"usual suspect" wrote in message ...
Scented Nectar wrote:
Well, I've been shopping but only at the place
that has less organic than the other store.

Doesn't make a ****ing difference, Skanky. Both stores use lethal
force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming also use lethal
force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming use
machinery that runs over or mutilates animals. You're still
contributing to wholesale animal slaughter and pain, you misguided, heartless
witch.

I see you're still insane Usual.

Mad as a hatter!

,..
Organic veggies are more nutritious

You've been "researching" activist claims again, haven't you.

You're going to post corporate propaganda and flawed 'research', aren't you.

Organic More Nutritious? Even the Organic Industry Doesn't Think So!

by Alex Avery

'Monsanto and the Campaign to Undermine Organics

Monsanto also partially funds the extreme anti-organic Center for
Global Food Issues, a project of the right-wing Hudson Institute.
It is run by Dennis Avery
[1] (http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=15&page=A)
The Hudson Institute is funded by many firms whose products are
excluded from organic agricultu eg, AgrEvo, Dow AgroSciences,
Monsanto, Novartis Crop Protection, Zeneca, Du Pont, DowElanco,
ConAgra, and Cargill.
[2] (http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=48&page=1&op=1)
and his son Alex Avery.
.....'
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...rmine_Organics

Is organic food more nutritious? The simple answer is no. While some
studies have been trumpeted as having finally shown the nutritional
superiority of organic foods, other studies of similar crops show either
no difference or superiority of conventional produce. Many factors
affect nutrient and mineral content of food, especially produce
(genetics, sunlight, moisture, pests, harvest date/time of day, time lag
from harvest to consumption, etc.). Any differences which may result
from the use of organic or conventional farming practices cannot be
detected.

'The mineral content of organic food - Rutgers University USA

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

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

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

But don’t take our word for it.

Of course not!!

Look at what others have had to say about this question:

-- Even the organic foods industry has been forced to admit that their
products offer no significant nutritional advantages. Katherine
DiMatteo, spokesperson for the U.S. Organic Trade Association, was asked
on ABC’s 20/20 (February 4, 2000) whether organic foods were more
nutritious than their conventional counterparts. She twice responded
that “organic foods are as nutritious as any other product.” Not more
nutritious, merely “as nutritious.”

'chemical isolation combined with nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR) spectroscopy revealed that the organically-grown oranges
contained 30% more vitamin C than the conventionally-grown fruits
— even though they were only about half the size. '
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0603071017.htm

--The Tufts University Health & Nutrition letter
(http://www.phys.com/b_nutrition/02so...qa/organic.htm)
answered the question of whether organic is more nutritious this way:
“No one knows. The question is a difficult one to study because of all
the factors besides farming methods that could affect nutritional
quality, including soil type and climate. The evidence from the small
body of reliable studies available thus far does not show any
significant differences between the nutrient content of organically
grown and conventionally grown food.”

More research confirms organic food is better for you
RESEARCH PAPER: ARCHIVED

The Soil Association Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human
Health report showed that the nutritional content of organic was
higher than non-organic foods. New US research shows by how
much.

"While my review looked at the entire picture of nutritional food
quality" says Shane Heaton, author of the Soil Association food
quality report, "this research, by nutritionist Virginia Worthington,
has looked specifically at the comparative vitamin and mineral
contents, reviewing a similar collection of scientific studies.

"Her research confirms our findings that, on average, organic
produce contains significantly higher levels of vitamin C, iron,
magnesium and phosphorus, and how seemingly small
differences in nutrients can mean the difference between
getting the recommended daily allowance - or failing to."

All 21 minerals compared were higher in organic produce.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...s10122001.html

--UC Davis nutritionist Dr. Gail Feenstra says, “As much as I'd
like to say yes, unfortunately the evidence doesn't show that it is. The
studies are equivocal; there are no definitive studies that show that
organic is much better than conventionally-produced produce."

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

--Consumer Reports, a magazine that strongly favors organic foods
(and has recommended it several times in the past), wrote this after its
own evaluation of organic foods Dec. 15, 1997. (available at
http://www.consumerreports.com/Speci.../9712n001.html): “Yet
organic produce tastes no different than ‘conventionally’ grown produce,
and any nutritional differences there might be between them are likely
so subtle as to evade detection.”

'Evaluation of validity of studies

Of the 99 studies found, claiming or claimed to make a direct
comparison of the nutritional quality of organic and non-organic
produce, 70 were rejected as invalid comparisons for the
following reasons: insufficient duration (27), incorrect or
unknown practices (23), absence of relevant quality comparisons
(14) and republished results of previous experiments (6). Of the
29 remaining valid studies, 14 compare mineral contents, 13
compare vitamin C contents and 19 compare the dry matter
content of organic and non-organic produce.

Results

Against a background of declining mineral levels in fresh
produce over the last sixty years (Mayer 1997), and given that
many people fail to achieve the recommended daily allowance for
a variety of nutrients (MAFF 1996, Clayton 2001), the nutrient
contents of organic and non-organic produce are worthy of
comparison. ..

While similar controlled studies in humans are difficult, clinical
experience and recorded observations have suggested similar
benefits in human reproductive health (Foresight), recovery from
illness (Plaskett 1999) and general health (Daldy 1940) from
the consumption of organically produced food.
...
http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/librar...%20quality.pdf.

-- Canada’s Manitoba Agriculture and Food agency
(www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/homeec/cbd03s01.htm) had this to say:
“Nutritional value of plants depends on genetics, availability of water,
amount of sunlight, maturity when picked, how long it took to come to
market and whether it was properly handled and refrigerated. Numerous
laboratory tests have not found any substantial nutritional differences
in organically and conventionally grown produce.”

Study Denying Nutritional Benefits of Organic Was Bogus
...
Zinc levels, one of the more interesting comparisons given it's importance
as a trace mineral in human health and because many people are not able
to obtain the recommended daily allowance, described as 'negligible', are
reported as the same level in all twenty crops, which is often 100 percent
higher than the conventional food table figures. Clearly the zinc levels were
not properly assessed.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Orga...tudy071902.cfm

--The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
(http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/...ocs/fs7061.htm):
“Various comparisons have been made on the nutrient content of plants
and on other components of nutritional quality. Although differences can
be found they are not consistent among the different experiments that
have been conducted. Varying the soil nutrients or other growing
conditions could conceivably produce similar results. There is no
conclusive evidence that crops grown organically are either inferior or
superior nutritionally. There are major differences between experiments
and among crops within the same experiment.”

'The emphasis of organic agriculture on feeding soils is the primary
step in achieving products of high nutritional content. An
understanding of nutritional balance, physical and biophysical soil
composition underpins a successful organic farming system. '
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/org5yr3.htm

Dr. Clarence Swanton, professor in the Department of Plant Agriculture
at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada says, “There is no
scientific evidence whatsoever that I am aware of that [organic food] is
nutritionally better for you.”
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../oct_18_97.htm

'Organic food IS more nutritious, especially if fresh, and eating it is
vital to good health; let those who claim otherwise try to prove their
case! I still see articles in reputable magazines stating that there is no
nutritional difference between organic produce and regular supermarket
food. I've even repeatedly received this erroneous information from
Agricultural Extension offices and Professors of Agriculture at
“reputable” State Universities... although one Professor, probably
safely tenured, told me in hushed tones that “of course, most of
our funding comes from chemical companies.”
http://www.living-foods.com/articles...utritious.html

----------
See also:
http://www.price-pottenger.org/Artic...Nutrition.html

'According to the USDA, the calcium content of an apple has
declined from 13.5 mg in 1914 to 7 mg in 1992. The iron content
has declined from 4.6 mg in 1914 to 0.18 mg in 1992.
...
A study published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1,
1993 compared the nutrient content of supermarket food versus
organically grown food from food stores in the Chicago area. The
organic produce averaged twice the mineral content of the
supermarket food.
http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/or...griculture.htm

http://www.ivillage.co.uk/food/cook/...526834,00.html

'Organic oats have much higher levels of essential nutrients than conventional
...
As the chart below shows, preliminary nutritional analysis of oat plants from
The Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial found that the organic plants
had increases of up to 74 percent in nutrient content over conventionally
grown plants, suggesting an answer to the perennial question, "Is organic
better?"
http://www.newfarm.org/columns/jeff_moyer/1003.shtml

http://www.nature.com/nsu/000831/000831-4.html

'A study commissioned by the Organic Retailers and Growers
Association of Australia (ORGAA) found that conventionally
grown fruit and vegetables purchased in supermarkets and
other commercial retail outlets had ten times less mineral content
than fruit and vegetables grown organically.
Source: Organic Retailers and Growers Association of Australia,
2000, as cited in Pesticides and You, Vol. 20, No. 1, Spring 2000,
News from Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the
Misuse of Pesticides.
http://www.organicconnection.net/nutritional.html

.....

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.

do you think that 'Rice Dream' would be alright instead?

Why wouldn't it be? Both are just starchy water.

No.

Yes.

Soya milk is definately more 'creamy' than
starchy.

Because of the carrageanan. Not from the soy.

The soup's texture might change a bit

Entirely undetectable to an unenlightened palate like yours.

but it should still taste good.

Only to an unenlightened palate like yours.

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?

Rubystars wrote:
...
Or use some carrageanan, a bit of corn or potato starch, etc. Rice milk is
just starchy water anyway. You don't have to make it more difficult or
more expensive than it already is, dummy.

I tried rice milk a couple of months ago because I was curious about how it
tasted and I was disappointed.

I bet you were.

It sort of burned my throat a little.

Wow, I haven't heard of that happening before. The stuff is just starchy
water -- and quite vile.

Soy milk and even regular old cow's milk is so much better.

Like the song says, "Ain't nothing like the real thing, baby..."

Hazelnut milk is
pretty good tasting although it's not "milky" like soy.

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.

I haven't tried almond milk yet.

It's okay, but I'd much rather eat my almonds than drink them.

peril wrote:
...
I see you're still insane Usual.

Mad as a hatter!

Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes:
"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

Organic veggies are more nutritious

You've been "researching" activist claims again, haven't you.

You're going to post corporate propaganda and flawed 'research', aren't you.

I posted information including quotes from organic apologists:
Even the organic foods industry has been forced to admit that
their products offer no significant nutritional advantages.
Katherine DiMatteo, spokesperson for the U.S. Organic Trade
Association, was asked on ABC’s 20/20 (February 4, 2000) whether
organic foods were more nutritious than their conventional
counterparts. She twice responded that “organic foods are as
nutritious as any other product.” Not more nutritious, merely
“as nutritious.”

Etc.

Organic More Nutritious? Even the Organic Industry Doesn't Think So!

by Alex Avery

'Monsanto and the Campaign to Undermine Organics

Monsanto also partially funds the extreme anti-organic Center for
Global Food Issues, a project of the right-wing Hudson Institute.
It is run by Dennis Avery

And your point is what, that we should *only* consider activists from
the other side? The problem for you is that Avery and others rely on
science for their claims; your side rejects science for its own demented
axiom that organic is inherently better. Nice of you to try to make the
case that your side's own spokeswoman couldn't on national television,
though.

Snip of gibberish and propaganda.

peril wrote:
...
I see you're still insane Usual.

Mad as a hatter!

Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes:
"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

Organic veggies are more nutritious

You've been "researching" activist claims again, haven't you.

You're going to post corporate propaganda and flawed 'research', aren't you.

I posted information including quotes from organic apologists:
Even the organic foods industry has been forced to admit that
their products offer no significant nutritional advantages.
Katherine DiMatteo, spokesperson for the U.S. Organic Trade
Association, was asked on ABC’s 20/20 (February 4, 2000) whether
organic foods were more nutritious than their conventional
counterparts. She twice responded that “organic foods are as
nutritious as any other product.” Not more nutritious, merely
“as nutritious.”

Etc.

Organic More Nutritious? Even the Organic Industry Doesn't Think So!

by Alex Avery

'Monsanto and the Campaign to Undermine Organics

Monsanto also partially funds the extreme anti-organic Center for
Global Food Issues, a project of the right-wing Hudson Institute.
It is run by Dennis Avery

And your point is what, that we should *only* consider activists from
the other side? The problem for you is that Avery and others rely on
science for their claims; your side rejects science for its own demented
axiom that organic is inherently better. Nice of you to try to make the
case that your side's own spokeswoman couldn't on national television,
though.

Snip of gibberish and propaganda.

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
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, or are you just talking
to yourself. It was you that wrote 'Twit'

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.

The soup's texture might change a bit

Entirely undetectable to an unenlightened palate like yours.

How could you possibly know my palette? You don't.

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


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

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
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, or are you just talking
to yourself. It was you that wrote 'Twit'

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.

The soup's texture might change a bit

Entirely undetectable to an unenlightened palate like yours.

How could you possibly know my palette? You don't.

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


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

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
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, or are you just talking
to yourself. It was you that wrote 'Twit'

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.

The soup's texture might change a bit

Entirely undetectable to an unenlightened palate like yours.

How could you possibly know my palette? You don't.

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


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

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. You trolls are just going to have to
accept that I am content with reduction of
deaths, and that I realize that it's not within
my powers to eliminate them completely.
No hypocrasy


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.

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. You trolls are just going to have to
accept that I am content with reduction of
deaths, and that I realize that it's not within
my powers to eliminate them completely.
No hypocrasy


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.

"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.