"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> peril wrote:
> <...>
> >>>I see you're still insane Usual.
> >
> > Mad as a hatter!
>
> Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes:

Point proven, idiot _liar_ suspect.

<snip usual gibberish propaganda>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> peril wrote:
> <...>
> >>>I see you're still insane Usual.
> >
> > Mad as a hatter!
>
> Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes:

Point proven, idiot _liar_ suspect.

<snip usual gibberish propaganda>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
news
>> > Good. None for you. And you won't mind then.
>>
>> You're doing me a favor.
>
> I'm getting the feeling that you wouldn't like
> any recipe I post.
>
>> > I've got an alibi. I wasn't even in the province they
>> > were grown in.
>>
>> That's not an alibi. You still bought them knowing the farmer was
>> killing animals. That makes you a hypocrite.
>
> I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
> would have for the same poundage of pork or
> poultry, etc.
=====================
Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and never will
be able to prove your delusions.


You trolls are just going to have to
> accept that I am content with reduction of
> deaths,
==================
No, you are content with your delusions of causes fewer. You haven't proven
that you have done anything to save animals, killer.



and that I realize that it's not within
> my powers to eliminate them completely.
> No hypocrasy
=================
Yes, magnitudes of hypocrisy, killer. All you follow is your simple rule
for your simple mind, despite being shown that it doesn't hold any water.
But even at that, you do *nothing* to choose between foods that you do eat,
thus making your claims of caring false and hypocritical.





>
>
>> > My soup was
>> > intended on being a creamy puree with corn added
>> > after the pureeing. Vegetables must be soft to
>> > puree well.
>>
>> Not "very soft," which is what you called for in your recipe.
>
> For purees, I like the veggies to be very soft. If
> you don't, that's fine. More for me.
>
>> > At least when making a soup, you get
>> > to eat the water they've boiled in, recatching some
>> > of the cooked out nutrients.
>>
>> You should learn to steam and sautee your veggies rather than boil
> them.
>> Maybe you just haven't researched that stuff yet.
>
> So, you make soups without any boiling or
> simmering? It was a SOUP I was making.
>
>> > They just didn't. Turns out the soup was delicious.
>> > Me and a friend polished off the whole potload.
>>
>> Gluttons.
>
> No, just very happy munchies time. Gluttony would
> be doing it all the time.
>
>> > None left for you
>>
>> Thank goodness.
>
> I could have posted ANY recipe and you'd find something
> against it. It's because you like arguing.
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
>
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
news
>> > Good. None for you. And you won't mind then.
>>
>> You're doing me a favor.
>
> I'm getting the feeling that you wouldn't like
> any recipe I post.
>
>> > I've got an alibi. I wasn't even in the province they
>> > were grown in.
>>
>> That's not an alibi. You still bought them knowing the farmer was
>> killing animals. That makes you a hypocrite.
>
> I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
> would have for the same poundage of pork or
> poultry, etc.
=====================
Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and never will
be able to prove your delusions.


You trolls are just going to have to
> accept that I am content with reduction of
> deaths,
==================
No, you are content with your delusions of causes fewer. You haven't proven
that you have done anything to save animals, killer.



and that I realize that it's not within
> my powers to eliminate them completely.
> No hypocrasy
=================
Yes, magnitudes of hypocrisy, killer. All you follow is your simple rule
for your simple mind, despite being shown that it doesn't hold any water.
But even at that, you do *nothing* to choose between foods that you do eat,
thus making your claims of caring false and hypocritical.





>
>
>> > My soup was
>> > intended on being a creamy puree with corn added
>> > after the pureeing. Vegetables must be soft to
>> > puree well.
>>
>> Not "very soft," which is what you called for in your recipe.
>
> For purees, I like the veggies to be very soft. If
> you don't, that's fine. More for me.
>
>> > At least when making a soup, you get
>> > to eat the water they've boiled in, recatching some
>> > of the cooked out nutrients.
>>
>> You should learn to steam and sautee your veggies rather than boil
> them.
>> Maybe you just haven't researched that stuff yet.
>
> So, you make soups without any boiling or
> simmering? It was a SOUP I was making.
>
>> > They just didn't. Turns out the soup was delicious.
>> > Me and a friend polished off the whole potload.
>>
>> Gluttons.
>
> No, just very happy munchies time. Gluttony would
> be doing it all the time.
>
>> > None left for you
>>
>> Thank goodness.
>
> I could have posted ANY recipe and you'd find something
> against it. It's because you like arguing.
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
>
>

> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
> > poultry, etc.
> =====================
> Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
never will
> be able to prove your delusions.

I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
in many, many threads.

> You trolls are just going to have to
> > accept that I am content with reduction of
> > deaths,
> ==================
> No, you are content with your delusions of causes fewer. You haven't
proven
> that you have done anything to save animals, killer.

I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
in many, many threads.

> and that I realize that it's not within
> > my powers to eliminate them completely.
> > No hypocrasy
> =================
> Yes, magnitudes of hypocrisy, killer. All you follow is your simple
rule
> for your simple mind, despite being shown that it doesn't hold any
water.
> But even at that, you do *nothing* to choose between foods that you do
eat,
> thus making your claims of caring false and hypocritical.

You've not shown it not to hold water. You've proven
nothing to me. You've convinced me of nothing.




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

> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
> > poultry, etc.
> =====================
> Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
never will
> be able to prove your delusions.

I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
in many, many threads.

> You trolls are just going to have to
> > accept that I am content with reduction of
> > deaths,
> ==================
> No, you are content with your delusions of causes fewer. You haven't
proven
> that you have done anything to save animals, killer.

I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
in many, many threads.

> and that I realize that it's not within
> > my powers to eliminate them completely.
> > No hypocrasy
> =================
> Yes, magnitudes of hypocrisy, killer. All you follow is your simple
rule
> for your simple mind, despite being shown that it doesn't hold any
water.
> But even at that, you do *nothing* to choose between foods that you do
eat,
> thus making your claims of caring false and hypocritical.

You've not shown it not to hold water. You've proven
nothing to me. You've convinced me of nothing.




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

> >>Hahaha. When did you start stipulating which produce you consume is
> >>organic?
> >
> > Organic was brought up earlier in the thread. I was quite happy
> > to find the organic broccoli and cauliflower.
>
> Interestingly, both are on the Environmental Working Group's list of
> "safest" produce from the standpoint of pesticide residues. Those are
> two examples where buying organic is a complete waste of money.
>
> http://www.foodnews.org/reportcard.php

Organic varieties of tomato ketchup contain three times
as much of a cancer-fighting chemical called lycopene as
non-organic brands.

In the US, tomato ketchup comes in purple and green
varieties as well as the traditional red. Betty Ishida and
Mary Chapman at the Agricultural Research Service in
Albany, California, US, wondered if the colouring might
be indicative of low levels of lycopene, the pigment that
makes tomatoes red.

The chemical has been shown to help protect against
breast, pancreatic, prostate and intestinal cancer,
especially when eaten with fatty foods. There is also
evidence that lycopene can reduce the risk of heart
attacks (New Scientist print edition, 23 December 2000).

The researchers tested lycopene levels and antioxidant
activity in 13 ketchup brands: six popular ones, three
organic, two store brands and two from fast-food chains.
Purple and green ketchups had a similar lycopene
content to their plain red counterparts.

But organic ketchups excelled, with one brand containing
183 micrograms of lycopene per gram of ketchup, about
five times as much per weight as a tomato. Non-organic
brands averaged 100 micrograms per gram, with one
fast-food sample containing just 60 micrograms per gram.

If you want high lycopene levels, says Ishida, the rule of
thumb is to pick the darkest red ketchup.

Journal reference: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (DOI:
10.1021/jf0401540)

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6844





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

> >>Hahaha. When did you start stipulating which produce you consume is
> >>organic?
> >
> > Organic was brought up earlier in the thread. I was quite happy
> > to find the organic broccoli and cauliflower.
>
> Interestingly, both are on the Environmental Working Group's list of
> "safest" produce from the standpoint of pesticide residues. Those are
> two examples where buying organic is a complete waste of money.
>
> http://www.foodnews.org/reportcard.php

Organic varieties of tomato ketchup contain three times
as much of a cancer-fighting chemical called lycopene as
non-organic brands.

In the US, tomato ketchup comes in purple and green
varieties as well as the traditional red. Betty Ishida and
Mary Chapman at the Agricultural Research Service in
Albany, California, US, wondered if the colouring might
be indicative of low levels of lycopene, the pigment that
makes tomatoes red.

The chemical has been shown to help protect against
breast, pancreatic, prostate and intestinal cancer,
especially when eaten with fatty foods. There is also
evidence that lycopene can reduce the risk of heart
attacks (New Scientist print edition, 23 December 2000).

The researchers tested lycopene levels and antioxidant
activity in 13 ketchup brands: six popular ones, three
organic, two store brands and two from fast-food chains.
Purple and green ketchups had a similar lycopene
content to their plain red counterparts.

But organic ketchups excelled, with one brand containing
183 micrograms of lycopene per gram of ketchup, about
five times as much per weight as a tomato. Non-organic
brands averaged 100 micrograms per gram, with one
fast-food sample containing just 60 micrograms per gram.

If you want high lycopene levels, says Ishida, the rule of
thumb is to pick the darkest red ketchup.

Journal reference: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (DOI:
10.1021/jf0401540)

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6844





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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
>> > poultry, etc.
>> =====================
>> Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
> never will
>> be able to prove your delusions.
>
> I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
> in many, many threads.
================
I have read your posts. Many, many of them. Not one of them has ever
provided any proof of the claims you make. Repeating your claims doesn't
constitute proof, killer. Now, provide proof that your claims are valid,
hypocrite.




>
>> You trolls are just going to have to
>> > accept that I am content with reduction of
>> > deaths,
>> ==================
>> No, you are content with your delusions of causes fewer. You haven't
> proven
>> that you have done anything to save animals, killer.
>
> I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
> in many, many threads.
================
I have read your posts. Many, many of them. Not one of them has ever
provided any proof of the claims you make. Repeating your claims doesn't
constitute proof, killer. Now, provide proof that your claims are valid,
hypocrite.



>
>> and that I realize that it's not within
>> > my powers to eliminate them completely.
>> > No hypocrasy
>> =================
>> Yes, magnitudes of hypocrisy, killer. All you follow is your simple
> rule
>> for your simple mind, despite being shown that it doesn't hold any
> water.
>> But even at that, you do *nothing* to choose between foods that you do
> eat,
>> thus making your claims of caring false and hypocritical.
>
> You've not shown it not to hold water. You've proven
> nothing to me. You've convinced me of nothing.
====================
Because you snip and run whenever I do post proof, killer. Proof that you
cannot refute, so you delete it.

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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
>> > poultry, etc.
>> =====================
>> Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
> never will
>> be able to prove your delusions.
>
> I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
> in many, many threads.
================
I have read your posts. Many, many of them. Not one of them has ever
provided any proof of the claims you make. Repeating your claims doesn't
constitute proof, killer. Now, provide proof that your claims are valid,
hypocrite.




>
>> You trolls are just going to have to
>> > accept that I am content with reduction of
>> > deaths,
>> ==================
>> No, you are content with your delusions of causes fewer. You haven't
> proven
>> that you have done anything to save animals, killer.
>
> I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
> in many, many threads.
================
I have read your posts. Many, many of them. Not one of them has ever
provided any proof of the claims you make. Repeating your claims doesn't
constitute proof, killer. Now, provide proof that your claims are valid,
hypocrite.



>
>> and that I realize that it's not within
>> > my powers to eliminate them completely.
>> > No hypocrasy
>> =================
>> Yes, magnitudes of hypocrisy, killer. All you follow is your simple
> rule
>> for your simple mind, despite being shown that it doesn't hold any
> water.
>> But even at that, you do *nothing* to choose between foods that you do
> eat,
>> thus making your claims of caring false and hypocritical.
>
> You've not shown it not to hold water. You've proven
> nothing to me. You've convinced me of nothing.
====================
Because you snip and run whenever I do post proof, killer. Proof that you
cannot refute, so you delete it.

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

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
> >> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
> >> > poultry, etc.
> >> =====================
> >> Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
> > never will
> >> be able to prove your delusions.
> >
> > I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
> > in many, many threads.
> ================
> I have read your posts. Many, many of them. Not one of them has ever
> provided any proof of the claims you make. Repeating your claims
doesn't
> constitute proof, killer. Now, provide proof that your claims are
valid,
> hypocrite.

If I have to repeat the stuff you don't understand any
more times, I'll be overly repetitious. So sorry, tricky
Dicky, I'm not proving it again.



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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

> I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
> would have for the same poundage of pork or
> poultry, etc.

So if a person was able to access meat, fish or fowl from a source that they
believe killed even fewer animals than commercial produce that would be even
better, right?

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

> I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
> would have for the same poundage of pork or
> poultry, etc.

So if a person was able to access meat, fish or fowl from a source that they
believe killed even fewer animals than commercial produce that would be even
better, right?

> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
> > poultry, etc.
>
> So if a person was able to access meat, fish or fowl from a source
that they
> believe killed even fewer animals than commercial produce that would
be even
> better, right?

Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
game, or is it a meat that has a fringe following like free
range organic beef? The first I wouldn't even recommend
to a meat eater, and the second is bought by meat eating
friends already.

Of course the best alternative is to just stick to vegetarian
food. Takes less resources to produce. That means
less collateral deaths, and of course the intentional death.

For a meat eater, your suggestions would be better than
factory farmed, healthwise for the eater. Not so good for
the animal itself. Also, wild game and free range beef
can't satisfy the demand of meat eaters worldwide.

There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.


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

> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
> > poultry, etc.
>
> So if a person was able to access meat, fish or fowl from a source
that they
> believe killed even fewer animals than commercial produce that would
be even
> better, right?

Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
game, or is it a meat that has a fringe following like free
range organic beef? The first I wouldn't even recommend
to a meat eater, and the second is bought by meat eating
friends already.

Of course the best alternative is to just stick to vegetarian
food. Takes less resources to produce. That means
less collateral deaths, and of course the intentional death.

For a meat eater, your suggestions would be better than
factory farmed, healthwise for the eater. Not so good for
the animal itself. Also, wild game and free range beef
can't satisfy the demand of meat eaters worldwide.

There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.


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

> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
> > poultry, etc.
>
> So if a person was able to access meat, fish or fowl from a source
that they
> believe killed even fewer animals than commercial produce that would
be even
> better, right?

Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
game, or is it a meat that has a fringe following like free
range organic beef? The first I wouldn't even recommend
to a meat eater, and the second is bought by meat eating
friends already.

Of course the best alternative is to just stick to vegetarian
food. Takes less resources to produce. That means
less collateral deaths, and of course the intentional death.

For a meat eater, your suggestions would be better than
factory farmed, healthwise for the eater. Not so good for
the animal itself. Also, wild game and free range beef
can't satisfy the demand of meat eaters worldwide.

There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
>> > poultry, etc.
>>
>> So if a person was able to access meat, fish or fowl from a source
> that they
>> believe killed even fewer animals than commercial produce that would
> be even
>> better, right?
>
> Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
> game, or is it a meat that has a fringe following like free
> range organic beef?

No risk of extinction..

> The first I wouldn't even recommend
> to a meat eater,

Let's just rule out endangered species, OK? Nobody here wants to be killing
them.

> and the second is bought by meat eating
> friends already.

I'm not talking about anyone's current dietary preferences, I talking about
ANY person who is striving to cause the least amount of animal death and
suffering they possibly can.

> Of course the best alternative is to just stick to vegetarian
> food. Takes less resources to produce. That means
> less collateral deaths, and of course the intentional death.

You are changing the question I posed to you. I stipulated that a person,
according to the best of their ability, evaluated foods available to them
and *determined* that substituting carefully selected meat products, e.g.
hunted, free range or what-have-you, for certain plant products, represents
a net *decrease* in the amount of overall animal suffering caused by their
diet. These are the given parameters for the question.

Now, regardless of their personal preference for food types, would it not be
a better choice for animals overall that they make that choice?

> For a meat eater, your suggestions would be better than
> factory farmed, healthwise for the eater.

I did not specify whether the person currently had meat in his or her diet
or not, it is not relevant to this particular question.

> Not so good for
> the animal itself.

Perhaps not for the actual animal being eaten, but remember the question
stipulated that the change in the diet actually caused less animal harm.

> Also, wild game and free range beef
> can't satisfy the demand of meat eaters worldwide.

Again, not part of the question. I am talking about one person making a
choice about what foods to include in their diet.

> There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.

In the case I am citing there are only imported, commercially grown plant
foods available.

> If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.

Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
>> > poultry, etc.
>>
>> So if a person was able to access meat, fish or fowl from a source
> that they
>> believe killed even fewer animals than commercial produce that would
> be even
>> better, right?
>
> Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
> game, or is it a meat that has a fringe following like free
> range organic beef?

No risk of extinction..

> The first I wouldn't even recommend
> to a meat eater,

Let's just rule out endangered species, OK? Nobody here wants to be killing
them.

> and the second is bought by meat eating
> friends already.

I'm not talking about anyone's current dietary preferences, I talking about
ANY person who is striving to cause the least amount of animal death and
suffering they possibly can.

> Of course the best alternative is to just stick to vegetarian
> food. Takes less resources to produce. That means
> less collateral deaths, and of course the intentional death.

You are changing the question I posed to you. I stipulated that a person,
according to the best of their ability, evaluated foods available to them
and *determined* that substituting carefully selected meat products, e.g.
hunted, free range or what-have-you, for certain plant products, represents
a net *decrease* in the amount of overall animal suffering caused by their
diet. These are the given parameters for the question.

Now, regardless of their personal preference for food types, would it not be
a better choice for animals overall that they make that choice?

> For a meat eater, your suggestions would be better than
> factory farmed, healthwise for the eater.

I did not specify whether the person currently had meat in his or her diet
or not, it is not relevant to this particular question.

> Not so good for
> the animal itself.

Perhaps not for the actual animal being eaten, but remember the question
stipulated that the change in the diet actually caused less animal harm.

> Also, wild game and free range beef
> can't satisfy the demand of meat eaters worldwide.

Again, not part of the question. I am talking about one person making a
choice about what foods to include in their diet.

> There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.

In the case I am citing there are only imported, commercially grown plant
foods available.

> If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.

Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.

> > There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
>
> In the case I am citing there are only imported, commercially grown
plant
> foods available.

Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
'best' of the meats?

> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.
>
> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.

Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
Exactly which foods are you comparing and
why?


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

> > There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
>
> In the case I am citing there are only imported, commercially grown
plant
> foods available.

Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
'best' of the meats?

> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.
>
> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.

Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
Exactly which foods are you comparing and
why?


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>> >> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
>> >> > poultry, etc.
>> >> =====================
>> >> Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
>> > never will
>> >> be able to prove your delusions.
>> >
>> > I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
>> > in many, many threads.
>> ================
>> I have read your posts. Many, many of them. Not one of them has ever
>> provided any proof of the claims you make. Repeating your claims
> doesn't
>> constitute proof, killer. Now, provide proof that your claims are
> valid,
>> hypocrite.
>
> If I have to repeat the stuff you don't understand any
> more times, I'll be overly repetitious.
=====================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! The next time you post any 'proof' of your
delusions will be the *first* time, killer.


So sorry, tricky
> Dicky, I'm not proving it again.
====================
You haven't proven it once, yet hypocrite.

>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity, and ignorance all in one big bundle...
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
>> > poultry, etc.
>>
>> So if a person was able to access meat, fish or fowl from a source
> that they
>> believe killed even fewer animals than commercial produce that would
> be even
>> better, right?
>
> Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
> game, or is it a meat that has a fringe following like free
> range organic beef? The first I wouldn't even recommend
> to a meat eater, and the second is bought by meat eating
> friends already.
>
> Of course the best alternative is to just stick to vegetarian
> food.
==================
And your proof of that is?
\

Takes less resources to produce.
====================
False, and demostratedbly so. It has been proven yto you time and again,
killer.


That means
> less collateral deaths, and of course the intentional death.
================
No less intentional than the animals you kill for clean, cheap veggies,
hypocrite. Only you kill more of them...

>
> For a meat eater, your suggestions would be better than
> factory farmed, healthwise for the eater. Not so good for
> the animal itself. Also, wild game and free range beef
> can't satisfy the demand of meat eaters worldwide.
==================
Nice strawman, killer. Your garden plot mythical veganic cannot feed the
world either. You lose, yet again. Because you will never dare compare
your actual diet to somebody elses. All you can do is focus on what you
think everybody else in the world is doing in an attempt to assuage your own
guilt, killer.


>
> There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
> If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.
=====================
You don't eat any of that, as it is mythical delusions....


>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity, and ignorance all in one big bundle...
>
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
>>
>> In the case I am citing there are only imported, commercially grown
> plant
>> foods available.
>
> Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
> 'best' of the meats?
>
>> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.
>>
>> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
>
> Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
> Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> why?
==================
Your diet and mine. Two real diets. Not some mythical source that you
don't use, and never will. Why can't you discuss anything except the rst of
the world, hypocrite? Have you realized that you own attempts are falling
far short of your claims?


>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity, and ignorance all in one big bundle...
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
>>
>> In the case I am citing there are only imported, commercially grown
> plant
>> foods available.
>
> Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
> 'best' of the meats?
>
>> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.
>>
>> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
>
> Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
> Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> why?
==================
Your diet and mine. Two real diets. Not some mythical source that you
don't use, and never will. Why can't you discuss anything except the rst of
the world, hypocrite? Have you realized that you own attempts are falling
far short of your claims?


>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity, and ignorance all in one big bundle...
>

> >> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the
foods.
> >>
> >> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
> >
> > Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
> > Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> > why?
> ==================
> Your diet and mine. Two real diets. Not some mythical source that
you
> don't use, and never will. Why can't you discuss anything except the
rst of
> the world, hypocrite? Have you realized that you own attempts are
falling
> far short of your claims?


Um, Ricky, I was asking Dutch. But despite that,
I'll not compare my personal diet to anyone else's.
You can't tell if the other person is telling the truth.
It also means you have to jot down everything you
eat for a week or however long. That sounds like
a royal pain. Also, such a comparison assumes
that the sample compared is indicative of the
person's diet, when in fact, that can change
drastically from week to week.


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

> >> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the
foods.
> >>
> >> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
> >
> > Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
> > Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> > why?
> ==================
> Your diet and mine. Two real diets. Not some mythical source that
you
> don't use, and never will. Why can't you discuss anything except the
rst of
> the world, hypocrite? Have you realized that you own attempts are
falling
> far short of your claims?


Um, Ricky, I was asking Dutch. But despite that,
I'll not compare my personal diet to anyone else's.
You can't tell if the other person is telling the truth.
It also means you have to jot down everything you
eat for a week or however long. That sounds like
a royal pain. Also, such a comparison assumes
that the sample compared is indicative of the
person's diet, when in fact, that can change
drastically from week to week.


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the
> foods.
>> >>
>> >> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
>> >
>> > Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
>> > Exactly which foods are you comparing and
>> > why?
>> ==================
>> Your diet and mine. Two real diets. Not some mythical source that
> you
>> don't use, and never will. Why can't you discuss anything except the
> rst of
>> the world, hypocrite? Have you realized that you own attempts are
> falling
>> far short of your claims?
>
>
> Um, Ricky, I was asking Dutch. But despite that,
> I'll not compare my personal diet to anyone else's.
=====================
Of course you won't, it would lay bare the hypocrisy you spew every post...


> You can't tell if the other person is telling the truth.
================
We already know that you aren't, killer.


> It also means you have to jot down everything you
> eat for a week or however long. That sounds like
> a royal pain. Also, such a comparison assumes
> that the sample compared is indicative of the
> person's diet, when in fact, that can change
> drastically from week to week.
=====================
Not if you were really focused on the claims you keep making about caring
about animals. But then, every inane post you make to usenet proves that
animals are of no concern to you.

>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity, and ignorance all in one big bundle...
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
>>
>> In the case I am citing there are only imported, commercially grown
> plant
>> foods available.
>
> Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
> 'best' of the meats?

Why not? It is a choice consumers face.

>> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.
>>
>> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
>
> Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?

Simply put, is it ALWAYS better to try to reduce animal deaths, or is only
better when it is done via the vegan formula, eliminating animal products?

> Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> why?

The foods are commercially grown and manufactured rice, beans, vegetables
and fruit compared to beef grown in a local community, pastured and not
finished with grain.

The reason I am doing it is that I am using your refusal to make the
comparison as an illustration of vegetarian narrow-mindedness, or
alternately, you could view it as an opportunity to prove me wrong about
that by acknowledging that my proposition is a plausible one. By doing so
you also release yourself from the fantasy that the vegan drive to eliminate
animal products from one's diet is a foolproof way to reduce animal deaths.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
>>
>> In the case I am citing there are only imported, commercially grown
> plant
>> foods available.
>
> Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
> 'best' of the meats?

Why not? It is a choice consumers face.

>> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.
>>
>> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
>
> Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?

Simply put, is it ALWAYS better to try to reduce animal deaths, or is only
better when it is done via the vegan formula, eliminating animal products?

> Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> why?

The foods are commercially grown and manufactured rice, beans, vegetables
and fruit compared to beef grown in a local community, pastured and not
finished with grain.

The reason I am doing it is that I am using your refusal to make the
comparison as an illustration of vegetarian narrow-mindedness, or
alternately, you could view it as an opportunity to prove me wrong about
that by acknowledging that my proposition is a plausible one. By doing so
you also release yourself from the fantasy that the vegan drive to eliminate
animal products from one's diet is a foolproof way to reduce animal deaths.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
<snip>
> Carrageanan is what gives soy milk and a lot of other soy and dairy
> products (fat free yogurt, for example) a creamy mouthfeel. Soy milk
> without carrageanan is as vile as rice milk, and it has a nasty soy
> aftertaste to boot.

Offbrand soy milk has a bit of that beany aftertaste, I noticed. If
Carageenan helps so much I have to wonder why they don't add it to the other
"milks."

-Rubystars

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
<snip>
> Carrageanan is what gives soy milk and a lot of other soy and dairy
> products (fat free yogurt, for example) a creamy mouthfeel. Soy milk
> without carrageanan is as vile as rice milk, and it has a nasty soy
> aftertaste to boot.

Offbrand soy milk has a bit of that beany aftertaste, I noticed. If
Carageenan helps so much I have to wonder why they don't add it to the other
"milks."

-Rubystars

> > Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
> > 'best' of the meats?
>
> Why not? It is a choice consumers face.

No it's not

> >> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the
foods.
> >>
> >> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
> >
> > Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
>
> Simply put, is it ALWAYS better to try to reduce animal deaths, or is
only
> better when it is done via the vegan formula, eliminating animal
products?

I personally think it's best to reduce what deaths
you reasonably can, and to do it while following
the 'formula' of eliminating animal products. The
intentional death involved in meat makes eating
meat a very repusive choice. Even if a fringe
meat has a total of less deaths than a 'worst of
the produce' food, the intentional death is very
in your face (pun intended) when you eat meat.
The act of eating dead body parts is too
repulsive to do. Some people become vegetarian
for no other reason in fact. It's not always about
animal rights. There's health and other reasons
people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
animal deaths a great deal so it's a good choice
if ones goal is that.

> > Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> > why?
>
> The foods are commercially grown and manufactured rice, beans,
vegetables
> and fruit compared to beef grown in a local community, pastured and
not
> finished with grain.

I don't want to compare the best of meats to the
worst of veggies. I wouldn't want to compare the
best of veggies to the worst of meats either. Both
are apples and oranges.

> The reason I am doing it is that I am using your refusal to make the
> comparison as an illustration of vegetarian narrow-mindedness, or
> alternately, you could view it as an opportunity to prove me wrong
about
> that by acknowledging that my proposition is a plausible one. By doing
so
> you also release yourself from the fantasy that the vegan drive to
eliminate
> animal products from one's diet is a foolproof way to reduce animal
deaths.

Who ever claimed it's foolproof? In overall averages it's better, but
not
foolproof.

> > Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
> > 'best' of the meats?
>
> Why not? It is a choice consumers face.

No it's not

> >> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the
foods.
> >>
> >> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
> >
> > Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
>
> Simply put, is it ALWAYS better to try to reduce animal deaths, or is
only
> better when it is done via the vegan formula, eliminating animal
products?

I personally think it's best to reduce what deaths
you reasonably can, and to do it while following
the 'formula' of eliminating animal products. The
intentional death involved in meat makes eating
meat a very repusive choice. Even if a fringe
meat has a total of less deaths than a 'worst of
the produce' food, the intentional death is very
in your face (pun intended) when you eat meat.
The act of eating dead body parts is too
repulsive to do. Some people become vegetarian
for no other reason in fact. It's not always about
animal rights. There's health and other reasons
people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
animal deaths a great deal so it's a good choice
if ones goal is that.

> > Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> > why?
>
> The foods are commercially grown and manufactured rice, beans,
vegetables
> and fruit compared to beef grown in a local community, pastured and
not
> finished with grain.

I don't want to compare the best of meats to the
worst of veggies. I wouldn't want to compare the
best of veggies to the worst of meats either. Both
are apples and oranges.

> The reason I am doing it is that I am using your refusal to make the
> comparison as an illustration of vegetarian narrow-mindedness, or
> alternately, you could view it as an opportunity to prove me wrong
about
> that by acknowledging that my proposition is a plausible one. By doing
so
> you also release yourself from the fantasy that the vegan drive to
eliminate
> animal products from one's diet is a foolproof way to reduce animal
deaths.

Who ever claimed it's foolproof? In overall averages it's better, but
not
foolproof.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>As it appears that (at least unfermented) soya is best
>>>>>avoided
>>>>
>>>>In moderation, or consumed on occasion, it's not going to kill you.
>>>
>>>Twit.
>>
>>Glad you agree.
>
> Have you taken to editing,

No editing was required.

>>>Soya milk is definately more 'creamy' than
>>>starchy.
>
> The one I used for this recipe contained only
> soy beans and water. No thickeners or sugar
> like some do. I never tried it on its own though,
> but it was great in the soup.

You wouldn't know the difference. The creaminess or smoothness of the
soup was most likely because of the potatoes, which are very starchy and
thicken cooking liquids, and cauliflower, which has a very smooth,
creamy mouthfeel when pureed. Soy milk isn't particularly creamy or
starchy, unless it has carrageanan or another thickening agent in it.

>>>The soup's texture might change a bit
>>
>>Entirely undetectable to an unenlightened palate like yours.
>
> How could you possibly know my palette?

By reviewing your recipes. Major league ick.

>>>If substituting a different broth than the one I used,
>>>try to get one heavy on the celery onion and garlic.
>>
>>What do you consider heavy?
>
> Ok, lesson for the cooking-challenged.

Look who's talking! I sure as hell don't need lessons in anything from
some urban hag who thinks spaghetti sauce and beans is chili. Geeeeez.

For an example of real cuisine, contrasted with your mushy boiled and
pureed vegetables, consider some of my own recipes.

Tamales: http://tinyurl.com/6gop2
Meatless meat balls: http://tinyurl.com/4z7tf
Spicy lentil soup: http://tinyurl.com/6yuqa
Dirty rice: http://tinyurl.com/66v9l

> Heavy in this case meaning that those are the primary
> flavours of the broth.

In that case, I'd go *easy* on the celery and add more carrots. You can
have too much celery in a dish, especially in a stock.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Good. None for you. And you won't mind then.
>>
>>You're doing me a favor.
>
> I'm getting the feeling that you wouldn't like
> any recipe I post.

Especially if in contains beans and spaghetti sauce and you try to pass
it off as chili. Call it what it is: Skunky's Spaghetti Sauce and Beans.

>>>I've got an alibi. I wasn't even in the province they
>>>were grown in.
>>
>>That's not an alibi. You still bought them knowing the farmer was
>>killing animals. That makes you a hypocrite.
>
> I know

No, Skunky, you don't. You ASSUME. You assume WRONGLY.

> that the farmer killed less animals then they
> would have for the same poundage of pork or
> poultry, etc.

Ipse dixit. The death of one pig provides a lot of meals. Your soy milk
is a very wasteful product -- a lot of soybeans go into it for what you
get out, and soy is a high-CD cro: a lot of animal deaths, no meals.

>>>They just didn't. Turns out the soup was delicious.
>>>Me and a friend polished off the whole potload.
>>
>>Gluttons.
>
> No, just very happy munchies time. Gluttony would
> be doing it all the time.

Gluttony pertains to overindulgence, period. There is no timeframe
required for something to be called gluttony. You don't have to be like
Dreck (aka Retard) to be a fat-assed glutton, but he's mastered it (not
a good thing at all).

>>>None left for you
>>
>>Thank goodness.
>
> I could have posted ANY recipe and you'd find something
> against it.

Your recipes are, for the most part, offensive to good taste. Post a
good one and you'll be praised for it.

peril wrote:
>>>>>I see you're still insane Usual.
>>>
>>>Mad as a hatter!
>>
>>Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes:

Resto
"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
End Restore

> Point proven,

I know it is, you psycho.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>>>would have for the same poundage of pork or
>>>poultry, etc.
>>
>>=====================
>>Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
>>never will be able to prove your delusions.
>
> I've already proven this point.

No, you never have. You've been asked to repeatedly, but you've only
repeated yourself that you've already proven it.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>Hahaha. When did you start stipulating which produce you consume is
>>>>organic?
>>>
>>>Organic was brought up earlier in the thread. I was quite happy
>>>to find the organic broccoli and cauliflower.
>>
>>Interestingly, both are on the Environmental Working Group's list of
>>"safest" produce from the standpoint of pesticide residues. Those are
>>two examples where buying organic is a complete waste of money.
>>
>>http://www.foodnews.org/reportcard.php
>
> Organic varieties of tomato ketchup contain three times
> as much of a cancer-fighting chemical called lycopene as
> non-organic brands.

Now you claim *ketchup* is a health food, lol?! Oh, my ribs.

> If you want high lycopene levels, says Ishida, the rule of
> thumb is to pick the darkest red ketchup.

Correct -- *not simply* the organic one. Other foods are much healthier
for you than ketchup and contain a lot more lycopene -- including other
forms of cooked tomato.

mg of lycopene per 100g wet weight
Apricot, dried 0.86
Grapefruit, raw pink 3.36
Guava, fresh 5.40
Guava juice 3.34
Papaya, fresh 2.00-5.30
Watermelon, fresh 2.30-7.20
Tomato sauce 6.20
Tomato paste 5.40-150.00
Tomato soup, condensed 7.99
Tomato powder, drum or spray dried 112.63-126.49
Tomato juice 5.00-11.60
Tomatoes, fresh 0.88-4.20
Sun-dried tomato in oil 46.50
Tomatoes, cooked 3.70

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
> game,

Name one game species in North America at risk of extinction.

<snip of your standard unproven/bullshit claims>

> > I'm getting the feeling that you wouldn't like
> > any recipe I post.
>
> Especially if in contains beans and spaghetti sauce and you try to
pass
> it off as chili. Call it what it is: Skunky's Spaghetti Sauce and
Beans.

Well, it tastes like chili, looks like chili... The spaghetti sauce
is only one of many tomato containing ingredients. The spices
make for a strong chili flavour. The texture is definately
chili, although a little thicker than average.

For those who don't know what recipe Usual's complaining
about, go to http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/recipes/index.htm
The page is a mix of vegan and lacto-ovo, but the chili and
the broth they use is vegan, I'm pretty sure. Ironically, it's the
spaghetti sauce I'm unsure of. I know there's no meat (unlike
the high-fat version they sell in that flavour), but I don't
know if it has a bit of cheese. I'll check next time I'm there.

> > No, just very happy munchies time. Gluttony would
> > be doing it all the time.
>
> Gluttony pertains to overindulgence, period. There is no timeframe
> required for something to be called gluttony. You don't have to be
like
> Dreck (aka Retard) to be a fat-assed glutton, but he's mastered it
(not
> a good thing at all).

You trolls are so against vegetarianism, that if enjoyment
of the foods are shown, you call it gluttony and complain.
Are you just that glum?

> > I could have posted ANY recipe and you'd find something
> > against it.
>
> Your recipes are, for the most part, offensive to good taste. Post a
> good one and you'll be praised for it.

I'm not looking for praise from a troll who insults whenever he
can. I find it satisfying that those in my real (offline) life enjoy
my cooking. Even my meateating friends do, so I'm not looking
for or expecting any praise from you.

By the way, if you gather your recipes onto a website,
those being the ones other than your recent sashimi,
I will list you in my directory. Even though you're a
troll who doesn't want to be called vegan but
whose recipes are suitable for vegans !!


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