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.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:23:56 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>objections to the term can finally stop.

Yeah sure;

"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05

Your views are anything but consistent, so the
question remains; "How can we believe you?"

Retard wrote:
>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>
> Yeah sure;

I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore, you fat cuckold.

C. James Strutz 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.
>
> Being that this is usenet, civil conversation OVER a meal isn't possible.
> That leaves only uncivil conversation ABOUT it. :^)

And how ironic that you're the one to offer it.

> I wonder if you also
> enjoyed the increased risk of hepatitis,

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.

> bacterial contamination,

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

> and intestinal parasites.

Not related only to meat consumption. More people become ill from
tainted produce, not from tainted meat.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/parasite.htm

>>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.
>
> You can buy native wild rice that occurs naturally and is harvested without
> involving ANY animal deaths.

Wild rice would be horrible wrapped in seaweed. The wild rice of which
you speak is also not widely available.

>>So I really must ask, Why do you only object to the death of *ONE* tuna?
>
> Because it's at least one less death.

Objecting only to 1001st death. Why be so cavalier about the lives of
the first 1000?

>>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.
>
> Feel the love....

Feel the *truth*.

C. James Strutz 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.
>
> Being that this is usenet, civil conversation OVER a meal isn't possible.
> That leaves only uncivil conversation ABOUT it. :^)

And how ironic that you're the one to offer it.

> I wonder if you also
> enjoyed the increased risk of hepatitis,

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.

> bacterial contamination,

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

> and intestinal parasites.

Not related only to meat consumption. More people become ill from
tainted produce, not from tainted meat.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/parasite.htm

>>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.
>
> You can buy native wild rice that occurs naturally and is harvested without
> involving ANY animal deaths.

Wild rice would be horrible wrapped in seaweed. The wild rice of which
you speak is also not widely available.

>>So I really must ask, Why do you only object to the death of *ONE* tuna?
>
> Because it's at least one less death.

Objecting only to 1001st death. Why be so cavalier about the lives of
the first 1000?

>>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.
>
> Feel the love....

Feel the *truth*.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:19:09 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>
>> Yeah sure;
>
>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore

I don't call you anything but a liar. You're all over
the place on every issue raised here, including your
said stance on being a vegan. Remember this (below)?

Since self-confessed vegan, Ususpect's recent
mesalliance with Jonathan after catching Dutch's
nasty cold, I thought it might be in everyone's
interest to refresh their memories on his earlier
views before Jonathan told him how to start
thinking his way. By the end of this post you'll see
that usual suspect, although temporarily misguided
by the Anti's disinformation, is in fact a closet ARA.
Through his attempts to conceal this fact and stay
on Jonathan's good side, he has had to make several
changes in position, and this can be shown by the
quotes I've brought here to demonstrate his many
inconsistencies.

DENYING THE ANTECEDENT

"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and
without serious health problems associated with an
animal-based diet?"
usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09

From that, Ususpect clearly believed his vegan
lifestyle had "selfless consequences", namely
that "no animal must die for his nourishment or
enjoyment"

Also, in response to Jonathan's pressure that he
accept animals die for his benefit, he tackles Jon's
CD argument with nothing but a whimper.
[Jonathan Ball]
> Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent:
> If I eat meat, animals died for my diet.
> I don't eat meat.
> Therefore, no animals died for my diet.
[usual suspect]
That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing
the algebra). It has one glaring problem: it's just not
true.
[end]

But now, for some unfathomable reason, his logical
reasoning tells him that Jon's illogical argument is
valid and sound. How's that for inconsistency?

ANIMAL RIGHTS

He also believes that animals, though oughtn't be
given rights, must be protected as human children
are, and not be killed for our own benefit;

"I personally subscribe to a more COMMON law
position that animals should not be granted rights
but protection under the law (same as used to apply
to minors)..."
usual suspect Date: 2002-06-11

But, if he once believed animals should to be given
protection using the SAME LAWS as used to apply
to minors, why does he advocate animal research and
testing on them? Also while holding such beliefs, why
does he criticise others when protesting against how
these fellow *minors* are being treated?

"When was the last time you visited a family or
factory farm? Tell us about the conditions you
observed. Did they have someone roaming around,
willfully causing harm to the animals? Or were the
animals well-fed, able to move around, etc.?"
usual suspect Date: 2003-09-08

What sort of "protection under the law (same as used
to apply to minors)..." is he thinking about if it allows
the eating and use of them for research?

This last statement is particularly interesting, seeing
as it was written by someone who refutes the idea
of animal rights;
"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
usual suspect 2002-10-09

What's wrong with killing animals for one's own benefit,
unless that person is a firm believer in that our benefit
cannot trump the inherent rights of an animal?
"usual suspect" is a closet ARA.
[end]

Here's a few more of "usual suspect"'s quotes which
leave me in no doubt that he has been lying about his
beliefs for some years now.

"Animals are not moral agents and generally operate
by instinct and conditioning (the same can be said of
far too many humans). Animals should be afforded
protection under the law. But are they endowed with
any rights by their creator? I do not know that answer.
usual suspect Date: 2002-06-12

"Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic
environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more
likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy
are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to
produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains,
vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the
latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely
and you have much more of the latter to feed the
world."
usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26

"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05

Retard wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>>
>>>Yeah sure;
>>
>>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
>
> I don't call you anything

And that's as it should be, you fat, self-crippled, undisciplined cuckold.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:45:44 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> usual suspect wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah sure;
>>>
>>>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
>>
>> I don't call you anything
>
>And that's as it should be

I see you're back to snipping away the evidence which
proves you're a liar. How desperate you are, silly boy.

<restore>
Since self-confessed vegan, Ususpect's recent
mesalliance with Jonathan after catching Dutch's
nasty cold, I thought it might be in everyone's
interest to refresh their memories on his earlier
views before Jonathan told him how to start
thinking his way. By the end of this post you'll see
that usual suspect, although temporarily misguided
by the Anti's disinformation, is in fact a closet ARA.
Through his attempts to conceal this fact and stay
on Jonathan's good side, he has had to make several
changes in position, and this can be shown by the
quotes I've brought here to demonstrate his many
inconsistencies.

DENYING THE ANTECEDENT

"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and
without serious health problems associated with an
animal-based diet?"
usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09

From that, Ususpect clearly believed his vegan
lifestyle had "selfless consequences", namely
that "no animal must die for his nourishment or
enjoyment"

Also, in response to Jonathan's pressure that he
accept animals die for his benefit, he tackles Jon's
CD argument with nothing but a whimper.
[Jonathan Ball]
> Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent:
> If I eat meat, animals died for my diet.
> I don't eat meat.
> Therefore, no animals died for my diet.
[usual suspect]
That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing
the algebra). It has one glaring problem: it's just not
true.
[end]

But now, for some unfathomable reason, his logical
reasoning tells him that Jon's illogical argument is
valid and sound. How's that for inconsistency?

ANIMAL RIGHTS

He also believes that animals, though oughtn't be
given rights, must be protected as human children
are, and not be killed for our own benefit;

"I personally subscribe to a more COMMON law
position that animals should not be granted rights
but protection under the law (same as used to apply
to minors)..."
usual suspect Date: 2002-06-11

But, if he once believed animals should to be given
protection using the SAME LAWS as used to apply
to minors, why does he advocate animal research and
testing on them? Also while holding such beliefs, why
does he criticise others when protesting against how
these fellow *minors* are being treated?

"When was the last time you visited a family or
factory farm? Tell us about the conditions you
observed. Did they have someone roaming around,
willfully causing harm to the animals? Or were the
animals well-fed, able to move around, etc.?"
usual suspect Date: 2003-09-08

What sort of "protection under the law (same as used
to apply to minors)..." is he thinking about if it allows
the eating and use of them for research?

This last statement is particularly interesting, seeing
as it was written by someone who refutes the idea
of animal rights;
"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
usual suspect 2002-10-09

What's wrong with killing animals for one's own benefit,
unless that person is a firm believer in that our benefit
cannot trump the inherent rights of an animal?
"usual suspect" is a closet ARA.
[end]

Here's a few more of "usual suspect"'s quotes which
leave me in no doubt that he has been lying about his
beliefs for some years now.

"Animals are not moral agents and generally operate
by instinct and conditioning (the same can be said of
far too many humans). Animals should be afforded
protection under the law. But are they endowed with
any rights by their creator? I do not know that answer.
usual suspect Date: 2002-06-12

"Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic
environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more
likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy
are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to
produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains,
vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the
latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely
and you have much more of the latter to feed the
world."
usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26

"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
<end restore>

You haven't fooled me into thinking your current stance
is anything but a temporary one, and you didn't fool me
when you tried passing yourself off as a vegan in the
first place either. You continually swap from one stance
to another because you have no guiding principle behind
them. You're a mess and merely follow the pack with
the loudest voices - that's all.

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>I wonder if you also enjoyed the increased risk of hepatitis,
>>
>>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

See also:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/food...mics121103.cfm

>>>bacterial contamination,
>>
>>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

My point is proven.

>>>and intestinal parasites.
>>
>>Not related only to meat consumption. More people become ill from tainted
>>produce, not from tainted meat.
>>
>>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/parasite.htm
>
> Your link does not prove that "more people become ill from tainted produce"
> than from tainted meat.

That site supports the previous sentence. See the article cited above if
you have any quibble about the number of people who become ill from
tainted produce compared to meat.

> 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.

> And this from http://www.mass.gov/dph/fpp/retail/pdf/gensus1.pdf
>
> "There are several food safety concerns, which are unique to the preparation
> and service of sushi in the retail setting. The rice handles best at
> temperatures between 70 and 80 F, which is a favorable temperature range for
> pathogen growth."

That pdf also gives instructions for safe handling. Sushi is quite safe
when safely and conscientiously prepared.
http://www.sushiran.com/etcetera/safe.html
http://www.fehd.gov.hk/safefood/food...ry/making.html

> Enjoy your sushi....

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

>>>You can buy native wild rice that occurs naturally and is harvested
>>>without involving ANY animal deaths.
>>
>>Wild rice would be horrible wrapped in seaweed. The wild rice of which you
>>speak is also not widely available.
>
> I didn't necessarly mean for sushi.

Well, dummy, I wanted sushi today.

> 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.

>>>>So I really must ask, Why do you only object to the death of *ONE* tuna?
>>>
>>>Because it's at least one less death.
>>
>>Objecting only to 1001st death. Why be so cavalier about the lives of the
>>first 1000?
>
> I'm not being cavalier at all.

Yes, you are.

> 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.

Retard wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah sure;
>>>>
>>>>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
>>>
>>>I don't call you anything
>>
>>And that's as it should be
>
>
> I see

Good. Now **** off.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> usual suspect wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah sure;
>>>>>
>>>>>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
>>>>
>>>>I don't call you anything
>>>
>>>And that's as it should be
>>
>> I see
>
>Good. Now **** off.

No. I shall always be here to show the reader where you
lie, little troll. Snipping the evidence of your lies away only
proves it to be true evidence, so it suits me fine when you
do it. Good luck with your new anti-vegan stance, but what
is this new stance and the arguments you now put forward
on Jon's behalf worth when we consider the efforts you
made while trying to fool people with your earlier pro-vegan
stance? You're asking that we forget your earlier stance
and arguments in favour of your new ones, yet you've never
been able to explain either stance correctly, so how do we
know we're not simply dealing with an imbecile that doesn't
know left from right? You're just a heckler.

Reynard wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>>>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yeah sure;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't call you anything
>>>>
>>>>And that's as it should be
>>>
>>>I see
>>
>>Good. Now **** off.

Who's shagging your wife this week, Nash?

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:41:04 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>menu boy wrote:
[..]
>> Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.
>
>One difference among the three: veganism is religion.

"Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism
is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people."
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

When can we expect the truth from you, liar suspect?

Retard wrote:
>>>Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.
>>
>>One difference among the three: veganism is religion.

*I* was off in the wrong direction. Unlike you, I learn from my mistakes
rather than keep repeating them. That's why you still make the same ones
over and over, you fat unemployed cuckold

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:55:35 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>>>>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yeah sure;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't call you anything
>>>>>
>>>>>And that's as it should be
>>>>
>>>>I see
>>>
>>>Good. Now **** off.
>
>Who's shagging your wife this week, Nash?

If childish remarks are all you have to offer in return
to my criticism of your ever-changing stances and
arguments here, then it doesn't say much for your
request that we accept your current stance and
argument, does it? Snipping the evidence of your
lies away, leaving a childish dodge in place of what
I wrote only proves it to be true evidence, so it suits
me fine when you do it. Good luck with your new
anti-vegan stance, but what is this new stance and
the arguments you now put forward on Jon's behalf
worth when we consider the efforts you made while
trying to fool people with your earlier pro-vegan stance?
You're asking that we forget your earlier stance and
arguments in favour of your new ones, yet you've never
been able to explain either stance correctly, so how do
we know we're not simply dealing with an imbecile that
doesn't know left from right? You're just a heckler.

Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:55:35 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>>>>>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yeah sure;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't call you anything
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And that's as it should be
>>>>>
>>>>>I see
>>>>
>>>>Good. Now **** off.
>>
>>Who's shagging your wife this week, Nash?
>
>
> If childish remarks

you keep making were worth 2p, I'd be a billionaire. Answer the
questions, especially the one about DNA.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:04:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>>>>Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.
>>>
>>>One difference among the three: veganism is religion.
>
>*I* was off in the wrong direction.

In your reply to "Bart" you categorically told him that
veganism is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most
people.

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

Why are you lying when Google archives prove it so easily?

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:10:02 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:55:35 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>>>>>>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yeah sure;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't call you anything
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And that's as it should be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see
>>>>>
>>>>>Good. Now **** off.
>>>
>>>Who's shagging your wife this week, Nash?

If childish remarks are all you have to offer in return
to my criticism of your ever-changing stances and
arguments here, then it doesn't say much for your
request that we accept your current stance and
argument, does it? Snipping the evidence of your
lies away, leaving a childish dodge in place of what
I wrote only proves it to be true evidence, so it suits
me fine when you do it. Good luck with your new
anti-vegan stance, but what is this new stance and
the arguments you now put forward on Jon's behalf
worth when we consider the efforts you made while
trying to fool people with your earlier pro-vegan stance?
You're asking that we forget your earlier stance and
arguments in favour of your new ones, yet you've never
been able to explain either stance correctly, so how do
we know we're not simply dealing with an imbecile that
doesn't know left from right? You're just a heckler.

Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:04:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>>>Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.
>>>>
>>>>One difference among the three: veganism is religion.
>>
>>*I* was off in the wrong direction.
>
> In your reply to "Bart" you categorically told him that
> veganism is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most
> people.

And I'm telling you now that I was operating under a misunderstanding
that veganism was about food.

> [start - Bart to you]
>
>>If one was to compare Veganism to a religious/spiritual brand,
>>it would come close to Buddhism and Hinduism.

And, as Mr Santos posted yesterday:
Veganism as a secular movement is a MODERN IDEA, as
a reaction to the exploitation of nature, including
imposing unnecessary suffering on non-human animals.
Although it can be seen as a minor and localised
reaction to the excesses of the developed world, the
principles behind it can be found in much older
ethical/religious doctrine of the East, such as
Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan

> [you]
> Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is not a
> religion or a spiritual issue for most people.
> [end]
> http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8
>
> Why are you lying when Google archives prove it so easily?

You're stirring shit, fatso. I just explained that I learn from my
mistakes; you're a fat **** who keeps repeating the same ones over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:10:02 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:55:35 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah sure;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I don't call you anything
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And that's as it should be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I see
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Good. Now **** off.
>>>>
>>>>Who's shagging your wife this week, Nash?
>
>
> If childish remarks

by Dreck were worth 2p, we'd all be a billionaires. Answer the
questions, especially the one about DNA.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:21:32 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:04:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.
>>>>>
>>>>>One difference among the three: veganism is religion.
>>>
>>>*I* was off in the wrong direction.
>>
>> In your reply to "Bart" you categorically told him that
>> veganism is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most
>> people.
>
>And I'm telling you now that I was operating under a misunderstanding
>that veganism was about food.

Then how can you prove you're not suffering under a
different misunderstanding now, if you're so prone to
do so, and why did you lie by trying to assert that it
was you rather than "Bart" who was "off in the wrong
direction" during your exchange with him?

>> [start - Bart to you]
>>>If one was to compare Veganism to a religious/spiritual brand,
>>>it would come close to Buddhism and Hinduism.
>> [you]
>> Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is not a
>> religion or a spiritual issue for most people.
>> [end]
>> http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8
>>
>> Why are you lying when Google archives prove it so easily?
>
>You're stirring shit, fatso.

I'm pointing out where you have lied, sonny. That's not
shit stirring.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:22:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:10:02 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:55:35 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah sure;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I don't call you anything
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And that's as it should be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I see
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Good. Now **** off.
>>>>>
>>>>>Who's shagging your wife this week, Nash?

If childish remarks are all you have to offer in return
to my criticism of your ever-changing stances and
arguments here, then it doesn't say much for your
request that we accept your current stance and
argument, does it? Snipping the evidence of your
lies away, leaving a childish dodge in place of what
I wrote only proves it to be true evidence, so it suits
me fine when you do it. Good luck with your new
anti-vegan stance, but what is this new stance and
the arguments you now put forward on Jon's behalf
worth when we consider the efforts you made while
trying to fool people with your earlier pro-vegan stance?
You're asking that we forget your earlier stance and
arguments in favour of your new ones, yet you've never
been able to explain either stance correctly, so how do
we know we're not simply dealing with an imbecile that
doesn't know left from right? You're just a heckler.

Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:21:32 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:04:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One difference among the three: veganism is religion.
>>>>
>>>>*I* was off in the wrong direction.
>>>
>>>In your reply to "Bart" you categorically told him that
>>>veganism is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most
>>>people.
>>
>>And I'm telling you now that I was operating under a misunderstanding
>>that veganism was about food.
>
> Then how can you prove you're not suffering under a
> different misunderstanding now, if you're so prone to
> do so,

I'm not prone. I learn from my mistakes. You don't, so you keep
repeating the same errors over and over...

Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:22:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:10:02 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:55:35 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah sure;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I don't call you anything
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And that's as it should be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I see
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Good. Now **** off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Who's shagging your wife this week, Nash?
>
> If childish remarks

by Dreck were worth 2p, we'd all be a billionaires. Answer the
questions, fatso, especially the one about DNA.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:29:56 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:21:32 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:04:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One difference among the three: veganism is religion.
>>>>>
>>>>>*I* was off in the wrong direction.
>>>>
>>>>In your reply to "Bart" you categorically told him that
>>>>veganism is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most
>>>>people.
>>>
>>>And I'm telling you now that I was operating under a misunderstanding
>>>that veganism was about food.
>>
>> Then how can you prove you're not suffering under a
>> different misunderstanding now, if you're so prone to
>> do so,
>
>I'm not prone.

You are prone to suffer from misunderstanding
every issue that gets raised here, as seen by your
quotes that contradict your ever-changing position
so clearly.

DENYING THE ANTECEDENT

"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and
without serious health problems associated with an
animal-based diet?"
usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09

From that you believed your vegan lifestyle had
"selfless consequences", namely that "no animal
must die for [your] nourishment or enjoyment"

Also, in response to Jonathan's pressure that you
accept animals die for your benefit, you tackled
Jon's CD argument with nothing but a whimper.

[Jonathan Ball]
> Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent:
> If I eat meat, animals died for my diet.
> I don't eat meat.
> Therefore, no animals died for my diet.
[usual suspect]
That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing
the algebra). It has one glaring problem: it's just not
true.
[end]

But now, for some unfathomable reason, your logical
reasoning tells you that Jon's illogical argument is
valid and sound. How's that for inconsistency?

ANIMAL RIGHTS

You also believed that animals, though oughtn't be
given rights, must be protected as human children
are, and not be killed for our own benefit;

"I personally subscribe to a more COMMON law
position that animals should not be granted rights
but protection under the law (same as used to apply
to minors)..."
usual suspect Date: 2002-06-11

But, if you once believed animals should to be given
protection using the SAME LAWS as used to apply
to minors, why do you advocate animal research and
testing on them? Also while holding such beliefs, why
do you criticise others when protesting against how
these fellow *minors* are being treated?

"When was the last time you visited a family or
factory farm? Tell us about the conditions you
observed. Did they have someone roaming around,
willfully causing harm to the animals? Or were the
animals well-fed, able to move around, etc.?"
usual suspect Date: 2003-09-08

What sort of "protection under the law (same as used
to apply to minors)..." are you thinking about if it allows
the eating and use of them for research?

This last statement is particularly interesting, seeing
as it was written by someone who refutes the idea
of animal rights;

"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
usual suspect 2002-10-09

What's wrong with killing animals for one's own benefit,
unless that person is a firm believer in that our benefit
cannot trump the inherent rights of an animal?

Here's a few more of your quotes which leave me in no
doubt that you've been lying about your beliefs for some
years now.

"Animals are not moral agents and generally operate
by instinct and conditioning (the same can be said of
far too many humans). Animals should be afforded
protection under the law. But are they endowed with
any rights by their creator? I do not know that answer.
usual suspect Date: 2002-06-12

You claim not to know whether animals are endowed
with rights, so what valid argument have you to offer
animal rights advocates who believe animals do hold
rights other than a, "I don't know"?

"Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic
environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more
likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy
are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to
produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains,
vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the
latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely
and you have much more of the latter to feed the
world."
usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26

What made you change your mind on this one, liar?

"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05

You're a mess, liar suspect.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:30:44 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Retard wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:22:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>
>>>Retard wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:10:02 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:55:35 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah sure;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't call you anything
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And that's as it should be
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I see
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Good. Now **** off.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Who's shagging your wife this week, Nash?
>>
>> If childish remarks
>
>by Dreck were worth 2p, we'd all be a billionaires.

If childish remarks are all you have to offer in return
to my criticism of your ever-changing stances and
arguments here, then it doesn't say much for your
request that we accept your current stance and
argument, does it? Snipping the evidence of your
lies away, leaving a childish dodge in place of what
I wrote only proves it to be true evidence, so it suits
me fine when you do it. Good luck with your new
anti-vegan stance, but what is this new stance and
the arguments you now put forward on Jon's behalf
worth when we consider the efforts you made while
trying to fool people with your earlier pro-vegan stance?
You're asking that we forget your earlier stance and
arguments in favour of your new ones, yet you've never
been able to explain either stance correctly, so how do
we know we're not simply dealing with an imbecile that
doesn't know left from right? You're just a heckler.

>Answer the questions, fatso, especially the one about DNA.

You don't get to ask me questions like that and expect
a response, sonny. Now, answer the questions I've put
to you and stop trying to dodge them.

Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:29:56 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:21:32 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:04:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>One difference among the three: veganism is religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>*I* was off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>
>>>>>In your reply to "Bart" you categorically told him that
>>>>>veganism is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most
>>>>>people.
>>>>
>>>>And I'm telling you now that I was operating under a misunderstanding
>>>>that veganism was about food.
>>>
>>>Then how can you prove you're not suffering under a
>>>different misunderstanding now, if you're so prone to
>>>do so,
>>
>>I'm not prone.
>
> You are prone to suffer

loathsome dole-srounging shit-stirrers like you. I told you back on 18
Sep 2003:
My strictly vegetarian diet is often called "vegan." I, though,
have never identified with the leftist precepts of veganISM.

I learn from my mistakes, you just keep repeating yours. That's why I
know you won't stop repeating the same mistakes in this thread.

Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:30:44 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:22:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:10:02 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:55:35 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah sure;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't call you anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>And that's as it should be
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I see
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Good. Now **** off.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Who's shagging your wife this week, Nash?
>>>
>>>If childish remarks
>>
>>by Dreck were worth 2p, we'd all be a billionaires.
>
> If childish remarks

by Dreck were worth 2p, we'd all be a billionaires.

>>Answer the questions, fatso, especially the one about DNA.

Snip evasion. Those kids aren't really yours, are they.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>>I wonder if you also enjoyed the increased risk of hepatitis,
> >>
> >>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

'Campylobacter:
Low-Profile Bug Is Food Poisoning Leader
by Audrey Hingley

When it comes to food poisoning, big outbreaks make headlines.
E. coli in apple juice and alfalfa sprouts. Listeria in cheese and hot dogs.
Salmonella in eggs and on poultry. But the most frequently diagnosed
food-borne bacterium rarely makes the news. The name of the unsung
bug? Campylobacter.

"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.

Federal and state health experts have long recognized that Campylobacter
causes disease in animals. Conclusive proof that the bacteria also causes
human disease emerged in the 1970s, and by 1996, Campylobacter was
sitting atop the bacterial heap as the number one cause of all domestic
food-borne illness. (See "Tracking Down Trouble: Bacteria That Cause
Food-Borne Illness.")

In addition, with the emergence of antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter,
"the true magnitude of the problem is becoming clearer," says Angulo, who
also heads the CDC arm of the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring
System.

Campylobacter is commonly found in the intestinal tracts of people or animals
without causing any symptoms of illness. But eating contaminated or
undercooked poultry or meat, or drinking raw milk or contaminated water,
may cause Campylobacter infection, or campylobacteriosis.

Symptoms of campylobacteriosis usually occur within two to 10 days of
ingesting the bacteria. Children, the elderly, and people with weakened
immune systems are particularly at risk. The most common symptoms include
mild to severe diarrhea, fever, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain.

Most people infected with Campylobacter can get well on their own
without treatment, though antibiotics may be prescribed for severe cases.
But complications can occur, such as urinary tract infections or meningitis.
The bacteria also is now recognized as a major contributing factor to
Guillain-Barré syndrome, the most common cause of acute paralysis in
both children and adults.

Concerns About Chicken

Although found in many farm animals, Campylobacter in poultry is causing
experts the most concern. There have been several studies pointing to high
levels of Campylobacter present on poultry at the retail level, including a
recent two-year Minnesota Department of Health study that found that 88
percent of poultry sampled from local supermarkets tested positive for the
bacteria.
...
According to the Minnesota Department of Health study, the number of
Campylobacter infections resistant to a class of antibiotics called
fluoroquinolones has been on the increase since 1992. While most Americans
acquired the resistant infections while on foreign travel, Kirk explains, "we have
been seeing a significant increase in domestically acquired resistant cases as
well." The Food and Drug Administration approved the use of fluoroquinolones
in food animals in 1995. The study concluded that antibiotic use in U.S. poultry
is contributing to antibiotic resistance.
.....'
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html


<..>

Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:49:13 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:29:56 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:21:32 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:04:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>One difference among the three: veganism is religion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>*I* was off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In your reply to "Bart" you categorically told him that
>>>>>>>veganism is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most
>>>>>>>people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And I'm telling you now that I was operating under a misunderstanding
>>>>>>that veganism was about food.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then how can you prove you're not suffering under a
>>>>>different misunderstanding now, if you're so prone to
>>>>>do so,
>>>>
>>>>I'm not prone.
>>>
>>>You are prone to suffer
>>
>>loathsome dole-scrounging shit-stirrers like you.

Period. You repeat the same mistakes because you don't learn. You're an
unemployed, self-crippled, undisciplined, morbidly obese ex-greasemonkey
who's managed to find two things at which you can excel: stirring shit
and being a "vegan," neither of which requires intellectual or moral effort.

"menu boy" > wrote

> Being a vegan or a vegetarian or a meat eater is a personal choice.

So what?

> You're just a common troll.

Meaning?

> Yet another personal choice. Good luck
> with that.

pearl wrote:

>>>>>I wonder if you also enjoyed the increased risk of hepatitis,
>>>>
>>>>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
>
>
> 'Campylobacter:
> Low-Profile Bug Is Food Poisoning Leader

12,537 individual cases involving fruits and vegetables
6,709 cases involving meat

Almost 2:1 produce to meat. That's all that matters, Lesley. BTW,why
didn't your beings from inner earth notify the outside world of the
impending earthquake off Indonesia's coast? They're not very helpful
down there, are they.

pearl wrote:
>>>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?
>
> I'm trying to imagine it..

Good luck. We know that you're unimaginative and believe in channeled
messages from Adama of Telos from beneath Mount Shasta.

<snip proof of what I said about your utter lack of imagination>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> >>>>>I wonder if you also enjoyed the increased risk of hepatitis,
> >>>>
> >>>>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
> >
> >
> > 'Campylobacter:
> > Low-Profile Bug Is Food Poisoning Leader
>
> 12,537 individual cases

... of outbreak, not individual cases of illness.

"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.'

> involving fruits and vegetables
> 6,709 cases involving meat
>
> Almost 2:1 produce to meat.

Outbreaks, not cases.

<snip usual ad hominem dribble>

pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>I wonder if you also enjoyed the increased risk of hepatitis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>'Campylobacter:
>>>Low-Profile Bug Is Food Poisoning Leader
>>
>>12,537 individual cases
>
> .. of outbreak, not individual cases of illness.

Read the paragraph above (and below, with EMPHASIS) again. Then go get
some sleep, you tired old witch.

...[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

Sweet dreams, dummy.

>>involving fruits and vegetables
>> 6,709 cases involving meat
>>
>>Almost 2:1 produce to meat.
>
> Outbreaks, not cases.

Sweet dreams, dummy.

> <snip usual ad hominem dribble>

It wasn't ad hominem. Those inner earth beings aren't even people.

RESTO
BTW, why didn't your beings from inner earth notify the outside world of
the impending earthquake off Indonesia's coast? They're not very helpful
down there, are they.
END RESTORE

Why didn't your channelers get any messages about it BEFOREHAND?

pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>I wonder if you also enjoyed the increased risk of hepatitis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>'Campylobacter:
>>>Low-Profile Bug Is Food Poisoning Leader
>>
>>12,537 individual cases
>
> .. of outbreak, not individual cases of illness.

Read the paragraph above (and below, with EMPHASIS) again. Then go get
some sleep, you tired old witch.

...[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

Sweet dreams, dummy.

>>involving fruits and vegetables
>> 6,709 cases involving meat
>>
>>Almost 2:1 produce to meat.
>
> Outbreaks, not cases.

Sweet dreams, dummy.

> <snip usual ad hominem dribble>

It wasn't ad hominem. Those inner earth beings aren't even people.

RESTO
BTW, why didn't your beings from inner earth notify the outside world of
the impending earthquake off Indonesia's coast? They're not very helpful
down there, are they.
END RESTORE

Why didn't your channelers get any messages about it BEFOREHAND?

pearl wrote:
>>>>>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?
>>>
>>>I'm trying to imagine it..
>>
>>Good luck.
>
> Uhuh.

You need all the luck in the world.

>>We know that you're unimaginative and believe in channeled
>>messages from Adama of Telos from beneath Mount Shasta.
>>
>><snip proof of what I said about your utter lack of imagination>
>
> I'd think

if you only had a brain.

> believing something like that would require imagination.

Belief in something like Adama of Telos would require imagination? It
requires the opposite of imagination. It requires a gullible dolt.

> You're still projecting.

No, love, you still don't understand projection. But what DO you
understand other than rubbing feet?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>I wonder if you also enjoyed the increased risk of hepatitis,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>'Campylobacter:
> >>>Low-Profile Bug Is Food Poisoning Leader
> >>
> >>12,537 individual cases
> >
> > .. of outbreak, not individual cases of illness.
>
> Read the paragraph above (and below, with EMPHASIS) again. Then go get
> some sleep, you tired old witch.
>
> ...[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

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;
--restore--
"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

Glad that's cleared up.

> Sweet dreams,

.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>I wonder if you also enjoyed the increased risk of hepatitis,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>'Campylobacter:
> >>>Low-Profile Bug Is Food Poisoning Leader
> >>
> >>12,537 individual cases
> >
> > .. of outbreak, not individual cases of illness.
>
> Read the paragraph above (and below, with EMPHASIS) again. Then go get
> some sleep, you tired old witch.
>
> ...[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

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;
--restore--
"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

Glad that's cleared up.

> Sweet dreams,

.

"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
---

<..>