The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting
it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those
searching for truth and wisdom:

---------------------------------
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT
---------------------------------


All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.


This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
if so, exclude it from their diet.

Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
- and none of the other participants seemed especially
eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
animal collateral death toll caused by the production
and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
the geographic locale of production has anything to do
with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
kill animals. It simply is not credible.

How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
*still* accept it.

I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:23:52 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting
>it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those
>searching for truth and wisdom:
>
>---------------------------------
>From: Jonathan Ball
>Newsgroups:
>talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetari an,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
>Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT
>---------------------------------
>
>
>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

But when Jonathan put this to you before you became his
water boy, you said that it was "not well-thought out or true;

[start - Jonathan Ball to you]
> 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.

That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra).

* It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.*

You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but
repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss
the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically
determined. Fool.)

The fewer animals that are killed for food and other
products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced
birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and
products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat
them, the market will respond accordingly.
[end] *my emphasis*
http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4

You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which
is closer to the truth?

Retard wrote:
>>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting
>>it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those
>>searching for truth and wisdom:
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>From: Jonathan Ball
>>Newsgroups:
>>talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetar ian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
>>Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT
>>---------------------------------
>>
>>
>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>>
>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
>
> But when Jonathan put this to you before
....I did my homework...
> you said that it was "not well-thought out or true;

I reconsidered my initial evaluations upon a course of education. Unlike
you, I learned and applied new, better information. It turned out that
Jon Ball is correct in his assessments of veganism. I learn from my
mistakes; you just keep making the some ones over and over again. That's
the main difference between you and me, Dreck -- that and the fact that
I'm not a big fat, lazy, self-crippled, cuckolded, nymshifting,
dog-beating ex-greasemonkey.

> [start - Jonathan Ball to you]

Digging really deep in the archives in your desparation to stir the
shit, you blue-footed cuckold.

<...>

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:31:22 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>>>
>>>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting
>>>it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those
>>>searching for truth and wisdom:
>>>
>>>---------------------------------
>>>From: Jonathan Ball
>>>Newsgroups:
>>>talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegeta rian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
>>>Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
>>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT
>>>---------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>>>
>>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>>
>>> I do not eat meat;
>>>
>>> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>>
>> But when Jonathan put this to you before
>...I did my homework...
>> you said that it was "not well-thought out or true;
>
>I reconsidered my initial evaluations upon a course of education.

Then explain why you thought it was false and why you now
claim it to be true. Was your logic back then so poor that you
didn't understand what you were writing about, and can we
dismiss everything you wrote back then on the same basis,
that you didn't know what you were writing about?

>> [start - Jonathan Ball to you]
>
><...>

<unsnip>
[start - Jonathan Ball to you]
> 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.

That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra).

* It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.*

You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but
repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss
the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically
determined. Fool.)

The fewer animals that are killed for food and other
products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced
birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and
products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat
them, the market will respond accordingly.
[end] *my emphasis*
http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4

You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which
is closer to the truth?
<endsnip>

You always snip out the material which proves you've
lied.

Retard wrote:
>>I reconsidered my initial evaluations upon a course of education.
>
> Then explain

My error stemmed principally from semantics and definitions. I did not
then realize veganism was about food rather than politics. I've
repeatedly explained these things to you, but you're either too daft to
comprehend or too ready to try to stir shit. Neither is very becoming,
so don't take it as a compliment like you did that comparison to ****wit
Harrison.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:16:30 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>>>
>>>I reconsidered my initial evaluations upon a course of education.
>>
>> Then explain
>
>My error stemmed principally from semantics and definitions. I did not
>then realize veganism was about food rather than politics.

That doesn't explain why you initially thought Jon's argument
in promoting his strawman vegan fallacy was false and why
you now claim it to be true, so I'll ask again, "Was your logic
back then so poor that you didn't understand what you were
writing about, and can we dismiss everything you wrote back
then on the same basis, that you didn't know what you were
writing about?" Look again at Jon's statement and your weak
response to it.

<unsnip>
[start - Jonathan Ball to you]
> 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.

That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra).

* It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.*

You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but
repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss
the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically
determined. Fool.)

The fewer animals that are killed for food and other
products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced
birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and
products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat
them, the market will respond accordingly.
[end] *my emphasis*
http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4

You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which
is closer to the truth?
<endsnip>

You always snip out the material which proves you've
lied.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:16:30 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>>>
>>>I reconsidered my initial evaluations upon a course of education.
>>
>> Then explain
>
>My error stemmed principally from semantics and definitions. I did not
>then realize veganism was about food rather than politics.

That doesn't explain why you initially thought Jon's argument
in promoting his strawman vegan fallacy was false and why
you now claim it to be true, so I'll ask again, "Was your logic
back then so poor that you didn't understand what you were
writing about, and can we dismiss everything you wrote back
then on the same basis, that you didn't know what you were
writing about?" Look again at Jon's statement and your weak
response to it.

<unsnip>
[start - Jonathan Ball to you]
> 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.

That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra).

* It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.*

You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but
repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss
the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically
determined. Fool.)

The fewer animals that are killed for food and other
products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced
birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and
products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat
them, the market will respond accordingly.
[end] *my emphasis*
http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4

You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which
is closer to the truth?
<endsnip>

You always snip out the material which proves you've
lied.

Retard wrote:
>>I reconsidered my initial evaluations upon a course of education.
>
> Then explain

My error stemmed principally from semantics and definitions. I did not
then realize veganism was about food rather than politics. I've
repeatedly explained these things to you, but you're either too daft to
comprehend or too ready to try to stir shit. Neither is very becoming,
so don't take it as a compliment like you did that comparison to ****wit
Harrison.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:31:22 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>>>
>>>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting
>>>it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those
>>>searching for truth and wisdom:
>>>
>>>---------------------------------
>>>From: Jonathan Ball
>>>Newsgroups:
>>>talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegeta rian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
>>>Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
>>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT
>>>---------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>>>
>>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>>
>>> I do not eat meat;
>>>
>>> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>>
>> But when Jonathan put this to you before
>...I did my homework...
>> you said that it was "not well-thought out or true;
>
>I reconsidered my initial evaluations upon a course of education.

Then explain why you thought it was false and why you now
claim it to be true. Was your logic back then so poor that you
didn't understand what you were writing about, and can we
dismiss everything you wrote back then on the same basis,
that you didn't know what you were writing about?

>> [start - Jonathan Ball to you]
>
><...>

<unsnip>
[start - Jonathan Ball to you]
> 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.

That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra).

* It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.*

You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but
repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss
the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically
determined. Fool.)

The fewer animals that are killed for food and other
products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced
birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and
products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat
them, the market will respond accordingly.
[end] *my emphasis*
http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4

You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which
is closer to the truth?
<endsnip>

You always snip out the material which proves you've
lied.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:23:52 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting
>it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those
>searching for truth and wisdom:
>
>---------------------------------
>From: Jonathan Ball
>Newsgroups:
>talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetari an,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
>Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT
>---------------------------------
>
>
>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

But when Jonathan put this to you before you became his
water boy, you said that it was "not well-thought out or true;

[start - Jonathan Ball to you]
> 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.

That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra).

* It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.*

You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but
repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss
the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically
determined. Fool.)

The fewer animals that are killed for food and other
products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced
birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and
products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat
them, the market will respond accordingly.
[end] *my emphasis*
http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4

You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which
is closer to the truth?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting
> it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those
> searching for truth and wisdom:
>
> ---------------------------------
> From: Jonathan Ball
> Newsgroups:
> talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
> Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by ...
Since noBalls had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order to
determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products, his opening
statement is obviously a lie. Since noBalls claims an extensive background
in statistics, he KNEW he did not contact "all" vegans to determine how they
chose to move in a vegan direction, he is/was an INTENTIONAL LIAR. In fact,
he has corrected people who made such all-inclusive statements - all,
always, never, ...
You could have chosen someone with perceivable intellectual integrity
for your hero.
"Brilliant analysis", indeed!!
Laurie

Larry Fruity wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting
>>it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those
>>searching for truth and wisdom:
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>From: Jonathan Ball
>>Newsgroups:
>>talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetar ian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
>>Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT
>>---------------------------------
>>
>>
>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by ...
>
> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order to
> determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,

Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.

> his opening statement is obviously a lie.

Non sequitur.

> Since Mr Ball claims an extensive background
> in statistics,

Required for graduate study in economics.

> he KNEW he did not contact "all" vegans

If *you* knew anything yourself about statistics or its offspring
*polling*, you would know it's not necessary to contact every member of
a given population to gather certain information about that population.
That's especially true in matters like veganism, which is a peculiar and
extremist belief system:
In late 1944, The Vegan Society was established, advocating a
totally plant-based diet excluding flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, and animals' milk, butter, and cheese, and also
encouraging the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal
commodities, including clothing and shoes. The group argued that
the elimination of exploitation of any kind was necessary in
order to bring about a more reasonable and humane society. FROM
ITS INCEPTION, VEGANISM WAS DEFINED AS A "PHILOSOPHY" AND "WAY
OF LIVING." IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE MERELY A DIET AND, STILL
TODAY, DESCRIBES A LIFESTYLE AND BELIEF SYSTEM THAT REVOLVES
AROUND A REVERENCE FOR LIFE.
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/veganliving.htm

> to determine how they
> chose to move in a vegan direction,

In late 1944, The Vegan Society was established, advocating a
totally plant-based diet excluding flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, and animals' milk, butter, and cheese, and also
encouraging the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal
commodities, including clothing and shoes. The group argued that
the elimination of exploitation of any kind was necessary in
order to bring about a more reasonable and humane society. FROM
ITS INCEPTION, VEGANISM WAS DEFINED AS A "PHILOSOPHY" AND "WAY
OF LIVING." IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE MERELY A DIET AND, STILL
TODAY, DESCRIBES A LIFESTYLE AND BELIEF SYSTEM THAT REVOLVES
AROUND A REVERENCE FOR LIFE.
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/veganliving.htm


<snip rest of your stupor-induced prattle>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by ...
>>
>> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order
>> to determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,
>
> Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.
So, now, YOU have interviewed all vegans??

> If *you* knew anything yourself about statistics or its offspring
> *polling*, you would know it's not necessary to contact every member of a
> given population to gather certain information about that population.
Irrelevant, his claim was: "All "vegans". The word "all" is not open to
interpretation.

Laurie

Larry wrote:
>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by ...
>>>
>>> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order
>>>to determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,
>>
>>Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.
>
> So, now, YOU have interviewed all vegans??

I don't need to. I've read their books, I've persued their websites.

>>If *you* knew anything yourself about statistics or its offspring
>>*polling*, you would know it's not necessary to contact every member of a
>>given population to gather certain information about that population.
>
> Irrelevant, his claim was: "All "vegans". The word "all" is not open to
> interpretation.

You don't understand statistical sampling. How did you get that master's
degree?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

>>>> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order
>>>> to determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,
>>>Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.
>> So, now, YOU have interviewed all vegans??
> I don't need to. I've read their books, I've persued their websites.
ALL vegans have written books? ALL vegans have websites??
Is it that you really do not know understand the word "all"??

Laurie

Laurie wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by ...
>>>
>>> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order
>>>to determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,
>>
>>Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.
>
> So, now, YOU have interviewed all vegans??

Not required.

>
>
>>If *you* knew anything yourself about statistics or its offspring
>>*polling*, you would know it's not necessary to contact every member of a
>>given population to gather certain information about that population.
>
> Irrelevant, his claim was: "All "vegans".

Right.

> The word "all" is not open to
> interpretation.

Right.

fat **** and FAILED electrical engineer Larry Forti wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting
>>it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those
>>searching for truth and wisdom:
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>From: Jonathan Ball
>>Newsgroups:
>>talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetar ian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
>>Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT
>>---------------------------------
>>
>>
>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by ...
>
> Since noBalls had no way possible to interview "all vegans"

Not required. Logical analysis suffices.

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
link.net...
> fat **** ...
Insults are a sure way to increase your credibility and self-respect??

> ... electrical engineer ...
Never made that claim, so you are caught lying again.

Laurie

Laurie wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > fat **** failed electrical engineer
> Never made that claim

"Research and Development in Chemical Engineering/***Electrical
Engineering***/Electronics, Senior Chemical Process/Project Engineer,
Senior Pilot Plant Engineer/Scientist, Senior Instrumentation Engineer,
Senior Test Engineer, Senior Start-up Engineer, Senior Pollution
Engineer, Senior Environmental Engineer, Ecoscientist"

http://www.ecologos.org/resume.htm

You're a very shitty liar, Larry. You also were extremely shitty at
all those phony job titles/descriptions. You were just a total career
FAILURE, Larry. You didn't "drop out of the dominant society in 1969",
you lying fat ****ing failure; you were KICKED OUT because you were a
deadwood deviant. You're a ****ing welfare chiseler, Larry.

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Laurie wrote:
>> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>> > fat **** failed electrical engineer
>> Never made that claim
>
> "Research and Development in Chemical Engineering/***Electrical
> Engineering***/Electronics, Senior Chemical Process/Project Engineer,
> Senior Pilot Plant Engineer/Scientist, Senior Instrumentation Engineer,
> Senior Test Engineer, Senior Start-up Engineer, Senior Pollution
> Engineer, Senior Environmental Engineer, Ecoscientist"
>
> http://www.ecologos.org/resume.htm
>
> You're a very shitty liar, Larry.
Sorry, noBalls, an Electrical Engineer would have a degree in, let me
help you here, Electrical Engineering, so you are the lyer<G>.

Laurie





You also were extremely shitty at
> all those phony job titles/descriptions. You were just a total career
> FAILURE, Larry. You didn't "drop out of the dominant society in 1969",
> you lying fat ****ing failure; you were KICKED OUT because you were a
> deadwood deviant. You're a ****ing welfare chiseler, Larry.
>