More...

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>You're not forcing tofu down my throat. Yet. Then again, you're
>>identifying yourself as a "vegan wannabe" without fully understanding
>>that veganism, and its demented older sibling, AR, isn't about eating
>>what's good for you or even reducing CDs. Veganism and AR are part and
>>parcel of an extremist, totalitarian movement based on hatred for
>>mankind masquerading as compassion for animals.
>>
>>Open your mind, Skunky.
>
> Grow up. There is no conspiracy to overthrough the
> gov't or to shove tofu down your throat.

PETA seeks “total animal liberation,” according to its president
and co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk. That means no meat or dairy, of
course; but it also means no aquariums, no circuses, no hunting
or fishing, no fur or leather, and no medical research using
animals. PETA is even opposed to the use of seeing-eye dogs.
http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...iew.cfm/oid/21

They openly aid and abet ELF and ALF terror groups. See:
http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...eye.cfm/oid/21

Full overview of PeTA below. Be sure to scan down to the part about how
many rescued animals PeTA euthanizes. But more to the point, note that
it's *not* a tolerance movement, but an in-your-face attempt to force
others to adopt their demented and peculiar worldview.
http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...iew.cfm/oid/21

> > Don't be such an idiot. You're dwelling on my initial
> > belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
> > previous one is no longer an issue.
>
> Your previous one is VERY MUCH an issue, because you
> are unable to tell us why and how you revised it,
> except as a purely ad hoc exercise in self flattery.

Bull. I've told and explained a zillion times already. You
are the one not understanding it, and that I can't help you
with.

> Your current position, by the way, is NOT that you are
> "doing the best I can." You already RETREATED from
> that falsehood, and in any case, I have demonstrated
> conclusively and without even an attempt at refutation
> from you that you are NOT "doing the best I can."

My current position IS that I'm doing the best I can. You've
never convinced me that I'm not.

> Your current position is MERELY, and emptily, that you
> are doing better than omnivores at not causing as many
> animal deaths. The emptiness of this claim can be seen
> in the fact that omnivores don't consider the goal -
> fewer animal deaths - in any way meaningful.

That's not an empty claim. Just because meat eaters
like you don't agree doesn't make it empty. By the way
are you speaking for ALL meat eaters when you say
they don't consider fewer deaths meaningful?




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

> > Don't be such an idiot. You're dwelling on my initial
> > belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
> > previous one is no longer an issue.
>
> Your previous one is VERY MUCH an issue, because you
> are unable to tell us why and how you revised it,
> except as a purely ad hoc exercise in self flattery.

Bull. I've told and explained a zillion times already. You
are the one not understanding it, and that I can't help you
with.

> Your current position, by the way, is NOT that you are
> "doing the best I can." You already RETREATED from
> that falsehood, and in any case, I have demonstrated
> conclusively and without even an attempt at refutation
> from you that you are NOT "doing the best I can."

My current position IS that I'm doing the best I can. You've
never convinced me that I'm not.

> Your current position is MERELY, and emptily, that you
> are doing better than omnivores at not causing as many
> animal deaths. The emptiness of this claim can be seen
> in the fact that omnivores don't consider the goal -
> fewer animal deaths - in any way meaningful.

That's not an empty claim. Just because meat eaters
like you don't agree doesn't make it empty. By the way
are you speaking for ALL meat eaters when you say
they don't consider fewer deaths meaningful?




--
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're dwelling on my initial
> > belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
> > previous one is no longer an issue.
>
> It IS an issue when your moral compass relies on subjective, relative
> standards rather than even one objective criterion. Explain how and
why
> your views have changed.

I've explained it more times than I should have already.
You weren't listening.

> >>>And it's me who gets to
> >>>judge myself as to how well I'm doing.
> >>
> >>Nope. Anyone who can see what your standard must be,
> >>and how well you meet it, is entitled to judge. You
> >>come up FAR short.
> >
> > Wrong again. It's me who decides my standards.
>
> You've no standards.

Well, obviously I have no standards in who I choose to
reply to!!!


--
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 know what I've researched.
>
> You haven't "researched" anything. You have started
> out with a rigid set of preconceived notions, and you
> have selectively and DISHONESTLY looked only for
> bullshit that supports those preconceptions. That
> makes a mockery of the idea of "research".
>
> You have no qualifications to do any kind of
> nutritional research; none whatever.

I know what I've researched. You don't. Do you really
think I'm going to give credence to the opinion of an
insulting stranger. Not likely!


--
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 know what I've researched.
>
> You haven't "researched" anything. You have started
> out with a rigid set of preconceived notions, and you
> have selectively and DISHONESTLY looked only for
> bullshit that supports those preconceptions. That
> makes a mockery of the idea of "research".
>
> You have no qualifications to do any kind of
> nutritional research; none whatever.

I know what I've researched. You don't. Do you really
think I'm going to give credence to the opinion of an
insulting stranger. Not likely!


--
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're dwelling on my initial
>>>belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
>>>previous one is no longer an issue.
>>
>>It IS an issue when your moral compass relies on subjective, relative
>>standards rather than even one objective criterion. Explain how and
>>why your views have changed.
>
> I've explained it more times than I should have already.

You've not explained it at all.

> You weren't listening.

I've been listening -- and waiting -- patiently. 0:-)

>>>>>And it's me who gets to
>>>>>judge myself as to how well I'm doing.
>>>>
>>>>Nope. Anyone who can see what your standard must be,
>>>>and how well you meet it, is entitled to judge. You
>>>>come up FAR short.
>>>
>>>Wrong again. It's me who decides my standards.
>>
>>You've no standards.
>
> Well, obviously I have no standards in who I choose to
> reply to!!!

You have more standards when it comes to whom you reply than what your
diet is and why.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Don't be such an idiot. You're dwelling on my initial
>>>belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
>>>previous one is no longer an issue.
>>
>>Your previous one is VERY MUCH an issue, because you
>>are unable to tell us why and how you revised it,
>>except as a purely ad hoc exercise in self flattery.
>
> Bull. I've told and explained a zillion times already.

Exaggeration.

> You are the one not understanding it,

No, you're the one unable to explain it,

> and that I can't help you with.

As should be expected since you can't explain it.

>>Your current position, by the way, is NOT that you are
>>"doing the best I can." You already RETREATED from
>>that falsehood, and in any case, I have demonstrated
>>conclusively and without even an attempt at refutation
>>from you that you are NOT "doing the best I can."
>
> My current position IS that I'm doing the best I can.

You're not. You still consume mechanically harvested grains, legumes,
and produce. You still consume processed foods like Yves fake sausages
which are shipped over a thousand miles away. You still consume tropical
produce shipped in from other continents. You're a poseur. You're not
doing anything except *posing*. Poseurs don't make a difference in
anything, except in their own minds.

> You've never convinced me that I'm not.

You've been close-minded in approaching the issues at hand. You've even
gone so far as to state that nobody will ever change your mind -- and
that's after all the evidence has been laid before you.

>>Your current position is MERELY, and emptily, that you
>>are doing better than omnivores at not causing as many
>>animal deaths. The emptiness of this claim can be seen
>>in the fact that omnivores don't consider the goal -
>>fewer animal deaths - in any way meaningful.
>
> That's not an empty claim.

Yes, it is.

> Just because meat eaters
> like you don't agree doesn't make it empty.

You're missing the point. The claim only matters to YOU. It's about your
self-righteousness based on your own self-assessments of "problems" and
"solutions." You fail to see that your "problem" (i.e., dead animals) is
actually *compounded* the solutions you offer. You've made yourself your
own judge in some kind of morality contest and then proudly announced
yourself the victor even though you've done *nothing* to accomplish your
goal (and have most likely made it *harder* to achieve because of your
personal consumption choices).

> By the way
> are you speaking for ALL meat eaters when you say
> they don't consider fewer deaths meaningful?

He can say that for many vegetarians, not just meat eaters, who are more
concerned about themselves than staking out an ethical pose about animals.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>Don't be such an idiot. You're dwelling on my initial
>>>belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
>>>previous one is no longer an issue.
>>
>>Your previous one is VERY MUCH an issue, because you
>>are unable to tell us why and how you revised it,
>>except as a purely ad hoc exercise in self flattery.
>
>
> Bull. I've told and explained a zillion times already.

You haven't explained it ONCE, because you CANNOT. You
cannot provide a rational and coherent explanation for
how you moved from your previous belief that ZERO is
the *required* number, to some non-zero number.

>
>
>>Your current position, by the way, is NOT that you are
>>"doing the best I can." You already RETREATED from
>>that falsehood, and in any case, I have demonstrated
>>conclusively and without even an attempt at refutation
>>from you that you are NOT "doing the best I can."
>
>
> My current position IS that I'm doing the best I can.

It is not your current position (and a good thing it
isn't, because you aren't.) Your current position is
ONLY that you are doing better than meat eaters, and
not even that you personally are doing better, but that
"vegans" collectively do better, and as you consider
yourself a "vegan", the reflected glory shines on you.
It is an abominably weak claim to virtue.

Jay:
Meaningless [switch from
"lacto-ovo" to strictly vegetarian]. Even WITHIN a
strictly vegetarian diet - "lacto-ovo" is not
vegetarian, no matter what bullshit web page told
you it is - you can choose higher or lower
CD-causing foods. You do NOT attempt to learn which
ones are high CD foods and which ones cause fewer.
You ONLY follow the stupid rule: don't consume
animal parts. That does nothing to help you choose
among competing vegetable foods.

Skanky Carpetmuncher:
Now you're trying a divide and conquer technique.
You'd love to see vegans arguing over who's lunch
today has more cds. The fact still stands that vegans
as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a
whole.

You are reduced to your flimsy, crumbly "fact": your
unsupported claim that "vegans" "as a whole" cause less
[sic] CDs.

You are NOT causing the fewest possible CDs that you
could; therefore, you are not doing the best you can. QED.

>
>
>>Your current position is MERELY, and emptily, that you
>>are doing better than omnivores at not causing as many
>>animal deaths. The emptiness of this claim can be seen
>>in the fact that omnivores don't consider the goal -
>>fewer animal deaths - in any way meaningful.
>
>
> That's not an empty claim.

It IS an empty claim, and the mere fact you admit to
making the claim is PROOF that you know you aren't
"doing the best I can."

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>You're dwelling on my initial
>>>belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
>>>previous one is no longer an issue.
>>
>>It IS an issue when your moral compass relies on subjective, relative
>>standards rather than even one objective criterion. Explain how and
>
> why
>
>>your views have changed.
>
>
> I've explained it more times than I should have already.

You have not explained it ONCE. Let's review:

1. You believe causing animals to die is wrong.
2. You stopped eating meat, and believed - FALSELY -
that you thereby were not causing any animals to
die. That's ALL you did: refrain from eating meat.
3. You learned about CDs, proving conclusively that
your prior belief about your virtue was false.
4. That ****wit Retard crapped out some bullshit about
"farmed animals".
5. You STILL only refrain from eating meat, but you now
know that you cause the death of myriad cute furry
animals.
6. Your thinking and your actions have not changed.

You have explained nothing.


>
>
>>>>>And it's me who gets to
>>>>>judge myself as to how well I'm doing.
>>>>
>>>>Nope. Anyone who can see what your standard must be,
>>>>and how well you meet it, is entitled to judge. You
>>>>come up FAR short.
>>>
>>>Wrong again. It's me who decides my standards.
>>
>>You've no standards.
>
>
> Well, obviously I have no standards

That's a big problem.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>I know what I've researched.
>>
>>You haven't "researched" anything. You have started
>>out with a rigid set of preconceived notions, and you
>>have selectively and DISHONESTLY looked only for
>>bullshit that supports those preconceptions. That
>>makes a mockery of the idea of "research".
>>
>>You have no qualifications to do any kind of
>>nutritional research; none whatever.
>
>
> I know what I've researched.

You have researched nothing; you merely went fishing
for stuff that supported your preconceived notions.

usual suspect wrote:

> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
>>>> Don't be such an idiot. You're dwelling on my initial
>>>> belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
>>>> previous one is no longer an issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your previous one is VERY MUCH an issue, because you
>>> are unable to tell us why and how you revised it,
>>> except as a purely ad hoc exercise in self flattery.
>>
>>
>> Bull. I've told and explained a zillion times already.
>
>
> Exaggeration.

It was an outright lie. She hasn't explained ONCE.

>
>> You are the one not understanding it,
>
>
> No, you're the one unable to explain it,
>
>> and that I can't help you with.
>
>
> As should be expected since you can't explain it.
>
>>> Your current position, by the way, is NOT that you are
>>> "doing the best I can." You already RETREATED from
>>> that falsehood, and in any case, I have demonstrated
>>> conclusively and without even an attempt at refutation
>>> from you that you are NOT "doing the best I can."
>>
>>
>> My current position IS that I'm doing the best I can.
>
>
> You're not.

It also isn't even her current position. Here's her
current position, reflected in a week-old exchange:

Jay:
Meaningless [that the skank has switched from
"lacto-ovo" to strictly vegetarian]. Even WITHIN a
strictly vegetarian diet - "lacto-ovo" is not
vegetarian, no matter what bullshit web page told
you it is - you can choose higher or lower
CD-causing foods. You do NOT attempt to learn which
ones are high CD foods and which ones cause fewer.
You ONLY follow the stupid rule: don't consume
animal parts. That does nothing to help you choose
among competing vegetable foods.

Skanky Carpetmuncher:
Now you're trying a divide and conquer technique.
You'd love to see vegans arguing over who's lunch
today has more cds. The fact still stands that vegans
as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a
whole.

Her position about her own actions and virtues is
entirely derived from a comparison of groups. She is
looking SOLELY at her membership in a group as the
deciding factor in whether or not she is virtuous. She
not only IS NOT doing the best she can, she has
implicitly ADMITTED she is not doing the best she can.

> You still consume mechanically harvested grains, legumes,
> and produce. You still consume processed foods like Yves fake sausages
> which are shipped over a thousand miles away. You still consume tropical
> produce shipped in from other continents. You're a poseur. You're not
> doing anything except *posing*. Poseurs don't make a difference in
> anything, except in their own minds.
>
>> You've never convinced me that I'm not.
>
>
> You've been close-minded in approaching the issues at hand. You've even
> gone so far as to state that nobody will ever change your mind -- and
> that's after all the evidence has been laid before you.
>
>>> Your current position is MERELY, and emptily, that you
>>> are doing better than omnivores at not causing as many
>>> animal deaths. The emptiness of this claim can be seen
>>> in the fact that omnivores don't consider the goal -
>>> fewer animal deaths - in any way meaningful.
>>
>>
>> That's not an empty claim.
>
>
> Yes, it is.
>
>> Just because meat eaters
>> like you don't agree doesn't make it empty.
>
>
> You're missing the point. The claim only matters to YOU. It's about your
> self-righteousness based on your own self-assessments of "problems" and
> "solutions." You fail to see that your "problem" (i.e., dead animals) is
> actually *compounded* the solutions you offer. You've made yourself your
> own judge in some kind of morality contest and then proudly announced
> yourself the victor even though you've done *nothing* to accomplish your
> goal (and have most likely made it *harder* to achieve because of your
> personal consumption choices).
>
>> By the way
>> are you speaking for ALL meat eaters when you say
>> they don't consider fewer deaths meaningful?
>
>
> He can say that for many vegetarians, not just meat eaters, who are more
> concerned about themselves than staking out an ethical pose about animals.

> >> My current position IS that I'm doing the best I can.
> >
> >
> > You're not.
>
> It also isn't even her current position. Here's her
> current position, reflected in a week-old exchange:

My current position is that I'm doing the best I can.
Why does that upset you so much that you even
try to tell that I'm not thinking something I AM
thinking?

> Skanky Carpetmuncher:

You really should know by now that insults make YOU
look bad. It takes away from your credibility, exposing
you for the sour grapes that you are.

> Her position about her own actions and virtues is
> entirely derived from a comparison of groups. She is
> looking SOLELY at her membership in a group as the
> deciding factor in whether or not she is virtuous. She
> not only IS NOT doing the best she can, she has
> implicitly ADMITTED she is not doing the best she can.

I've never implied that. You're the only one implying that.
I am the sole decider of how I feel I'm doing. When are
you going to realize that?




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

> >> My current position IS that I'm doing the best I can.
> >
> >
> > You're not.
>
> It also isn't even her current position. Here's her
> current position, reflected in a week-old exchange:

My current position is that I'm doing the best I can.
Why does that upset you so much that you even
try to tell that I'm not thinking something I AM
thinking?

> Skanky Carpetmuncher:

You really should know by now that insults make YOU
look bad. It takes away from your credibility, exposing
you for the sour grapes that you are.

> Her position about her own actions and virtues is
> entirely derived from a comparison of groups. She is
> looking SOLELY at her membership in a group as the
> deciding factor in whether or not she is virtuous. She
> not only IS NOT doing the best she can, she has
> implicitly ADMITTED she is not doing the best she can.

I've never implied that. You're the only one implying that.
I am the sole decider of how I feel I'm doing. When are
you going to realize that?




--
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 have explained nothing.

Not to you, it seems. I have faith though that
others here have read my stuff and understand
it way better than you can.


--
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 know what I've researched.
>
> You have researched nothing; you merely went fishing
> for stuff that supported your preconceived notions.

You know nothing about what I've researched over the
years. You're making claims about things you don't
know.


--
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:

>>>>My current position IS that I'm doing the best I can.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're not.
>>
>>It also isn't even her current position. Here's her
>>current position, reflected in a week-old exchange:
>
>
> My current position is that I'm doing the best I can.

Your current position is NOT that you're doing the best
you can. You already retreated from that:

Jay:
Meaningless [that the skank has switched from
"lacto-ovo" to strictly vegetarian]. Even WITHIN a
strictly vegetarian diet - "lacto-ovo" is not
vegetarian, no matter what bullshit web page told
you it is - you can choose higher or lower
CD-causing foods. You do NOT attempt to learn which
ones are high CD foods and which ones cause fewer.
You ONLY follow the stupid rule: don't consume
animal parts. That does nothing to help you choose
among competing vegetable foods.

Skanky Carpetmuncher:
Now you're trying a divide and conquer technique.
You'd love to see vegans arguing over who's lunch
today has more cds. The fact still stands that vegans
as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a
whole.

Right the "The fact still stands..." That is a
RETREAT from your claim that you are doing the best you
can.

You are NOT doing the best you can, which I have
demonstrated repeatedly:

- You could make a greater effort, e.g. growing all
your own food; you don't do it

- Even WITHOUT making a greater effort, you could switch
items around in your diet; that is, instead of eating
(say) equal parts of rice and wheat in your diet, you
could take the ratio of wheat:rice to 3:1 (rice is
higher
CD than wheat); but you don't do it

You are NOT doing the best you can: this has been
DEMONSTRATED beyond rational dispute, and you have not
even addressed the demonstrations; all you do is
petulantly insist you are doing the best you can.




>>Her position about her own actions and virtues is
>>entirely derived from a comparison of groups. She is
>>looking SOLELY at her membership in a group as the
>>deciding factor in whether or not she is virtuous. She
>>not only IS NOT doing the best she can, she has
>>implicitly ADMITTED she is not doing the best she can.
>
>
> I've never implied that.

You have; I reproduced it, above.

You are not doing the best you can, and you know it.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>You have explained nothing.
>
>
> Not to you,

Not to anyone. You have not explained your switch to
anyone; all you've attempted to do is justify it, and
you've failed. You have retreated TWICE, and you
haven't explained either retreat. I have explained
them, and it's bad for you.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>I know what I've researched.
>>
>>You have researched nothing; you merely went fishing
>>for stuff that supported your preconceived notions.
>
>
> You know nothing about what I've researched

You have researched nothing.

> > My current position is that I'm doing the best I can.
>
> Your current position is NOT that you're doing the best
> you can. You already retreated from that:
>
> Jay:
> Meaningless [that the skank has switched from
> "lacto-ovo" to strictly vegetarian]. Even WITHIN a
> strictly vegetarian diet - "lacto-ovo" is not
> vegetarian, no matter what bullshit web page told
> you it is - you can choose higher or lower
> CD-causing foods. You do NOT attempt to learn which
> ones are high CD foods and which ones cause fewer.
> You ONLY follow the stupid rule: don't consume
> animal parts. That does nothing to help you choose
> among competing vegetable foods.
>
> Skanky Carpetmuncher:
> Now you're trying a divide and conquer technique.
> You'd love to see vegans arguing over who's lunch
> today has more cds. The fact still stands that vegans
> as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a
> whole.
>
> Right the "The fact still stands..." That is a
> RETREAT from your claim that you are doing the best you
> can.

That's not a retreat. 'The fact still stands' means exactly
what it says. It does not say I retreat. This warlike
retreating you keep expecting is in your head not
mine.

> You are NOT doing the best you can, which I have
> demonstrated repeatedly:
>
> - You could make a greater effort, e.g. growing all
> your own food; you don't do it
>
> - Even WITHOUT making a greater effort, you could switch
> items around in your diet; that is, instead of eating
> (say) equal parts of rice and wheat in your diet, you
> could take the ratio of wheat:rice to 3:1 (rice is
> higher
> CD than wheat); but you don't do it
>
> You are NOT doing the best you can: this has been
> DEMONSTRATED beyond rational dispute, and you have not
> even addressed the demonstrations; all you do is
> petulantly insist you are doing the best you can.

Again, there you go telling me I'm not doing it
right!!! I'll be the judge of that.




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

> > My current position is that I'm doing the best I can.
>
> Your current position is NOT that you're doing the best
> you can. You already retreated from that:
>
> Jay:
> Meaningless [that the skank has switched from
> "lacto-ovo" to strictly vegetarian]. Even WITHIN a
> strictly vegetarian diet - "lacto-ovo" is not
> vegetarian, no matter what bullshit web page told
> you it is - you can choose higher or lower
> CD-causing foods. You do NOT attempt to learn which
> ones are high CD foods and which ones cause fewer.
> You ONLY follow the stupid rule: don't consume
> animal parts. That does nothing to help you choose
> among competing vegetable foods.
>
> Skanky Carpetmuncher:
> Now you're trying a divide and conquer technique.
> You'd love to see vegans arguing over who's lunch
> today has more cds. The fact still stands that vegans
> as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a
> whole.
>
> Right the "The fact still stands..." That is a
> RETREAT from your claim that you are doing the best you
> can.

That's not a retreat. 'The fact still stands' means exactly
what it says. It does not say I retreat. This warlike
retreating you keep expecting is in your head not
mine.

> You are NOT doing the best you can, which I have
> demonstrated repeatedly:
>
> - You could make a greater effort, e.g. growing all
> your own food; you don't do it
>
> - Even WITHOUT making a greater effort, you could switch
> items around in your diet; that is, instead of eating
> (say) equal parts of rice and wheat in your diet, you
> could take the ratio of wheat:rice to 3:1 (rice is
> higher
> CD than wheat); but you don't do it
>
> You are NOT doing the best you can: this has been
> DEMONSTRATED beyond rational dispute, and you have not
> even addressed the demonstrations; all you do is
> petulantly insist you are doing the best you can.

Again, there you go telling me I'm not doing it
right!!! I'll be the judge of that.




--
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 have explained nothing.
> >
> >
> > Not to you,
>
> Not to anyone. You have not explained your switch to
> anyone; all you've attempted to do is justify it, and
> you've failed. You have retreated TWICE, and you
> haven't explained either retreat. I have explained
> them, and it's bad for you.

You keep seeing these 'retreats'. I don't. I wonder
why your perceptions are so screwy. Do you see
this newsgroup as some sort of war game?


--
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:

>>>My current position is that I'm doing the best I can.
>>
>>Your current position is NOT that you're doing the best
>>you can. You already retreated from that:
>>
>> Jay:
>> Meaningless [that the skank has switched from
>> "lacto-ovo" to strictly vegetarian]. Even WITHIN a
>> strictly vegetarian diet - "lacto-ovo" is not
>> vegetarian, no matter what bullshit web page told
>> you it is - you can choose higher or lower
>> CD-causing foods. You do NOT attempt to learn which
>> ones are high CD foods and which ones cause fewer.
>> You ONLY follow the stupid rule: don't consume
>> animal parts. That does nothing to help you choose
>> among competing vegetable foods.
>>
>> Skanky Carpetmuncher:
>> Now you're trying a divide and conquer technique.
>> You'd love to see vegans arguing over who's lunch
>> today has more cds. The fact still stands that vegans
>> as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a
>> whole.
>>
>>Right the "The fact still stands..." That is a
>>RETREAT from your claim that you are doing the best you
>>can.
>
>
> That's not a retreat.

That IS a retreat. The assertion - it isn't a fact at
all, just an assertion - is VASTLY weaker than the
previously demolished claim that you are "doing the
best I can."

> 'The fact still stands' means exactly
> what it says. It does not say I retreat.

It is a retreat. It is retreating from the already
demolished claim of "doing the best I can" to the much
weaker "I'm doing better than you." No one gives a
shit if you want to say you retreated or not; it IS a
retreat.

>
>
>>You are NOT doing the best you can, which I have
>>demonstrated repeatedly:
>>
>>- You could make a greater effort, e.g. growing all
>> your own food; you don't do it
>>
>>- Even WITHOUT making a greater effort, you could switch
>> items around in your diet; that is, instead of eating
>> (say) equal parts of rice and wheat in your diet, you
>> could take the ratio of wheat:rice to 3:1 (rice is higher
>> CD than wheat); but you don't do it
>>
>>You are NOT doing the best you can: this has been
>>DEMONSTRATED beyond rational dispute, and you have not
>>even addressed the demonstrations; all you do is
>>petulantly insist you are doing the best you can.
>
>
> Again, there you go telling me I'm not doing

....the best that you can. That's because you AREN'T
doing the best that you can: you could easily cause
fewer CDs, but you CHOOSE not to make the adjustments.
You aren't doing the best that you can, and the
failure is by CHOICE.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>My current position is that I'm doing the best I can.
>>
>>Your current position is NOT that you're doing the best
>>you can. You already retreated from that:
>>
>> Jay:
>> Meaningless [that the skank has switched from
>> "lacto-ovo" to strictly vegetarian]. Even WITHIN a
>> strictly vegetarian diet - "lacto-ovo" is not
>> vegetarian, no matter what bullshit web page told
>> you it is - you can choose higher or lower
>> CD-causing foods. You do NOT attempt to learn which
>> ones are high CD foods and which ones cause fewer.
>> You ONLY follow the stupid rule: don't consume
>> animal parts. That does nothing to help you choose
>> among competing vegetable foods.
>>
>> Skanky Carpetmuncher:
>> Now you're trying a divide and conquer technique.
>> You'd love to see vegans arguing over who's lunch
>> today has more cds. The fact still stands that vegans
>> as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a
>> whole.
>>
>>Right the "The fact still stands..." That is a
>>RETREAT from your claim that you are doing the best you
>>can.
>
>
> That's not a retreat.

That IS a retreat. The assertion - it isn't a fact at
all, just an assertion - is VASTLY weaker than the
previously demolished claim that you are "doing the
best I can."

> 'The fact still stands' means exactly
> what it says. It does not say I retreat.

It is a retreat. It is retreating from the already
demolished claim of "doing the best I can" to the much
weaker "I'm doing better than you." No one gives a
shit if you want to say you retreated or not; it IS a
retreat.

>
>
>>You are NOT doing the best you can, which I have
>>demonstrated repeatedly:
>>
>>- You could make a greater effort, e.g. growing all
>> your own food; you don't do it
>>
>>- Even WITHOUT making a greater effort, you could switch
>> items around in your diet; that is, instead of eating
>> (say) equal parts of rice and wheat in your diet, you
>> could take the ratio of wheat:rice to 3:1 (rice is higher
>> CD than wheat); but you don't do it
>>
>>You are NOT doing the best you can: this has been
>>DEMONSTRATED beyond rational dispute, and you have not
>>even addressed the demonstrations; all you do is
>>petulantly insist you are doing the best you can.
>
>
> Again, there you go telling me I'm not doing

....the best that you can. That's because you AREN'T
doing the best that you can: you could easily cause
fewer CDs, but you CHOOSE not to make the adjustments.
You aren't doing the best that you can, and the
failure is by CHOICE.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>You have explained nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not to you,
>>
>>Not to anyone. You have not explained your switch to
>>anyone; all you've attempted to do is justify it, and
>>you've failed. You have retreated TWICE, and you
>>haven't explained either retreat. I have explained
>>them, and it's bad for you.
>
>
> You keep seeing these 'retreats'.

They are in plain sight.

> I don't.

You do. You lie and say you don't. I have
demonstrated conclusively that they are retreats, and
rather than attempt to explain, LOGICALLY, why they
might not be retreats, you merely and EMPTILY assert
that they aren't.

They are retreats: TWO of them.

> >> Now you're trying a divide and conquer technique.
> >> You'd love to see vegans arguing over who's lunch
> >> today has more cds. The fact still stands that vegans
> >> as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a
> >> whole.
> >>
> >>Right the "The fact still stands..." That is a
> >>RETREAT from your claim that you are doing the best you
> >>can.
> >
> >
> > That's not a retreat.
>
> That IS a retreat. The assertion - it isn't a fact at
> all, just an assertion - is VASTLY weaker than the
> previously demolished claim that you are "doing the
> best I can."

Did your mother drink booze while she was preggers
with you?

> > 'The fact still stands' means exactly
> > what it says. It does not say I retreat.
>
> It is a retreat. It is retreating from the already
> demolished claim of "doing the best I can" to the much
> weaker "I'm doing better than you." No one gives a
> shit if you want to say you retreated or not; it IS a
> retreat.

Maybe in your head it's a retreat, but since it's about
me, I'll decide whether or not I'm retreating and I'm not.





--
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 keep seeing these 'retreats'.
>
> They are in plain sight.
>
> > I don't.
>
> You do. You lie and say you don't. I have
> demonstrated conclusively that they are retreats, and
> rather than attempt to explain, LOGICALLY, why they
> might not be retreats, you merely and EMPTILY assert
> that they aren't.
>
> They are retreats: TWO of them.

I'm glad I don't live in your head. It must be rough
treating discussions as a wargame. Are you this
contrary to people you know off the net too?


--
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:

>>>> Now you're trying a divide and conquer technique.
>>>> You'd love to see vegans arguing over who's lunch
>>>> today has more cds. The fact still stands that vegans
>>>> as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a
>>>> whole.
>>>>
>>>>Right the "The fact still stands..." That is a
>>>>RETREAT from your claim that you are doing the best you
>>>>can.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's not a retreat.
>>
>>That IS a retreat. The assertion - it isn't a fact at
>>all, just an assertion - is VASTLY weaker than the
>>previously demolished claim that you are "doing the
>>best I can."
>
>
> Did your mother drink booze while she was preggers
> with you?

Non sequitur.

Address the issue: you retreated. You went from "I'm
causing zero animal deaths" to "I'm doing the best I
can not to cause animal death" to "I'm causing fewer
animal deaths than you." Not in those words, but those
words accurately describe your positions.

>
>
>>>'The fact still stands' means exactly
>>>what it says. It does not say I retreat.
>>
>>It is a retreat. It is retreating from the already
>>demolished claim of "doing the best I can" to the much
>>weaker "I'm doing better than you." No one gives a
>>shit if you want to say you retreated or not; it IS a
>>retreat.
>
>
> Maybe in your head it's a retreat

It is a retreat. You are not doing the best you can;
you are merely claiming to be doing better than meat
eaters, and you can't even prove that.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>> Now you're trying a divide and conquer technique.
>>>> You'd love to see vegans arguing over who's lunch
>>>> today has more cds. The fact still stands that vegans
>>>> as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a
>>>> whole.
>>>>
>>>>Right the "The fact still stands..." That is a
>>>>RETREAT from your claim that you are doing the best you
>>>>can.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's not a retreat.
>>
>>That IS a retreat. The assertion - it isn't a fact at
>>all, just an assertion - is VASTLY weaker than the
>>previously demolished claim that you are "doing the
>>best I can."
>
>
> Did your mother drink booze while she was preggers
> with you?

Non sequitur.

Address the issue: you retreated. You went from "I'm
causing zero animal deaths" to "I'm doing the best I
can not to cause animal death" to "I'm causing fewer
animal deaths than you." Not in those words, but those
words accurately describe your positions.

>
>
>>>'The fact still stands' means exactly
>>>what it says. It does not say I retreat.
>>
>>It is a retreat. It is retreating from the already
>>demolished claim of "doing the best I can" to the much
>>weaker "I'm doing better than you." No one gives a
>>shit if you want to say you retreated or not; it IS a
>>retreat.
>
>
> Maybe in your head it's a retreat

It is a retreat. You are not doing the best you can;
you are merely claiming to be doing better than meat
eaters, and you can't even prove that.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>You keep seeing these 'retreats'.
>>
>>They are in plain sight.
>>
>>
>>>I don't.
>>
>>You do. You lie and say you don't. I have
>>demonstrated conclusively that they are retreats, and
>>rather than attempt to explain, LOGICALLY, why they
>>might not be retreats, you merely and EMPTILY assert
>>that they aren't.
>>
>>They are retreats: TWO of them.
>
>
> I'm glad I don't

You have made two huge retreats in your position. I
have shown what they are, and why each position is
weaker than the one that preceded it. You are unable
to address the substance of my analysis; you can only
brainless repeat your false claim.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> given the fact that a vegetarian diet will inherently be malnourishing
> so far as nutrients like B12, iron, and zinc are concerned.

Enteric microflora in the small ileum produce B12- as long as
they are provided with the trace-mineral cobalt (see below).

Nature 1980 Feb 21;283(5749):781-2
Vitamin B12 synthesis by human small intestinal bacteria.
Albert MJ, Mathan VI, Baker SJ.

In man, physiological amounts of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) are
absorbed by the intrinsic factor mediated mechanism exclusively in
the ileum. Human faeces contain appreciable quantities of vitamin
B12 or vitamin B12-like material presumably produced by bacteria
in the colon, but this is unavailable to the non-coprophagic individual.
However, the human small intestine also often harbours a considerable
microflora and this is even more extensive in apparently healthy
southern Indian subjects. We now show that at least two groups
of organisms in the small bowel, Pseudomonas and Klebsiella sp.,
may synthesise significant amounts of the vitamin.
PMID: 7354869 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://tinyurl.com/80o6

From; The Bacterial Flora of Humans

(8) While E. coli is a consistent resident of the small intestine,
many other enteric bacteria may reside here as well, including
Klebsiella, Enterobacter and Citrobacter.

1. The normal flora synthesize and excrete vitamins in excess
of their own needs, which can be absorbed as nutrients by the host.
For example, enteric bacteria secrete Vitamin K and Vitamin B12,
and lactic acid bacteria produce certain B-vitamins.
http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Bact303/Bact303normalflora

(Antibiotics
Antibiotics of all classes disrupt normal bowel flora which
synthesize some B vitamins and Vitamin K; probiotic
supplementation needed.

Oral Contraceptives
Deplete, especially B1, B6, B12, folate.
http://www.interactionreport.org/depletion.html )

The B12-Cobalt Connection
...
B12 synthesis by indigenous bacteria is known to occur naturally in the
human small intestine, primary site of B12 absorption. As long as gut
bacteria have cobalt and certain other nutrients, they produce B12. In
principle then, internal B12 synthesis could fulfill our needs without any
B12 provided by diet.
...
The emerging nutritional crisis of B12 deficiency calls for remedial action in
the macro- as well as micro-environment. Broad-spectrum remineralization
of topsoils using crushed rock or dried seaweed from ocean areas known
to contain sufficient cobalt can reestablish mineral balances necessary for
healthy food supply able to fulfill our requirement, both direct and indirect,
for B12 . The cobalt connection is especially relevant to us growing our own
food, since cobalt-deficient areas likely are well-established. Beyond promoting
remineralization to the farm community, we can adopt the practice in our gardens.'
http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm .

'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference
between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits
absorbtion of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to
begin with in soils that have been abused. This may be caused in part
by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels
of fertilizer tend to kill them. Standard diets tend to be low in various
minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis.'
http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health...s/organic.html

'The Baer report (Rutgers Univ., 1984) "Variations in Mineral Contents of Vegetables"

Percentage of | Quantities per 100 Grams | Trace Elements. Parts per million
Dry Weight Dry Weight Dry matter

Vegetable: Mineral Ash | Calcium Magnesium | Boron Manganese Iron Copper *Cobalt
Snap Beans
Organic 10.45 40.5 60 73 60 227 69 0.26
Non-organic 4.04 15.5 14.8 10 2 10 3 0
Cabbage
Organic 10.38 60 43.6 42 13 94 48 0.15
Non-organic 6.12 17.5 13.6 7 2 20 0.4 0
Lettuce
Organic 24.48 71 49.3 37 169 516 60 0.19
Non-organic 7.01 16 13.1 6 1 9 3 0
Tomatoes
Organic 14.2 23 59.2 36 68 1938 53 0.63
Non-organic 6.07 4.5 4.5 3 1 1 0 0
Spinach
Organic 28.56 96 203.9 88 117 1584 32 0.25
Non-organic 12.38 47.5 46.9 12 1 49 0.3 0.2

http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/wh...whyorganic.htm


'Zinc is important for optimal cell growth, rapid wound healing
and proper functioning of the immune system. Animal products,
especially meat, provide 70% of the zinc in the typical American
diet. Vegetarian intake of zinc is lower than nonvegetarians and
the absorption of zinc from plant is lower than from animal
products. The RDA for zinc is 15 mg for men and 12 mg for
women. There is some controversy over this figure. In the
United States only a small percentage of individuals consume
the recommended amount of zinc, and yet deficiencies are rarely
seen. The World Health Organization recommends from one
third to three quarters of the USA RDA. Well planned vegetarian
diets can provide as much as 20mg of zinc. Good sources include:
whole grain cereals, mushrooms, peas, sea vegetables, beans, tofu,
tempeh, textured vegetable protein, nuts, wheat germ, milk, and
cheeses.
http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/foo.../guidelin.html

('Over a two-year period, Bob Smith, the study's author and president
of Doctor's Data, a trace minerals laboratory in West Chicago, Ill.,
compared organic and conventional apples, pears, potatoes, corn and
wheat. Among his findings: The organic produce contained, on average,
63 per cent more calcium, 59 per cent more iron and 60 per cent more
zinc; overall, the organic foods contained more of 20 out of 22 trace
elements studied.
http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/SF/Summer%2094%20A.htm )

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading
to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
animal-based food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating, salting
and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html

> nutritionists and dieticians eat and recommend lean meats and why so few
> nutritionists are "vegans"?

Because their textbooks need updating.

Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists.
Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.
Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day
Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide
range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those
studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses
showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal
ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for
subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal
and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts
<1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain
to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male
vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88
and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are
healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat. - PMID: 10479227

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of
dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a
disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an
all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates
of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

Eating meat does *not* prevent deficiency in Vitamin B12.

Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?

Nearly two-fifths of the U.S. population may be flirting with
marginal vitamin B12 status-that is, if a careful look at nearly
3,000 men and women in the ongoing Framingham (Massachusetts)
Offspring Study is any indication. Researchers found that 39
percent of the volunteers have plasma B12 levels in the "low
normal" range-below 258 picomoles per liter (pmol/L).

While this is well above the currently accepted deficiency level
of 148 pmol/L, some people exhibit neurological symptoms at the
upper level of the deficiency range, explains study leader Katherine
L. Tucker. She is a nutritional epidemiologist at the Jean Mayer
USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts
University in Boston.

"I think there's a lot of undetected vitamin B12 deficiency out there,"
says Tucker. She noted that nearly 9 percent of the study population
fell below the current deficiency level. And more than 16 percent fell
below 185 pmol/L. "Many people may be deficient at this level," she
says. "There is some question as to what the clinical cutoff for
deficiency should be."

Deficiency can cause a type of anemia marked by fewer but larger
red blood cells. It can also cause walking and balance disturbances,
a loss of vibration sensation, confusion, and, in advanced cases,
dementia. The body requires B12 to make the protective coating
surrounding the nerves. So inadequate B12 can expose nerves to
damage.

Tucker and colleagues wanted to get a sense of B12 levels spanning
the adult population because most previous studies have focused on
the elderly. That age group was thought to be at higher risk for deficiency.
The researchers also expected to find some connection between dietary
intake and plasma levels, even though other studies found no association.
Some of the results were surprising. The youngest group-the 26 to 49
year olds-had about the same B12 status as the oldest group-65 and
up. "We thought that low concentrations of B12 would increase with age,"
says Tucker. "But we saw a high prevalence of low B12 even among the
youngest group."

The good news is that for many people, eating more fortified cereals
and dairy products can improve B12 status almost as much as taking
supplements containing the vitamin. Supplement use dropped the
percentage of volunteers in the danger zone (plasma B12 below 185
pmol/L) from 20 percent to 8. Eating fortified cereals five or more times
a week or being among the highest third for dairy intake reduced, by
nearly half, the percentage of volunteers in that zone-from 23 and 24
percent, respectively, to 12 and 13 percent.

The researchers found no association between plasma B12 and meat,
poultry, and fish intake, even though these foods supply the bulk of B12
in the diet. "It's not because people aren't eating enough meat," Tucker
says. "The vitamin isn't getting absorbed." The vitamin is tightly bound to
proteins in meat and dairy products and requires high acidity to cut it
loose. As we age, we lose the acid-secreting cells in the stomach. But
what causes poor absorption in younger adults? Tucker speculates that
the high use of antacids may contribute. But why absorption from dairy
products appears to be better than from meats is a question that needs
more research. Fortified cereals are a different story. She says the vitamin
is sprayed on during processing and is "more like what we get in
supplements."

-By Judy McBride, Agricultural Research Service Information Staff.
This research is part of Human Nutrition, an ARS National Program
(#107) described on the World Wide Web. Katherine L. Tucker is at
the Jean Mayer USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on
Aging at Tufts University, 711 Washington St., Boston, MA 02111;
phone (617) 556-3351, fax (617) 556-3344.
"Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?" was published in the August 2000
issue of Agricultural Research magazine.


'The Heme Iron Problem

Heme (blood) iron, cancer, and cardiovascular disease.
Iron encourages production of free radicals which can damage DNA
and presumably increase cancer risk. In a study of over 14,000 individuals,
high iron intake and high iron body stores were both positively linked to the
risk of colon cancer. Higher levels of iron were associated with higher
incidence of colon polyps, possible forerunners of colon tumors. However,
cancer patients themselves had low levels of stored iron, indicating that
cancer itself can deplete iron stores. [1]

Controversy has surrounded the question as to whether too much
iron in your diet raises your risk for heart disease. A new study from the
Harvard University School of Public Health brings new insight to the debate.
Lasting for 4 years, this research involved more than 50,000 male health
professionals. It was found that total iron intake was not associated with
heart disease risk. But the source of the iron was the principle factor.
High levels of heme iron raised risk for heart disease twofold. Heme iron
is the type of iron found in meat, chicken and fish.

Plant foods contain non-heme iron which appears to not be associated
with risk for heart attack. Traditionally, many nutritionists used to consider
non-heme iron to be inferior to the iron found in animal products, because
non-heme iron is somewhat less well absorbed. But new evidence suggests
that non-heme iron seems to be preferable.

When the body is low in iron, it can increase absorption of non-heme
iron, and it can reduce adsorption when it already has sufficient amounts.
The heme iron in meats tends to pass quickly right through the adsorption
mechanism, thus entering the blood stream whether it is needed or not.
Since vegetarians generally have adequate iron intake, it is clear that
non-heme iron can easily meet nutritional needs. Also, plant iron doesn't
create the health risks of heme iron.

Iron increases heart disease risks because heme iron acts as a
pro-oxidant, causing LDL-cholesterol -- the 'bad' cholesterol -- to react
with oxygen. This reaction is involved in the formation of plaques in the
arteries and therefore increases one's risk of cardiovascular problems. [2]

[1] Nelson, Davis, Suffer, Sobin, Kikeenddl, Bowen. Body iron stores
and risk of colonic neoplasia. J Natl Canc Inst 1994; 86:455-60

[2] Ascherio, Willett, Rimm, Giovannucci, Stampger. Dietary iron intake
and risk of coronary disease among men. Circulation 1994; 89:969-74
http://www.ecologos.org/iron.htm

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
> > > I know what I've researched.
> >
> > You have researched nothing; you merely went fishing
> > for stuff that supported your preconceived notions.
>
> You know nothing about what I've researched over the
> years. You're making claims about things you don't
> know.

That's pretty much all Liar Jon has: *his* biased hate-filled
thoughts of how others think, [..and what they have done..,]
dishonestly passed off as fact.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

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

Excellent. Thanks. .

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
> > > I know what I've researched.
> >
> > You have researched nothing; you merely went fishing
> > for stuff that supported your preconceived notions.
>
> You know nothing about what I've researched over the
> years. You're making claims about things you don't
> know.

That's pretty much all Liar Jon has: *his* biased hate-filled
thoughts of how others think, [..and what they have done..,]
dishonestly passed off as fact.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

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

Excellent. Thanks. .

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > > > I know what I've researched.
> > >
> > > You have researched nothing; you merely went fishing
> > > for stuff that supported your preconceived notions.
> >
> > You know nothing about what I've researched over the
> > years. You're making claims about things you don't
> > know.
>
> That's pretty much all Liar Jon has: *his* biased hate-filled
> thoughts of how others think, [..and what they have done..,]
> dishonestly passed off as fact.
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

I think the only thing he loves is to hate people.

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

You're welcome. Happy cooking.

pearl wrote:
>>given the fact that a vegetarian diet will inherently be malnourishing
>>so far as nutrients like B12, iron, and zinc are concerned.
>
> Enteric microflora in the small ileum produce B12- as long as
> they are provided with the trace-mineral cobalt (see below).

You know nothing about biochemistry. Your profession is rubbing feet.

pearl wrote:
>>given the fact that a vegetarian diet will inherently be malnourishing
>>so far as nutrients like B12, iron, and zinc are concerned.
>
> Enteric microflora in the small ileum produce B12- as long as
> they are provided with the trace-mineral cobalt (see below).

You know nothing about biochemistry. Your profession is rubbing feet.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > > > I know what I've researched.
> > > >
> > > > You have researched nothing; you merely went fishing
> > > > for stuff that supported your preconceived notions.
> > >
> > > You know nothing about what I've researched over the
> > > years. You're making claims about things you don't
> > > know.
> >
> > That's pretty much all Liar Jon has: *his* biased hate-filled
> > thoughts of how others think, [..and what they have done..,]
> > dishonestly passed off as fact.
> > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
>
> I think the only thing he loves is to hate people.

He hates himself. As an outlet for the seething revulsion he really
feels for himself (instead of acknowledging it, and addressing it
properly), he constructs images in his head of external 'enemies'
and attaches them to a convenient "marginal" group, or groups
that he could hate (because they are different from -his- 'norm').
He then attempts to *force* his targets to conform to his ideas
of what they believe -according to his own hateful perversions-.

Yuck!

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

Thank you. I'll be making *very* good use of it.. .

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > > > I know what I've researched.
> > > >
> > > > You have researched nothing; you merely went fishing
> > > > for stuff that supported your preconceived notions.
> > >
> > > You know nothing about what I've researched over the
> > > years. You're making claims about things you don't
> > > know.
> >
> > That's pretty much all Liar Jon has: *his* biased hate-filled
> > thoughts of how others think, [..and what they have done..,]
> > dishonestly passed off as fact.
> > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
>
> I think the only thing he loves is to hate people.

He hates himself. As an outlet for the seething revulsion he really
feels for himself (instead of acknowledging it, and addressing it
properly), he constructs images in his head of external 'enemies'
and attaches them to a convenient "marginal" group, or groups
that he could hate (because they are different from -his- 'norm').
He then attempts to *force* his targets to conform to his ideas
of what they believe -according to his own hateful perversions-.

Yuck!

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

Thank you. I'll be making *very* good use of it.. .

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>given the fact that a vegetarian diet will inherently be malnourishing
> >>so far as nutrients like B12, iron, and zinc are concerned.
> >
> > Enteric microflora in the small ileum produce B12- as long as
> > they are provided with the trace-mineral cobalt (see below).

[typo: was gonna be 'small intestine', but changed it, and left in 'small'..
should be:
'Enteric microflora in the ileum produce vitamin B12,- as long as
they are provided with the trace-mineral cobalt (see below).']

> You know nothing about biochemistry. Your profession is rubbing feet.

'The serial bully:
...
is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of
distortion and fabrication
...
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

[ http://www.reflexology-research.com/...es_by_syst.htm ].

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>given the fact that a vegetarian diet will inherently be malnourishing
> >>so far as nutrients like B12, iron, and zinc are concerned.
> >
> > Enteric microflora in the small ileum produce B12- as long as
> > they are provided with the trace-mineral cobalt (see below).

[typo: was gonna be 'small intestine', but changed it, and left in 'small'..
should be:
'Enteric microflora in the ileum produce vitamin B12,- as long as
they are provided with the trace-mineral cobalt (see below).']

> You know nothing about biochemistry. Your profession is rubbing feet.

'The serial bully:
...
is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of
distortion and fabrication
...
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

[ http://www.reflexology-research.com/...es_by_syst.htm ].