Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
<..>
> >>...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
> >>1993 to 1997 found *2,751 outbreaks*. *Those outbreaks* totaled
> >>*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables,
> >>compared with *6,709 cases* involving meat.
> >>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm


---restore1---
In that case, the number of individual cases of illness due to an outbreak
involving produce, pales to insignificance compared to the cases of illness
due to just one of the pathogens found in meat, e.g, Campylobacter;
--restore3--
"Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated with an
outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,"
says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the national
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html
---

<..>









  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

GregGeorge the poof lisped
> [usual nothing]


Stick broken glass up your gaping shitter, GregGeorge.
  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

GregGeorge the cuckolded towelhead wrote:

> usual suspect wrote:
>
>
>>Those of you who've insistTexan calling me vegan despite my personal
>>objections to the term can finally stop. You can call me a flexitarian,
>>pescetarian, or, better yet, just call me "usual suspect." I don't have
>> time for mixing food with politics unless it involves civil
>>conversation OVER a meal, not uncivil conversation ABOUT it.
>>
>>I enjoyed sashimi -- raw fish -- with my sushi today for lunch.

>
>
> As foretold by a shitstained filthy broken-toothed little wog named GregGeorge on 7/7/03...


**** yourself up the ass with a burning log,
GregGeorge, you little knotted ****hair.
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

GregGeorge the cuckolded towelhead wrote:

> usual suspect wrote:
>
>
>>Those of you who've insistTexan calling me vegan despite my personal
>>objections to the term can finally stop. You can call me a flexitarian,
>>pescetarian, or, better yet, just call me "usual suspect." I don't have
>> time for mixing food with politics unless it involves civil
>>conversation OVER a meal, not uncivil conversation ABOUT it.
>>
>>I enjoyed sashimi -- raw fish -- with my sushi today for lunch.

>
>
> As foretold by a shitstained filthy broken-toothed little wog named GregGeorge on 7/7/03...


**** yourself up the ass with a burning log,
GregGeorge, you little knotted ****hair.
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

GregGeorge the poof lisped
> [usual nothing]


Stick broken glass up your gaping shitter, GregGeorge.


  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
The Ghost
 
Posts: n/a
Default

usual suspect wrote:

> Those of you who've insistTexan calling me vegan despite my personal
> objections to the term can finally stop. You can call me a flexitarian,
> pescetarian, or, better yet, just call me "usual suspect." I don't have
> time for mixing food with politics unless it involves civil
> conversation OVER a meal, not uncivil conversation ABOUT it.
>
> I enjoyed sashimi -- raw fish -- with my sushi today for lunch.


As foretold by someone greater and wiser than you on 7/7/03...

"...you'll start eating meat, particularly fish in the not too distant
future."

> I await
> all your nasty replies expressing outrage that I contributed to the
> death of *one* tuna, because I'd love the opportunity to point out that
> the rice in my sushi was responsible for far more animal deaths than the
> little bit of fish I ate (on second thought, it was a couple generous
> helpings). You wouldn't give a shit if I'd had my usual *vegetarian*
> sushi today, even though it would've *still* caused animal deaths.


What about the CD? Do you KNOW how the tuna was caught?

>
> So I really must ask, Why do you only object to the death of *ONE* tuna?
> What is it about *ALL* the frogs, snakes, rats, nutria, raccoons,
> rabbits, deer, birds, snails, and other animals killed in the course of
> rice production that make their deaths acceptable?


You have no evidence of *ALL* these deaths; only an article of a Texan book
seller, posted on a newsgroup.

>
> Face it, you only object to the actual eating of animals. You don't give
> a damn if they're killed in the billions. If one dead tuna or steer gets
> eaten, you say it's bad; if thousands and thousands of animals killed
> for rice or other grain production, you find it fully acceptable or even
> pass the buck and blame the farmer for farming in a manner you
> financially support. Your worldview is so utterly ****ed, and you're so
> hypocritical.
>
> Special PS to "Beach Runt": You said people who start eating meat again
> after a period of abstaining get sick from it. It's been a matter of
> years since I've eaten any kind of flesh, and I feel *quite* fine. The
> fish was *very* fresh, so I've no reason for concern. You're as clueless
> as they come.


You're feeling quite paranoid, as demonstrated by this outburst of yours.


  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:57:39 +0000, The Ghost > wrote:
>usual suspect wrote:
>
>> I enjoyed sashimi -- raw fish -- with my sushi today for lunch.

>
>As foretold by someone greater and wiser than you on 7/7/03...
>
>"...you'll start eating meat, particularly fish in the not too distant
>future."


Our line-dancing little Tex was never a vegan or a vegetarian
to begin with, if you want my opinion, and neither was Dutch.
They both came here to these vegan groups with the sole
intention of trying to fit in and ingratiate themselves among
people they instinctively knew held a higher moral agency than
they, but, since being caught out as the frauds they are, they
now spend their days trying to get back at us out of sheer
embarrassment and frustration.
  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:


>>>The last major outbreak of food-borne hepatitis in the US involved GREEN
>>>ONIONS. Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.

>>
>> Prove it.

>
> ...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
> 1993 to 1997 found 2,751 outbreaks. Those outbreaks totaled
> 12,537 individual cases involving fruits and vegetables,
> compared with 6,709 cases involving meat.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm


Okay, good information. Still, my original point was that sushi and other
raw meats offer a greater probability of food borne illness, especially at
room temperatures.

>> In fact, I snipped this from your link: "People get toxoplasmosis the
>> following ways: - By consuming foods (such as raw or undercooked meats,
>> especially pork, lamb, or wild game) or drinking untreated water (from
>> rivers or ponds) that may contain the parasite."

>
> You also conveniently left out the fact that nearly every parasite listed
> on that site can enter a host through contaminated produce.


I'm not disputing that. That wasn't the issue. You drew attention to
yourself by claiming to have eaten sushi yesterday for lunch. I pointed out
that there is an increased risk of acquiring intestinal parasites by eating
raw meats, such as in sushi. You then "moved goalposts" by making a big
issue out of the fact that more food-borne illnesses have acquired from
fresh produce than from meats (BTW, the statistics you quoted were from 1993
through 1997 - 10 years ago).

>> Enjoy your sushi....

>
> I did. I also enjoy the fact that ninnies like you take exception to it.


> Well, dummy, I wanted sushi today.


I wasn't trying to be provocative or insulting or demeaning in any way. And
here you start again with the childish name calling. Some "olive branch" you
have offered. I don't care whether you eat sushi or not. I only pointed out
the risks of eating raw meat stored at room temeratures. I don't understand
your problem....

>> You talked generally of rice contributing to thousands of animal deaths
>> and I'm telling you it doesn't have to be that way. Native wild rice IS
>> available - I recently bought some online.

>
> Was it handpicked? Not stored in any kind of granary or food warehouse?
> Hand-delivered? If yes to any of the previous questions, it's NOT CD-free.


Here's the link to the place where I bought my rice.
http://www.welrp.org/nativeharvest/itemwildrice.html It was harvested and
processed by hand without the use of machines. It is native rice that was
not grown in commercial paddies. It may not be 100% CD-free but it's at
least better than the thousands of CDs that you claim result from
commercialized rice production. Oh, and since it is available on the
internet it IS "widely available" to anyone with internet access and a
credit card, contrary to your previous statement. I have also seen native
wild rice in grocery stores and specialty food stores.

>> I know I can't save all 1001 lives so any life that I save is better than
>> none.

>
> Your objection is *only* to the one that's eaten.


What makes you so sure?


  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> <..>
>
>>>>...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
>>>>1993 to 1997 found *2,751 outbreaks*. *Those outbreaks* totaled
>>>>*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables,
>>>>compared with *6,709 cases* involving meat.
>>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm

>
>
> ---restore1---
> In that case, the number of individual cases of illness due to an outbreak
> involving produce, pales to insignificance compared to the cases of illness
> due to just one of the pathogens found in meat, e.g, Campylobacter;


You're comparing apples and oranges, Lesley, and in two different
instances. First, the data I provided are concrete taken from *actual*
cases; the data you provide are an estimate. Second, the data I provided
covers what US agencies actually investigated (they investigate
outbreaks, not isolated cases of food poisoning); the data you provided
accounts for only one vector in only one kind of food, when in fact many
people become ill through more than just Campylobacter.

CDC defines a foodborne-disease outbreak as the occurrence of
two or more cases of a similar illness resulting from the
ingestion of a common food. The outbreaks reported by CDC,
however, represent only a small fraction of the total number of
foodborne illnesses each year. The Council for Agriculture and
Science Technology estimates that microbial pathogens in food
cause between 6.5 and 33 million cases of human illnesses in the
United States and up to 9,000 deaths annually (CAST, 1994).

The CDC data indicate that fruits and vegetables were the
vehicle of transmission for 64 (6 percent) of the 1,072
outbreaks for which a specific food was identified (table A-3).
Five percent of the illnesses from these outbreaks were linked
with fruits and vegetables, as were 22 percent of the deaths.
*In over half of the reported outbreaks, however, the food
carrying the pathogen remains unknown.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/repo...98/vgs274f.asc

See also:
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/ift3-4a.html
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Retard wrote:
>>>I enjoyed sashimi -- raw fish -- with my sushi today for lunch.

>>
>>As foretold by someone greater and wiser than you on 7/7/03...
>>
>>"...you'll start eating meat, particularly fish in the not too distant
>>future."

>
> if you want my opinion,


Who wants the opinion of a self-crippled, unemployed, undisciplined,
massively obese cuckold from a Jerry Springer Show kind of family?


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:03:18 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Retard wrote:
>>>>I enjoyed sashimi -- raw fish -- with my sushi today for lunch.
>>>
>>>As foretold by someone greater and wiser than you on 7/7/03...
>>>
>>>"...you'll start eating meat, particularly fish in the not too distant
>>>future."

>>
>> if you want my opinion,

>
>Who wants the opinion


Others who want to know the truth do. You've never
been a vegan, have you, or even a vegetarian? You've
done your best to fool everyone, but you didn't fool me,
Tex.
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>The last major outbreak of food-borne hepatitis in the US involved GREEN
>>>>ONIONS. Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.
>>>
>>>Prove it.

>>
>>...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
>>1993 to 1997 found 2,751 outbreaks. Those outbreaks totaled
>>12,537 individual cases involving fruits and vegetables,
>>compared with 6,709 cases involving meat.
>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm

>
> Okay, good information. Still, my original point was that sushi and other
> raw meats offer a greater probability of food borne illness, especially at
> room temperatures.


Salad bars are much more worthy of your concern. The food is near room
temperature and in an environment in which unwashed hands can contact
food and utensils.

>>>In fact, I snipped this from your link: "People get toxoplasmosis the
>>>following ways: - By consuming foods (such as raw or undercooked meats,
>>>especially pork, lamb, or wild game) or drinking untreated water (from
>>>rivers or ponds) that may contain the parasite."

>>
>>You also conveniently left out the fact that nearly every parasite listed
>>on that site can enter a host through contaminated produce.

>
> I'm not disputing that. That wasn't the issue.


It was the issue you raised.

> You drew attention to
> yourself by claiming to have eaten sushi yesterday for lunch.


Sashimi. I've written about my predilection for sushi in the past. Sushi
and fish aren't the same thing. I've also posted links (definitely) and
recipes (iirc) for vegetarian sushi.

> I pointed out
> that there is an increased risk of acquiring intestinal parasites by eating
> raw meats, such as in sushi.


And I pointed back that the data shows as much danger linked to
contaminated produce. Refresh my memory, in what state did the Chi-chi's
hepatitis outbreak from green onions occur?

> You then "moved goalposts" by making a big
> issue out of the fact that more food-borne illnesses have acquired from
> fresh produce than from meats


There was no goalpost move. You're the one who raised the issue of
food-borne illness, and you suggested the inclusion of two servings of
fish significantly increased my chances of becoming ill. The risk I took
was *no* greater than if I'd had the standard veggie roll (consisting of
seaweed, rice, and RAW produce).

> (BTW, the statistics you quoted were from 1993
> through 1997 - 10 years ago).


The article was from this year. And if the leftist food police are to be
believed, nothing has changed in food inspection and safety the last ten
years -- except that we're importing a lot more produce.

>>>Enjoy your sushi....

>>
>>I did. I also enjoy the fact that ninnies like you take exception to it.

>
>>Well, dummy, I wanted sushi today.

>
> I wasn't trying to be provocative or insulting or demeaning in any way. And
> here you start again with the childish name calling. Some "olive branch" you
> have offered. I don't care whether you eat sushi or not. I only pointed out
> the risks of eating raw meat stored at room temeratures. I don't understand
> your problem....


Let's also discuss the risks of eating raw produce, especially at room
temperature. Where's your concern about that?

Have a happy, safe, and prosperous 2005, Jim.
  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
<...>
>>>>>I'd think
>>>>
>>>>if you only had a brain.
>>>
>>>You're saying I don't have a brain? Interesting..

>>
>>People with brains tend not to support the following notions:

>
> People with functional brains don't repeatedly claim that somebody
> believes something which the list compiler has admitted is partly false.


There was NO admission that any part of the list is false, in part or in
whole.

> usual suspect:
>
>>>>>>The only issue you really complained about
>>>>>

> pearl:
>
>>>>>"really", as opposed to?
>>>>
>>>>As opposed to nitpicking or suggesting that you stood by something
>>>
>>>As opposed to disagreeing with it.

>>
>>You disagreed that it was put together as an indictment of your unsound
>>judgment and even more unsound state of mind. You agreed with nearly
>>every point as reflecting your opinions on those issues.


That speaks to your agreeement on most of the points (92%). That *you*
disagree with some of those points, despite the evidence offered
throughout those threads, is your own issue to deal with. I never once
backed away from the list with the exception of a point which *I* did
not add to it but removed from it when you complained.

> [False.] And the rest is what? You've claimed I 'believe' them all.


You do. And you agreed to 92% of the following points:
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucers
Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals)
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth
Sun gazing
Drinking urine as a cure-all
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
she participates in the skinhead subculture
she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts)
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news"
Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence
  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> > <..>
> >
> >>>>...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
> >>>>1993 to 1997 found *2,751 outbreaks*. *Those outbreaks* totaled
> >>>>*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables,
> >>>>compared with *6,709 cases* involving meat.
> >>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm

> >
> >
> > ---restore1---
> > In that case, the number of individual cases of illness due to an outbreak
> > involving produce, pales to insignificance compared to the cases of illness
> > due to just one of the pathogens found in meat, e.g, Campylobacter;

>
> You're comparing apples and oranges,


Fudge.

suspect: Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.

---restore4---
"Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated with an
outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,"
says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the national
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html

To counter that, you need to provide rather more than your
"*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables".

Better get busy, suspect.




  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>>The last major outbreak of food-borne hepatitis in the US involved
>>>>>GREEN ONIONS. Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by
>>>>>produce.
>>>>
>>>>Prove it.
>>>
>>>...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
>>>1993 to 1997 found 2,751 outbreaks. Those outbreaks totaled
>>>12,537 individual cases involving fruits and vegetables,
>>>compared with 6,709 cases involving meat.
>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm

>>
>> Okay, good information. Still, my original point was that sushi and other
>> raw meats offer a greater probability of food borne illness, especially
>> at room temperatures.

>
> Salad bars are much more worthy of your concern. The food is near room
> temperature and in an environment in which unwashed hands can contact food
> and utensils.


True, for that reason I rarely eat at salad bars.

> Sashimi. I've written about my predilection for sushi in the past. Sushi
> and fish aren't the same thing. I've also posted links (definitely) and
> recipes (iirc) for vegetarian sushi.


I love vegetable sushi, especially with shitake mushrooms. Even better are
the condiments - there's nothing like a good dose of wasabi to clear out the
nasal passages! Maybe you could repost your recipes for vegetarian sushi if
you find the time...

>> I pointed out that there is an increased risk of acquiring intestinal
>> parasites by eating raw meats, such as in sushi.

>
> And I pointed back that the data shows as much danger linked to
> contaminated produce. Refresh my memory, in what state did the Chi-chi's
> hepatitis outbreak from green onions occur?


Western Pennsylvania, the Chi-Chi's at the Beaver Valley Mall to be
specific - maybe 20 miles from my house. Chi-Chi's is now out of business
(no great loss). I'm well aware of this and other cases of produce
contamination. There is a local case pending right now about a woman who
claims to have been sickened by eating roma tomatoes at a Sheetz store.

>> (BTW, the statistics you quoted were from 1993 through 1997 - 10 years
>> ago).

>
> The article was from this year. And if the leftist food police are to be
> believed, nothing has changed in food inspection and safety the last ten
> years -- except that we're importing a lot more produce.


Which is where the contaminated green onions came from (Mexico). The USA
Today article did a good job bringing awareness to the produce contamination
problem, especially with imported produce.

>>>>Enjoy your sushi....
>>>
>>>I did. I also enjoy the fact that ninnies like you take exception to it.

>>
>>>Well, dummy, I wanted sushi today.

>>
>> I wasn't trying to be provocative or insulting or demeaning in any way.
>> And here you start again with the childish name calling. Some "olive
>> branch" you have offered. I don't care whether you eat sushi or not. I
>> only pointed out the risks of eating raw meat stored at room temeratures.
>> I don't understand your problem....

>
> Let's also discuss the risks of eating raw produce, especially at room
> temperature. Where's your concern about that?


Look, nowhere have I denied that there is a problem with contaminated
produce. I simply pointed out that there is an increased risk of eating raw
meat/fish that has been stored at room temperature. That's all. You are
pushing this issue far to the other side. This is the exaggeration thing I
talked about before. You make good points but you also exaggerate issues
away from those being discussed - seemingly in defense of meat many times
(undoubtedly because this is a vegan newsgroup). It's like you try to bring
balance to a discussion but you often weigh too heavily on opposing
viewpoints. I dare say that this is one of the issues at hand in our
"extreme" dialogue. :^)

> Have a happy, safe, and prosperous 2005, Jim.


Now this is a a sincere olive branch. Thank you and same to you.




  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
>>>>>>...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
>>>>>>1993 to 1997 found *2,751 outbreaks*. *Those outbreaks* totaled
>>>>>>*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables,
>>>>>>compared with *6,709 cases* involving meat.
>>>>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>---restore1---
>>>In that case, the number of individual cases of illness due to an outbreak
>>>involving produce, pales to insignificance compared to the cases of illness
>>>due to just one of the pathogens found in meat, e.g, Campylobacter;

>>
>>You're comparing apples and oranges,

>
> Fudge.


Apples, oranges, and now fudge.

> suspect: Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.


I'm correct.

> ---restore4---
> "Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated with an
> outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,"
> says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the national
> Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'
> http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html
>
> To counter that, you need to provide rather more than your
> "*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables".


I don't need to counter your recitation of an *ESTIMATE* which doesn't
discuss the transmission of Campylobacter from produce, which, though
admittedly rare, can and *does* occur:
Leafy vegetables and root crops irrigated with untreated water
or grown in soils contaminated with Campylobacter would be
expected to contain C. jejuni. The use of C. jejuni-contaminated
water to wash produce or fruit may lead to depositing the
organism on the surface of the product. Thus, the facts that
waterborne outbreaks of campylobacteriosis occur (17) and that
C. jejuni is present in sewage and water indicate that produce
or fruit irrigated or washed with C. jejuni-contaminated water
will allow the entrance of the organism into the food chain.
http://www.arserrc.gov/mfs/HotSeat1.htm

From the same page, mushrooms and produce from farmer's markets are
most likely to be tainted with Campylobacter (again, the qualification
that such incidence is low; but so, too, is the incidence of becoming
ill from undercooked tainted meat).

> Better get busy, suspect.


You better get a brain, Les, and learn to use it.
  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>I'd think
>>>>>>
>>>>>>if you only had a brain.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're saying I don't have a brain? Interesting..
>>>>
>>>>People with brains tend not to support the following notions:
>>>
>>>People with functional brains don't repeatedly claim that somebody
>>>believes something which the list compiler has admitted is partly false.

>>
>>There was NO admission that any part of the list is false, in part or in
>>whole.

>
> You claim I believe/support/whatever your fraudulent list. I don't.


That leaves *ONE* issue up in the air, namely her views on the
Holocaust. If that one item is completely wrong, the list is
still 96.154% correct. I will *gladly* remove that one from the
list if the goofy little ditz insists to make sure it's 100%
correct.
http://tinyurl.com/5zv56

>>>usual suspect:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>The only issue you really complained about
>>>>>>>
>>>pearl:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>"really", as opposed to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As opposed to nitpicking or suggesting that you stood by something
>>>>>
>>>>>As opposed to disagreeing with it.
>>>>
>>>>You disagreed that it was put together as an indictment of your unsound
>>>>judgment and even more unsound state of mind. You agreed with nearly
>>>>every point as reflecting your opinions on those issues.

>>
>>That speaks to your agreeement on most of the points (92%).

>
> Link to this 'agreement'?


You can dig through the archives for your first response. You agreed
with nearly every point, even posting links to pics that "prove" inner
earth beings live beneath Mt Shasta. The only points over which you
expressed any disagreement were the ones dealing with your ex-husband
and the thing about Holocaust denial. The latter was immediately removed
from my version of the list. The former parts about your marriage to a
violent skinhead will remain because those are undeniable: you fell in
love with a violent skinhead, shagged him, married him, and so on. It's
time you stop blaming others for your accumulated "baggage."

>>That *you*
>>disagree with some of those points, despite the evidence offered
>>throughout those threads, is your own issue to deal with.

>
> You have no evidence on most points, just twisted assumptions.


Plenty of evidence. See the link above.
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>>>The last major outbreak of food-borne hepatitis in the US involved
>>>>>>GREEN ONIONS. Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by
>>>>>>produce.
>>>>>
>>>>>Prove it.
>>>>
>>>>...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
>>>>1993 to 1997 found 2,751 outbreaks. Those outbreaks totaled
>>>>12,537 individual cases involving fruits and vegetables,
>>>>compared with 6,709 cases involving meat.
>>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm
>>>
>>>Okay, good information. Still, my original point was that sushi and other
>>>raw meats offer a greater probability of food borne illness, especially
>>>at room temperatures.

>>
>>Salad bars are much more worthy of your concern. The food is near room
>>temperature and in an environment in which unwashed hands can contact food
>>and utensils.

>
> True, for that reason I rarely eat at salad bars.


From the standpoint of food safety and hygiene, deep frying is safer
than raw. That comes in handy when traveling in other countries where
standards aren't as high as they are here.

>>Sashimi. I've written about my predilection for sushi in the past. Sushi
>>and fish aren't the same thing. I've also posted links (definitely) and
>>recipes (iirc) for vegetarian sushi.

>
> I love vegetable sushi, especially with shitake mushrooms. Even better are
> the condiments - there's nothing like a good dose of wasabi to clear out the
> nasal passages! Maybe you could repost your recipes for vegetarian sushi if
> you find the time...


I couldn't find them, but I did find a thread where we discussed sushi:
http://tinyurl.com/3zk3l

I also found a link to a recipe Kake posted:
http://www.ivu.org/hlsc/recipes/sushi.html

>>>I pointed out that there is an increased risk of acquiring intestinal
>>>parasites by eating raw meats, such as in sushi.

>>
>>And I pointed back that the data shows as much danger linked to
>>contaminated produce. Refresh my memory, in what state did the Chi-chi's
>>hepatitis outbreak from green onions occur?

>
> Western Pennsylvania, the Chi-Chi's at the Beaver Valley Mall to be
> specific - maybe 20 miles from my house.


I was only rubbing it in. I knew where it was.

> Chi-Chi's is now out of business (no great loss).


That particular location may be closed, but the chain is still in
business (they did file Chapter 11 bankruptcy). They were recently
purchased by Outback Steakhouse. Outback is converting most of the
locations into their own brands, but some Chi-chi's will remain just as
they were (or possibly with new branding to get away from their
tarnished image).

> I'm well aware of this and other cases of produce
> contamination. There is a local case pending right now about a woman who
> claims to have been sickened by eating roma tomatoes at a Sheetz store.


As the article I posted said, most inspection resources are targeted at
meat despite the fact that more outbreaks are associated with produce,
much of which is imported and never inspected.

>>>(BTW, the statistics you quoted were from 1993 through 1997 - 10 years
>>>ago).

>>
>>The article was from this year. And if the leftist food police are to be
>>believed, nothing has changed in food inspection and safety the last ten
>>years -- except that we're importing a lot more produce.

>
> Which is where the contaminated green onions came from (Mexico). The USA
> Today article did a good job bringing awareness to the produce contamination
> problem, especially with imported produce.


Yes, but even domestic produce causes serious health problems. Remember
what happened with Odwalla Juices a few years ago.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9611/01/e.coli.poisoning/

>>>>>Enjoy your sushi....
>>>>
>>>>I did. I also enjoy the fact that ninnies like you take exception to it.
>>>
>>>>Well, dummy, I wanted sushi today.
>>>
>>>I wasn't trying to be provocative or insulting or demeaning in any way.
>>>And here you start again with the childish name calling. Some "olive
>>>branch" you have offered. I don't care whether you eat sushi or not. I
>>>only pointed out the risks of eating raw meat stored at room temeratures.
>>>I don't understand your problem....

>>
>>Let's also discuss the risks of eating raw produce, especially at room
>>temperature. Where's your concern about that?

>
> Look, nowhere have I denied that there is a problem with contaminated
> produce. I simply pointed out that there is an increased risk of eating raw
> meat/fish that has been stored at room temperature.


Sashimi isn't stored at room temperature -- health codes forbid that.
The risk isn't "increased."

> That's all. You are
> pushing this issue far to the other side.


I think you are. The fact remains that one is just as likely to become
ill from produce as from meat, if not *more* likely. You linked to a
Massachusetts health site about sushi and then pointed to the part about
rice being handled at prime temperatures for bacterial growth. That
information also mentioned the safe handling procedures, including
acidifying the rice -- which is standard practice in sushi bars.

> This is the exaggeration thing I
> talked about before.


You mean like you did with respect to intestinal parasites? The risks
are about the same if you eat contaminated meat or produce, or if you
drink dirty water.

> You make good points


True.

> but you also exaggerate issues
> away from those being discussed - seemingly in defense of meat many times
> (undoubtedly because this is a vegan newsgroup).


Explain. I pointed you back to data which shows that the potential
health risks of raw produce exceed those of meat.

> It's like you try to bring
> balance to a discussion but you often weigh too heavily on opposing
> viewpoints. I dare say that this is one of the issues at hand in our
> "extreme" dialogue. :^)


I don't see this as an extreme dialogue. I see this as you've made some
points and I've shown that they're relatively trivial (not in a
perjorative sense). The risks you point out are of the same kind and in
the same proportion whether one eats meat or not; the risks are also
insignificant between plant and meat. The question is how the food's
produced, how it's stored, and how it's prepared. The risks increase or
decrease each step along the way whether it's of plant or animal origin.

>>Have a happy, safe, and prosperous 2005, Jim.

>
> Now this is a a sincere olive branch. Thank you and same to you.


Thanks.
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>I'd think
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>if you only had a brain.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You're saying I don't have a brain? Interesting..
> >>>>
> >>>>People with brains tend not to support the following notions:
> >>>
> >>>People with functional brains don't repeatedly claim that somebody
> >>>believes something which the list compiler has admitted is partly false.
> >>
> >>There was NO admission that any part of the list is false, in part or in
> >>whole.

> >
> > You claim I believe/support/whatever your fraudulent list. I don't.

>
> That leaves *ONE* issue up in the air, namely her views on the
> Holocaust. If that one item is completely wrong, the list is
> still 96.154% correct. I will *gladly* remove that one from the
> list if the goofy little ditz insists to make sure it's 100%
> correct.
> http://tinyurl.com/5zv56


The one your buddy liar ball posted.

My reply:

"I've no problem with suspect posting the truth, as I've stated it."
http://tinyurl.com/6b4ee .

You want to claim I believe this and that, when you cannot refute the
evidence and want to derail the discussion and attack your opponent?
So post that link. Your twisted beliefs about my beliefs are just that.

> >>>usual suspect:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>The only issue you really complained about
> >>>>>>>
> >>>pearl:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>"really", as opposed to?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>As opposed to nitpicking or suggesting that you stood by something
> >>>>>
> >>>>>As opposed to disagreeing with it.
> >>>>
> >>>>You disagreed that it was put together as an indictment of your unsound
> >>>>judgment and even more unsound state of mind. You agreed with nearly
> >>>>every point as reflecting your opinions on those issues.
> >>
> >>That speaks to your agreeement on most of the points (92%).

> >
> > Link to this 'agreement'?

>
> You can dig through the archives for your first response.


Above.

> You agreed with nearly every point,


False. I elucidated at the time;

valid:
hollow earth
inner-earth beings
chemtrails
9/11 controlled demolition
veganism
Aids and Ebola man-made
astrology
'zappers'
reflexology
crop-circles
telepathy (channelling)
Rense

lied about:
feed:beef ratio
rainforest destruction
holocaust denial
sexually aroused by violent criminals
being a skinhead
leprechauns
sun gazing
stolen craft
alien abduction
[add:
drinking urine
thinks bestiality is ok]

presumed:
numerology

exaggerated errors:
globe patent
mistaking exports
polar fountains

http://tinyurl.com/59xw3

> even posting links to pics that "prove" inner
> earth beings live beneath Mt Shasta.


Of course. Here it is again:
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/OddPics/Shasta.html

What's your explanation?

<snip incessant prying>




  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
> >>>>>>1993 to 1997 found *2,751 outbreaks*. *Those outbreaks* totaled
> >>>>>>*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables,
> >>>>>>compared with *6,709 cases* involving meat.
> >>>>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>---restore1---
> >>>In that case, the number of individual cases of illness due to an outbreak
> >>>involving produce, pales to insignificance compared to the cases of illness
> >>>due to just one of the pathogens found in meat, e.g, Campylobacter;
> >>
> >>You're comparing apples and oranges,

> >
> > Fudge.

>
> Apples, oranges, and now fudge.
>
> > suspect: Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.

>
> I'm correct.


Unsupported assertion.

> > ---restore4---
> > "Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated with an
> > outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,"
> > says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the national
> > Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'
> > http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html
> >
> > To counter that, you need to provide rather more than your
> > "*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables".

>
> I don't need to counter your recitation of an *ESTIMATE*


"we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,".

> which doesn't
> discuss the transmission of Campylobacter from produce, which, though
> admittedly rare,


There ya go.

> can and *does* occur:
> Leafy vegetables and root crops irrigated with untreated water
> or grown in soils contaminated with Campylobacter would be
> expected to contain C. jejuni. The use of C. jejuni-contaminated
> water to wash produce or fruit may lead to depositing the
> organism on the surface of the product. Thus, the facts that
> waterborne outbreaks of campylobacteriosis occur (17) and that
> C. jejuni is present in sewage and water indicate that produce
> or fruit irrigated or washed with C. jejuni-contaminated water
> will allow the entrance of the organism into the food chain.
> http://www.arserrc.gov/mfs/HotSeat1.htm


Where is most of it coming from? .. From your link (*emphasis mine)..

' In a study of the survival of pathogens during mesophilic anaerobic
digestion of *animal manure* (i.e. prior to sewage treatment), Kearney et al. (9)
found that C. jejuni was remarkably resistant to treatment. The organism was
approximately 13-times more resistant to anaerobic digestion than Salmonella
typhimurium. Thus, C. jejuni represents a paradox (15). In spite of its
"fragility", the organism can be found in the environment, particularly in water,
and while it may not grow, it can survive. '

'Cattle feedlots are a dangerous source of organic pollutants, accounting
for more than half the toxic organic pollutants found in fresh water.'
http://puffin.creighton.edu/phil/Ste...ism.htm#_edn19

> From the same page, mushrooms and produce from farmer's markets are
> most likely to be tainted with Campylobacter (again, the qualification
> that such incidence is low;


There ya go, again.

> but so, too, is the incidence of becoming
> ill from undercooked tainted meat).


Millions a year, is low?

> > Better get busy, suspect.

>
> You better get a brain, Les, and learn to use it.


Was that your best effort then? Guess so..






  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

menu boy wrote:
>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>objections to the term can finally stop. You can call me a flexitarian,
>>>>pescetarian, or, better yet, just call me "usual suspect." I don't have
>>>> time for mixing food with politics unless it involves civil
>>>>conversation OVER a meal, not uncivil conversation ABOUT it.
>>>>
>>>>I enjoyed sashimi -- raw fish -- with my sushi today for lunch. I await
>>>>all your nasty replies expressing outrage that I contributed to the
>>>>death of *one* tuna, because I'd love the opportunity to point out that
>>>>the rice in my sushi was responsible for far more animal deaths than the
>>>>little bit of fish I ate (on second thought, it was a couple generous
>>>>helpings). You wouldn't give a shit if I'd had my usual *vegetarian*
>>>>sushi today, even though it would've *still* caused animal deaths.
>>>>
>>>>So I really must ask, Why do you only object to the death of *ONE* tuna?
>>>>What is it about *ALL* the frogs, snakes, rats, nutria, raccoons,
>>>>rabbits, deer, birds, snails, and other animals killed in the course of
>>>>rice production that make their deaths acceptable?
>>>>
>>>>Face it, you only object to the actual eating of animals. You don't give
>>>>a damn if they're killed in the billions. If one dead tuna or steer gets
>>>>eaten, you say it's bad; if thousands and thousands of animals killed
>>>>for rice or other grain production, you find it fully acceptable or even
>>>>pass the buck and blame the farmer for farming in a manner you
>>>>financially support. Your worldview is so utterly ****ed, and you're so
>>>>hypocritical.
>>>>
>>>>Special PS to "Beach Runt": You said people who start eating meat again
>>>>after a period of abstaining get sick from it. It's been a matter of
>>>>years since I've eaten any kind of flesh, and I feel *quite* fine. The
>>>>fish was *very* fresh, so I've no reason for concern. You're as clueless
>>>>as they come.
>>>
>>>
>>>Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.

>>
>>One difference among the three: veganism is religion.

>
> Yeah, I go to vegan church and worship the mighty carrot on the
> altar.


I'm not surprised you engage in phallic worship.
  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

menu boy wrote:
>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>objections to the term can finally stop. You can call me a flexitarian,
>>>>pescetarian, or, better yet, just call me "usual suspect." I don't have
>>>> time for mixing food with politics unless it involves civil
>>>>conversation OVER a meal, not uncivil conversation ABOUT it.
>>>>
>>>>I enjoyed sashimi -- raw fish -- with my sushi today for lunch. I await
>>>>all your nasty replies expressing outrage that I contributed to the
>>>>death of *one* tuna, because I'd love the opportunity to point out that
>>>>the rice in my sushi was responsible for far more animal deaths than the
>>>>little bit of fish I ate (on second thought, it was a couple generous
>>>>helpings). You wouldn't give a shit if I'd had my usual *vegetarian*
>>>>sushi today, even though it would've *still* caused animal deaths.
>>>>
>>>>So I really must ask, Why do you only object to the death of *ONE* tuna?
>>>>What is it about *ALL* the frogs, snakes, rats, nutria, raccoons,
>>>>rabbits, deer, birds, snails, and other animals killed in the course of
>>>>rice production that make their deaths acceptable?
>>>>
>>>>Face it, you only object to the actual eating of animals. You don't give
>>>>a damn if they're killed in the billions. If one dead tuna or steer gets
>>>>eaten, you say it's bad; if thousands and thousands of animals killed
>>>>for rice or other grain production, you find it fully acceptable or even
>>>>pass the buck and blame the farmer for farming in a manner you
>>>>financially support. Your worldview is so utterly ****ed, and you're so
>>>>hypocritical.
>>>>
>>>>Special PS to "Beach Runt": You said people who start eating meat again
>>>>after a period of abstaining get sick from it. It's been a matter of
>>>>years since I've eaten any kind of flesh, and I feel *quite* fine. The
>>>>fish was *very* fresh, so I've no reason for concern. You're as clueless
>>>>as they come.
>>>
>>>
>>>Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.

>>
>>One difference among the three: veganism is religion.

>
> Yeah, I go to vegan church and worship the mighty carrot on the
> altar.


I'm not surprised you engage in phallic worship.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
<...>
>>You agreed with nearly every point,

>
> False.


Liar.

> I elucidated at the time;


Elucidated, lol? Lucid is about the last adjective I'd apply to you, Les.

> valid:
> hollow earth
> inner-earth beings
> chemtrails
> 9/11 controlled demolition
> veganism
> Aids and Ebola man-made
> astrology
> 'zappers'
> reflexology
> crop-circles
> telepathy (channelling)
> Rense


There's substantial agreement on the entire list then.

> lied about:
> feed:beef ratio


Are you suggesting you NEVER got involved in calculating feed:beef
ratios and that you re-calculated your math (no wonder you flunked out
of engineering school!) multiple times so that you eventually got to an
inflated ratio? Come of Les, you know better than that.

> rainforest destruction


Are you suggesting you NEVER got into a debate with this subject with Mr
Ball or anyone else and claimed that the rainforests were being depleted
because of cattle production?

> holocaust denial


I removed that from the list almost immediately.

> sexually aroused by violent criminals
> being a skinhead


You were married to a violent skinhead. You shagged him. He shagged you.
He claimed that you shaved your head to lure him into your lair, and
that rather than really being a Chelsea you turned out to be a hippy
with some menagerie he disliked a lot. In short, you put a bunch of
animals before your vows to your husband.

> leprechauns


You suggested agnocticism when asked if you believed in them. Most
people are able to give a straightforward answer.

> sun gazing


You bought into the article about a guy who got his energy by staring
into the sun, even suggesting that it sounded promising. You only backed
off when it was shown that NASA had never heard of the guy even though
the initial articles said NASA was studying him and his "energy collection."

> stolen craft


You have (or had) a link about it on your own website. When asked if you
believed that US/allied forces had taken the saucer, you implied that
you did.

> alien abduction


Do you or do you not believe that aliens visit earth and occasionally
take drunkards and hillbillies for rides where they're repeatedly
rectally probed?

> [add:
> drinking urine


One of the alternative health sources you cited multiple times advocated
urine therapy. You were asked if you endorsed such practice, and, iirc,
you said you were investigating it.

> thinks bestiality is ok]


This goes back to threads in which the paraphile Karen Winter and I were
discussing various paraphilia. You said you had no problem whatsoever
with bestiality as long as it was not forced on an animal.

> presumed:
> numerology


Do you or do you not believe in numerology?

> exaggerated errors:
> globe patent
> mistaking exports
> polar fountains


Those errors were NOT exaggerated. You used each of those to support
your looniest notions.

> http://tinyurl.com/59xw3
>
>>even posting links to pics that "prove" inner
>>earth beings live beneath Mt Shasta.

>
> Of course. Here it is again:
> http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/OddPics/Shasta.html
>
> What's your explanation?


Such anomalies in photographs are not rare. What's rare is that a few
loons see those anomalies and suggest the presence of ghosts, secret
communities of enlightened beings, etc.
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
>>>>>>>>1993 to 1997 found *2,751 outbreaks*. *Those outbreaks* totaled
>>>>>>>>*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables,
>>>>>>>>compared with *6,709 cases* involving meat.
>>>>>>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>---restore1---
>>>>>In that case, the number of individual cases of illness due to an outbreak
>>>>>involving produce, pales to insignificance compared to the cases of illness
>>>>>due to just one of the pathogens found in meat, e.g, Campylobacter;
>>>>
>>>>You're comparing apples and oranges,
>>>
>>>Fudge.

>>
>>Apples, oranges, and now fudge.
>>
>>
>>>suspect: Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.

>>
>>I'm correct.

>
> Unsupported assertion.


Supported previously in the thread.

>>>---restore4---
>>>"Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated with an
>>>outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,"
>>>says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the national
>>>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'
>>>http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html
>>>
>>>To counter that, you need to provide rather more than your
>>>"*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables".

>>
>>I don't need to counter your recitation of an *ESTIMATE*

>
> "we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,".


It's an estimate. "Up to" isn't a concrete number. The data I provided
are concrete.

>>which doesn't
>>discuss the transmission of Campylobacter from produce, which, though
>>admittedly rare,

>
> There ya go.


Campylobacter isn't the only pathogen which affects humans. Most
food-borne illnesses, as demonstrated in the information I kindly
posted, are not even tied down to specific foods or contagions. What IS
known about food-borne illness with a great degree of certainty is that
produce is more often the cause of outbreaks because (a) produce isn't
subject to the kinds or amount of scrutiny of meat and (b) produce is
more likely to be served at temperatures consistent with potential risk
of bacterial growth.

<...>
>>but so, too, is the incidence of becoming
>>ill from undercooked tainted meat).

>
> Millions a year, is low?


Yes. There are 300 million people in the US. Most of them average three
meals per day. That's 328.5 billion meals per year. The rate of
infection of Campylobacter, from your ESTIMATE, is a very tiny fraction
-- about one in every one-hundred thousand meals at the maximum number
offered of 4 million. Stop being such an alarmist.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> >>You agreed with nearly every point,

> >
> > False.

>
> Liar.


Liar.

> > I elucidated at the time;

>
> Elucidated, lol? Lucid is about the last adjective I'd apply to you, Les.


What can you see, blind, dense and in the dark as you are.

> > valid:
> > hollow earth
> > inner-earth beings
> > chemtrails
> > 9/11 controlled demolition
> > veganism
> > Aids and Ebola man-made
> > astrology
> > 'zappers'
> > reflexology
> > crop-circles
> > telepathy (channelling)
> > Rense

>
> There's substantial agreement on the entire list then.


Obviously not, liar suspect.

> > lied about:
> > feed:beef ratio

>
> Are you suggesting you NEVER got involved in calculating feed:beef
> ratios and that you re-calculated your math (no wonder you flunked out
> of engineering school!) multiple times so that you eventually got to an
> inflated ratio? Come of Les, you know better than that.


You call it "helium-inflated". It is not. You cannot show any error.

> > rainforest destruction

>
> Are you suggesting you NEVER got into a debate with this subject with Mr
> Ball or anyone else and claimed that the rainforests were being depleted
> because of cattle production?


What is it doing on a list of things you like (need) to hold up for ridicule?

> > holocaust denial

>
> I removed that from the list almost immediately.


You posted it not knowing whether it was true or not.

> > sexually aroused by violent criminals
> > being a skinhead

>
> You were married to a violent skinhead.


I knew him as a (non-violent) person, not your simplistic stereotype.

> > leprechauns

>
> You suggested agnocticism when asked if you believed in them. Most
> people are able to give a straightforward answer.


You posted / post it as fact that I believe. I have never stated that.

> > sun gazing

>
> You bought into the article about a guy who got his energy by staring
> into the sun, even suggesting that it sounded promising. You only backed
> off when it was shown that NASA had never heard of the guy even though
> the initial articles said NASA was studying him and his "energy collection."


He claimed to have been studied by NASA. I "backed off" when he was
shown by another poster to be a fraud. I initially thought it possible, as I
know something about very lengthy fasting practiced by certain ascetics.

You are posting it in a list of something you claim I support/believe,
without qualification, that is, that I believe that story now. A lie.

> > stolen craft

>
> You have (or had) a link about it on your own website. When asked if you
> believed that US/allied forces had taken the saucer, you implied that
> you did.


Date: 2003-07-16
usual suspect
US; >Yes, I read that. The presence of l'armée américaine is coincidental to
> >>the craft's disappearance -- it could've simply been discarded or
> >>scrapped in the three-year span that page mentions.

pearl
> > P; > It says that he left his business at the US army's disposal to assist the
> > allied forces in March 1953; that he was unable to take his work to full
> > term, and, exhausted from the accumulated difficulties, he disappeared in
> > Dec' of 1956, but it doesn't mention what happened to the craft, or his work.

>
> Okay, I misread. Still, it's coincidental.


That's still conjecture.

http://tinyurl.com/3jmv6

If anything, the suggestion that the US army stole it is yours, suspect.

> > alien abduction

>
> Do you or do you not believe that aliens visit earth and occasionally
> take drunkards and hillbillies for rides where they're repeatedly
> rectally probed?


I don't know. ? I certainly haven't stated that I do believe it.

> > [add:
> > drinking urine

>
> One of the alternative health sources you cited multiple times advocated
> urine therapy.


So? That's not me. The entry on your fraudulent list states that I do.

> You were asked if you endorsed such practice, and, iirc,
> you said you were investigating it.


No I didn't, liar.

> > thinks bestiality is ok]

>
> This goes back to threads in which the paraphile Karen Winter and I were
> discussing various paraphilia. You said you had no problem whatsoever
> with bestiality as long as it was not forced on an animal.


No I didn't.

Date: 2004-02-28 05:13:33 PST
..... I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an animals'
instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it.
http://tinyurl.com/5uoz4

> > presumed:
> > numerology

>
> Do you or do you not believe in numerology?


Depends what you mean by 'numerology'.

> > exaggerated errors:
> > globe patent
> > mistaking exports
> > polar fountains

>
> Those errors were NOT exaggerated. You used each of those to support
> your looniest notions.


Yes they are exaggerated. You're that desperate. It's sad really.

> > http://tinyurl.com/59xw3
> >
> >>even posting links to pics that "prove" inner
> >>earth beings live beneath Mt Shasta.

> >
> > Of course. Here it is again:
> > http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/OddPics/Shasta.html
> >
> > What's your explanation?

>
> Such anomalies in photographs are not rare. What's rare is that a few
> loons see those anomalies and suggest the presence of ghosts, secret
> communities of enlightened beings, etc.


Show us another such image then. As they're not rare,
you should have no real difficulty finding a similar photo.









  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
> >>>>>>>>1993 to 1997 found *2,751 outbreaks*. *Those outbreaks* totaled
> >>>>>>>>*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables,
> >>>>>>>>compared with *6,709 cases* involving meat.
> >>>>>>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>---restore1---
> >>>>>In that case, the number of individual cases of illness due to an outbreak
> >>>>>involving produce, pales to insignificance compared to the cases of illness
> >>>>>due to just one of the pathogens found in meat, e.g, Campylobacter;
> >>>>
> >>>>You're comparing apples and oranges,
> >>>
> >>>Fudge.
> >>
> >>Apples, oranges, and now fudge.
> >>
> >>
> >>>suspect: Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.
> >>
> >>I'm correct.

> >
> > Unsupported assertion.

>
> Supported previously in the thread.


Absolutely not. You're lying.

> >>>---restore4---
> >>>"Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated with an
> >>>outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,"
> >>>says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the national
> >>>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'
> >>>http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html
> >>>
> >>>To counter that, you need to provide rather more than your
> >>>"*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables".
> >>
> >>I don't need to counter your recitation of an *ESTIMATE*

> >
> > "we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,".

>
> It's an estimate. "Up to" isn't a concrete number. The data I provided
> are concrete.


Estimates are based upon available evidence.

> >>which doesn't
> >>discuss the transmission of Campylobacter from produce, which, though
> >>admittedly rare,

> >
> > There ya go.

>
> Campylobacter isn't the only pathogen which affects humans. Most
> food-borne illnesses, as demonstrated in the information I kindly
> posted, are not even tied down to specific foods or contagions. What IS
> known about food-borne illness with a great degree of certainty is that
> produce is more often the cause of outbreaks because (a) produce isn't
> subject to the kinds or amount of scrutiny of meat and (b) produce is
> more likely to be served at temperatures consistent with potential risk
> of bacterial growth.


Produce can be and is cross-contaminated by animal-derived products.

Quit rambling and provide some verifiable stats. Estimates will do.

> <...>
> >>but so, too, is the incidence of becoming
> >>ill from undercooked tainted meat).

> >
> > Millions a year, is low?

>
> Yes.


You idiot.

> There are 300 million people in the US. Most of them average three
> meals per day. That's 328.5 billion meals per year. The rate of
> infection of Campylobacter, from your ESTIMATE, is a very tiny fraction
> -- about one in every one-hundred thousand meals at the maximum number
> offered of 4 million. Stop being such an alarmist.


Stop trying to gloss over a major cause of a potentially very serious illness.

Your snipping of evidence implicating the livestock industry is noted.

You disgust me, .. and probably most others reading your hateful tripe.




  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"menu boy" > wrote

> And you have no proof of any of your claims whatsoever. You're just
> a common troll. *plonk*


Wow.. touché!


  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"menu boy" > wrote

> And you have no proof of any of your claims whatsoever. You're just
> a common troll. *plonk*


Wow.. touché!


  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>>You agreed with nearly every point,
>>>
>>>False.

>>
>>Liar.

>
> Liar.


Liar.

>>>I elucidated at the time;

>>
>>Elucidated, lol? Lucid is about the last adjective I'd apply to you, Les.

>
> What can you see, blind, dense and in the dark as you are.


I see someone who believes or believed in the following:
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucers
Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals)
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth
Sun gazing
Drinking urine as a cure-all
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
she participates in the skinhead subculture
she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts)
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news"
Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence

>>>valid:
>>>hollow earth
>>>inner-earth beings
>>>chemtrails
>>>9/11 controlled demolition
>>>veganism
>>>Aids and Ebola man-made
>>>astrology
>>>'zappers'
>>>reflexology
>>>crop-circles
>>>telepathy (channelling)
>>>Rense

>>
>>There's substantial agreement on the entire list then.

>
> Obviously


Glad you finally admit it.

>>>lied about:
>>>feed:beef ratio

>>
>>Are you suggesting you NEVER got involved in calculating feed:beef
>>ratios and that you re-calculated your math (no wonder you flunked out
>>of engineering school!) multiple times so that you eventually got to an
>>inflated ratio? Come of Les, you know better than that.

>
> You call it "helium-inflated". It is not. You cannot show any error.


You yourself have demonstrated the errors involved merely by your
repeated attempts to "correct" your math. Too bad you only compounded
your errors rather than correct them.

>>>rainforest destruction

>>
>>Are you suggesting you NEVER got into a debate with this subject with Mr
>>Ball or anyone else and claimed that the rainforests were being depleted
>>because of cattle production?

>
> What is it doing on a list of things you like (need) to hold up for ridicule?


It's evidence of your tendency to fall for pseudoscience and alarmist
claims by political activists.

>>>holocaust denial

>>
>>I removed that from the list almost immediately.

>
> You posted it not knowing whether it was true or not.


Given the validity of everything else, it seemed only fitting. It's also
congruent with your anti-semitism on the Jewish newsgroups.

>>>sexually aroused by violent criminals
>>>being a skinhead

>>
>>You were married to a violent skinhead.

>
> I knew him as a (non-violent) person,


Who wanted to batter your mangy critters with a bat. Right?

> not your simplistic stereotype.


Why would he accuse you of being a fraudulent Chelsea were he not really
a skinhead?

>>>leprechauns

>>
>>You suggested agnocticism when asked if you believed in them. Most
>>people are able to give a straightforward answer.

>
> You posted / post it as fact that I believe. I have never stated that.


Do you or do you not believe in leprechauns?

>>>sun gazing

>>
>>You bought into the article about a guy who got his energy by staring
>>into the sun, even suggesting that it sounded promising. You only backed
>>off when it was shown that NASA had never heard of the guy even though
>>the initial articles said NASA was studying him and his "energy collection."

>
> He claimed to have been studied by NASA. I "backed off" when he was
> shown by another poster to be a fraud. I initially thought it possible,


Precisely my point: you don't wait for evidence of the most kooky
notions, but demand even more of it of *well-established facts*.

> as I
> know something about very lengthy fasting practiced by certain ascetics.


We all know you're intimately familiar with extremes of pseudoscience.

> You are posting it in a list of something you claim I support/believe,
> without qualification, that is, that I believe that story now. A lie.


The fact that you were gullible enough to accept it as a possibility
says a lot about you.

>>>stolen craft

>>
>>You have (or had) a link about it on your own website. When asked if you
>>believed that US/allied forces had taken the saucer, you implied that
>>you did.

>
> Date: 2003-07-16
> usual suspect
> US; >Yes, I read that. The presence of l'armée américaine is coincidental to
>>>>the craft's disappearance -- it could've simply been discarded or
>>>>scrapped in the three-year span that page mentions.

>
> pearl
>
>>>P; > It says that he left his business at the US army's disposal to assist the
>>>allied forces in March 1953; that he was unable to take his work to full
>>>term, and, exhausted from the accumulated difficulties, he disappeared in
>>>Dec' of 1956, but it doesn't mention what happened to the craft, or his work.

>>
>>Okay, I misread. Still, it's coincidental.

>
> That's still conjecture.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3jmv6
>
> If anything, the suggestion that the US army stole it is yours, suspect.


Perhaps tauntingly. It's on your website, not mine.

>>>alien abduction

>>
>>Do you or do you not believe that aliens visit earth and occasionally
>>take drunkards and hillbillies for rides where they're repeatedly
>>rectally probed?

>
> I don't know. ? I certainly haven't stated that I do believe it.


You're gullible enough to believe it.

>>>[add:
>>>drinking urine

>>
>>One of the alternative health sources you cited multiple times advocated
>>urine therapy.

>
> So? That's not me. The entry on your fraudulent list states that I do.


You never said you rejected such therapy.

>>You were asked if you endorsed such practice, and, iirc,
>>you said you were investigating it.

>
> No I didn't, liar.


Yes, you did.

>>>thinks bestiality is ok]

>>
>>This goes back to threads in which the paraphile Karen Winter and I were
>>discussing various paraphilia. You said you had no problem whatsoever
>>with bestiality as long as it was not forced on an animal.

>
> No I didn't.


Yes, you did.

> Date: 2004-02-28 05:13:33 PST
> .... I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an animals'
> instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it.
> http://tinyurl.com/5uoz4


Don't forget your other quotes:
I think it's a perversion. Yet if the criteria stipulated above
are met, and the animal doesn't object, what's the concern from
an AR or AW viewpoint?....I support personal freedom in all
areas. Who am I or you to interfere or pass judgement on
people's sexual preferences?
26 Feb 2004: http://tinyurl.com/6wuve

If you support same-sex relations, you may as well go
the whole hog. *As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal.

Now, I could be wrong- maybe zoophiles can harm
their non-human 'partners', but from what I've read
(a long time ago), zoophiles really do care about their
er 'special friends'. I don't like it, but that's not the issue.
26 Feb 2004: http://tinyurl.com/5kbev

>>>presumed:
>>>numerology

>>
>>Do you or do you not believe in numerology?

>
> Depends what you mean by 'numerology'.


What definition of it do you believe in?

>>>exaggerated errors:
>>>globe patent
>>>mistaking exports
>>>polar fountains

>>
>>Those errors were NOT exaggerated. You used each of those to support
>>your looniest notions.

>
> Yes they are exaggerated.


No, not at all. You used them to support your looniest beliefs.

> You're that desperate. It's sad really.


Sad that a grown woman would use a globe patent to support her claim
that the earth is hollow, or that she'd introduce an article which
claimed just the opposite of her beliefs about inner earth, or that
she'd use one country's export data to make a point about another
country altogether. Those weren't trivial mistakes, Lesley, they were
royal **** ups.

>>> http://tinyurl.com/59xw3
>>>
>>>
>>>>even posting links to pics that "prove" inner
>>>>earth beings live beneath Mt Shasta.
>>>
>>>Of course. Here it is again:
>>>http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/OddPics/Shasta.html
>>>
>>>What's your explanation?

>>
>>Such anomalies in photographs are not rare. What's rare is that a few
>>loons see those anomalies and suggest the presence of ghosts, secret
>>communities of enlightened beings, etc.

>
> Show us another such image then. As they're not rare,
> you should have no real difficulty finding a similar photo.


I could show you plenty photos I've taken at family gatherings, sporting
events, etc., in which light anomalies appear. They're not ghosts,
they're not evidence of inner earth beings, they're not evidence of
secret military installations. They're distortions which occur because
of a nexus of flash technology, natural/unnatural lighting, developing
mistakes, impaired film, and a variety of other issues that have more to
do with imperfect technologies and nothing to do with the paranormal.
It's just like the Jesus tortilla: people see exactly what they want
even if it's just a tortilla.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attra...Ktortilla.html
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>>You agreed with nearly every point,
>>>
>>>False.

>>
>>Liar.

>
> Liar.


Liar.

>>>I elucidated at the time;

>>
>>Elucidated, lol? Lucid is about the last adjective I'd apply to you, Les.

>
> What can you see, blind, dense and in the dark as you are.


I see someone who believes or believed in the following:
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucers
Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals)
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth
Sun gazing
Drinking urine as a cure-all
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
she participates in the skinhead subculture
she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts)
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news"
Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence

>>>valid:
>>>hollow earth
>>>inner-earth beings
>>>chemtrails
>>>9/11 controlled demolition
>>>veganism
>>>Aids and Ebola man-made
>>>astrology
>>>'zappers'
>>>reflexology
>>>crop-circles
>>>telepathy (channelling)
>>>Rense

>>
>>There's substantial agreement on the entire list then.

>
> Obviously


Glad you finally admit it.

>>>lied about:
>>>feed:beef ratio

>>
>>Are you suggesting you NEVER got involved in calculating feed:beef
>>ratios and that you re-calculated your math (no wonder you flunked out
>>of engineering school!) multiple times so that you eventually got to an
>>inflated ratio? Come of Les, you know better than that.

>
> You call it "helium-inflated". It is not. You cannot show any error.


You yourself have demonstrated the errors involved merely by your
repeated attempts to "correct" your math. Too bad you only compounded
your errors rather than correct them.

>>>rainforest destruction

>>
>>Are you suggesting you NEVER got into a debate with this subject with Mr
>>Ball or anyone else and claimed that the rainforests were being depleted
>>because of cattle production?

>
> What is it doing on a list of things you like (need) to hold up for ridicule?


It's evidence of your tendency to fall for pseudoscience and alarmist
claims by political activists.

>>>holocaust denial

>>
>>I removed that from the list almost immediately.

>
> You posted it not knowing whether it was true or not.


Given the validity of everything else, it seemed only fitting. It's also
congruent with your anti-semitism on the Jewish newsgroups.

>>>sexually aroused by violent criminals
>>>being a skinhead

>>
>>You were married to a violent skinhead.

>
> I knew him as a (non-violent) person,


Who wanted to batter your mangy critters with a bat. Right?

> not your simplistic stereotype.


Why would he accuse you of being a fraudulent Chelsea were he not really
a skinhead?

>>>leprechauns

>>
>>You suggested agnocticism when asked if you believed in them. Most
>>people are able to give a straightforward answer.

>
> You posted / post it as fact that I believe. I have never stated that.


Do you or do you not believe in leprechauns?

>>>sun gazing

>>
>>You bought into the article about a guy who got his energy by staring
>>into the sun, even suggesting that it sounded promising. You only backed
>>off when it was shown that NASA had never heard of the guy even though
>>the initial articles said NASA was studying him and his "energy collection."

>
> He claimed to have been studied by NASA. I "backed off" when he was
> shown by another poster to be a fraud. I initially thought it possible,


Precisely my point: you don't wait for evidence of the most kooky
notions, but demand even more of it of *well-established facts*.

> as I
> know something about very lengthy fasting practiced by certain ascetics.


We all know you're intimately familiar with extremes of pseudoscience.

> You are posting it in a list of something you claim I support/believe,
> without qualification, that is, that I believe that story now. A lie.


The fact that you were gullible enough to accept it as a possibility
says a lot about you.

>>>stolen craft

>>
>>You have (or had) a link about it on your own website. When asked if you
>>believed that US/allied forces had taken the saucer, you implied that
>>you did.

>
> Date: 2003-07-16
> usual suspect
> US; >Yes, I read that. The presence of l'armée américaine is coincidental to
>>>>the craft's disappearance -- it could've simply been discarded or
>>>>scrapped in the three-year span that page mentions.

>
> pearl
>
>>>P; > It says that he left his business at the US army's disposal to assist the
>>>allied forces in March 1953; that he was unable to take his work to full
>>>term, and, exhausted from the accumulated difficulties, he disappeared in
>>>Dec' of 1956, but it doesn't mention what happened to the craft, or his work.

>>
>>Okay, I misread. Still, it's coincidental.

>
> That's still conjecture.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3jmv6
>
> If anything, the suggestion that the US army stole it is yours, suspect.


Perhaps tauntingly. It's on your website, not mine.

>>>alien abduction

>>
>>Do you or do you not believe that aliens visit earth and occasionally
>>take drunkards and hillbillies for rides where they're repeatedly
>>rectally probed?

>
> I don't know. ? I certainly haven't stated that I do believe it.


You're gullible enough to believe it.

>>>[add:
>>>drinking urine

>>
>>One of the alternative health sources you cited multiple times advocated
>>urine therapy.

>
> So? That's not me. The entry on your fraudulent list states that I do.


You never said you rejected such therapy.

>>You were asked if you endorsed such practice, and, iirc,
>>you said you were investigating it.

>
> No I didn't, liar.


Yes, you did.

>>>thinks bestiality is ok]

>>
>>This goes back to threads in which the paraphile Karen Winter and I were
>>discussing various paraphilia. You said you had no problem whatsoever
>>with bestiality as long as it was not forced on an animal.

>
> No I didn't.


Yes, you did.

> Date: 2004-02-28 05:13:33 PST
> .... I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an animals'
> instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it.
> http://tinyurl.com/5uoz4


Don't forget your other quotes:
I think it's a perversion. Yet if the criteria stipulated above
are met, and the animal doesn't object, what's the concern from
an AR or AW viewpoint?....I support personal freedom in all
areas. Who am I or you to interfere or pass judgement on
people's sexual preferences?
26 Feb 2004: http://tinyurl.com/6wuve

If you support same-sex relations, you may as well go
the whole hog. *As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal.

Now, I could be wrong- maybe zoophiles can harm
their non-human 'partners', but from what I've read
(a long time ago), zoophiles really do care about their
er 'special friends'. I don't like it, but that's not the issue.
26 Feb 2004: http://tinyurl.com/5kbev

>>>presumed:
>>>numerology

>>
>>Do you or do you not believe in numerology?

>
> Depends what you mean by 'numerology'.


What definition of it do you believe in?

>>>exaggerated errors:
>>>globe patent
>>>mistaking exports
>>>polar fountains

>>
>>Those errors were NOT exaggerated. You used each of those to support
>>your looniest notions.

>
> Yes they are exaggerated.


No, not at all. You used them to support your looniest beliefs.

> You're that desperate. It's sad really.


Sad that a grown woman would use a globe patent to support her claim
that the earth is hollow, or that she'd introduce an article which
claimed just the opposite of her beliefs about inner earth, or that
she'd use one country's export data to make a point about another
country altogether. Those weren't trivial mistakes, Lesley, they were
royal **** ups.

>>> http://tinyurl.com/59xw3
>>>
>>>
>>>>even posting links to pics that "prove" inner
>>>>earth beings live beneath Mt Shasta.
>>>
>>>Of course. Here it is again:
>>>http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/OddPics/Shasta.html
>>>
>>>What's your explanation?

>>
>>Such anomalies in photographs are not rare. What's rare is that a few
>>loons see those anomalies and suggest the presence of ghosts, secret
>>communities of enlightened beings, etc.

>
> Show us another such image then. As they're not rare,
> you should have no real difficulty finding a similar photo.


I could show you plenty photos I've taken at family gatherings, sporting
events, etc., in which light anomalies appear. They're not ghosts,
they're not evidence of inner earth beings, they're not evidence of
secret military installations. They're distortions which occur because
of a nexus of flash technology, natural/unnatural lighting, developing
mistakes, impaired film, and a variety of other issues that have more to
do with imperfect technologies and nothing to do with the paranormal.
It's just like the Jesus tortilla: people see exactly what they want
even if it's just a tortilla.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attra...Ktortilla.html


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
>>>>>>>>>>1993 to 1997 found *2,751 outbreaks*. *Those outbreaks* totaled
>>>>>>>>>>*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables,
>>>>>>>>>>compared with *6,709 cases* involving meat.
>>>>>>>>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>---restore1---
>>>>>>>In that case, the number of individual cases of illness due to an outbreak
>>>>>>>involving produce, pales to insignificance compared to the cases of illness
>>>>>>>due to just one of the pathogens found in meat, e.g, Campylobacter;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're comparing apples and oranges,
>>>>>
>>>>>Fudge.
>>>>
>>>>Apples, oranges, and now fudge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>suspect: Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.
>>>>
>>>>I'm correct.
>>>
>>>Unsupported assertion.

>>
>>Supported previously in the thread.

>
> Absolutely


:-)

>>>>>---restore4---
>>>>>"Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated with an
>>>>>outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,"
>>>>>says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the national
>>>>>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'
>>>>>http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html
>>>>>
>>>>>To counter that, you need to provide rather more than your
>>>>>"*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables".
>>>>
>>>>I don't need to counter your recitation of an *ESTIMATE*
>>>
>>>"we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,".

>>
>>It's an estimate. "Up to" isn't a concrete number. The data I provided
>>are concrete.

>
> Estimates are based upon available evidence.


No, estimates are based upon conjecture.

>>>>which doesn't
>>>>discuss the transmission of Campylobacter from produce, which, though
>>>>admittedly rare,
>>>
>>>There ya go.

>>
>>Campylobacter isn't the only pathogen which affects humans. Most
>>food-borne illnesses, as demonstrated in the information I kindly
>>posted, are not even tied down to specific foods or contagions. What IS
>>known about food-borne illness with a great degree of certainty is that
>>produce is more often the cause of outbreaks because (a) produce isn't
>>subject to the kinds or amount of scrutiny of meat and (b) produce is
>>more likely to be served at temperatures consistent with potential risk
>>of bacterial growth.

>
> Produce can be and is cross-contaminated by animal-derived products.


Produce is also cross-contaminated because animals are part of nature,
as are we.

<...>
>>>>but so, too, is the incidence of becoming
>>>>ill from undercooked tainted meat).
>>>
>>>Millions a year, is low?

>>
>>Yes.

>
> You idiot.


Numbers are relative. You don't comprehend the scope of large numbers or
appreciate the scale involved.

>>There are 300 million people in the US. Most of them average three
>>meals per day. That's 328.5 billion meals per year. The rate of
>>infection of Campylobacter, from your ESTIMATE, is a very tiny fraction
>>-- about one in every one-hundred thousand meals at the maximum number
>>offered of 4 million. Stop being such an alarmist.

>
> Stop trying to gloss over a major cause of a potentially very serious illness.


It's not a gloss. The odds of becoming infected by Campylobacter are
about one in every 100,000 meals. Consider these odds:
Odds of drowning in your bathtub: 1 in 685,000
Odds of being struck by lightning this year: 1 in 240,000
Odds that the pilot of your airliner is a convicted drunk driver: 1 in 117
Odds that you'll be injured on the job: 1 in 24,000
Odds of hitting a hole-in-one: 1 in 15,000
Odds of giving birth to a genius: 1 in 250
Odds of being audited by the IRS: 1 in 100
Odds that your next car ride will be your last: 1 in 4 million
http://origin.bankrate.com/brm/news/...20030609b1.asp

> You disgust me,


Awww, no Christmas card for you again next year.

> .. and probably most others reading your hateful tripe.


They deserve it, too.
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
>>>>>>>>>>1993 to 1997 found *2,751 outbreaks*. *Those outbreaks* totaled
>>>>>>>>>>*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables,
>>>>>>>>>>compared with *6,709 cases* involving meat.
>>>>>>>>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>---restore1---
>>>>>>>In that case, the number of individual cases of illness due to an outbreak
>>>>>>>involving produce, pales to insignificance compared to the cases of illness
>>>>>>>due to just one of the pathogens found in meat, e.g, Campylobacter;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're comparing apples and oranges,
>>>>>
>>>>>Fudge.
>>>>
>>>>Apples, oranges, and now fudge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>suspect: Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.
>>>>
>>>>I'm correct.
>>>
>>>Unsupported assertion.

>>
>>Supported previously in the thread.

>
> Absolutely


:-)

>>>>>---restore4---
>>>>>"Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated with an
>>>>>outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,"
>>>>>says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the national
>>>>>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'
>>>>>http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html
>>>>>
>>>>>To counter that, you need to provide rather more than your
>>>>>"*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables".
>>>>
>>>>I don't need to counter your recitation of an *ESTIMATE*
>>>
>>>"we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,".

>>
>>It's an estimate. "Up to" isn't a concrete number. The data I provided
>>are concrete.

>
> Estimates are based upon available evidence.


No, estimates are based upon conjecture.

>>>>which doesn't
>>>>discuss the transmission of Campylobacter from produce, which, though
>>>>admittedly rare,
>>>
>>>There ya go.

>>
>>Campylobacter isn't the only pathogen which affects humans. Most
>>food-borne illnesses, as demonstrated in the information I kindly
>>posted, are not even tied down to specific foods or contagions. What IS
>>known about food-borne illness with a great degree of certainty is that
>>produce is more often the cause of outbreaks because (a) produce isn't
>>subject to the kinds or amount of scrutiny of meat and (b) produce is
>>more likely to be served at temperatures consistent with potential risk
>>of bacterial growth.

>
> Produce can be and is cross-contaminated by animal-derived products.


Produce is also cross-contaminated because animals are part of nature,
as are we.

<...>
>>>>but so, too, is the incidence of becoming
>>>>ill from undercooked tainted meat).
>>>
>>>Millions a year, is low?

>>
>>Yes.

>
> You idiot.


Numbers are relative. You don't comprehend the scope of large numbers or
appreciate the scale involved.

>>There are 300 million people in the US. Most of them average three
>>meals per day. That's 328.5 billion meals per year. The rate of
>>infection of Campylobacter, from your ESTIMATE, is a very tiny fraction
>>-- about one in every one-hundred thousand meals at the maximum number
>>offered of 4 million. Stop being such an alarmist.

>
> Stop trying to gloss over a major cause of a potentially very serious illness.


It's not a gloss. The odds of becoming infected by Campylobacter are
about one in every 100,000 meals. Consider these odds:
Odds of drowning in your bathtub: 1 in 685,000
Odds of being struck by lightning this year: 1 in 240,000
Odds that the pilot of your airliner is a convicted drunk driver: 1 in 117
Odds that you'll be injured on the job: 1 in 24,000
Odds of hitting a hole-in-one: 1 in 15,000
Odds of giving birth to a genius: 1 in 250
Odds of being audited by the IRS: 1 in 100
Odds that your next car ride will be your last: 1 in 4 million
http://origin.bankrate.com/brm/news/...20030609b1.asp

> You disgust me,


Awww, no Christmas card for you again next year.

> .. and probably most others reading your hateful tripe.


They deserve it, too.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Abner Hale
 
Posts: n/a
Default


usual suspect wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases

from
> >>>>>>>>>>1993 to 1997 found *2,751 outbreaks*. *Those outbreaks*

totaled
> >>>>>>>>>>*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables,
> >>>>>>>>>>compared with *6,709 cases* involving meat.

>
>>>>>>>>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>---restore1---
> >>>>>>>In that case, the number of individual cases of illness due to

an outbreak
> >>>>>>>involving produce, pales to insignificance compared to the

cases of illness
> >>>>>>>due to just one of the pathogens found in meat, e.g,

Campylobacter;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You're comparing apples and oranges,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Fudge.
> >>>>
> >>>>Apples, oranges, and now fudge.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>suspect: Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by

produce.
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm correct.
> >>>
> >>>Unsupported assertion.
> >>
> >>Supported previously in the thread.

> >
> > Absolutely

>
> :-)
>
> >>>>>---restore4---
> >>>>>"Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated

with an
> >>>>>outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections

a year,"
> >>>>>says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the

national
> >>>>>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'
> >>>>>http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>To counter that, you need to provide rather more than your
> >>>>>"*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables".
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't need to counter your recitation of an *ESTIMATE*
> >>>
> >>>"we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,".
> >>
> >>It's an estimate. "Up to" isn't a concrete number. The data I

provided
> >>are concrete.

> >
> > Estimates are based upon available evidence.

>
> No, estimates are based upon conjecture.
>
> >>>>which doesn't
> >>>>discuss the transmission of Campylobacter from produce, which,

though
> >>>>admittedly rare,
> >>>
> >>>There ya go.
> >>
> >>Campylobacter isn't the only pathogen which affects humans. Most
> >>food-borne illnesses, as demonstrated in the information I kindly
> >>posted, are not even tied down to specific foods or contagions.

What IS
> >>known about food-borne illness with a great degree of certainty is

that
> >>produce is more often the cause of outbreaks because (a) produce

isn't
> >>subject to the kinds or amount of scrutiny of meat and (b) produce

is
> >>more likely to be served at temperatures consistent with potential

risk
> >>of bacterial growth.

> >
> > Produce can be and is cross-contaminated by animal-derived

products.
>
> Produce is also cross-contaminated because animals are part of

nature,
> as are we.
>
> <...>
> >>>>but so, too, is the incidence of becoming
> >>>>ill from undercooked tainted meat).
> >>>
> >>>Millions a year, is low?
> >>
> >>Yes.

> >
> > You idiot.

>
> Numbers are relative. You don't comprehend the scope of large numbers

or
> appreciate the scale involved.
>
> >>There are 300 million people in the US. Most of them average three
> >>meals per day. That's 328.5 billion meals per year. The rate of
> >>infection of Campylobacter, from your ESTIMATE, is a very tiny

fraction
> >>-- about one in every one-hundred thousand meals at the maximum

number
> >>offered of 4 million. Stop being such an alarmist.

> >
> > Stop trying to gloss over a major cause of a potentially very

serious illness.
>
> It's not a gloss. The odds of becoming infected by Campylobacter are
> about one in every 100,000 meals. Consider these odds:
> Odds of drowning in your bathtub: 1 in 685,000
> Odds of being struck by lightning this year: 1 in 240,000
> Odds that the pilot of your airliner is a convicted drunk driver: 1

in 117
> Odds that you'll be injured on the job: 1 in 24,000
> Odds of hitting a hole-in-one: 1 in 15,000
> Odds of giving birth to a genius: 1 in 250


In "pearl's" case, I got to take issue. HER odds of giving birth to a
genius are far, far lower than that. Probably less than one in a
million, given ordinary genetics.


> Odds of being audited by the IRS: 1 in 100
> Odds that your next car ride will be your last: 1 in 4 million
> http://origin.bankrate.com/brm/news/...20030609b1.asp
>
> > You disgust me,

>
> Awww, no Christmas card for you again next year.
>
> > .. and probably most others reading your hateful tripe.

>
> They deserve it, too.


  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Abner Hale wrote:
<...>
>> Odds of giving birth to a genius: 1 in 250

>
> In "pearl's" case, I got to take issue. HER odds of giving birth to a
> genius are far, far lower than that. Probably less than one in a
> million, given ordinary genetics.


No need to worry. She pretty much proved that she's had no contact with
children, much less ever had any herself, in several threads that dealt
with children and meat. She didn't even know babies will pick up stuff
off the ground, including worms, and chew.

http://tinyurl.com/4bf6d
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Abner Hale wrote:
<...>
>> Odds of giving birth to a genius: 1 in 250

>
> In "pearl's" case, I got to take issue. HER odds of giving birth to a
> genius are far, far lower than that. Probably less than one in a
> million, given ordinary genetics.


No need to worry. She pretty much proved that she's had no contact with
children, much less ever had any herself, in several threads that dealt
with children and meat. She didn't even know babies will pick up stuff
off the ground, including worms, and chew.

http://tinyurl.com/4bf6d


  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> Abner Hale wrote:
> <...>
> >> Odds of giving birth to a genius: 1 in 250

> >
> > In "pearl's" case, I got to take issue.


You're obsessed. Loser.

> > HER odds of giving birth to a
> > genius are far, far lower than that. Probably less than one in a
> > million, given ordinary genetics.

>
> No need to worry. She pretty much proved that she's had no contact with
> children, much less ever had any herself, in several threads that dealt
> with children and meat. She didn't even know babies will pick up stuff
> off the ground, including worms, and chew.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4bf6d


Chew, with what? And what tall-tale did you tell to 'prove it'?

"I was a year to a year and a half old. My mother left me in
our backyard on a blanket while she ran in to get our lunch.
When she came back, I was covered in blood and laughing.
I was also holding half a snake. It wasn't exactly a pet (cut
with the PC crap; they're called pets), but I did bite its
****ing head off. I count that as my first hunt."
From: usual suspect Date: 2003-07-02 11:06:11 PST

"It was a grass snake. I don't know if you've any out that far
west, but they only grow to about 2' as adults. From what
I've been told, it was about a foot long after I took a bite."
From: usual suspect Date: 2003-07-17 09:26:49 PST

usual suspect is claiming; not only that he bit off a two-foot
long snake's head, but that he ate half of it-- as a toddler. !

He's a pathological liar, same as ball and some others here.




  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> Abner Hale wrote:
> <...>
> >> Odds of giving birth to a genius: 1 in 250

> >
> > In "pearl's" case, I got to take issue.


You're obsessed. Loser.

> > HER odds of giving birth to a
> > genius are far, far lower than that. Probably less than one in a
> > million, given ordinary genetics.

>
> No need to worry. She pretty much proved that she's had no contact with
> children, much less ever had any herself, in several threads that dealt
> with children and meat. She didn't even know babies will pick up stuff
> off the ground, including worms, and chew.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4bf6d


Chew, with what? And what tall-tale did you tell to 'prove it'?

"I was a year to a year and a half old. My mother left me in
our backyard on a blanket while she ran in to get our lunch.
When she came back, I was covered in blood and laughing.
I was also holding half a snake. It wasn't exactly a pet (cut
with the PC crap; they're called pets), but I did bite its
****ing head off. I count that as my first hunt."
From: usual suspect Date: 2003-07-02 11:06:11 PST

"It was a grass snake. I don't know if you've any out that far
west, but they only grow to about 2' as adults. From what
I've been told, it was about a foot long after I took a bite."
From: usual suspect Date: 2003-07-17 09:26:49 PST

usual suspect is claiming; not only that he bit off a two-foot
long snake's head, but that he ate half of it-- as a toddler. !

He's a pathological liar, same as ball and some others here.




  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>>You agreed with nearly every point,
> >>>
> >>>False.
> >>
> >>Liar.

> >
> > Liar.

>
> Liar.


Liar.

> >>>I elucidated at the time;
> >>
> >>Elucidated, lol? Lucid is about the last adjective I'd apply to you, Les.

> >
> > What can you see, blind, dense and in the dark as you are.

>
> I see someone who believes or believed in the following:


Still repeating your lies, stupid?

> "veganism"
> "inner earth beings"
> "hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
> helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
> rain forest destruction
> Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
> Stolen French flying saucers
> Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery
> Foot massage (as cure-all)
> Astrology
> Numerology
> Alien abduction
> bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals)
> Leprechauns
> Channeling
> Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth
> Sun gazing
> Drinking urine as a cure-all
> Chemtrails
> AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
> Crop circles
> she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
> she participates in the skinhead subculture
> she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts)
> crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
> Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news"
> Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence


What a fool you are, suspect.

> >>>valid:
> >>>hollow earth
> >>>inner-earth beings
> >>>chemtrails
> >>>9/11 controlled demolition
> >>>veganism
> >>>Aids and Ebola man-made
> >>>astrology
> >>>'zappers'
> >>>reflexology
> >>>crop-circles
> >>>telepathy (channelling)
> >>>Rense
> >>
> >>There's substantial agreement on the entire list then.

> >
> > Obviously

>
> Glad you finally admit it.


Fraudulently editing my reply, - true to form.

> >>>lied about:
> >>>feed:beef ratio
> >>
> >>Are you suggesting you NEVER got involved in calculating feed:beef
> >>ratios and that you re-calculated your math (no wonder you flunked out


BS.

> >>of engineering school!) multiple times so that you eventually got to an
> >>inflated ratio? Come of Les, you know better than that.

> >
> > You call it "helium-inflated". It is not. You cannot show any error.

>
> You yourself have demonstrated the errors involved merely by your
> repeated attempts to "correct" your math. Too bad you only compounded
> your errors rather than correct them.


BS. Show any error. You couldn't then, and you can't now.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Calculations feed : beef.

Table 5. Corn grain, medium quality hay and corn silage.

Average
Daily Corn Protein Lime-
Weight Gain Intake Grain Hay Silage Supplement stone

800 2.5 30.3 7.5 5.3 14.2 3.1 0.19

1200 2.5 35.5 13.8 1.3 16.7 3.6 0.22

http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ans...f/as1163-1.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average daily gain 2.5 pounds (liveweight).
Medium-high concentrate ration grain + corn silage + hay - average 32.5 lbs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Live-weight 900 1040 1146 1258 1403 lb
'harvest' 1 ..... 2 .... 3 .... 4 ...... 5
Fat % 17.7 ........22.6 ..... 28.1 .......30.3 ..........34.0
Protein % 14.5 ........13.9 .......12.6 ......12.0 ..........11.6
Water % 51.3 ...... 48.0....... 43.9 ...... 42.3.......... 40.1
Bone % 16.4 ....... 15.4 ...... 15.4 ...... 15.3 .........14.3
carcass weight 450 550 650 750 850 lbs.
http://ars.sdstate.edu/BeefExt/BeefR...ht_and_mar.htm

Those ages are near enough to be used to calculate meat gain %.

protein + water = meat
(1) 65.8% of 450lbs carcass, (4) 54.3% of 750lbs carcass.
= 296.1 = 407.25
- a gain of 111.15lbs of meat for + 300lbs of carcass weight-
or 37.0% of feedlot carcass gain.

Total increase; carcass + wastage -- 1258-900 = 358lbs.

Meat gain- % of liveweight gain; 111.15/358 * 100 = 31% .

2.5 lbs liveweight gain x 31% = 0.77 pounds meat.
--------------------------------------------------------------
32.5 pounds intake / 0.77 = 42.2, or 42 :1, feed : meat gain,
on a medium-high grain ration + silage & hay. (not DM)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here we'll add 10% fat..,
---------------------------------------------------------------
Add 10% to 0.77lbs meat for fat content = 0.85 pounds beef.
32.5 pounds intake / 0.85 = 38.23, or 38 :1, feed : beef gain.
---------------------------------------------------------------

....

> >>>rainforest destruction
> >>
> >>Are you suggesting you NEVER got into a debate with this subject with Mr
> >>Ball or anyone else and claimed that the rainforests were being depleted
> >>because of cattle production?

> >
> > What is it doing on a list of things you like (need) to hold up for ridicule?

>
> It's evidence of your tendency to fall for pseudoscience and alarmist
> claims by political activists.


Evidence of what you claim?

> >>>holocaust denial
> >>
> >>I removed that from the list almost immediately.

> >
> > You posted it not knowing whether it was true or not.

>
> Given the validity of everything else,


Liar.

> it seemed only fitting.


It suited your stinking smear of an opponent who's trashed you.

> It's also
> congruent with your anti-semitism on the Jewish newsgroups.


Where? Provide quotes.

> >>>sexually aroused by violent criminals
> >>>being a skinhead
> >>
> >>You were married to a violent skinhead.

> >
> > I knew him as a (non-violent) person,

>
> Who wanted to batter your mangy


Evidence?

> critters with a bat. Right?


Even I feel like that at times. (But don't, of course).

> > not your simplistic stereotype.

>
> Why would he accuse you of being a fraudulent Chelsea were he not really
> a skinhead?


He lied. You believe the lying skinhead because it suits you.

> >>>leprechauns
> >>
> >>You suggested agnocticism when asked if you believed in them. Most
> >>people are able to give a straightforward answer.

> >
> > You posted / post it as fact that I believe. I have never stated that.

>
> Do you or do you not believe in leprechauns?


If you don't know, then why are you posting it as fact?

> >>>sun gazing
> >>
> >>You bought into the article about a guy who got his energy by staring
> >>into the sun, even suggesting that it sounded promising. You only backed
> >>off when it was shown that NASA had never heard of the guy even though
> >>the initial articles said NASA was studying him and his "energy collection."

> >
> > He claimed to have been studied by NASA. I "backed off" when he was
> > shown by another poster to be a fraud. I initially thought it possible,

>
> Precisely my point: you don't wait for evidence of the most kooky
> notions, but demand even more of it of *well-established facts*.


In English?

> > as I
> > know something about very lengthy fasting practiced by certain ascetics.

>
> We all know you're intimately familiar with extremes of pseudoscience.


Ipse dixit. Most informed people have heard of such practices.

> > You are posting it in a list of something you claim I support/believe,
> > without qualification, that is, that I believe that story now. A lie.

>
> The fact that you were gullible enough to accept it as a possibility
> says a lot about you.


See above. You're ignorant.

> >>>stolen craft
> >>
> >>You have (or had) a link about it on your own website. When asked if you
> >>believed that US/allied forces had taken the saucer, you implied that
> >>you did.

> >
> > Date: 2003-07-16
> > usual suspect
> > US; >Yes, I read that. The presence of l'armée américaine is coincidental to
> >>>>the craft's disappearance -- it could've simply been discarded or
> >>>>scrapped in the three-year span that page mentions.

> >
> > pearl
> >
> >>>P; > It says that he left his business at the US army's disposal to assist the
> >>>allied forces in March 1953; that he was unable to take his work to full
> >>>term, and, exhausted from the accumulated difficulties, he disappeared in
> >>>Dec' of 1956, but it doesn't mention what happened to the craft, or his work.
> >>
> >>Okay, I misread. Still, it's coincidental.

> >
> > That's still conjecture.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/3jmv6
> >
> > If anything, the suggestion that the US army stole it is yours, suspect.

>
> Perhaps tauntingly.


Sure.

> It's on your website, not mine.


So? I think it's a cool looking object.

> >>>alien abduction
> >>
> >>Do you or do you not believe that aliens visit earth and occasionally
> >>take drunkards and hillbillies for rides where they're repeatedly
> >>rectally probed?

> >
> > I don't know. ? I certainly haven't stated that I do believe it.

>
> You're gullible enough to believe it.


Ipse dixit. You've stated that I do believe it. A lie.

> >>>[add:
> >>>drinking urine
> >>
> >>One of the alternative health sources you cited multiple times advocated
> >>urine therapy.

> >
> > So? That's not me. The entry on your fraudulent list states that I do.

>
> You never said you rejected such therapy.


I've never stated that I believe/support it. You're a proven liar.

> >>You were asked if you endorsed such practice, and, iirc,
> >>you said you were investigating it.

> >
> > No I didn't, liar.

>
> Yes, you did.


Quote?

> >>>thinks bestiality is ok]
> >>
> >>This goes back to threads in which the paraphile Karen Winter and I were
> >>discussing various paraphilia. You said you had no problem whatsoever
> >>with bestiality as long as it was not forced on an animal.

> >
> > No I didn't.

>
> Yes, you did.


False..

> > Date: 2004-02-28 05:13:33 PST
> > .... #I think it is a perversion,# and if it is contrary to an animals'
> > instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it.
> > http://tinyurl.com/5uoz4

>
> Don't forget your other quotes:
> #I think it's a perversion.# Yet if the criteria stipulated above
> are met, and the animal doesn't object, what's the concern from
> an AR or AW viewpoint?....I support personal freedom in all
> areas. Who am I or you to interfere or pass judgement on
> people's sexual preferences?
> 26 Feb 2004: http://tinyurl.com/6wuve
>
> If you support same-sex relations, you may as well go
> the whole hog. *As long as the feelings are mutual*,
> and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
> should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
> problem with people's personal choices *as long as
> they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
> human or animal.
>
> Now, I could be wrong- maybe zoophiles can harm
> their non-human 'partners', but from what I've read
> (a long time ago), zoophiles really do care about their
> er 'special friends'. #I don't like it#, but that's not the issue.
> 26 Feb 2004: http://tinyurl.com/5kbev


The entry on your list states that I think it okay without any
qualification, which is clearly false... another lie, suspect.

> >>>presumed:
> >>>numerology
> >>
> >>Do you or do you not believe in numerology?

> >
> > Depends what you mean by 'numerology'.

>
> What definition of it do you believe in?


Guess.

> >>>exaggerated errors:
> >>>globe patent
> >>>mistaking exports
> >>>polar fountains
> >>
> >>Those errors were NOT exaggerated. You used each of those to support
> >>your looniest notions.

> >
> > Yes they are exaggerated.

>
> No, not at all. You used them to support your looniest beliefs.


Get over it.

> > You're that desperate. It's sad really.

>
> Sad that a grown woman would use a globe patent to support her claim
> that the earth is hollow, or that she'd introduce an article which
> claimed just the opposite of her beliefs about inner earth, or that
> she'd use one country's export data to make a point about another
> country altogether. Those weren't trivial mistakes, Lesley, they were
> royal **** ups.


BS.

> >>> http://tinyurl.com/59xw3
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>even posting links to pics that "prove" inner
> >>>>earth beings live beneath Mt Shasta.
> >>>
> >>>Of course. Here it is again:
> >>>http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/OddPics/Shasta.html
> >>>
> >>>What's your explanation?
> >>
> >>Such anomalies in photographs are not rare. What's rare is that a few
> >>loons see those anomalies and suggest the presence of ghosts, secret
> >>communities of enlightened beings, etc.

> >
> > Show us another such image then. As they're not rare,
> > you should have no real difficulty finding a similar photo.

>
> I could show you plenty photos I've taken at family gatherings, sporting
> events, etc., in which light anomalies appear. They're not ghosts,
> they're not evidence of inner earth beings, they're not evidence of
> secret military installations. They're distortions which occur because
> of a nexus of flash technology, natural/unnatural lighting, developing
> mistakes, impaired film, and a variety of other issues that have more to
> do with imperfect technologies and nothing to do with the paranormal.


Show us another such image then. As they're not rare,
you should have no real difficulty finding a similar photo.

...



  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>>You agreed with nearly every point,
> >>>
> >>>False.
> >>
> >>Liar.

> >
> > Liar.

>
> Liar.


Liar.

> >>>I elucidated at the time;
> >>
> >>Elucidated, lol? Lucid is about the last adjective I'd apply to you, Les.

> >
> > What can you see, blind, dense and in the dark as you are.

>
> I see someone who believes or believed in the following:


Still repeating your lies, stupid?

> "veganism"
> "inner earth beings"
> "hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
> helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
> rain forest destruction
> Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
> Stolen French flying saucers
> Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery
> Foot massage (as cure-all)
> Astrology
> Numerology
> Alien abduction
> bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals)
> Leprechauns
> Channeling
> Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth
> Sun gazing
> Drinking urine as a cure-all
> Chemtrails
> AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
> Crop circles
> she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
> she participates in the skinhead subculture
> she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts)
> crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
> Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news"
> Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence


What a fool you are, suspect.

> >>>valid:
> >>>hollow earth
> >>>inner-earth beings
> >>>chemtrails
> >>>9/11 controlled demolition
> >>>veganism
> >>>Aids and Ebola man-made
> >>>astrology
> >>>'zappers'
> >>>reflexology
> >>>crop-circles
> >>>telepathy (channelling)
> >>>Rense
> >>
> >>There's substantial agreement on the entire list then.

> >
> > Obviously

>
> Glad you finally admit it.


Fraudulently editing my reply, - true to form.

> >>>lied about:
> >>>feed:beef ratio
> >>
> >>Are you suggesting you NEVER got involved in calculating feed:beef
> >>ratios and that you re-calculated your math (no wonder you flunked out


BS.

> >>of engineering school!) multiple times so that you eventually got to an
> >>inflated ratio? Come of Les, you know better than that.

> >
> > You call it "helium-inflated". It is not. You cannot show any error.

>
> You yourself have demonstrated the errors involved merely by your
> repeated attempts to "correct" your math. Too bad you only compounded
> your errors rather than correct them.


BS. Show any error. You couldn't then, and you can't now.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Calculations feed : beef.

Table 5. Corn grain, medium quality hay and corn silage.

Average
Daily Corn Protein Lime-
Weight Gain Intake Grain Hay Silage Supplement stone

800 2.5 30.3 7.5 5.3 14.2 3.1 0.19

1200 2.5 35.5 13.8 1.3 16.7 3.6 0.22

http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ans...f/as1163-1.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average daily gain 2.5 pounds (liveweight).
Medium-high concentrate ration grain + corn silage + hay - average 32.5 lbs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Live-weight 900 1040 1146 1258 1403 lb
'harvest' 1 ..... 2 .... 3 .... 4 ...... 5
Fat % 17.7 ........22.6 ..... 28.1 .......30.3 ..........34.0
Protein % 14.5 ........13.9 .......12.6 ......12.0 ..........11.6
Water % 51.3 ...... 48.0....... 43.9 ...... 42.3.......... 40.1
Bone % 16.4 ....... 15.4 ...... 15.4 ...... 15.3 .........14.3
carcass weight 450 550 650 750 850 lbs.
http://ars.sdstate.edu/BeefExt/BeefR...ht_and_mar.htm

Those ages are near enough to be used to calculate meat gain %.

protein + water = meat
(1) 65.8% of 450lbs carcass, (4) 54.3% of 750lbs carcass.
= 296.1 = 407.25
- a gain of 111.15lbs of meat for + 300lbs of carcass weight-
or 37.0% of feedlot carcass gain.

Total increase; carcass + wastage -- 1258-900 = 358lbs.

Meat gain- % of liveweight gain; 111.15/358 * 100 = 31% .

2.5 lbs liveweight gain x 31% = 0.77 pounds meat.
--------------------------------------------------------------
32.5 pounds intake / 0.77 = 42.2, or 42 :1, feed : meat gain,
on a medium-high grain ration + silage & hay. (not DM)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here we'll add 10% fat..,
---------------------------------------------------------------
Add 10% to 0.77lbs meat for fat content = 0.85 pounds beef.
32.5 pounds intake / 0.85 = 38.23, or 38 :1, feed : beef gain.
---------------------------------------------------------------

....

> >>>rainforest destruction
> >>
> >>Are you suggesting you NEVER got into a debate with this subject with Mr
> >>Ball or anyone else and claimed that the rainforests were being depleted
> >>because of cattle production?

> >
> > What is it doing on a list of things you like (need) to hold up for ridicule?

>
> It's evidence of your tendency to fall for pseudoscience and alarmist
> claims by political activists.


Evidence of what you claim?

> >>>holocaust denial
> >>
> >>I removed that from the list almost immediately.

> >
> > You posted it not knowing whether it was true or not.

>
> Given the validity of everything else,


Liar.

> it seemed only fitting.


It suited your stinking smear of an opponent who's trashed you.

> It's also
> congruent with your anti-semitism on the Jewish newsgroups.


Where? Provide quotes.

> >>>sexually aroused by violent criminals
> >>>being a skinhead
> >>
> >>You were married to a violent skinhead.

> >
> > I knew him as a (non-violent) person,

>
> Who wanted to batter your mangy


Evidence?

> critters with a bat. Right?


Even I feel like that at times. (But don't, of course).

> > not your simplistic stereotype.

>
> Why would he accuse you of being a fraudulent Chelsea were he not really
> a skinhead?


He lied. You believe the lying skinhead because it suits you.

> >>>leprechauns
> >>
> >>You suggested agnocticism when asked if you believed in them. Most
> >>people are able to give a straightforward answer.

> >
> > You posted / post it as fact that I believe. I have never stated that.

>
> Do you or do you not believe in leprechauns?


If you don't know, then why are you posting it as fact?

> >>>sun gazing
> >>
> >>You bought into the article about a guy who got his energy by staring
> >>into the sun, even suggesting that it sounded promising. You only backed
> >>off when it was shown that NASA had never heard of the guy even though
> >>the initial articles said NASA was studying him and his "energy collection."

> >
> > He claimed to have been studied by NASA. I "backed off" when he was
> > shown by another poster to be a fraud. I initially thought it possible,

>
> Precisely my point: you don't wait for evidence of the most kooky
> notions, but demand even more of it of *well-established facts*.


In English?

> > as I
> > know something about very lengthy fasting practiced by certain ascetics.

>
> We all know you're intimately familiar with extremes of pseudoscience.


Ipse dixit. Most informed people have heard of such practices.

> > You are posting it in a list of something you claim I support/believe,
> > without qualification, that is, that I believe that story now. A lie.

>
> The fact that you were gullible enough to accept it as a possibility
> says a lot about you.


See above. You're ignorant.

> >>>stolen craft
> >>
> >>You have (or had) a link about it on your own website. When asked if you
> >>believed that US/allied forces had taken the saucer, you implied that
> >>you did.

> >
> > Date: 2003-07-16
> > usual suspect
> > US; >Yes, I read that. The presence of l'armée américaine is coincidental to
> >>>>the craft's disappearance -- it could've simply been discarded or
> >>>>scrapped in the three-year span that page mentions.

> >
> > pearl
> >
> >>>P; > It says that he left his business at the US army's disposal to assist the
> >>>allied forces in March 1953; that he was unable to take his work to full
> >>>term, and, exhausted from the accumulated difficulties, he disappeared in
> >>>Dec' of 1956, but it doesn't mention what happened to the craft, or his work.
> >>
> >>Okay, I misread. Still, it's coincidental.

> >
> > That's still conjecture.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/3jmv6
> >
> > If anything, the suggestion that the US army stole it is yours, suspect.

>
> Perhaps tauntingly.


Sure.

> It's on your website, not mine.


So? I think it's a cool looking object.

> >>>alien abduction
> >>
> >>Do you or do you not believe that aliens visit earth and occasionally
> >>take drunkards and hillbillies for rides where they're repeatedly
> >>rectally probed?

> >
> > I don't know. ? I certainly haven't stated that I do believe it.

>
> You're gullible enough to believe it.


Ipse dixit. You've stated that I do believe it. A lie.

> >>>[add:
> >>>drinking urine
> >>
> >>One of the alternative health sources you cited multiple times advocated
> >>urine therapy.

> >
> > So? That's not me. The entry on your fraudulent list states that I do.

>
> You never said you rejected such therapy.


I've never stated that I believe/support it. You're a proven liar.

> >>You were asked if you endorsed such practice, and, iirc,
> >>you said you were investigating it.

> >
> > No I didn't, liar.

>
> Yes, you did.


Quote?

> >>>thinks bestiality is ok]
> >>
> >>This goes back to threads in which the paraphile Karen Winter and I were
> >>discussing various paraphilia. You said you had no problem whatsoever
> >>with bestiality as long as it was not forced on an animal.

> >
> > No I didn't.

>
> Yes, you did.


False..

> > Date: 2004-02-28 05:13:33 PST
> > .... #I think it is a perversion,# and if it is contrary to an animals'
> > instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it.
> > http://tinyurl.com/5uoz4

>
> Don't forget your other quotes:
> #I think it's a perversion.# Yet if the criteria stipulated above
> are met, and the animal doesn't object, what's the concern from
> an AR or AW viewpoint?....I support personal freedom in all
> areas. Who am I or you to interfere or pass judgement on
> people's sexual preferences?
> 26 Feb 2004: http://tinyurl.com/6wuve
>
> If you support same-sex relations, you may as well go
> the whole hog. *As long as the feelings are mutual*,
> and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
> should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
> problem with people's personal choices *as long as
> they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
> human or animal.
>
> Now, I could be wrong- maybe zoophiles can harm
> their non-human 'partners', but from what I've read
> (a long time ago), zoophiles really do care about their
> er 'special friends'. #I don't like it#, but that's not the issue.
> 26 Feb 2004: http://tinyurl.com/5kbev


The entry on your list states that I think it okay without any
qualification, which is clearly false... another lie, suspect.

> >>>presumed:
> >>>numerology
> >>
> >>Do you or do you not believe in numerology?

> >
> > Depends what you mean by 'numerology'.

>
> What definition of it do you believe in?


Guess.

> >>>exaggerated errors:
> >>>globe patent
> >>>mistaking exports
> >>>polar fountains
> >>
> >>Those errors were NOT exaggerated. You used each of those to support
> >>your looniest notions.

> >
> > Yes they are exaggerated.

>
> No, not at all. You used them to support your looniest beliefs.


Get over it.

> > You're that desperate. It's sad really.

>
> Sad that a grown woman would use a globe patent to support her claim
> that the earth is hollow, or that she'd introduce an article which
> claimed just the opposite of her beliefs about inner earth, or that
> she'd use one country's export data to make a point about another
> country altogether. Those weren't trivial mistakes, Lesley, they were
> royal **** ups.


BS.

> >>> http://tinyurl.com/59xw3
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>even posting links to pics that "prove" inner
> >>>>earth beings live beneath Mt Shasta.
> >>>
> >>>Of course. Here it is again:
> >>>http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/OddPics/Shasta.html
> >>>
> >>>What's your explanation?
> >>
> >>Such anomalies in photographs are not rare. What's rare is that a few
> >>loons see those anomalies and suggest the presence of ghosts, secret
> >>communities of enlightened beings, etc.

> >
> > Show us another such image then. As they're not rare,
> > you should have no real difficulty finding a similar photo.

>
> I could show you plenty photos I've taken at family gatherings, sporting
> events, etc., in which light anomalies appear. They're not ghosts,
> they're not evidence of inner earth beings, they're not evidence of
> secret military installations. They're distortions which occur because
> of a nexus of flash technology, natural/unnatural lighting, developing
> mistakes, impaired film, and a variety of other issues that have more to
> do with imperfect technologies and nothing to do with the paranormal.


Show us another such image then. As they're not rare,
you should have no real difficulty finding a similar photo.

...



  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
>>>>Odds of giving birth to a genius: 1 in 250
>>>
>>>In "pearl's" case, I got to take issue.

>
> You're obsessed. Loser.


To whom are you responding?

>>>HER odds of giving birth to a
>>>genius are far, far lower than that. Probably less than one in a
>>>million, given ordinary genetics.

>>
>>No need to worry. She pretty much proved that she's had no contact with
>>children, much less ever had any herself, in several threads that dealt
>>with children and meat. She didn't even know babies will pick up stuff
>>off the ground, including worms, and chew.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/4bf6d

>
> Chew, with what?


Gums.

> And what tall-tale did you tell to 'prove it'?


It really happened.

> "I was a year to a year and a half old. My mother left me in
> our backyard on a blanket while she ran in to get our lunch.
> When she came back, I was covered in blood and laughing.
> I was also holding half a snake. It wasn't exactly a pet (cut
> with the PC crap; they're called pets), but I did bite its
> ****ing head off. I count that as my first hunt."
> From: usual suspect Date: 2003-07-02 11:06:11 PST
>
> "It was a grass snake. I don't know if you've any out that far
> west, but they only grow to about 2' as adults. From what
> I've been told, it was about a foot long after I took a bite."
> From: usual suspect Date: 2003-07-17 09:26:49 PST
>
> usual suspect is claiming; not only that he bit off a two-foot
> long snake's head, but that he ate half of it-- as a toddler. !


http://www.babycenter.com/expert/bab...vior/6721.html
http://www.new-vis.com/fym/papers/p-feed1.htm
http://www.zerotothree.org/magic/book3/article4.html
http://www.learningpathways.com/toys.html
Etc.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vegans Wanted! Vegan Abolitionist Vegan 2 09-11-2007 05:26 PM
New Group for Vegans Goat Vegetarian cooking 0 20-03-2007 09:04 PM
Vegans S&S Vegan 1 01-06-2005 01:08 AM
What do vegans eat when they go out? Hannah Vegan 21 31-07-2004 08:05 PM
Why Vegans Were Right All Along F.G. Whitfurrows Barbecue 2 17-01-2004 02:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"