, neem, sabadilla,
and rotenone. All are organic. A couple far more toxic than synthetics,
and many have to be applied several times per season. Many have also never
been fully tested for the carcinoginic properties because their lobby has
people convinved that "naturaal" equals safe. That is far more scary than
the new synthetics that are used.


>
> You're trying to play a dishonest game here.
================
No, I'm not. Organic farming uses more and/or appliies more each season
pesticide than conventional.

>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>I don't know any farmers that use them,
>> >
>> > A classic appeal to ignorance argument; a fallacy. Just because you
> don't
>> > know any - more correctly, you don't know of their usage - doesn't
> mean it
>> > isn't used, including by farmers you presumably know. I rather
> doubt any
>> > farmers you know blurt out, when they first see you, "I used some
> sulfur
>> > today."
>> >
>> >>>>but I don't know 1000s of farmers across the country. The fact
> of the
>> >>>>page remains though, if *all* farms were to switch to organic,
> which is
>> >>>>what the loons cry for, then the amounts of pestcides would
> increase
>> >>>>greatly.
>> >>>
>> >>>That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, though. If the choice
> is
>> >>>between 100 million pounds of sulfur, or 1 million pounds of some
>> >>>synthetic, but the synthetic is 200 times as persistently toxic
> per
>> >>>pound, then perhaps we should use the sulfur, if persistent
> toxicity is
>> >>>the relevant criterion.
>> >>
>> >> ====================
>> >> Many organic pesticides are as toxic,
>> >
>> > I certainly hope so! Why else would they be used?
>> =======================
>> Yes, why? When there are perfectly good sytnthetic ones that do a
> better
>> job at targeting the specific pests instead of killing willy nilly
> anything
>> that gets in the way. Many are used only because of the "label" that
> says
>> organic! Their one 'strength' is their lack of persistance, which
> is what
>> means they have to be applied repeatedly.
>
> That may not be a bad thing. You're assuming it is, and you don't have
> any legitimate basis for the assumption.
===========================
You're missing my point of this whole thing. Their lack of persistance IS a
good thing for our food, but my context was in relation to vegans claiming
that all farming should be done organically because of the myth that it is
cruelty-free and pesticide-free. You're discussiong a seperate issue that I
wasn't. Any additional passes through the fields with the machinery is
going to be more deadly for animals than a single early pass before the
numbers get higher, and nesting starts to occur. I'm not agains't using
organics, I'm displaying the stupidity of vegans that claim it's a miracle
cure for CDs.




snippage...


>> >
>> > No, they aren't. That report I cited and linked above is from the
>> > California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
>> =======================
>> You cite one state.
>
> Yes: just happens to be the BIGGEST state in the country in terms of
> the value of its agricultural produce, BY FAR, and also the biggest
> absolute producer of too many crops to mention.
>
> Your point is...?
======================
They make no mention of tracking many toxic organic pesticides like
nicotine, pyrethrum, neem, sabadilla, and rotenone.


>
>> And, the report never mentions organic pesticides like
>> pyrethrum, neem, sabadilla, and rotenone.
>
> So? It does mention the organics that probably account for 80% or so
> of all organic pesticides.
=======================
A 1/2 pound of synthetic scared you earlier, but millions of pounds of
untracked, unaccounted for toxic chemicals don't? If vegans are really
concerned about toxicity then the fact that the page only lists pounds
without any indication as to the toxicity of what is being used, they should
be concerned. Remember, citing and focusing only pounds without regard to
toxicity was bad a couple of posts ago.


>
>> And the irony that some of these are imported from tropical areas is
> even
>> better.
>
> What's "ironic" [sic] about that?
==================
That vegan claim their organic veggies are cruelty-free. AND good for the
environment. Ain't necessarily so. There are no large scale crop
productions that are "good" for the environment. From growing these
flowers/plants under sweatshop operations(while praising fair-trade coffee),
to destroying more forests to grow these crops, to the processing of these
plants into their chemical usage, to then importing them around the world
for their mythical fantasy crops. Maybe hypocrisy would be better.,.


>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> and their useage is not well tracked like synthetics.
>> >
>> > You are just going from bad to worse. That statement is simply
> FALSE.
>> >
>> > Just stop. You don't know what you're talking about.
>> ==============
>> Yes, I do.
>> "...Surprisingly, government regulators and authorities have no
> statistics
>> at all on the use of any organic pesticide other than oil, sulfur,
> Bt, and
>> copper, despite the fact that millions of pounds of these other
> organic
>> pesticides are used every year in the United States...."
>>
>> And, many have not been tested for their complete toxicity.
>> "...Insufficient data exist on botanical insecticides, both in terms
> of
>> effectiveness and chronic (long-term) toxicity..."
>> http://www.pesticidesafety.uiuc.edu/...ml/v17n304.pdf.
>

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> rick etter wrote:

snippage...

>> >
>> > The stuff is used by conventional farmers, and because the account
> for 97%
>> > of farming output, MOST of it is used by conventional farmers.
> Organic
>> > farmers may use it at a higher *rate*, but the do NOT account for
> the
>> > majority of the use.
>> ==================
>> Then you cannot disagree with the gist of my post. If we were to go
> all
>> organic, we'd use far more chemicals.
>
> The gist of your post was that organic farms accounted for most
> pesticide use. Your point was wrong.
==========================
I conceded that that was an error. The gist is that growing organic does
require more pseticdes per acre than conventional farming still stands.


>
> I'm not particularly concerned about using "more" pesticides,
> particularly if 100 pounds of sulfur is less toxic to humans than the
> 1/2 pound of some synthetic that might take its place.
=====================
That page only talked about oil and sulfer as pesticides because the gov
doesn't keep statistics on many organics because of their lobbying groups.
The page you cited never talked about nicotine, pyrethrum, neem, sabadilla,
and rotenone. All are organic. A couple far more toxic than synthetics,
and many have to be applied several times per season. Many have also never
been fully tested for the carcinoginic properties because their lobby has
people convinved that "naturaal" equals safe. That is far more scary than
the new synthetics that are used.


>
> You're trying to play a dishonest game here.
================
No, I'm not. Organic farming uses more and/or appliies more each season
pesticide than conventional.

>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>I don't know any farmers that use them,
>> >
>> > A classic appeal to ignorance argument; a fallacy. Just because you
> don't
>> > know any - more correctly, you don't know of their usage - doesn't
> mean it
>> > isn't used, including by farmers you presumably know. I rather
> doubt any
>> > farmers you know blurt out, when they first see you, "I used some
> sulfur
>> > today."
>> >
>> >>>>but I don't know 1000s of farmers across the country. The fact
> of the
>> >>>>page remains though, if *all* farms were to switch to organic,
> which is
>> >>>>what the loons cry for, then the amounts of pestcides would
> increase
>> >>>>greatly.
>> >>>
>> >>>That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, though. If the choice
> is
>> >>>between 100 million pounds of sulfur, or 1 million pounds of some
>> >>>synthetic, but the synthetic is 200 times as persistently toxic
> per
>> >>>pound, then perhaps we should use the sulfur, if persistent
> toxicity is
>> >>>the relevant criterion.
>> >>
>> >> ====================
>> >> Many organic pesticides are as toxic,
>> >
>> > I certainly hope so! Why else would they be used?
>> =======================
>> Yes, why? When there are perfectly good sytnthetic ones that do a
> better
>> job at targeting the specific pests instead of killing willy nilly
> anything
>> that gets in the way. Many are used only because of the "label" that
> says
>> organic! Their one 'strength' is their lack of persistance, which
> is what
>> means they have to be applied repeatedly.
>
> That may not be a bad thing. You're assuming it is, and you don't have
> any legitimate basis for the assumption.
===========================
You're missing my point of this whole thing. Their lack of persistance IS a
good thing for our food, but my context was in relation to vegans claiming
that all farming should be done organically because of the myth that it is
cruelty-free and pesticide-free. You're discussiong a seperate issue that I
wasn't. Any additional passes through the fields with the machinery is
going to be more deadly for animals than a single early pass before the
numbers get higher, and nesting starts to occur. I'm not agains't using
organics, I'm displaying the stupidity of vegans that claim it's a miracle
cure for CDs.




snippage...


>> >
>> > No, they aren't. That report I cited and linked above is from the
>> > California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
>> =======================
>> You cite one state.
>
> Yes: just happens to be the BIGGEST state in the country in terms of
> the value of its agricultural produce, BY FAR, and also the biggest
> absolute producer of too many crops to mention.
>
> Your point is...?
======================
They make no mention of tracking many toxic organic pesticides like
nicotine, pyrethrum, neem, sabadilla, and rotenone.


>
>> And, the report never mentions organic pesticides like
>> pyrethrum, neem, sabadilla, and rotenone.
>
> So? It does mention the organics that probably account for 80% or so
> of all organic pesticides.
=======================
A 1/2 pound of synthetic scared you earlier, but millions of pounds of
untracked, unaccounted for toxic chemicals don't? If vegans are really
concerned about toxicity then the fact that the page only lists pounds
without any indication as to the toxicity of what is being used, they should
be concerned. Remember, citing and focusing only pounds without regard to
toxicity was bad a couple of posts ago.


>
>> And the irony that some of these are imported from tropical areas is
> even
>> better.
>
> What's "ironic" [sic] about that?
==================
That vegan claim their organic veggies are cruelty-free. AND good for the
environment. Ain't necessarily so. There are no large scale crop
productions that are "good" for the environment. From growing these
flowers/plants under sweatshop operations(while praising fair-trade coffee),
to destroying more forests to grow these crops, to the processing of these
plants into their chemical usage, to then importing them around the world
for their mythical fantasy crops. Maybe hypocrisy would be better.,.


>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> and their useage is not well tracked like synthetics.
>> >
>> > You are just going from bad to worse. That statement is simply
> FALSE.
>> >
>> > Just stop. You don't know what you're talking about.
>> ==============
>> Yes, I do.
>> "...Surprisingly, government regulators and authorities have no
> statistics
>> at all on the use of any organic pesticide other than oil, sulfur,
> Bt, and
>> copper, despite the fact that millions of pounds of these other
> organic
>> pesticides are used every year in the United States...."
>>
>> And, many have not been tested for their complete toxicity.
>> "...Insufficient data exist on botanical insecticides, both in terms
> of
>> effectiveness and chronic (long-term) toxicity..."
>> http://www.pesticidesafety.uiuc.edu/...ml/v17n304.pdf.
>

>Jonathan Ball Wrote:
>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>avoid killing animals.

Lundberg Family Farms "make consistent and effective efforts
to avoid killing animals";


[At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
(and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
this hoax suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms]
http://www.lundberg.com

Snipping the evidence away each time I present it won't help
you, Jon. The evidence I've supplied proves you are wrong
when asserting "None do."

>Jonathan Ball Wrote:
>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>avoid killing animals.

Lundberg Family Farms "make consistent and effective efforts
to avoid killing animals";


[At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
(and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
this hoax suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms]
http://www.lundberg.com

Snipping the evidence away each time I present it won't help
you, Jon. The evidence I've supplied proves you are wrong
when asserting "None do."

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:09:12 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:59:41 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:33:39 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>You cannot demonstrate fewer CDs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've demonstrated it
>>>>>
>>>>>You haven't demonstrated it; you've merely asserted it.
>>>>
>>>>Just as you did when writing
>>>
>>>Nope. I was talking about the *average* "vegan" diet
>>>versus the *average* sensible omnivore's diet.
>>
>> That's a lie
>
>No, it isn't.

Reading your quotes proves that you agree with
Scented Nectar on this issue, and that you too
demonstrated that, "Far more of every bad thing
you've mentioned occurs as a result of people
eating meat, because so much of agriculture is
simply to feed the livestock." You merely asserted
it in your quotes (below) so why can't Scented
Nectar do the same, hypocrite?

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03

There's no mention "about the *average* "vegan" diet
versus the *average* sensible omnivore's diet." in any
of that, liar. Both those statements focus on the counting
game, and how it "will ALWAYS work against meat
eaters" by virtue of the crops grown to feed livestock.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:09:12 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:59:41 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:33:39 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>You cannot demonstrate fewer CDs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've demonstrated it
>>>>>
>>>>>You haven't demonstrated it; you've merely asserted it.
>>>>
>>>>Just as you did when writing
>>>
>>>Nope. I was talking about the *average* "vegan" diet
>>>versus the *average* sensible omnivore's diet.
>>
>> That's a lie
>
>No, it isn't.

Reading your quotes proves that you agree with
Scented Nectar on this issue, and that you too
demonstrated that, "Far more of every bad thing
you've mentioned occurs as a result of people
eating meat, because so much of agriculture is
simply to feed the livestock." You merely asserted
it in your quotes (below) so why can't Scented
Nectar do the same, hypocrite?

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03

There's no mention "about the *average* "vegan" diet
versus the *average* sensible omnivore's diet." in any
of that, liar. Both those statements focus on the counting
game, and how it "will ALWAYS work against meat
eaters" by virtue of the crops grown to feed livestock.

Retard wrote:

>>Jay Santos wrote:
>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>avoid killing animals.
>
>
> Lundberg Family Farms

Does not do "veganic" farming.

Retard wrote:

>>Jay Santos wrote:
>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>avoid killing animals.
>
>
> Lundberg Family Farms

Does not do "veganic" farming.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:52:22 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>
>>>Jay Santos wrote:
>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>avoid killing animals.
>>
>> Lundberg Family Farms
>
>Does not do "veganic" farming.

Then look at your second claim;

"Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
avoid killing animals."

I replied;

Lundberg Family Farms "make consistent and effective efforts
to avoid killing animals";


[At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
(and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
this hoax suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms]
http://www.lundberg.com

Snipping the evidence away each time I present it won't help
you, Jon. The evidence I've supplied proves you are wrong
when asserting "None do."

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:52:22 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>
>>>Jay Santos wrote:
>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>avoid killing animals.
>>
>> Lundberg Family Farms
>
>Does not do "veganic" farming.

Then look at your second claim;

"Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
avoid killing animals."

I replied;

Lundberg Family Farms "make consistent and effective efforts
to avoid killing animals";


[At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
(and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
this hoax suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms]
http://www.lundberg.com

Snipping the evidence away each time I present it won't help
you, Jon. The evidence I've supplied proves you are wrong
when asserting "None do."

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:52:22 GMT, Jay Santos >
> wrote:
>>Reynard wrote:
>>
>>>>Jay Santos wrote:
>>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>avoid killing animals.
>>>
>>> Lundberg Family Farms
>>
>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>
> Then look at your second claim;
>
> "Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
> which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
> avoid killing animals."
>
> I replied;
>
> Lundberg Family Farms "make consistent and effective efforts
> to avoid killing animals";
======================
Show us their concern for even more numerous animals; small mammals,
amphibians, and reptiles. They appear to conspicuously leave them out.
Wonder why, killer?


>
>
> [At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
> we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
> work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
> local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
> disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
> released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
> duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
> for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
> is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
> are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
> (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
> pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
> our fields.
>
> We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
> We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
> would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
> this hoax suggests.
>
> --> Kent Lundberg.
>
> Kent Lundberg
> Lundberg Family Farms]
> http://www.lundberg.com
>
> Snipping the evidence away each time I present it won't help
> you, Jon. The evidence I've supplied proves you are wrong
> when asserting "None do."

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:52:22 GMT, Jay Santos >
> wrote:
>>Reynard wrote:
>>
>>>>Jay Santos wrote:
>>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>avoid killing animals.
>>>
>>> Lundberg Family Farms
>>
>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>
> Then look at your second claim;
>
> "Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
> which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
> avoid killing animals."
>
> I replied;
>
> Lundberg Family Farms "make consistent and effective efforts
> to avoid killing animals";
======================
Show us their concern for even more numerous animals; small mammals,
amphibians, and reptiles. They appear to conspicuously leave them out.
Wonder why, killer?


>
>
> [At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
> we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
> work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
> local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
> disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
> released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
> duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
> for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
> is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
> are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
> (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
> pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
> our fields.
>
> We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
> We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
> would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
> this hoax suggests.
>
> --> Kent Lundberg.
>
> Kent Lundberg
> Lundberg Family Farms]
> http://www.lundberg.com
>
> Snipping the evidence away each time I present it won't help
> you, Jon. The evidence I've supplied proves you are wrong
> when asserting "None do."

Retard wrote:
<...>
>>>Lundberg Family Farms
>>
>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>
> Then look at your second claim;

Why should he? The Lundbergs admit they flood their fields after each
harvest. Do they get the mice and rats and rabbits out of there first? I
doubt it. The statement addresses their laudable commitment to waterfowl
and other birds; it doesn't address all the other species living in
their fields.

<...>

Retard wrote:
<...>
>>>Lundberg Family Farms
>>
>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>
> Then look at your second claim;

Why should he? The Lundbergs admit they flood their fields after each
harvest. Do they get the mice and rats and rabbits out of there first? I
doubt it. The statement addresses their laudable commitment to waterfowl
and other birds; it doesn't address all the other species living in
their fields.

<...>

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:54:53 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:52:22 GMT, Jay Santos >
>> wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Jay Santos wrote:
>>>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>>avoid killing animals.
>>>>
>>>> Lundberg Family Farms
>>>
>>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>>
>> Then look at your second claim;
>>
>> "Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>> which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>> avoid killing animals."
>>
>> I replied;
>>
>> Lundberg Family Farms "make consistent and effective efforts
>> to avoid killing animals";
>======================
>Show us their concern

They express it right below this line. Read on.

>> [At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
>> we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
>> work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
>> local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
>> disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
>> released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
>> duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
>> for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
>> is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
>> are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
>> (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
>> pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
>> our fields.
>>
>> We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
>> We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
>> would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
>> this hoax suggests.
>>
>> --> Kent Lundberg.
>>
>> Kent Lundberg
>> Lundberg Family Farms]
>> http://www.lundberg.com
>>
>> Snipping the evidence away each time I present it won't help
>> you, Jon. The evidence I've supplied proves you are wrong
>> when asserting "None do."
>

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:54:53 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:52:22 GMT, Jay Santos >
>> wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Jay Santos wrote:
>>>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>>avoid killing animals.
>>>>
>>>> Lundberg Family Farms
>>>
>>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>>
>> Then look at your second claim;
>>
>> "Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>> which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>> avoid killing animals."
>>
>> I replied;
>>
>> Lundberg Family Farms "make consistent and effective efforts
>> to avoid killing animals";
>======================
>Show us their concern

They express it right below this line. Read on.

>> [At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
>> we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
>> work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
>> local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
>> disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
>> released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
>> duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
>> for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
>> is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
>> are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
>> (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
>> pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
>> our fields.
>>
>> We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
>> We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
>> would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
>> this hoax suggests.
>>
>> --> Kent Lundberg.
>>
>> Kent Lundberg
>> Lundberg Family Farms]
>> http://www.lundberg.com
>>
>> Snipping the evidence away each time I present it won't help
>> you, Jon. The evidence I've supplied proves you are wrong
>> when asserting "None do."
>

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:59:30 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Retard wrote:
><...>
>>>>Lundberg Family Farms
>>>
>>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>>
>> Then look at your second claim;
>
>Why should he?

Asks he who just snipped the claim in question away without
any notation. If you were confident that Jon's claim was correct
you would've certainly left it instead of snipping it away quietly.
Jonathan's second claim went;

"Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in which
farmers make consistent and effective efforts to avoid killing
animals."

To show that he was wrong about this claim I produced material
from Lundberg Family Farms confirming that they do "make
consistent and effective efforts to avoid killing animals", as follows.

[At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
(and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
this hoax suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms]
http://www.lundberg.com

Call them liars if you have to; it makes no difference to me. My task
was to prove Jon's claim false, and prove that some farmers do make
consistent effort to reduce collateral deaths. I did both.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:59:30 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Retard wrote:
><...>
>>>>Lundberg Family Farms
>>>
>>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>>
>> Then look at your second claim;
>
>Why should he?

Asks he who just snipped the claim in question away without
any notation. If you were confident that Jon's claim was correct
you would've certainly left it instead of snipping it away quietly.
Jonathan's second claim went;

"Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in which
farmers make consistent and effective efforts to avoid killing
animals."

To show that he was wrong about this claim I produced material
from Lundberg Family Farms confirming that they do "make
consistent and effective efforts to avoid killing animals", as follows.

[At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
(and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
this hoax suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms]
http://www.lundberg.com

Call them liars if you have to; it makes no difference to me. My task
was to prove Jon's claim false, and prove that some farmers do make
consistent effort to reduce collateral deaths. I did both.

Retard wrote:
>>>>>Lundberg Family Farms
>>>>
>>>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>>>
>>>Then look at your second claim;
>>
>>Why should he?
>
> Asks he who just snipped the claim in question away without
> any notation.

Awwwwww. Don't cry, Nash.

> If you were confident

I'm confident the Lundberg site says nothing of species other than
waterfowl and other birds. It's spin, and you've bought it.

<...>

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:39:22 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>Lundberg Family Farms
>>>>>
>>>>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>>>>
>>>>Then look at your second claim;
>>>
>>>Why should he?
>>
>> Asks he who just snipped the claim in question away without
>> any notation.
>
>Awwwwww. Don't cry

You're just a simple troll. You certainly aren't capable
of holding your own here, so you just make a nuisance
of yourself and heckle instead. Way to go, clown.
You've reduced yourself to the level of a Rick Etter.

>> If you were confident
>
>I'm confident

You're a million miles from ever being confident in
anything, heckler boy.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> You know, you are just too screwed up for me
> to keep trying to educate.
>

You have a lot of nerve writing something like that.
You give every indication of being completely closed to
education.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> You know, you are just too screwed up for me
> to keep trying to educate.
>

You have a lot of nerve writing something like that.
You give every indication of being completely closed to
education.

> >>>You know, you are just too screwed up for me
> >>>to keep trying to educate.
> >>>
> >>
> >>You have a lot of nerve writing something like that.
> >>You give every indication of being completely closed to
> >>education.
> >
> >
> > Waaa. You can hand out the insults but you
> > can't seem to take them!
>
> You didn't direct your stupid comment above at me,
> pothead. You really should lay off the shit; it's
> affecting your memory.

Then it's worse than I thought. You can't seem to
take an insult handed to your little crony Rick.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> >>>You know, you are just too screwed up for me
> >>>to keep trying to educate.
> >>>
> >>
> >>You have a lot of nerve writing something like that.
> >>You give every indication of being completely closed to
> >>education.
> >
> >
> > Waaa. You can hand out the insults but you
> > can't seem to take them!
>
> You didn't direct your stupid comment above at me,
> pothead. You really should lay off the shit; it's
> affecting your memory.

Then it's worse than I thought. You can't seem to
take an insult handed to your little crony Rick.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>You know, you are just too screwed up for me
>>>>>to keep trying to educate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You have a lot of nerve writing something like that.
>>>>You give every indication of being completely closed to
>>>>education.
>>>
>>>
>>>Waaa. You can hand out the insults but you
>>>can't seem to take them!
>>
>>You didn't direct your stupid comment above at me,
>>pothead. You really should lay off the shit; it's
>>affecting your memory.
>
>
> Then it's worse than I thought. You can't seem to
> take an insult handed to your little crony Rick.

The problem is not any insult; the problem is you are
unwilling or unable to receive any education, so you
have no business saying someone else is too screwed up
to be educated. YOU are the one who is too utterly
****ed up to receive education.

Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>Lundberg Family Farms
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then look at your second claim;
>>>>
>>>>Why should he?
>>>
>>>Asks he who just snipped the claim in question away without
>>>any notation.
>>
>>Awwwwww. Don't cry

RESTO
I'm confident the Lundberg site says nothing of species other than
waterfowl and other birds. It's spin, and you've bought it.
END RESTORE

Stick to the issue at hand, fatso.

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:39:22 GMT, usual suspect >
> wrote:
>
>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>Lundberg Family Farms
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then look at your second claim;
>>>>
>>>>Why should he?
>>>
>>> Asks he who just snipped the claim in question away without
>>> any notation.
>>
>>Awwwwww. Don't cry
>
> You're just a simple troll. You certainly aren't capable
> of holding your own here,

You GOTTA be smokin' a big one to say something like that!

so you just make a nuisance
> of yourself and heckle instead. Way to go, clown.
> You've reduced yourself to the level of a Rick Etter.
>
>>> If you were confident
>>
>>I'm confident
>
> You're a million miles from ever being confident in
> anything, heckler boy.

This message was brought to you by "Content-Free".

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:54:53 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>"Reynard" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:52:22 GMT, Jay Santos >
>>> wrote:
>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Jay Santos wrote:
>>>>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>>>avoid killing animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lundberg Family Farms
>>>>
>>>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>>>
>>> Then look at your second claim;
>>>
>>> "Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>> which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>> avoid killing animals."
>>>
>>> I replied;
>>>
>>> Lundberg Family Farms "make consistent and effective efforts
>>> to avoid killing animals";
>>======================
>>Show us their concern
>
> They express it right below this line. Read on.
=======================
ROTFLMAO Thanks for proving yet again the vegan dishonesty. You really are
too much, killer.
Now, how about answering the question as posted? Can't do it, can you,
hypocrite?

<restore dishonest snipping>
Show us their concern for even more numerous animals; small mammals,
amphibians, and reptiles. They appear to conspicuously leave them out.
Wonder why, killer?













snippage of idiotic crap...

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:59:30 GMT, usual suspect >
> wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>><...>
>>>>>Lundberg Family Farms
>>>>
>>>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>>>
>>> Then look at your second claim;
>>
>>Why should he?
>
> Asks he who just snipped the claim in question away without
> any notation.
=======================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot!!! Thanks for keeping us all real healthy, killer.
What with laughter being the best medicine, we'll all live to be 200 if you
keep posing!!!




If you were confident that Jon's claim was correct
> you would've certainly left it instead of snipping it away quietly.
> Jonathan's second claim went;
>
> "Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in which
> farmers make consistent and effective efforts to avoid killing
> animals."
>
> To show that he was wrong about this claim I produced material
> from Lundberg Family Farms confirming that they do "make
> consistent and effective efforts to avoid killing animals", as follows.
>
> [At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
> we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
> work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
> local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
> disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
> released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
> duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
> for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
> is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
> are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
> (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
> pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
> our fields.
>
> We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
> We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
> would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
> this hoax suggests.
>
> --> Kent Lundberg.
>
> Kent Lundberg
> Lundberg Family Farms]
> http://www.lundberg.com
>
> Call them liars if you have to; it makes no difference to me. My task
> was to prove Jon's claim false, and prove that some farmers do make
> consistent effort to reduce collateral deaths. I did both.

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:39:22 GMT, usual suspect >
> wrote:
>
>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>Lundberg Family Farms
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then look at your second claim;
>>>>
>>>>Why should he?
>>>
>>> Asks he who just snipped the claim in question away without
>>> any notation.
>>
>>Awwwwww. Don't cry
>
> You're just a simple troll. You certainly aren't capable
> of holding your own here, so you just make a nuisance
> of yourself and heckle instead. Way to go, clown.
> You've reduced yourself to the level of a Rick Etter.
=====================
Which is still head and shoulders above you, killer. Try to defend their
agriculture in regards with mammals, reptiles and amphibians. I seem to
have missed your proving they care....


>
>>> If you were confident
>>
>>I'm confident
>
> You're a million miles from ever being confident in
> anything, heckler boy.

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:39:22 GMT, usual suspect >
> wrote:
>
>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>Lundberg Family Farms
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then look at your second claim;
>>>>
>>>>Why should he?
>>>
>>> Asks he who just snipped the claim in question away without
>>> any notation.
>>
>>Awwwwww. Don't cry
>
> You're just a simple troll. You certainly aren't capable
> of holding your own here, so you just make a nuisance
> of yourself and heckle instead. Way to go, clown.
> You've reduced yourself to the level of a Rick Etter.
=====================
Which is still head and shoulders above you, killer. Try to defend their
agriculture in regards with mammals, reptiles and amphibians. I seem to
have missed your proving they care....


>
>>> If you were confident
>>
>>I'm confident
>
> You're a million miles from ever being confident in
> anything, heckler boy.

rick etter wrote:
> "Reynard" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:54:53 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:52:22 GMT, Jay Santos >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jay Santos wrote:
>>>>>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>>>>avoid killing animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Lundberg Family Farms
>>>>>
>>>>>Does not do "veganic" farming.
>>>>
>>>>Then look at your second claim;
>>>>
>>>>"Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>avoid killing animals."
>>>>
>>>>I replied;
>>>>
>>>>Lundberg Family Farms "make consistent and effective efforts
>>>>to avoid killing animals";
>>>
>>>======================
>>>Show us their concern
>>
>>They express it right below this line. Read on.
>
> =======================
> ROTFLMAO Thanks for proving yet again the vegan dishonesty. You really are
> too much, killer.
> Now, how about answering the question as posted? Can't do it, can you,
> hypocrite?
>
> <restore dishonest snipping>
> Show us their concern for even more numerous animals; small mammals,
> amphibians, and reptiles. They appear to conspicuously leave them out.
> Wonder why, killer?

Because there's a lot more concern about waterfowl habitat than habitat
for rats and frogs. Dreck, gullible and naïve as ever, bought into the
spin and will keep using it to stir shit and to avoid dealing with the
issue of all the animals *other than* waterfowl and migratory birds.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>As for eating disorders, there's no connection
>>>>>between those and a person's religion.
>>>>
>>>>There definitely is, when one's diet becomes their religion. Obsessive
>>>>concern with one's food being "healthy" is already a recognized eating
>>>>disorder called "Orthexia Nervosa"
>>>>http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/psych/index.shtml
>>>>"Obsession with Dietary Purity as an Eating Disorder "
>>>>
>>>>Another related disorder that is appearing but less well documented is
>>>>"Ethicsia Nervosa", "Obsession with the presence of animal parts in one's
>>>>food." or as we call it, "The obsessive search for micrograms."
>>>>
>>>>An eating disorder is an unhealthy and/or inappropriate obsession with
>>>>food in one's life.
>>>
>>>A psychiatric food obsession is not a religion. You're calling
>>>things a religion that aren't.
>>
>>You're confusing what I said. Making diet into a religion the way
>>veganism does is a type of eating disorder.
>
>
>
> I don't think veganism has been made into a religion.
> There's no deity to the diet.

A deity is not required for something to be a religion.
"veganism" IS a demented form of religion, in which
you blindly adhere to irrational dogma and perform
meaningless rituals much like Catholics performing the
stations of the cross.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>As for eating disorders, there's no connection
>>>>>between those and a person's religion.
>>>>
>>>>There definitely is, when one's diet becomes their religion. Obsessive
>>>>concern with one's food being "healthy" is already a recognized eating
>>>>disorder called "Orthexia Nervosa"
>>>>http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/psych/index.shtml
>>>>"Obsession with Dietary Purity as an Eating Disorder "
>>>>
>>>>Another related disorder that is appearing but less well documented is
>>>>"Ethicsia Nervosa", "Obsession with the presence of animal parts in one's
>>>>food." or as we call it, "The obsessive search for micrograms."
>>>>
>>>>An eating disorder is an unhealthy and/or inappropriate obsession with
>>>>food in one's life.
>>>
>>>A psychiatric food obsession is not a religion. You're calling
>>>things a religion that aren't.
>>
>>You're confusing what I said. Making diet into a religion the way
>>veganism does is a type of eating disorder.
>
>
>
> I don't think veganism has been made into a religion.
> There's no deity to the diet.

A deity is not required for something to be a religion.
"veganism" IS a demented form of religion, in which
you blindly adhere to irrational dogma and perform
meaningless rituals much like Catholics performing the
stations of the cross.

"> > I don't think veganism has been made into a religion.
> > There's no deity to the diet.
>
> A deity is not required for something to be a religion.
> "veganism" IS a demented form of religion, in which
> you blindly adhere to irrational dogma and perform
> meaningless rituals much like Catholics performing the
> stations of the cross.

I'm not turning it into a religion. I haven't seen any
vegan here do it either. Maybe you're calling it one just to
discredit it. If you find the 'dogma' irrational, go away
you don't have to follow any dogma. No one's forcing
you. If you find the elimination of animal products
from one's diet to be meaningless, no one's forcing
it on you. You do realise that, don't you?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

"> > I don't think veganism has been made into a religion.
> > There's no deity to the diet.
>
> A deity is not required for something to be a religion.
> "veganism" IS a demented form of religion, in which
> you blindly adhere to irrational dogma and perform
> meaningless rituals much like Catholics performing the
> stations of the cross.

I'm not turning it into a religion. I haven't seen any
vegan here do it either. Maybe you're calling it one just to
discredit it. If you find the 'dogma' irrational, go away
you don't have to follow any dogma. No one's forcing
you. If you find the elimination of animal products
from one's diet to be meaningless, no one's forcing
it on you. You do realise that, don't you?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> "> > I don't think veganism has been made into a religion.
> > > There's no deity to the diet.
> >
> > A deity is not required for something to be a religion.
> > "veganism" IS a demented form of religion, in which
> > you blindly adhere to irrational dogma and perform
> > meaningless rituals much like Catholics performing the
> > stations of the cross.
>
> I'm not turning it into a religion. I haven't seen any
> vegan here do it either. Maybe you're calling it one just to
> discredit it.

It's thoroughly discredited a dozen or more times over, just by it's
stupid, ****witted inconsistency.

> If you find the 'dogma' irrational, go away
> you don't have to follow any dogma. No one's forcing
> you. If you find the elimination of animal products
> from one's diet to be meaningless, no one's forcing
> it on you. You do realise that, don't you?

You would, given the chance. "Veganism" is only a step away from
totalitarianism. We've seen the sentiment given voice dozens of times.


>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.