"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> news
>> Self-righteous Nabob wrote:
>> <...>
>> > You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
>> > me and what I'm doing.
>>
>> He's spot on. "Saving all the animals" is bullshit when you eat
>> machine-harvested rice, other grains, and legumes. "Fighting against
>> wasting resources" is bullshit when you use processed soy protein
> (Yves
>> ground Italian sausage). "Peaceful harvest" is bullshit when you
>> purchase tropical fruits like plantains and other produce grown on
>> commercial farms from supermarkets. Everything you say is different
> from
>> what you do. You talk the talk, but you sure as hell don't walk the
>> walk. Like other sanctimonious holy rollers, you seem to have a pretty
>> hard time practicing what you preach. You're a rank and disgusting
>> hypocrite.
>
> None of us eat free of cds currently. It's just that
> vegans have way less than meat eaters.
=================
Again, prove your claim, killer. You make this claim all the time, surely
you can back it up, right hypocrite?


So calm
> down ok?
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> news
>> Self-righteous Nabob wrote:
>> <...>
>> > You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
>> > me and what I'm doing.
>>
>> He's spot on. "Saving all the animals" is bullshit when you eat
>> machine-harvested rice, other grains, and legumes. "Fighting against
>> wasting resources" is bullshit when you use processed soy protein
> (Yves
>> ground Italian sausage). "Peaceful harvest" is bullshit when you
>> purchase tropical fruits like plantains and other produce grown on
>> commercial farms from supermarkets. Everything you say is different
> from
>> what you do. You talk the talk, but you sure as hell don't walk the
>> walk. Like other sanctimonious holy rollers, you seem to have a pretty
>> hard time practicing what you preach. You're a rank and disgusting
>> hypocrite.
>
> None of us eat free of cds currently. It's just that
> vegans have way less than meat eaters.
=================
Again, prove your claim, killer. You make this claim all the time, surely
you can back it up, right hypocrite?


So calm
> down ok?
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Racist Nectar wrote:
>> >>Wrong. You've offered no proof at all. You've merely repeated the
> same
>> >>thing over and over. Repetition doesn't make something true. It only
>> >>makes false information seem more credible to cognitively-challenged
>> >>people. Like you.
>> >
>> > You're wrong.
>>
>> No, YOU are.
>>
>> > You even supplied some of the proof
>>
>> No, I disabused your error, which you lifted from vegan activist
> sites,
>> that animals require 10-16 pounds of feed to make a pound of meat. I
>> showed you that the ratio for livestock is nearly identical to the one
>> for putting a pound of meat on a vegan.
>
> Why are you comparing fattening a cow to fattening up
> a vegan? Are you a cannibal? Let's compare pound
> of food with pound of food. Or amounts of crops needed
> to make our final foods (meat vs vegan of course).
=====================
Then do so fool! You have yet to provide your "proof" than a vegan diet
always beats a meat-included diet.


>
>> > Almost everyone reading this can see right through
>> > you.
>>
>> Then why can't you address the points raised against your claims with
>> any substance?
>
> I see substance that you are blind to. I suspect there
> are others who agree.
=================
Then trot them out, and have them supply the proof that you seem to be
lacking, killer.

>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display
>

> > I'll snip however I like. Don't expect me to
> > respond to EVERY silly thing you write. It
> > get tiring trying to explain simple facts to you.
> =====================
> You haven't any facts to write, killer. But, if you feel you can't
respond
> to one of my points, you should note the snipping. Instead, you try
to
> dishonestly pretend that you didn't get caught in one of your lys by
> changing the post.

It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
I have the right to do if I want to.

> > No. You are stupid for being so hung up about the
> > 'official' definition. I have a different def. than you
> > and you'll just have to live with that.
> =====================
> ROTFLMAO That;s the point fool! Your definition is just yours, to
make
> *you* feel good! It has nothing to do with the real word, or the
lifestyle
> it entails. *YOU* are too selfish and lazy to actually be vegan....

So, let me get this straight, are you saying then, that
vegans are unselfish and not lazy? Are you actually
complimenting them?

> >> > Still no mention of religion, I notice.
> >> ====================
> >> Then you are blind, or do I have to read the whole page to you?
When
> > the
> >> meaning starts adding philosophy and ethics, rights for 'all
beings',
> > you're
> >> getting into religion. And then, when you start comparing it to
other
> >> religions, then your goose is cooked. (pun intended)

It still does not use the word religion.

> > Show me ANY dictionary that defines it as a religion. You can't.
> ==========================
> Look at the context again you ignorant dolt!

You still can't show me any dictionary that defines it
as a religion.

> > Quote the 1944 meaning. Does it say that veganism
> > is a religion?
> ================
> Yes. It using the same types of words and phrases as religions do.

"same types", hmm, yes I see. I see that it does not
say it's a religion.


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

> > I'll snip however I like. Don't expect me to
> > respond to EVERY silly thing you write. It
> > get tiring trying to explain simple facts to you.
> =====================
> You haven't any facts to write, killer. But, if you feel you can't
respond
> to one of my points, you should note the snipping. Instead, you try
to
> dishonestly pretend that you didn't get caught in one of your lys by
> changing the post.

It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
I have the right to do if I want to.

> > No. You are stupid for being so hung up about the
> > 'official' definition. I have a different def. than you
> > and you'll just have to live with that.
> =====================
> ROTFLMAO That;s the point fool! Your definition is just yours, to
make
> *you* feel good! It has nothing to do with the real word, or the
lifestyle
> it entails. *YOU* are too selfish and lazy to actually be vegan....

So, let me get this straight, are you saying then, that
vegans are unselfish and not lazy? Are you actually
complimenting them?

> >> > Still no mention of religion, I notice.
> >> ====================
> >> Then you are blind, or do I have to read the whole page to you?
When
> > the
> >> meaning starts adding philosophy and ethics, rights for 'all
beings',
> > you're
> >> getting into religion. And then, when you start comparing it to
other
> >> religions, then your goose is cooked. (pun intended)

It still does not use the word religion.

> > Show me ANY dictionary that defines it as a religion. You can't.
> ==========================
> Look at the context again you ignorant dolt!

You still can't show me any dictionary that defines it
as a religion.

> > Quote the 1944 meaning. Does it say that veganism
> > is a religion?
> ================
> Yes. It using the same types of words and phrases as religions do.

"same types", hmm, yes I see. I see that it does not
say it's a religion.


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

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> You opinion doesn't count as proof fool. But besides that, we are
> >> discussing what *you* and I as individuals can do. All you seem
to
> > be able
> >> to do is fall back on the old, well everybody doesn't do it, so I
> > don't have
> >> to either game. What the rest of the world does is immaterial to
> > *your*
> >> stated goal of causing less animal death and suffering But you
can't
> > prove
> >> that that you even try, so you have to make outlandish claims about
> >> everybody else! Just for once, why not focus on what *you* are
doing
> > and
> >> what changes *you* can make to improve your impact. You don't do
> > that,
> >> thereby proving that to you it's only about spewing your haterd of
> > others,
> >> and not your so-called love of animals. If animals were your
concern,
> > you'd
> >> do what *you* can first.
> >
> > You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
> > me and what I'm doing.
> =====================
> Then the bizarre comes from you stupid. You have been the one to tell
us
> how you eat! You really are just too stupid to keep you're own
ignorance
> on track, aren't you killer? But again, the dodge of *your* impact
noted.

You're still babbling. What are you on about?


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

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> You opinion doesn't count as proof fool. But besides that, we are
> >> discussing what *you* and I as individuals can do. All you seem
to
> > be able
> >> to do is fall back on the old, well everybody doesn't do it, so I
> > don't have
> >> to either game. What the rest of the world does is immaterial to
> > *your*
> >> stated goal of causing less animal death and suffering But you
can't
> > prove
> >> that that you even try, so you have to make outlandish claims about
> >> everybody else! Just for once, why not focus on what *you* are
doing
> > and
> >> what changes *you* can make to improve your impact. You don't do
> > that,
> >> thereby proving that to you it's only about spewing your haterd of
> > others,
> >> and not your so-called love of animals. If animals were your
concern,
> > you'd
> >> do what *you* can first.
> >
> > You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
> > me and what I'm doing.
> =====================
> Then the bizarre comes from you stupid. You have been the one to tell
us
> how you eat! You really are just too stupid to keep you're own
ignorance
> on track, aren't you killer? But again, the dodge of *your* impact
noted.

You're still babbling. What are you on about?


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

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> You opinion doesn't count as proof fool. But besides that, we are
> >> discussing what *you* and I as individuals can do. All you seem
to
> > be able
> >> to do is fall back on the old, well everybody doesn't do it, so I
> > don't have
> >> to either game. What the rest of the world does is immaterial to
> > *your*
> >> stated goal of causing less animal death and suffering But you
can't
> > prove
> >> that that you even try, so you have to make outlandish claims about
> >> everybody else! Just for once, why not focus on what *you* are
doing
> > and
> >> what changes *you* can make to improve your impact. You don't do
> > that,
> >> thereby proving that to you it's only about spewing your haterd of
> > others,
> >> and not your so-called love of animals. If animals were your
concern,
> > you'd
> >> do what *you* can first.
> >
> > You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
> > me and what I'm doing.
> =====================
> Then the bizarre comes from you stupid. You have been the one to tell
us
> how you eat! You really are just too stupid to keep you're own
ignorance
> on track, aren't you killer? But again, the dodge of *your* impact
noted.

You're still babbling. What are you on about?


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I'll snip however I like. Don't expect me to
>> > respond to EVERY silly thing you write. It
>> > get tiring trying to explain simple facts to you.
>> =====================
>> You haven't any facts to write, killer. But, if you feel you can't
> respond
>> to one of my points, you should note the snipping. Instead, you try
> to
>> dishonestly pretend that you didn't get caught in one of your lys by
>> changing the post.
>
> It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
> I have the right to do if I want to.
======================
Sure, and if you don't want to be seen as the dishonest loon that you are,
you need to note that you are snipping posts apart.


>
>> > No. You are stupid for being so hung up about the
>> > 'official' definition. I have a different def. than you
>> > and you'll just have to live with that.
>> =====================
>> ROTFLMAO That;s the point fool! Your definition is just yours, to
> make
>> *you* feel good! It has nothing to do with the real word, or the
> lifestyle
>> it entails. *YOU* are too selfish and lazy to actually be vegan....
>
> So, let me get this straight, are you saying then, that
> vegans are unselfish and not lazy? Are you actually
> complimenting them?
=========================
Real vegans I always have fool! You just aren't one, and never will be.
There are no 'real' vegans on usenet.


>
>> >> > Still no mention of religion, I notice.
>> >> ====================
>> >> Then you are blind, or do I have to read the whole page to you?
> When
>> > the
>> >> meaning starts adding philosophy and ethics, rights for 'all
> beings',
>> > you're
>> >> getting into religion. And then, when you start comparing it to
> other
>> >> religions, then your goose is cooked. (pun intended)
>
> It still does not use the word religion.
>
>> > Show me ANY dictionary that defines it as a religion. You can't.
>> ==========================
>> Look at the context again you ignorant dolt!
>
> You still can't show me any dictionary that defines it
> as a religion.
=======================
LOL Again, you want a definition that you can't even provide.



>
>> > Quote the 1944 meaning. Does it say that veganism
>> > is a religion?
>> ================
>> Yes. It using the same types of words and phrases as religions do.
>
> "same types", hmm, yes I see. I see that it does not
> say it's a religion.
====================
LOL Try again little one.


>
>
>> > SN
>> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
>> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I'll snip however I like. Don't expect me to
>> > respond to EVERY silly thing you write. It
>> > get tiring trying to explain simple facts to you.
>> =====================
>> You haven't any facts to write, killer. But, if you feel you can't
> respond
>> to one of my points, you should note the snipping. Instead, you try
> to
>> dishonestly pretend that you didn't get caught in one of your lys by
>> changing the post.
>
> It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
> I have the right to do if I want to.
======================
Sure, and if you don't want to be seen as the dishonest loon that you are,
you need to note that you are snipping posts apart.


>
>> > No. You are stupid for being so hung up about the
>> > 'official' definition. I have a different def. than you
>> > and you'll just have to live with that.
>> =====================
>> ROTFLMAO That;s the point fool! Your definition is just yours, to
> make
>> *you* feel good! It has nothing to do with the real word, or the
> lifestyle
>> it entails. *YOU* are too selfish and lazy to actually be vegan....
>
> So, let me get this straight, are you saying then, that
> vegans are unselfish and not lazy? Are you actually
> complimenting them?
=========================
Real vegans I always have fool! You just aren't one, and never will be.
There are no 'real' vegans on usenet.


>
>> >> > Still no mention of religion, I notice.
>> >> ====================
>> >> Then you are blind, or do I have to read the whole page to you?
> When
>> > the
>> >> meaning starts adding philosophy and ethics, rights for 'all
> beings',
>> > you're
>> >> getting into religion. And then, when you start comparing it to
> other
>> >> religions, then your goose is cooked. (pun intended)
>
> It still does not use the word religion.
>
>> > Show me ANY dictionary that defines it as a religion. You can't.
>> ==========================
>> Look at the context again you ignorant dolt!
>
> You still can't show me any dictionary that defines it
> as a religion.
=======================
LOL Again, you want a definition that you can't even provide.



>
>> > Quote the 1944 meaning. Does it say that veganism
>> > is a religion?
>> ================
>> Yes. It using the same types of words and phrases as religions do.
>
> "same types", hmm, yes I see. I see that it does not
> say it's a religion.
====================
LOL Try again little one.


>
>
>> > SN
>> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
>> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> You opinion doesn't count as proof fool. But besides that, we are
>> >> discussing what *you* and I as individuals can do. All you seem
> to
>> > be able
>> >> to do is fall back on the old, well everybody doesn't do it, so I
>> > don't have
>> >> to either game. What the rest of the world does is immaterial to
>> > *your*
>> >> stated goal of causing less animal death and suffering But you
> can't
>> > prove
>> >> that that you even try, so you have to make outlandish claims about
>> >> everybody else! Just for once, why not focus on what *you* are
> doing
>> > and
>> >> what changes *you* can make to improve your impact. You don't do
>> > that,
>> >> thereby proving that to you it's only about spewing your haterd of
>> > others,
>> >> and not your so-called love of animals. If animals were your
> concern,
>> > you'd
>> >> do what *you* can first.
>> >
>> > You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
>> > me and what I'm doing.
>> =====================
>> Then the bizarre comes from you stupid. You have been the one to tell
> us
>> how you eat! You really are just too stupid to keep you're own
> ignorance
>> on track, aren't you killer? But again, the dodge of *your* impact
> noted.
>
> You're still babbling. What are you on about?
==================
Still dodging the discussion of *your* impact, killer...
Dodging is all you have since you have nothing of substance to say...


>
>
>> > SN
>> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
>> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>> >Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

rick etter wrote:
<...>
>>No. You are stupid for being so hung up about the
>>'official' definition. I have a different def. than you
>>and you'll just have to live with that.
>
> =====================
> ROTFLMAO That;s the point fool! Your definition is just yours, to make
> *you* feel good! It has nothing to do with the real word, or the lifestyle
> it entails.

Your observation about her is correct: she's entirely subjective in
defining things and romanticizing about primitive agricultural practices
she'd never employ for herself or pay someone to do.

> *YOU* are too selfish and lazy to actually be vegan....

I read her response to this. She misread it for some kind of compliment,
lol.

<...>
>>Show me ANY dictionary that defines it as a religion. You can't.
>
> ==========================
> Look at the context again you ignorant dolt!

She needs to look up the definition of RELIGION and then compare what
the dictionary and other sources say about VEGANISM. Professors of
anthropology lump it in with other religions:

the lighter side of millennial thinking: neo-Paganism, Veganism,
and other "New Age" phenomena
http://anthro.rutgers.edu/courses/308shapiro2004.htm

One vegan (and another retired professor) debates the issue in the wake
of one judge's ruling that veganism isn't a religion and determines it
IS a religion:
http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm

<...>

rick etter wrote:
<...>
>>No. You are stupid for being so hung up about the
>>'official' definition. I have a different def. than you
>>and you'll just have to live with that.
>
> =====================
> ROTFLMAO That;s the point fool! Your definition is just yours, to make
> *you* feel good! It has nothing to do with the real word, or the lifestyle
> it entails.

Your observation about her is correct: she's entirely subjective in
defining things and romanticizing about primitive agricultural practices
she'd never employ for herself or pay someone to do.

> *YOU* are too selfish and lazy to actually be vegan....

I read her response to this. She misread it for some kind of compliment,
lol.

<...>
>>Show me ANY dictionary that defines it as a religion. You can't.
>
> ==========================
> Look at the context again you ignorant dolt!

She needs to look up the definition of RELIGION and then compare what
the dictionary and other sources say about VEGANISM. Professors of
anthropology lump it in with other religions:

the lighter side of millennial thinking: neo-Paganism, Veganism,
and other "New Age" phenomena
http://anthro.rutgers.edu/courses/308shapiro2004.htm

One vegan (and another retired professor) debates the issue in the wake
of one judge's ruling that veganism isn't a religion and determines it
IS a religion:
http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm

<...>

Scented Nectar, veganism's equivalent of a holy roller, wrote:
<...>
> It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
> I have the right to do if I want to.

You've altered meanings when snipping certain context. At least document
where you've snipped so others can check the context and see if what
you've left reflects the intent of the person to whom you're replying or
only serves your purpose.

<...>
> So, let me get this straight, are you saying then, that
> vegans are unselfish and not lazy? Are you actually
> complimenting them?

No, and no. He's saying that you have alternatives to the way you
actually live your life -- some of which YOU've raised in this
discussion -- yet you don't utilize those options. You're too selfish
and lazy to employ them, whether that means farming your own food or
paying someone to actually go peacefully through fields and carefully
not harming any other creature which may reside in it.

<...>

Scented Nectar, veganism's equivalent of a holy roller, wrote:
<...>
> It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
> I have the right to do if I want to.

You've altered meanings when snipping certain context. At least document
where you've snipped so others can check the context and see if what
you've left reflects the intent of the person to whom you're replying or
only serves your purpose.

<...>
> So, let me get this straight, are you saying then, that
> vegans are unselfish and not lazy? Are you actually
> complimenting them?

No, and no. He's saying that you have alternatives to the way you
actually live your life -- some of which YOU've raised in this
discussion -- yet you don't utilize those options. You're too selfish
and lazy to employ them, whether that means farming your own food or
paying someone to actually go peacefully through fields and carefully
not harming any other creature which may reside in it.

<...>

Scented Nectar, veganism's equivalent of a holy roller, wrote:
<...>
> It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
> I have the right to do if I want to.

You've altered meanings when snipping certain context. At least document
where you've snipped so others can check the context and see if what
you've left reflects the intent of the person to whom you're replying or
only serves your purpose.

<...>
> So, let me get this straight, are you saying then, that
> vegans are unselfish and not lazy? Are you actually
> complimenting them?

No, and no. He's saying that you have alternatives to the way you
actually live your life -- some of which YOU've raised in this
discussion -- yet you don't utilize those options. You're too selfish
and lazy to employ them, whether that means farming your own food or
paying someone to actually go peacefully through fields and carefully
not harming any other creature which may reside in it.

<...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> rick etter wrote:
> <...>
>>>No. You are stupid for being so hung up about the
>>>'official' definition. I have a different def. than you
>>>and you'll just have to live with that.
>>
>> =====================
>> ROTFLMAO That;s the point fool! Your definition is just yours, to make
>> *you* feel good! It has nothing to do with the real word, or the
>> lifestyle it entails.
>
> Your observation about her is correct: she's entirely subjective in
> defining things and romanticizing about primitive agricultural practices
> she'd never employ for herself or pay someone to do.
>
>> *YOU* are too selfish and lazy to actually be vegan....
>
> I read her response to this. She misread it for some kind of compliment,
> lol.
===============
Well definiatly not for her. But anyone that actually lives as she says
someone 'could' should be complimented. Problem is, they aren't going to be
here on usenet. The closest person to this that I have seen is Eustace
Conway. Quite a character. Lived on his own place, no electric, no outside
power. Lived off the land. Problem for vegans is that he had a
meat-included diet. Game.


>
> <...>
>>>Show me ANY dictionary that defines it as a religion. You can't.
>>
>> ==========================
>> Look at the context again you ignorant dolt!
>
> She needs to look up the definition of RELIGION and then compare what the
> dictionary and other sources say about VEGANISM. Professors of
> anthropology lump it in with other religions:
> ====================
She's can't read that big of words. She's as bad as pearl/lys. She posts
crap that she thinks support her idiocy, and then finds out that it says the
opposite.
It's been quite amusing actually.


> the lighter side of millennial thinking: neo-Paganism, Veganism,
> and other "New Age" phenomena
> http://anthro.rutgers.edu/courses/308shapiro2004.htm
>
> One vegan (and another retired professor) debates the issue in the wake of
> one judge's ruling that veganism isn't a religion and determines it IS a
> religion:
> http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm
>
> <...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> rick etter wrote:
> <...>
>>>No. You are stupid for being so hung up about the
>>>'official' definition. I have a different def. than you
>>>and you'll just have to live with that.
>>
>> =====================
>> ROTFLMAO That;s the point fool! Your definition is just yours, to make
>> *you* feel good! It has nothing to do with the real word, or the
>> lifestyle it entails.
>
> Your observation about her is correct: she's entirely subjective in
> defining things and romanticizing about primitive agricultural practices
> she'd never employ for herself or pay someone to do.
>
>> *YOU* are too selfish and lazy to actually be vegan....
>
> I read her response to this. She misread it for some kind of compliment,
> lol.
===============
Well definiatly not for her. But anyone that actually lives as she says
someone 'could' should be complimented. Problem is, they aren't going to be
here on usenet. The closest person to this that I have seen is Eustace
Conway. Quite a character. Lived on his own place, no electric, no outside
power. Lived off the land. Problem for vegans is that he had a
meat-included diet. Game.


>
> <...>
>>>Show me ANY dictionary that defines it as a religion. You can't.
>>
>> ==========================
>> Look at the context again you ignorant dolt!
>
> She needs to look up the definition of RELIGION and then compare what the
> dictionary and other sources say about VEGANISM. Professors of
> anthropology lump it in with other religions:
> ====================
She's can't read that big of words. She's as bad as pearl/lys. She posts
crap that she thinks support her idiocy, and then finds out that it says the
opposite.
It's been quite amusing actually.


> the lighter side of millennial thinking: neo-Paganism, Veganism,
> and other "New Age" phenomena
> http://anthro.rutgers.edu/courses/308shapiro2004.htm
>
> One vegan (and another retired professor) debates the issue in the wake of
> one judge's ruling that veganism isn't a religion and determines it IS a
> religion:
> http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm
>
> <...>

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:29:08 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>
>>>>>>As a card carrying atheist, I object to you calling
>>>>>>being vegan a religion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Veganism is religion.
>>>>
>>>>"Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction.
>>>
>>>I later admitted that *I* was the one off in the wrong direction on that
>>>point
>>
>> You did nothing of the kind.
>
>I did

You're lying again, but that's to be expected from someone
like yourself when caught out. Google archives show exactly
where you told Bart he was off in the wrong direction when
he tried to compare veganism to a religion, and you then went
on to categorically state that "Veganism is not a religion.."

[start - Bart to you]
> If one was to compare Veganism to a religious/spiritual brand,
> it would come close to Buddhism and Hinduism.
[you]
Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is
not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people...
[end]
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

But now you're trying to assert that it is a religion. When
did Jon start telling you how to think about your religion,
Christian? Have you no mind of your own, or even the
religious beliefs you once held since Jon forced you into
thinking his way?

It clear to me now that your current position on ALL the
issues raised here carry as little weight as your older one,
seeing as you can't make up your mind which to hold. Like
Jon, Rick and Dutch, you're only here to heckle. You've
nothing substantial to offer any would-be arguer. I think
that even you realise you're nothing but a joke.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:29:08 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>
>>>>>>As a card carrying atheist, I object to you calling
>>>>>>being vegan a religion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Veganism is religion.
>>>>
>>>>"Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction.
>>>
>>>I later admitted that *I* was the one off in the wrong direction on that
>>>point
>>
>> You did nothing of the kind.
>
>I did

You're lying again, but that's to be expected from someone
like yourself when caught out. Google archives show exactly
where you told Bart he was off in the wrong direction when
he tried to compare veganism to a religion, and you then went
on to categorically state that "Veganism is not a religion.."

[start - Bart to you]
> If one was to compare Veganism to a religious/spiritual brand,
> it would come close to Buddhism and Hinduism.
[you]
Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is
not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people...
[end]
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

But now you're trying to assert that it is a religion. When
did Jon start telling you how to think about your religion,
Christian? Have you no mind of your own, or even the
religious beliefs you once held since Jon forced you into
thinking his way?

It clear to me now that your current position on ALL the
issues raised here carry as little weight as your older one,
seeing as you can't make up your mind which to hold. Like
Jon, Rick and Dutch, you're only here to heckle. You've
nothing substantial to offer any would-be arguer. I think
that even you realise you're nothing but a joke.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 03:44:05 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Scented Nectar, veganism's equivalent of a holy roller, wrote:
><...>
>> It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
>> I have the right to do if I want to.
>
>You've altered meanings when snipping certain context.

You're a hypocrite to claim that, while Google archives
show where you ALTER your opponent's sentences
by ADDING your own words before then responding
to them.

Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and follow it's
short thread from the beginning, and you'll see that you
edited entire sentences of my posts before making your
replies to them.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:27:20 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Veganism fits into the category of religion regardless of what
>its true believer want to call it.

Yet you earlier categorically insisted that "veganism is
NOT a religion or a spiritual issue". You were either
lying then or you're lying now, but that doesn't matter.
All that matters here is that we can see you're a liar.

[start - Bart to you]
> If one was to compare Veganism to a religious/spiritual brand,
> it would come close to Buddhism and Hinduism.
[you]
Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is
not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people...
[end]
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

>I know many Buddhists

As we can see from your interaction with Bart, you wrote
that Buddhism cannot be compared to veganism, yet now
you're trying to assert it can be. When are you going to
make up your mind? You're making a fool of yourself.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:35:49 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Skanky Cankles wrote:
><...>
>> His contradictory ways
>
>Have you started counting your own contradictory ways yet, hypocrite?

Tu quoque, hypocrite. You don't get to excuse your hypocrisy
by pointing to the alleged and unproven hypocrisy of others.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:28:17 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
[..]
>> Shall I continue, nitwit?
>
>Do continue twisting stuff and repeating stuff
>that is false. Keep on changing my words too,
>my boy.

You'll find that he'll even alter your written sentences
by adding words of his own into them, and then respond
to that instead of what you've written before long.

If you click on this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and
follow it's short thread from the beginning, you'll see
that he edited entire sentences of his opponent's posts
before making his replies to them. He'll stoop to any
level to continue his heckling and cannot be taken
seriously as a real contender here.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:28:17 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
[..]
>> Shall I continue, nitwit?
>
>Do continue twisting stuff and repeating stuff
>that is false. Keep on changing my words too,
>my boy.

You'll find that he'll even alter your written sentences
by adding words of his own into them, and then respond
to that instead of what you've written before long.

If you click on this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and
follow it's short thread from the beginning, you'll see
that he edited entire sentences of his opponent's posts
before making his replies to them. He'll stoop to any
level to continue his heckling and cannot be taken
seriously as a real contender here.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:00:34 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
>>> >
>>> > Whoa boy. You started the talk of cds. I merely proved that
>>> > the meat industry caused more of them than crops grown
>>> > for humans.
>>> ======================
>>> No, you haven't fool. In fact, just the opposite has been
>>> shown, especially since you eat a supermart diet of
>>> processed, imported crops.
>>
>> The meat industry as a whole causes more cds
>> than food grown for humans as a whole. The
>> proof's been explained to you too many times to count.
>> ========================
>You opinion doesn't count as proof fool.

Yours certainly doesn't, especially while denying the
collateral deaths associated with the production of
the food you *claim* to eat.

[start ipse dixit to Rick Etter]
> Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated
> with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you
> accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> deaths.
============================
Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period.
[end]
Rick Etter http://tinyurl.com/58l8m

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
Rick Etter 2003-11-15

Scented Nectar is correct, as Jonathan has pointed out to
you several times now.

"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

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:49:00 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Skanky Cankles wrote:
><...>
>> The meat industry as a whole causes more cds
>> than food grown for humans as a whole.
>
>Ipse dixit.

Then, are you claiming that your usenet guru lied
when stating;

"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

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:49:00 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Skanky Cankles wrote:
><...>
>> The meat industry as a whole causes more cds
>> than food grown for humans as a whole.
>
>Ipse dixit.

Then, are you claiming that your usenet guru lied
when stating;

"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

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:01:34 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Racist Nectar wrote:
>>>Wrong. You've offered no proof at all. You've merely repeated the same
>>>thing over and over. Repetition doesn't make something true. It only
>>>makes false information seem more credible to cognitively-challenged
>>>people. Like you.
>>
>> You're wrong.
>
>No, YOU are.
>
>> You even supplied some of the proof
>
>No, I disabused your error, which you lifted from vegan activist sites,
>that animals require 10-16 pounds of feed to make a pound of meat.

Figures from USDA show that an 800-pound, medium-
frame steer calf will eat about 16.8 pounds of dry matter
a day of a high-concentrate ration. He will gain about 3
pounds a day with daily nutrients in his feed at the level
shown here. The balanced daily ration for the 800-pound
yearling steer is:
Pounds
Corn 14.7
Soybean meal 0.52
Corn silage 10.00
Limestone 0.17
Total 25.83
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplo...sci/g02052.htm

So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
3 pounds of flesh, we have a feed to weight ratio of
8.61:1, but that's not the end of it because the bones
etc. have to be removed.

On-the-hook:
This phrase refers to the hanging weight of a dressed
beef carcass. A typical 1200 lb. *Beef Steer* from
Geske Farms will yield approximately 500-pounds
of retail cuts from a dressed 700-pound Choice
carcass. *my emphasis*
http://www.geskefarms.com/terms.htm#T&E

From this we can calculate that only 41.6% of the
animal is used for retail cuts. If we divide the amount
of feed required (8.61) to produce 1 pound of steer by
the 41.6% of actual beef we get from it ( 8.61 /0.416 )
we arrive at the final feed to beef ratio of 20.69:1
It takes 20.7 pounds of feed to produce 1 pound
of edible beef.

>I showed you that the ratio for livestock is nearly
>identical to the one for putting a pound of meat on
>a vegan.

No, you did not and never have done, dummy.

>> Almost everyone reading this can see right through
>> you.
>
>Then why

Because you're always lying, dummy. That's why.
You're just a joke.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:01:34 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Racist Nectar wrote:
>>>Wrong. You've offered no proof at all. You've merely repeated the same
>>>thing over and over. Repetition doesn't make something true. It only
>>>makes false information seem more credible to cognitively-challenged
>>>people. Like you.
>>
>> You're wrong.
>
>No, YOU are.
>
>> You even supplied some of the proof
>
>No, I disabused your error, which you lifted from vegan activist sites,
>that animals require 10-16 pounds of feed to make a pound of meat.

Figures from USDA show that an 800-pound, medium-
frame steer calf will eat about 16.8 pounds of dry matter
a day of a high-concentrate ration. He will gain about 3
pounds a day with daily nutrients in his feed at the level
shown here. The balanced daily ration for the 800-pound
yearling steer is:
Pounds
Corn 14.7
Soybean meal 0.52
Corn silage 10.00
Limestone 0.17
Total 25.83
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplo...sci/g02052.htm

So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
3 pounds of flesh, we have a feed to weight ratio of
8.61:1, but that's not the end of it because the bones
etc. have to be removed.

On-the-hook:
This phrase refers to the hanging weight of a dressed
beef carcass. A typical 1200 lb. *Beef Steer* from
Geske Farms will yield approximately 500-pounds
of retail cuts from a dressed 700-pound Choice
carcass. *my emphasis*
http://www.geskefarms.com/terms.htm#T&E

From this we can calculate that only 41.6% of the
animal is used for retail cuts. If we divide the amount
of feed required (8.61) to produce 1 pound of steer by
the 41.6% of actual beef we get from it ( 8.61 /0.416 )
we arrive at the final feed to beef ratio of 20.69:1
It takes 20.7 pounds of feed to produce 1 pound
of edible beef.

>I showed you that the ratio for livestock is nearly
>identical to the one for putting a pound of meat on
>a vegan.

No, you did not and never have done, dummy.

>> Almost everyone reading this can see right through
>> you.
>
>Then why

Because you're always lying, dummy. That's why.
You're just a joke.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:14:59 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
>> Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>> > You've made sizeist (fatso) remarks,
>>
>> To Dreck Nask, the most obese vegan on the entire planet.
>> He is prima facie evidence that veganism isn't inherently
>> healthy, and that veganism doesn't inherently lead to weight
>> loss.
>
>So what if he's fat

Exactly!

>(if he really is, that is),

I certainly am, and since quitting the fags back in April
I'm nearly up to 17.5 stones. I was fat before then though.

>you're still being sizeist.

'useless object' is trying to use exceptions to define a
rule, but when doing that he leads the way for vegans
to label meatarians as fat diabetics suffering from heart
disease and cancers of the colon.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:14:59 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
>> Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>> > You've made sizeist (fatso) remarks,
>>
>> To Dreck Nask, the most obese vegan on the entire planet.
>> He is prima facie evidence that veganism isn't inherently
>> healthy, and that veganism doesn't inherently lead to weight
>> loss.
>
>So what if he's fat

Exactly!

>(if he really is, that is),

I certainly am, and since quitting the fags back in April
I'm nearly up to 17.5 stones. I was fat before then though.

>you're still being sizeist.

'useless object' is trying to use exceptions to define a
rule, but when doing that he leads the way for vegans
to label meatarians as fat diabetics suffering from heart
disease and cancers of the colon.

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 03:44:05 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:
>
> >Scented Nectar, veganism's equivalent of a holy roller, wrote:
> ><...>
> >> It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
> >> I have the right to do if I want to.
> >
> >You've altered meanings when snipping certain context.
>
> You're a hypocrite to claim that, while Google archives
> show where you ALTER your opponent's sentences
> by ADDING your own words before then responding
> to them.
>
> Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and follow it's
> short thread from the beginning, and you'll see that you
> edited entire sentences of my posts before making your
> replies to them.

Holy crap. I shouldn't be surprised though.

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 03:44:05 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:
>
> >Scented Nectar, veganism's equivalent of a holy roller, wrote:
> ><...>
> >> It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
> >> I have the right to do if I want to.
> >
> >You've altered meanings when snipping certain context.
>
> You're a hypocrite to claim that, while Google archives
> show where you ALTER your opponent's sentences
> by ADDING your own words before then responding
> to them.
>
> Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and follow it's
> short thread from the beginning, and you'll see that you
> edited entire sentences of my posts before making your
> replies to them.

Holy crap. I shouldn't be surprised though.

> Your observation about her is correct: she's entirely subjective in
> defining things and romanticizing about primitive agricultural
practices
> she'd never employ for herself or pay someone to do.

You have no idea what percentage of organic foods
I buy. Don't pretend that you do.

> She needs to look up the definition of RELIGION and then compare what
> the dictionary and other sources say about VEGANISM. Professors of
> anthropology lump it in with other religions:
>
> the lighter side of millennial thinking: neo-Paganism, Veganism,
> and other "New Age" phenomena
> http://anthro.rutgers.edu/courses/308shapiro2004.htm
>
> One vegan (and another retired professor) debates the issue in the
wake
> of one judge's ruling that veganism isn't a religion and determines it
> IS a religion:
> http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm

I still don't see it in the dictionary under vegan.



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

> You'll find that he'll even alter your written sentences
> by adding words of his own into them, and then respond
> to that instead of what you've written before long.
>
> If you click on this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and
> follow it's short thread from the beginning, you'll see
> that he edited entire sentences of his opponent's posts
> before making his replies to them. He'll stoop to any
> level to continue his heckling and cannot be taken
> seriously as a real contender here.

I've got to wonder about what kind of personality
sticks around a newsgroup where he's not liked
or welcome. I think he hates himself.




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

> You'll find that he'll even alter your written sentences
> by adding words of his own into them, and then respond
> to that instead of what you've written before long.
>
> If you click on this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and
> follow it's short thread from the beginning, you'll see
> that he edited entire sentences of his opponent's posts
> before making his replies to them. He'll stoop to any
> level to continue his heckling and cannot be taken
> seriously as a real contender here.

I've got to wonder about what kind of personality
sticks around a newsgroup where he's not liked
or welcome. I think he hates himself.




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

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> You opinion doesn't count as proof fool. But besides that, we
are
> >> >> discussing what *you* and I as individuals can do. All you
seem
> > to
> >> > be able
> >> >> to do is fall back on the old, well everybody doesn't do it, so
I
> >> > don't have
> >> >> to either game. What the rest of the world does is immaterial
to
> >> > *your*
> >> >> stated goal of causing less animal death and suffering But you
> > can't
> >> > prove
> >> >> that that you even try, so you have to make outlandish claims
about
> >> >> everybody else! Just for once, why not focus on what *you* are
> > doing
> >> > and
> >> >> what changes *you* can make to improve your impact. You don't
do
> >> > that,
> >> >> thereby proving that to you it's only about spewing your haterd
of
> >> > others,
> >> >> and not your so-called love of animals. If animals were your
> > concern,
> >> > you'd
> >> >> do what *you* can first.
> >> >
> >> > You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
> >> > me and what I'm doing.
> >> =====================
> >> Then the bizarre comes from you stupid. You have been the one to
tell
> > us
> >> how you eat! You really are just too stupid to keep you're own
> > ignorance
> >> on track, aren't you killer? But again, the dodge of *your* impact
> > noted.
> >
> > You're still babbling. What are you on about?
> ==================
> Still dodging the discussion of *your* impact, killer...
> Dodging is all you have since you have nothing of substance to say...

To hear you tell it, I must be world enemy #1. That's all
I can get out of that hateful babbling. Are you by any
chance paranoid?

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

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> You opinion doesn't count as proof fool. But besides that, we
are
> >> >> discussing what *you* and I as individuals can do. All you
seem
> > to
> >> > be able
> >> >> to do is fall back on the old, well everybody doesn't do it, so
I
> >> > don't have
> >> >> to either game. What the rest of the world does is immaterial
to
> >> > *your*
> >> >> stated goal of causing less animal death and suffering But you
> > can't
> >> > prove
> >> >> that that you even try, so you have to make outlandish claims
about
> >> >> everybody else! Just for once, why not focus on what *you* are
> > doing
> >> > and
> >> >> what changes *you* can make to improve your impact. You don't
do
> >> > that,
> >> >> thereby proving that to you it's only about spewing your haterd
of
> >> > others,
> >> >> and not your so-called love of animals. If animals were your
> > concern,
> >> > you'd
> >> >> do what *you* can first.
> >> >
> >> > You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
> >> > me and what I'm doing.
> >> =====================
> >> Then the bizarre comes from you stupid. You have been the one to
tell
> > us
> >> how you eat! You really are just too stupid to keep you're own
> > ignorance
> >> on track, aren't you killer? But again, the dodge of *your* impact
> > noted.
> >
> > You're still babbling. What are you on about?
> ==================
> Still dodging the discussion of *your* impact, killer...
> Dodging is all you have since you have nothing of substance to say...

To hear you tell it, I must be world enemy #1. That's all
I can get out of that hateful babbling. Are you by any
chance paranoid?

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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "rick etter" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> You opinion doesn't count as proof fool. But besides that, we
> are
>> >> >> discussing what *you* and I as individuals can do. All you
> seem
>> > to
>> >> > be able
>> >> >> to do is fall back on the old, well everybody doesn't do it, so
> I
>> >> > don't have
>> >> >> to either game. What the rest of the world does is immaterial
> to
>> >> > *your*
>> >> >> stated goal of causing less animal death and suffering But you
>> > can't
>> >> > prove
>> >> >> that that you even try, so you have to make outlandish claims
> about
>> >> >> everybody else! Just for once, why not focus on what *you* are
>> > doing
>> >> > and
>> >> >> what changes *you* can make to improve your impact. You don't
> do
>> >> > that,
>> >> >> thereby proving that to you it's only about spewing your haterd
> of
>> >> > others,
>> >> >> and not your so-called love of animals. If animals were your
>> > concern,
>> >> > you'd
>> >> >> do what *you* can first.
>> >> >
>> >> > You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
>> >> > me and what I'm doing.
>> >> =====================
>> >> Then the bizarre comes from you stupid. You have been the one to
> tell
>> > us
>> >> how you eat! You really are just too stupid to keep you're own
>> > ignorance
>> >> on track, aren't you killer? But again, the dodge of *your* impact
>> > noted.
>> >
>> > You're still babbling. What are you on about?
>> ==================
>> Still dodging the discussion of *your* impact, killer...
>> Dodging is all you have since you have nothing of substance to say...
>
> To hear you tell it, I must be world enemy #1.
========================
LOL Sounds like you have a guilty conscience, eh killer?


That's all
> I can get out of that hateful babbling. Are you by any
> chance paranoid?
=====================
The only hate on display is yours, hypocrite. Hate for others, and obvious
hate for animals, since you will not even try to learn anything to lessen
your impact.


>
>> >
>> >
>> >> > SN
>> >> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>> >> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
>> >> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance, and hypocrisy run amok.
>