 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
<...> > If I am lucky enough to still be > able bodied when I retire, You'll neither retire nor be able-bodied. Your sloth will catch up with you. > I'm going to be wanting to grow > much of my food. You're also "going to be wanting to" learn better grammar. > Meanwhile > though, I'm content with just giving lip service. Another quarter-century of hypocritical lip service about "killing animals is wrong" while you wantonly kill them. > doing what I can while my > obligations and current goals > are in the city. Cop outs. > The collateral > deaths can't be avoided > while I'm in the city, Bullshit, they can. Any of the suggestions offered would be reasonable steps to most people, but you're not a reasonanle person. You fly off the handle at the suggestion that you join a co-op or community garden IN the city. You become defiant at suggestion that you alter your consumption and focus on consuming locally-grown foods. Etc. You don't make any effort, you only make excuses. > as I'm dependant on commercial > foods. Only because you refuse to break your dependencies. > However, one thing > I can do that's in standing > with my personal ethics is > encourage a demand for > cruelty-free food. Which is LIP SERVICE. Your pontifications about demanding "cruelty-free" food are bullshit because your demand hasn't changed. You continue to demand and *purchase* high-CD foods. > My ethics > don't require me to do anything. They're sham ethics. > go to > extremes like some of the > suggestions I've gotten in > these groups. Joining a community garden isn't extreme. Buying local isn't extreme. Joining a co-op isn't extreme. Leasing land isn't extreme. You see only costs, yet you don't object to the costs -- financial or to animals -- of your current consumption. You're a poseur. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> Scented Nectar wrote: > > [--snip--] > >>>Not in providing > >>>meat, unless you're a cannibal. > >> > >>I wouldn't even THINK of eating you, Dopey. Cattle have more purpose in > >>life than you do. > > > > What purpose do you think > > humans have in life? > > You have no purpose in life. > > > Do you think it's necessary to have a > > purpose? > > You clearly don't, else you'd have some semblence of purpose. > > > [--snip--] > >>>Meanwhile though, my very > >>>realistic retirement plans > >>>might very well do that. > >> > >>Sleazy pipe dreams. The sleazy part of it is that you would wait 23 > >>years -- A QUARTER CENTURY -- to practice what you preach. You won't. > >>You're already complacent and too addicted to your sloth to do anything. > > > > So what if it's some years > > down the line? > > It shows that you have no principle, just lip service. In mocking, whiny > voice: "Killing animals is wrong, but I'm not gonna stop until I retire > in a quarter century and buy five acres." > > > I'm already > > practicing what I preach > > You preach nothing, you practice nothing. It's twaddle. Lip service. > > > by doing what I reasonably can. > > That's a cop out -- a weak, weasely cop out. > > > [--snip--] > >>Removing yourself from the food chain means suicide. > > > > I was referring to the commercial > > food chain. > > Food SUPPLY. > > >>>that won't change it. > >> > >>It will with respect to your own consumption in light of your > >>principles. That's when you'll earn my respect. > > > > My consumption won't alter the > > number of cds. > > It will with respect to what you consume. It may be but a drop in the > bucket, but a respectable one if you believe killing animals is wrong. > As it stands now, you kill many animals through your consumption. You > say killing them is wrong. Why do you want to wait a QUARTER CENTURY > before you stop doing what you say is wrong? > > Twenty-three years of killing tens of thousands of animals per year > means you won't stop until you're in the millions. Do you consider that > ethical at all? > > >>>That's where > >>>people like you come in. > >>>You inform people of the > >>>unseen cruelty in the farming > >>>industry and thus increase > >>>the demand for cruelty-free > >>>foods.  )> >> > >>And where's your ****ing gratitude for it?! > > > > If you weren't just a barrel of > > insults, > > I'm not. > > > maybe I would thank > > you. > > You never would under any circumstance. > > > But too bad. I will use > > your posts about cds to help > > inform people of the unseen > > harm, and thus increase the > > demand for cruelty-free foods. > > It hasn't affected your demand. You continue to demand and purchase > high-CD foods. > > > [--snip--] > >>>I'm more of a Babylon 5 type. > >> > >>Same thing. How long did you stand in line to see _Revenge of the Shit_ > >>and which costume did you wear? > > > > Huh? > > Same thing. How long did you stand in line to see _Revenge of the Shit_ > and which costume did you wear? > > > [--snip--] > >>>However, I > >>>would much rather see > >>>better storage procedures > >>>practiced and better > >>>housekeeping at food storage > >>>places, instead of having > >>>to kill mice and rats. > >> > >>Health guidelines require both "better housekeeping" and pro-active pest > >>control. The realistic way to minimize animal deaths from > >>stored/transported foods is to buy as locally as possible. Too bad you > >>object strenuously to that and choose to be a hypocrite instead. > > > > If good housekeeping was > > practiced, > > It is. Health codes still require pro-active pest control. > > > there would be > > no rodents to kill, > > You have no ****ing idea about rodents and other pests and how they > affect stored foods. > > > even if > > measures are put in place. > > You're talking out of your wrinkled old ass. > > >>>A good pickup truck > >> > >>You take the bus. They won't let you carry wastes aboard the bus. > > > > When I retire, > > In a quarter-century. At the earliest. I'm not convinced you'll retire. > > > I will probably > > want a pickup. > > Your grammar, as horrendous as it is, conveys your own hesitation and > uncertainty about your future plans. > > > As for driving now, > > You don't. You take the bus or walk. > > > it's only occasionally > > needed when living in the city. > > You wouldn't need a truck in the country, either. It may be more > convenient than hiring others to haul things for you, but it's not a NEED. > > >>>and I can > >>>pick up many company's food > >>>wastes. > >> > >>You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming > >>locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, > >>and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, > >>because you object to practicing what you preach. > > > > Fish and beef are not veg*n. > > I separated those from produce even though you still like to smell meat, > and you still like meat in your mouth; you only stick the fake stuff in > your flappy yapper now. > > > Also, stop pushing local-only > > expectations on me. > > They're not "expectations." They're foods compatible with your stated > principles. My diet is a lot closer to your principles than your diet > is, and I don't share your principles. So you should drop your > sanctimonious contempt for me because I'm doing a "better" job at your > principles than you are. > > >>Based on pseudoethics. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air > >>to transport bananas from Central America to Toronto, killing many more > >>animals than the one animal from which you'd eat a fraction of flesh? > > > > If you believed that, you yourself > > would be a beef eater. > > I asked you a question. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air > so you can have tropical foods in Toronto? Why is it more ethical to > poison so many animals but unethical to eat just one? > > > [--snip--] > >>>Pearl has shown > >>>in her posts how grass-fed > >>>cows are not necessarily > >>>well cared for. > >> > >>She's a foot-rubbing lunatic who believes Mount Shasta is inhabited by > >>enlightened beings. > > > > I don't care about that. > > You should. She's a raving lunatic. > > > She posted > > some info about grass-fed cows > > When? > > > that I found interesting. > > You find blood-type fad diets interesting. You're as loony as Lesley is. > > > And as for > > wild caught fish, you know my view > > on that. > > Yes: it's acceptable to indiscriminantly poison them with diesel and jet > emissions and run off from banana plantations, but unacceptable to eat them. > > > [--snip--] > >>>On my personal site, which is > >>>a mostly lacto-ovo one, at > >>> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/recipes/ > >> > >>Stop advertising your site in these groups. From your ISP's AUP: > >>Newsgroups and Online Forums > >>Messages posted to newsgroups and online forums must comply with > >>the written charters or FAQs for those newsgroups and online > >>forums. Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial > >>messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and online > >>forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*. > >>http://www.shoprogers.com/business/b...nternetaup.asp > > > > There's no commercial advertisements > > on my site. > > You're advertising your site in these groups, neither of which explicity > permits such advertising in its charter or FAQ. You are violating your > ISP's acceptable use policy. > > > A person's sig with > > their personal website listed is NOT > > in violation of anything. > > It's a violation of your ISP's AUP. > > > Are you > > advertising for Rogers commercial > > services by posting the above? No. > > I'm telling you their policy and explaining how you're violating it. > > > And that's even though they are > > a business. My site's not even a > > business. > > The link to their site is to the page with their AUP. Stop spinning, > Skanky, and stop advertising your site and violating your terms of service. > > >>>Good, because it's not very > >>>nice to go into people's stash. > >> > >>Since you bring up the issue and you still believe your drug use doesn't > >>harm anyone else, what do you have to say about the very brief tenure of > >>the last chief of police in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico? > >> > >>http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...pstory/3219377 > > > > That site > > Article. From a newspaper. > > > is about the import of > > hard drugs like cocaine. > > No, it's not. You drug abusing idiots don't realize that your habits and > choices cause battles between rival groups who want to control > distribution. The irony is dopeheads like you tend to blast corporations > for engaging in "predatory" competition while your own toking causes > far, far worse consequences between competitors and regulators (since > the police are trying to clean this shit up). > > The drug wars in Nuevo Laredo -- right across the US border from Laredo, > Texas -- are over routes used to smuggle *all* drugs from Mexico and > Central America. Why is Nuevo Laredo important? Because I-35 is the > largest corridor for commercial transportation between Mexico and Canada. > > State detectives said the slaying of Dominguez appeared to be > the work of drug gangs fighting for control of lucrative > smuggling routes into Texas. > > Control access to the I-35 corridor, and you control access to right > through the heart of the US (with access to all major cities via the > interstate highway system) and up to the Canadian border. Access to > Canada is important because your nation is relaxing its marijuana laws. > > > Marijuana tends to be in grow houses in the > > same country and city as where > > it's dispersed. > > Not *entirely* accurate, Skanky, but you never are. While that may be > more true than false today, it won't be if you continue to relax your > marijuana policies. > > Most of the marijuana consumed in Canada is produced in that > country; however, marijuana smuggled into Canada from countries > such as Mexico and Jamaica, some of which transits the United > States, also is available. > http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/marijuan.htm > > Relaxing your marijuana laws increases the likelihood of more marijuana > flowing across your border from Mexico through the US. Mexican and > Central American drug cartels can grow and distribute cheaper than your > BC stoners can. They'll undercut (in more than one way) your domestic > growers. The war in Nuevo Laredo today is for access to I-35. The wars > tomorrow will be along your border for routes to your cities, and the > turf wars will eventually be fought on your own streets. > > > You could say it's local produce. > > I can also say that you endanger the lives of others by smoking it. > > BTW, you forgot to tell me how old you were when you dropped out of > school. You also snipped out all my remarks last week about how the > girls who smoked were the sluttiest in my school. Were you that way, > too? Is that why you left school early? Shortage, Dearth And Lack By Alfred Lehmberg AlienView.net 6-9-5 Wilbert Smith has pointed out, we've just a bug's insentience, our senses crawl the lowest limb... presume that tree's pretension... What purpose then this poetry that I might write to you, but saying what cannot be said... except in rhyme, it's true... ....Consider Nostradamus, and the things that he'd write down; if writ in prose these anecdotes would burn him to the ground. But written in a song or verse words stay the torch provided, and people might take pause instead... ~before~ they got excited. Now those who think they 'know' me... or suspect I'm insincere? You decide I'm too intense... too strident flogging 'fear'? Well -- a pox on trepidation, folks, there's an outrage to consider; we're played for fools; we've been betrayed, cognition's near forbidden! Blogs aplenty tender thoughts of retro-think implosion. They provoke apostasy and thinking's new erosion. They re-revision history or smear fresh thinking proffered, they argue 'nits' and 'throwaways' to keep their terror proper. 'He' pules his smears and charges; 'she' snickers, sneers, and smirks... these are the specious clueless... mere bionic cyber-jerks. They prosecute pathetic plans to keep us in their box, but we're outside their cowardice, we've picked their facile locks! These imply they're scholars, or persons in the show. These provoke the anger that we've lately come to know. These argue their inanities, re-dredge misinformation that's been dismissed as errant crap, without accreditation. These use their erudition to preclude ones living wage. These assassinate the characters of persons they 'debate'. They scare the sponsors they offend, pump fat egos without end, and make themselves the center piece for pompous thought that apes disease. What provokes their sad hysteria? Why... Space, and Time, and Surface Area! Works of Shakespeare ~are~ produced by monkeys banging keyboards used. There ~is~ 'room' for all which makes their "finest work" ....a sad disgrace. They are not the "center jewel"; it's this that makes them lose their cool. These contrive a 'singularity', to themselves! Ribald hilarity! Birds and bolides... falling boosters? If this ~is~ all... then ~all~ are losers! ....These mere posers, non-propitious, and fearful of that "grand seditious" ....saying "beads" to calm their fear while whistling passed their graveyard bier. These hate the future bearing down, protest too much that ~I'm~ the clown, or label me a "crazy loon"... or a "danger" to my fellows? Swoon! Fear the poet? Ain't that strange? Fear the wordsmith "all deranged..." ....Fear he's so far up your nose his boot heels scrub your top lip, Bro! Fear sincerity, off its knees and shaking off your 'shackles', please. You contrive to fill ~your~ 'plate' and that's an action of distaste. Let's talk about the petty jibes of errant drones who ~must~ connive... to keep their stocks and bonds in place (?) so hold at bay profound disgrace! See them caper and conspire... around their black and oily fire... but ~burning~ books thought inconvenient as these expose their faux-achievement. Watch them argue without end, their denial and contrived pretence. Watch them bring up, yet again, mal-issues well divested, friend. Watch them pole-vault tick-turds placed as errant straw-filled men, replaced... ...they'd decry when used on them; they'll whine that there's no "fair play" then! These ~are~ the worst; I must contend. These, not colleague ~or~ collegiate friend. Ideologues are what abound, conflicted *******s non-profound. It's these who sell a failing stock... or toil to turn back Bassett's clock! These won't ask the harder question; they just "deny" ...is my suggestion. Now all I've ever been is service. To family, nation... no disservice. I have done the hard jobs friend, and done them well... I don't pretend. Others took a different path and served themselves... you do the math... Maybe these won't be he the best to label me in this contest... or judge upon more valid others lest ~they're~ judged and ~them~ that's smothered. I would fight the good fight, folks, it's all I've ever known, no jokes. Something's in the skies above that 'they' ...deny... come push to shove! Know them by their negativity, know them by their cant's proclivity, know them by their lack of that which drives the rest to where it's at! Know them by their fruit, at last. Know them as the spawn of Klass. Know this 'new' guard, fresh-evolved, to keep the status quo involved. These are not progressive men much interested in truth, take ten! These are women ~not~ involved with truth, at any cost, resolved. These are persons you don't know... who ~hide~ from that which flies and glows... persons with their heads shoved blind in places where the sun won't shine! Point your fingers, please, at me... to feel three gouge back at 'thee'. Ignominy, once looming, lingers, but I account for all my fingers. I'm sincere to your portentous, curious to your conflicted, creative to your constipated, attentive to your... too inflated. I'm a human unrelated to anything that these have stated, and I don't take betrayal well for friends of mine provoked to yell. So, I'm attentive to your actions, curious in your distractions, creative as regards retorts... in song and verse and image... sport. These on Wilbert's "lowest knee" would intimate the whole damn tree. Wilbert Smith is right again... and it won't be the last time... 'friends'. There is more to Earth and heaven than these admit or know, times seven. They're the quislings of our breed, they're consumed with meager needs. These are needs to smirk and preen or prosecute their errant mean. They lack courage, grace and style; these are not our socio-philes. These contrive to take us back... to match ~their~ shortage, dearth, and lack. -:|:- www.AlienView.net |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > <...> > > If I am lucky enough to still be > > able bodied when I retire, > > You'll neither retire nor be able-bodied. Your sloth will catch up with you. We'll see when the time comes. > > I'm going to be wanting to grow > > much of my food. > > You're also "going to be wanting to" learn better grammar. I don't care about my grammar during conversational writing or speaking. I believe that I can make myself understood just fine. > > Meanwhile > > though, I'm content with just > > giving lip service. Another quarter-century of hypocritical lip service > about "killing animals is wrong" while you wantonly kill them. I guess no one told you. The cds stop at my door. But let's get a little more detailed. The animals you say I'm killing are actually being killed accidently by the farmer during tilling, harvesting whatever. The consumer can't change this until enough are willing to demand cruelty free foods. By keeping the subject alive in this venue, this can be accomplished. Even organics got their start somewhere.You also like to blame me for rodent deaths at storage facilities. I don't accept the blame, since I'm not doing it, nor did I request it. A properly maintained place will not have a rodent problem if they practice good housekeeping and sealed, strong containers. > > doing what I can while my > > obligations and current goals > > are in the city. > > Cop outs. > > > The collateral > > deaths can't be avoided > > while I'm in the city, > > Bullshit, they can. Any of the suggestions offered would be reasonable > steps to most people, but you're not a reasonanle person. You fly off > the handle at the suggestion that you join a co-op or community garden > IN the city. You become defiant at suggestion that you alter your > consumption and focus on consuming locally-grown foods. Etc. You don't > make any effort, you only make excuses. Co-ops do not bring about death-free foods. A community garden is almost impossible to obtain and is a very small size. CSAs don't sell death-free foods (they don't answer their emails inquiring about Toronto info either). You should stop lumping me in with people who are against the food import/export business because I'm not, nor do I believe that 2 days in local storage kills more animals than 2 days in shipping storage. > > as I'm dependant on commercial > > foods. > > Only because you refuse to break your dependencies. > > > However, one thing > > I can do that's in standing > > with my personal ethics is > > encourage a demand for > > cruelty-free food. > > Which is LIP SERVICE. Your pontifications about demanding "cruelty-free" > food are bullshit because your demand hasn't changed. You continue to > demand and *purchase* high-CD foods. > > > My ethics > > don't require me to > > do anything. They're sham ethics. My ethics are to do the best *I* can reasonably expect myself to do. I live up to that. > > go to > > extremes like some of the > > suggestions I've gotten in > > these groups. > > Joining a community garden isn't extreme. Buying local isn't extreme. > Joining a co-op isn't extreme. Leasing land isn't extreme. You see only > costs, yet you don't object to the costs -- financial or to animals -- > of your current consumption. You're a poseur. When I retire, I'll be able to afford to live anywhere with a mailing address. By taking care of my money, and not attempting something that takes away my job security and ability to afford a farm, I am being prudent. And realistic. -- 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: > > [--snip--] > >>>Not in providing > >>>meat, unless you're a cannibal. > >> > >>I wouldn't even THINK of eating you, Dopey. Cattle have more purpose in > >>life than you do. > > > > What purpose do you think > > humans have in life? > > You have no purpose in life. Then what purpose is served by you picking on my dietary choices? > > Do you think it's necessary to have a > > purpose? > > You clearly don't, else you'd have some semblence of purpose. That's not an answer. > > [--snip--] > >>>Meanwhile though, my very > >>>realistic retirement plans > >>>might very well do that. > >> > >>Sleazy pipe dreams. The sleazy part of it is that you would wait 23 > >>years -- A QUARTER CENTURY -- to practice what you preach. You won't. > >>You're already complacent and too addicted to your sloth to do anything. > > > > So what if it's some years > > down the line? > > It shows that you have no principle, just lip service. In mocking, whiny > voice: "Killing animals is wrong, but I'm not gonna stop until I retire > in a quarter century and buy five acres." It's rational to not buy a farm until one can afford to. > > I'm already > > practicing what I preach > > You preach nothing, you practice nothing. It's twaddle. Lip service. If nothing else, our conversations about cds, will increase demand for cruelty-free foods. Even if that's all I ever accomplish and I die on retirement day, I'll have at least done something positive. > > by doing what I reasonably can. > > That's a cop out -- a weak, weasely cop out. I call it realistic. > > [--snip--] > >>Removing yourself from the food chain means suicide. > > > > I was referring to the commercial > > food chain. > > Food SUPPLY. No, I meant the commercial food chain. > >>>that won't change it. > >> > >>It will with respect to your own consumption in light of your > >>principles. That's when you'll earn my respect. > > > > My consumption won't alter the > > number of cds. > > It will with respect to what you consume. It may be but a drop in the > bucket, but a respectable one if you believe killing animals is wrong. > As it stands now, you kill many animals through your consumption. You > say killing them is wrong. Why do you want to wait a QUARTER CENTURY > before you stop doing what you say is wrong? > > Twenty-three years of killing tens of thousands of animals per year > means you won't stop until you're in the millions. Do you consider that > ethical at all? You're making up numbers. The truth is that no one knows how many cds happen. > >>>That's where > >>>people like you come in. > >>>You inform people of the > >>>unseen cruelty in the farming > >>>industry and thus increase > >>>the demand for cruelty-free > >>>foods. )> >> > >>And where's your ****ing gratitude for it?! > > > > If you weren't just a barrel of > > insults, > > I'm not. My memory's bad, but not that bad. > > maybe I would thank > > you. > > You never would under any circumstance. I'll thank you right now for bringing up the topic of cds to new vegans and vegetarians here. I used to be annoyed by how you went on ad nauseum, but now I see it more as a segue to more demand for cruelty-free foods. Only that will change the existing ways. Even if I completely remove myself from it all by growing all my own foods, it will still continue in my absence without such demand. > > But too bad. I will use > > your posts about cds to help > > inform people of the unseen > > harm, and thus increase the > > demand for cruelty-free foods. > > It hasn't affected your demand. You continue to demand and purchase > high-CD foods. Not when given a less harmful choice, like Lundberg over other rices. However, on the other side of things, they happen to have the best quality of brown rice and that may be influencing me too. > > [--snip--] > >>>I'm more of a Babylon 5 type. > >> > >>Same thing. How long did you stand in line to see _Revenge of the Shit_ > >>and which costume did you wear? > > > > Huh? > > Same thing. How long did you stand in line to see _Revenge of the Shit_ > and which costume did you wear? I don't know what you're referring to, and I don't wear costumes. > > [--snip--] > >>>However, I > >>>would much rather see > >>>better storage procedures > >>>practiced and better > >>>housekeeping at food storage > >>>places, instead of having > >>>to kill mice and rats. > >> > >>Health guidelines require both "better housekeeping" and pro-active pest > >>control. The realistic way to minimize animal deaths from > >>stored/transported foods is to buy as locally as possible. Too bad you > >>object strenuously to that and choose to be a hypocrite instead. > > > > If good housekeeping was > > practiced, > > It is. Health codes still require pro-active pest control. As long as nothing is accessable to the rodents, there will be no problem and the traps will lay empty. I should mention here that I consider competition deaths (the mice against us for our foods) to be less wrong on the scale than other intentional deaths. > > there would be > > no rodents to kill, > > You have no ****ing idea about rodents and other pests and how they > affect stored foods. I know enough. I once lived in a mouse infested home. Plastic containers weren't good enough. Little buggers chewed right through and ate my peanut butter. I quickly moved. > > even if > > measures are put in place. > > You're talking out of your wrinkled old ass. No, my wrinkled old ass can't type very good. > >>>A good pickup truck > >> > >>You take the bus. They won't let you carry wastes aboard the bus. > > > > When I retire, > > In a quarter-century. At the earliest. I'm not convinced you'll retire. At a certain point I'll have to, (laws), and I'll want to. If I won the lottery, I'd retire today. > > I will probably > > want a pickup. > > Your grammar, as horrendous as it is, conveys your own hesitation and > uncertainty about your future plans. The future is always uncertain. And plans are always able to be redetailed at any point. Life does not always go as expected. > > As for driving now, > > You don't. You take the bus or walk. Usually, yes. Anything wrong with that? > > it's only occasionally > > needed when living in the city. > > You wouldn't need a truck in the country, either. It may be more > convenient than hiring others to haul things for you, but it's not a NEED. In a rural setting a vehicle is definitely needed. A pickup is a good choice. > >>>and I can > >>>pick up many company's food > >>>wastes. > >> > >>You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming > >>locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, > >>and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, > >>because you object to practicing what you preach. > > > > Fish and beef are not veg*n. > > I separated those from produce even though you still like to smell meat, > and you still like meat in your mouth; you only stick the fake stuff in > your flappy yapper now. I like the smell of steaks barbequing and bacon frying. I also like the smell of a forest floor, doesn't mean I want to eat it. I rarely eat fake meats, but why do you go on about my ocassional use of them? > > Also, stop pushing local-only > > expectations on me. > > They're not "expectations." They're foods compatible with your stated > principles. My diet is a lot closer to your principles than your diet > is, and I don't share your principles. So you should drop your > sanctimonious contempt for me because I'm doing a "better" job at your > principles than you are. My principles are to do the best I reasonably can. I believe that the human body does best on a large variety of foods and that importing is not the big evil you make it out to be. If you gave up all importing, you might have to give up all paper, money, plastic, etc, etc. Do you realize how many things are made elsewhere? And even local producers of goods use parts and supplies from elsewhere. > >>Based on pseudoethics. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air > >>to transport bananas from Central America to Toronto, killing many more > >>animals than the one animal from which you'd eat a fraction of flesh? > > > > If you believed that, you yourself > > would be a beef eater. > > I asked you a question. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air > so you can have tropical foods in Toronto? Why is it more ethical to > poison so many animals but unethical to eat just one? I believe food to be just a small part of the transportation industry. How many deaths would you say each banana causes? That's right. You don't know. > > [--snip--] > >>>Pearl has shown > >>>in her posts how grass-fed > >>>cows are not necessarily > >>>well cared for. > >> > >>She's a foot-rubbing lunatic who believes Mount Shasta is inhabited by > >>enlightened beings. > > > > I don't care about that. > > You should. She's a raving lunatic. From what I've read, there are some things about her that I agree with, and some things that I completely disagree with. And that's fine. I have no need to be anyone's clone. > > She posted > > some info about grass-fed cows > > When? Once fairly recently, and once some weeks back. > > that I found interesting. > > You find blood-type fad diets interesting. You're as loony as Lesley is. I have an interest in bloodtypes without a predetermined outcome. I'm as interested in further studies whether or not they show it to be right. > > And as for > > wild caught fish, you know my view > > on that. > > Yes: it's acceptable to indiscriminantly poison them with diesel and jet > emissions and run off from banana plantations, but unacceptable to eat them. > > > [--snip--] > >>>On my personal site, which is > >>>a mostly lacto-ovo one, at > >>> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/recipes/ > >> > >>Stop advertising your site in these groups. From your ISP's AUP: > >>Newsgroups and Online Forums > >>Messages posted to newsgroups and online forums must comply with > >>the written charters or FAQs for those newsgroups and online > >>forums. Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial > >>messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and online > >>forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*. > >>http://www.shoprogers.com/business/b...nternetaup.asp > > > > There's no commercial advertisements > > on my site. > > You're advertising your site in these groups, neither of which explicity > permits such advertising in its charter or FAQ. You are violating your > ISP's acceptable use policy. It's not considered advertising to them unless you are trying to sell something. Everything at my site is free. > > A person's sig with > > their personal website listed is NOT > > in violation of anything. > > It's a violation of your ISP's AUP. I disagree. > > Are you > > advertising for Rogers commercial > > services by posting the above? No. > > I'm telling you their policy and explaining how you're violating it. And to do so, you refered to a website in the content of your post. When I referred to the fake meat issue, I did the same. > > And that's even though they are > > a business. My site's not even a > > business. > > The link to their site is to the page with their AUP. Stop spinning, > Skanky, and stop advertising your site and violating your terms of service. If there is an FAQ for this newsgroup, and if it explicitly forbids signatures, then I'm in violation, but if not, then I'm not. > >>>Good, because it's not very > >>>nice to go into people's stash. > >> > >>Since you bring up the issue and you still believe your drug use doesn't > >>harm anyone else, what do you have to say about the very brief tenure of > >>the last chief of police in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico? > >> > >>http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...pstory/3219377 > > > > That site > > Article. From a newspaper. > > > is about the import of > > hard drugs like cocaine. > > No, it's not. You drug abusing idiots don't realize that your habits and > choices cause battles between rival groups who want to control > distribution. The irony is dopeheads like you tend to blast corporations > for engaging in "predatory" competition while your own toking causes > far, far worse consequences between competitors and regulators (since > the police are trying to clean this shit up). > > The drug wars in Nuevo Laredo -- right across the US border from Laredo, > Texas -- are over routes used to smuggle *all* drugs from Mexico and > Central America. Why is Nuevo Laredo important? Because I-35 is the > largest corridor for commercial transportation between Mexico and Canada. > > State detectives said the slaying of Dominguez appeared to be > the work of drug gangs fighting for control of lucrative > smuggling routes into Texas. > > Control access to the I-35 corridor, and you control access to right > through the heart of the US (with access to all major cities via the > interstate highway system) and up to the Canadian border. Access to > Canada is important because your nation is relaxing its marijuana laws. > > > Marijuana tends to be in grow houses in the > > same country and city as where > > it's dispersed. > > Not *entirely* accurate, Skanky, but you never are. While that may be > more true than false today, it won't be if you continue to relax your > marijuana policies. > > Most of the marijuana consumed in Canada is produced in that > country; however, marijuana smuggled into Canada from countries > such as Mexico and Jamaica, some of which transits the United > States, also is available. > http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/marijuan.htm > > Relaxing your marijuana laws increases the likelihood of more marijuana > flowing across your border from Mexico through the US. Mexican and > Central American drug cartels can grow and distribute cheaper than your > BC stoners can. They'll undercut (in more than one way) your domestic > growers. The war in Nuevo Laredo today is for access to I-35. The wars > tomorrow will be along your border for routes to your cities, and the > turf wars will eventually be fought on your own streets. From what I've heard, domestic pot is becoming the norm everywhere. However, with heroin and cocaine, imports take place. > > You could say it's local produce. > > I can also say that you endanger the lives of others by smoking it. I only smoke pot in places where it won't offend anyone else. I believe in not forcing the smoke or even the slightest smell of it on people. > BTW, you forgot to tell me how old you were when you dropped out of > school. You also snipped out all my remarks last week about how the > girls who smoked were the sluttiest in my school. Were you that way, > too? Is that why you left school early? Why are you fishing about my schooling? As for being slutty, I can feel fairly sure, that no sluttiness from me will ever be directed at you, so don't worry. And don't fish about my sexual history -- 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:
>><...> >> >>>If I am lucky enough to still be >>>able bodied when I retire, >> >>You'll neither retire nor be able-bodied. Your sloth will catch up with >>you. > > We'll see when the time comes. We already see it now: you don't practice what you preach. >>>I'm going to be wanting to grow >>>much of my food. >> >>You're also "going to be wanting to" learn better grammar. > > I don't care about my grammar No kidding! >>>Meanwhile >>>though, I'm content with just >> >>giving lip service. Another quarter-century of hypocritical lip service >>about "killing animals is wrong" while you wantonly kill them. > > I guess You wantonly kill animals while you feebly delude yourself (which is an easy task) into thinking others are to blame for your personal consumption. >>>doing what I can while my >>>obligations and current goals >>>are in the city. >> >>Cop outs. Established. >>>The collateral >>>deaths can't be avoided >>>while I'm in the city, >> >>Bullshit, they can. Any of the suggestions offered would be reasonable >>steps to most people, but you're not a reasonanle person. You fly off >>the handle at the suggestion that you join a co-op or community garden >>IN the city. You become defiant at suggestion that you alter your >>consumption and focus on consuming locally-grown foods. Etc. You don't >>make any effort, you only make excuses. > > Co-ops do not bring about > death-free foods. They can if you form one with that intention. > A community garden is > almost impossible to > obtain Wrong. I gave you links for community gardens in and around Toronto. > and is a very small > size. You can pay for more than one plot, dummy. > CSAs don't sell > death-free foods (they don't > answer their emails > inquiring about Toronto info > either). You should stop > lumping me in with people > who are against the food > import/export business > because I'm not, nor do > I believe that 2 days in > local storage kills more > animals than 2 days in > shipping storage. It's a lot more than two days of transportation and storage, dummy. >>>as I'm dependant on commercial >>>foods. >> >>Only because you refuse to break your dependencies. Established. >>>However, one thing >>>I can do that's in standing >>>with my personal ethics is >>>encourage a demand for >>>cruelty-free food. >> >>Which is LIP SERVICE. Your pontifications about demanding "cruelty-free" >>food are bullshit because your demand hasn't changed. You continue to >>demand and *purchase* high-CD foods. ESTABLISHED! >>>My ethics >>>don't require me to >> >>do anything. They're sham ethics. > > My ethics are excuses and cop outs. >>>go to >>>extremes like some of the >>>suggestions I've gotten in >>>these groups. >> >>Joining a community garden isn't extreme. Buying local isn't extreme. >>Joining a co-op isn't extreme. Leasing land isn't extreme. You see only >>costs, yet you don't object to the costs -- financial or to animals -- >>of your current consumption. You're a poseur. > > When I retire, You won't. > I'll be able to > afford to live anywhere with > a mailing address. You don't need a mailing address. You can get a post office box or hire a mail service. > By taking > care of my money, You have none. > and not > attempting something that > takes away my job security You put your own security above your false principles, period. Saying you'll start practicing what you preach in 20+ years is bullshit. It shows you have no principles. On top of that, you defiantly refuse to alter your consumption to be more congruent with your stated principles. You'll NEVER do anything other than what you already do -- which is to speak of meaningless platitudes which you never intend to achieve yourself. You're a creature of habit, Skanky, and all your habits are pretty bad. > and ability to afford a farm, > I am being prudent. And > realistic. No, you're being hypocritical because you're not living up to your own standards and you have no intention of ever living up to them. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>[--snip--] >>> >>>>>Not in providing >>>>>meat, unless you're a cannibal. >>>> >>>>I wouldn't even THINK of eating you, Dopey. Cattle have more purpose in >>>>life than you do. >>> >>>What purpose do you think >>>humans have in life? >> >>You have no purpose in life. > > Then what purpose is served You have no purpose in life. >>>Do you think it's necessary to have a >>>purpose? >> >>You clearly don't, else you'd have some semblence of purpose. > > That's not an answer. Yes, it is. Apparently some people, especially dope-addled slackers like you, have no purpose in life. >>>[--snip--] >>> >>>>>Meanwhile though, my very >>>>>realistic retirement plans >>>>>might very well do that. >>>> >>>>Sleazy pipe dreams. The sleazy part of it is that you would wait 23 >>>>years -- A QUARTER CENTURY -- to practice what you preach. You won't. >>>>You're already complacent and too addicted to your sloth to do anything. >>> >>>So what if it's some years >>>down the line? >> >>It shows that you have no principle, just lip service. In mocking, whiny >>voice: "Killing animals is wrong, but I'm not gonna stop until I retire >>in a quarter century and buy five acres." > > It's rational to not buy a farm > until one can afford to. What's irrational is your obsession buying a five-acre farm and refusal to practice what you preach until then. >>>I'm already >>>practicing what I preach >> >>You preach nothing, you practice nothing. It's twaddle. Lip service. > > If nothing else, It is "nothing else" because you don't practice what you preach. You're a smug passivist, waiting for OTHERS to practice what you preach so you'll never have to. > Even if that's all I ever accomplish and > I die on retirement day, I'll have > at least done something > positive. Your passivity is *NOT* positive. It's repulsive. >>>by doing what I reasonably can. >> >>That's a cop out -- a weak, weasely cop out. > > I call it realistic. That doesn't change what it clearly is: a weak, weasely cop out. >>>[--snip--] >>> >>>>Removing yourself from the food chain means suicide. >>> >>>I was referring to the commercial >>>food chain. >> >>Food SUPPLY. > > No, I meant the commercial > food chain. I know conventional definitions confound you, but you meant food supply. FOOD CHAIN: a community of organisms where each member is eaten in turn by another member. An interconnected chain of organisms indicating which species are predators and which are prey in relation to one another. All energy in a food chain will begin with the autotrophs, which will be fed upon by herbivores. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/food_chain Twit. >>>>>that won't change it. >>>> >>>>It will with respect to your own consumption in light of your >>>>principles. That's when you'll earn my respect. >>> >>>My consumption won't alter the >>>number of cds. >> >>It will with respect to what you consume. It may be but a drop in the >>bucket, but a respectable one if you believe killing animals is wrong. >>As it stands now, you kill many animals through your consumption. You >>say killing them is wrong. Why do you want to wait a QUARTER CENTURY >>before you stop doing what you say is wrong? >> >>Twenty-three years of killing tens of thousands of animals per year >>means you won't stop until you're in the millions. Do you consider that >>ethical at all? > > You're making up numbers. The numbers I use are credible estimates. > The truth is that no one knows how > many cds happen. In that case, are you prepared to admit that I may have grossly *underestimated* the actual number of CDs attributable to your stubborn and defiant refusal to practice what you preach? >>>>>That's where >>>>>people like you come in. >>>>>You inform people of the >>>>>unseen cruelty in the farming >>>>>industry and thus increase >>>>>the demand for cruelty-free >>>>>foods. )>>>> >>>>And where's your ****ing gratitude for it?! >>> >>>If you weren't just a barrel of >>>insults, >> >>I'm not. > > My memory's bad, but not that > bad. Yes, it is. >>>maybe I would thank >>>you. >> >>You never would under any circumstance. > > I'll thank you right now for bringing > up the topic of cds to new vegans > and vegetarians here. I used to > be annoyed by how you went on > ad nauseum, but now I see it > more as a segue to more demand > for cruelty-free foods. Your assumption that this is increasing demand for "cruelty-free" food is entirely unfounded. > Only that will change the existing ways. No, it won't. > Even if I completely remove > myself from it all by growing all > my own foods, it will still > continue in my absence > without such demand. There aren't enough clueless urbanite vegans to cause a farming revolution of the scope for which you're passively waiting so you don't have to practice what you preach. >>>But too bad. I will use >>>your posts about cds to help >>>inform people of the unseen >>>harm, and thus increase the >>>demand for cruelty-free foods. >> >>It hasn't affected your demand. You continue to demand and purchase >>high-CD foods. > > Not when given a less > harmful choice, like Lundberg > over other rices. Lundberg rice is *no different* from any other rice. Stop gullibly believing salesmanship over facts. Their no-burn practices are mandated by law, dumb ass. Their practices in protecting waterfowl are no different than any other grower. They still engage in agricultural practices like applying pesticides and herbicides, using mechanized equipment, and flooding and draining fields which kill every kind of animal inhabiting their fields. > However, on the other side of things, > they happen to have the best > quality of brown rice and that > may be influencing me too. Your acceptance of their websites sales spin only shows how gullible you are. Quality is a completely unrelated issue to the ones you raise. Dummy. >>>[--snip--] >>> >>>>>I'm more of a Babylon 5 type. >>>> >>>>Same thing. How long did you stand in line to see _Revenge of the Shit_ >>>>and which costume did you wear? >>> >>>Huh? >> >>Same thing. How long did you stand in line to see _Revenge of the Shit_ >>and which costume did you wear? > > I don't know what you're > referring to, and I don't > wear costumes. Sure ya don't. ;-) >>>[--snip--] >>> >>>>>However, I >>>>>would much rather see >>>>>better storage procedures >>>>>practiced and better >>>>>housekeeping at food storage >>>>>places, instead of having >>>>>to kill mice and rats. >>>> >>>>Health guidelines require both "better housekeeping" and pro-active pest >>>>control. The realistic way to minimize animal deaths from >>>>stored/transported foods is to buy as locally as possible. Too bad you >>>>object strenuously to that and choose to be a hypocrite instead. >>> >>>If good housekeeping was >>>practiced, >> >>It is. Health codes still require pro-active pest control. > > As long as nothing is accessable > to the rodents, Have you ever been to a granary or warehouse? No. > there will be no > problem and the traps will lay > empty. Ipse dixit. > I should mention here > that I consider competition > deaths (the mice against us > for our foods) to be less wrong > on the scale than other > intentional deaths. No, you shouldn't mention that because it illustrates what a sham your stated principles are. >>>there would be >>>no rodents to kill, >> >>You have no ****ing idea about rodents and other pests and how they >>affect stored foods. > > I know enough. No, you don't. > I once lived > in a mouse infested home. Not the same as a food warehouse or granary. > Plastic containers weren't > good enough. Little buggers > chewed right through and ate > my peanut butter. They gnaw through other materials, too. That's why health codes require pro-active treatment to keep pest problems under control. > I quickly moved. Wuss. >>>even if >>>measures are put in place. >> >>You're talking out of your wrinkled old ass. > > No, my wrinkled old ass can't > type very good. Your wrinkled old ass isn't worth much anyway. >>>>>A good pickup truck >>>> >>>>You take the bus. They won't let you carry wastes aboard the bus. >>> >>>When I retire, >> >>In a quarter-century. At the earliest. I'm not convinced you'll retire. > > At a certain point I'll have to, > (laws), and I'll want to. If I > won the lottery, I'd retire > today. Thanks for admitting you have no purpose or ambition in life. >>>I will probably >>>want a pickup. >> >>Your grammar, as horrendous as it is, conveys your own hesitation and >>uncertainty about your future plans. > > The future is always uncertain. Your future is uncertain because you're a stoned slacker. > And plans are always able > to be redetailed at any point. > Life does not always go as > expected. Especially when you drop out of school early, take up smoking and drugs, and are too immature to control your sexual urges. >>>As for driving now, >> >>You don't. You take the bus or walk. > > Usually, yes. Anything wrong > with that? Nothing at all. I'll even commend you for that and your honesty (finally). >>>it's only occasionally >>>needed when living in the city. >> >>You wouldn't need a truck in the country, either. It may be more >>convenient than hiring others to haul things for you, but it's not a NEED. > > In a rural setting a vehicle > is definitely needed. No, it isn't. The Amish don't use cars. > A pickup is a good choice. Not always. >>>>>and I can >>>>>pick up many company's food >>>>>wastes. >>>> >>>>You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming >>>>locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, >>>>and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, >>>>because you object to practicing what you preach. >>> >>>Fish and beef are not veg*n. >> >>I separated those from produce even though you still like to smell meat, >>and you still like meat in your mouth; you only stick the fake stuff in >>your flappy yapper now. > > I like the smell of steaks > barbequing and bacon > frying. I know you do, Skanky. I'm also sure you wish you could feel some salty meat in your mouth. > I also like the smell > of a forest floor, doesn't mean > I want to eat it. I rarely eat > fake meats, but why do you > go on about my ocassional > use of them? Because they show that your stated principles and your arguments against meat (especially with respect to "wasting resources") are bullshit. >>>Also, stop pushing local-only >>>expectations on me. >> >>They're not "expectations." They're foods compatible with your stated >>principles. My diet is a lot closer to your principles than your diet >>is, and I don't share your principles. So you should drop your >>sanctimonious contempt for me because I'm doing a "better" job at your >>principles than you are. > > My principles are to do the > best I reasonably can. That's NOT a principle. That's a cop out. I live out your principles better than you do. Why aren't you giving me props instead of calling me "meatarian" or "meat lobby" or other names reflecting your baseless contempt? > I believe that the human body > does best on a large variety > of foods Including meat? > and that importing > is not the big evil you make > it out to be. It is with respect to your stated principles. >>>>Based on pseudoethics. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air >>>>to transport bananas from Central America to Toronto, killing many more >>>>animals than the one animal from which you'd eat a fraction of flesh? >>> >>>If you believed that, you yourself >>>would be a beef eater. >> >>I asked you a question. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air >>so you can have tropical foods in Toronto? Why is it more ethical to >>poison so many animals but unethical to eat just one? > > I believe food to be just a > small part of the transportation > industry. You haven't answered the questions. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air so you can have tropical foods in Toronto? Why is it more ethical to poison so many animals but unethical to eat just one? >>>[--snip--] >>> >>>>>Pearl has shown >>>>>in her posts how grass-fed >>>>>cows are not necessarily >>>>>well cared for. >>>> >>>>She's a foot-rubbing lunatic who believes Mount Shasta is inhabited by >>>>enlightened beings. >>> >>>I don't care about that. >> >>You should. She's a raving lunatic. > > From what I've read, there > are some things about her > that I agree with, Inner earth beings? Hollow earth? Zapper? Reflexology? > and some > things that I completely > disagree with. Which things are those? > And that's > fine. I have no need to be > anyone's clone. The issue isn't about being a clone, it's about relying on a blithering airhead for (mis and dis)information. >>>She posted >>>some info about grass-fed cows >> >>When? > > Once fairly recently, and once > some weeks back. Find the posts for me. >>>that I found interesting. >> >>You find blood-type fad diets interesting. You're as loony as Lesley is. > > I have an interest in bloodtypes > without a predetermined > outcome. The only way to accept the theory about such diets is to throw out objectivity. It's based on pseudoscience. > I'm as interested in > further studies whether or not > they show it to be right. Propose some methodologies for such studies. What specifically would you try to measure and how would you measure it? Include information about proposed control groups. >>>And as for >>>wild caught fish, you know my view >>>on that. >> >>Yes: it's acceptable to indiscriminantly poison them with diesel and jet >>emissions and run off from banana plantations, but unacceptable to eat >>them. ESTABLISHED. >>>[--snip--] >>> >>>>>On my personal site, which is >>>>>a mostly lacto-ovo one, at >>>>>http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/recipes/ >>>> >>>>Stop advertising your site in these groups. From your ISP's AUP: >>>>Newsgroups and Online Forums >>>>Messages posted to newsgroups and online forums must comply with >>>>the written charters or FAQs for those newsgroups and online >>>>forums. Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial >>>>messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and online >>>>forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*. >>>>http://www.shoprogers.com/business/b...nternetaup.asp >>> >>>There's no commercial advertisements >>>on my site. >> >>You're advertising your site in these groups, neither of which explicity >>permits such advertising in its charter or FAQ. You are violating your >>ISP's acceptable use policy. > > It's not considered advertising > to them unless you are trying > to sell something. Ipse dixit. > Everything > at my site is free. So are things at other sites which abuse usenet by advertising. >>>A person's sig with >>>their personal website listed is NOT >>>in violation of anything. >> >>It's a violation of your ISP's AUP. > > I disagree. "Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and online forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*." The charters and FAQs of these two groups don't explicitly permit such advertisements. >>>Are you >>>advertising for Rogers commercial >>>services by posting the above? No. >> >>I'm telling you their policy and explaining how you're violating it. > > And to do so, you refered to > a website in the content of your > post. Not a page about their services, only about the policy which you're willfully violating. What's in your sig? > When I referred to the > fake meat issue, I did the > same. No, you advertised your site. All I did was point out what your advertisement violates in your ISP's AUP. >>>And that's even though they are >>>a business. My site's not even a >>>business. >> >>The link to their site is to the page with their AUP. Stop spinning, >>Skanky, and stop advertising your site and violating your terms of >>service. > > If there is an FAQ for this > newsgroup, and if it explicitly > forbids signatures, That's not the policy of your ISP! "Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and online forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*." > then I'm in violation, You are. > but if not, then I'm not. As usual, you have it backasswards. "Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and online forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*." >>>>>Good, because it's not very >>>>>nice to go into people's stash. >>>> >>>>Since you bring up the issue and you still believe your drug use doesn't >>>>harm anyone else, what do you have to say about the very brief tenure of >>>>the last chief of police in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico? >>>> >>>>http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...pstory/3219377 >>> >>>That site >> >>Article. From a newspaper. >> >> >>>is about the import of >>>hard drugs like cocaine. >> >>No, it's not. You drug abusing idiots don't realize that your habits and >>choices cause battles between rival groups who want to control >>distribution. The irony is dopeheads like you tend to blast corporations >>for engaging in "predatory" competition while your own toking causes >>far, far worse consequences between competitors and regulators (since >>the police are trying to clean this shit up). >> >>The drug wars in Nuevo Laredo -- right across the US border from Laredo, >>Texas -- are over routes used to smuggle *all* drugs from Mexico and >>Central America. Why is Nuevo Laredo important? Because I-35 is the >>largest corridor for commercial transportation between Mexico and Canada. >> >>State detectives said the slaying of Dominguez appeared to be >>the work of drug gangs fighting for control of lucrative >>smuggling routes into Texas. >> >>Control access to the I-35 corridor, and you control access to right >>through the heart of the US (with access to all major cities via the >>interstate highway system) and up to the Canadian border. Access to >>Canada is important because your nation is relaxing its marijuana laws. >> >> >>>Marijuana tends to be in grow houses in the >>>same country and city as where >>>it's dispersed. >> >>Not *entirely* accurate, Skanky, but you never are. While that may be >>more true than false today, it won't be if you continue to relax your >>marijuana policies. >> >>Most of the marijuana consumed in Canada is produced in that >>country; however, marijuana smuggled into Canada from countries >>such as Mexico and Jamaica, some of which transits the United >>States, also is available. >>http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/marijuan.htm >> >>Relaxing your marijuana laws increases the likelihood of more marijuana >>flowing across your border from Mexico through the US. Mexican and >>Central American drug cartels can grow and distribute cheaper than your >>BC stoners can. They'll undercut (in more than one way) your domestic >>growers. The war in Nuevo Laredo today is for access to I-35. The wars >>tomorrow will be along your border for routes to your cities, and the >>turf wars will eventually be fought on your own streets. > > From what I've heard, We're not talking about anecdotes, Skanky. We're talking about blood running on the streets in Mexico. The Houston CHRONICLE had an interesting cover story this morning about how your drug culture is affecting Mexicans. It's worth reading: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/page1/3220962 > domestic pot is becoming the norm > everywhere. Wrong. With the recent easing of your laws, Mexican, Central American, and Columbian drug cartels are trying to stake out routes to flood your country with cheap marijuana. > However, with > heroin and cocaine, imports > take place. Wrong. You don't comprehend how your nation's relaxed marijuana policies are driving foreign producers to get in on your action. That was one of the Nixon Administration's (and Congress') objections to the Shafer Commission's suggestion that we ease enforcement of our laws: it would escalate *violent* criminal activity rather than reduce it because drug cartels would fight for greater pieces of the distribution pie. Unfortunately, it's YOUR country's demand for cheap marijuana that's causing bloodshed on OUR southern border. Even more unfortunate, it will eventually move up the transportation corridors to your own southern border. >>>You could say it's local produce. >> >>I can also say that you endanger the lives of others by smoking it. > > I only smoke pot in places You smoke pot, period. Where or how you smoke it is irrelevant in terms of its effects on those who grow and distribute it, whether we're discussing YOUR OWN suppliers or their competitors. Those effects include violence and death of dealers, distributors, and law enforcement officials like the slain police chief in Nuevo Laredo. Your hands are bloody, you ignorant cow. >>BTW, you forgot to tell me how old you were when you dropped out of >>school. You also snipped out all my remarks last week about how the >>girls who smoked were the sluttiest in my school. Were you that way, >>too? Is that why you left school early? > > Why are you fishing about my > schooling? As for being slutty, > I can feel fairly sure, that no > sluttiness from me will ever be > directed at you, so don't worry. I'm not worried. I have standards AND self-restraint, two things contrary to your (bad) character. > And don't fish about my sexual > history I think you dropped out in your mid-teens, 15 or 16, and that you were completely out of control sexually. I'm almost willing to bet that the latter had something to do with why you dropped out, but I wouldn't be surprised if your dropping out was more a cost:benefit thing because you weren't ever going to set the world on fire anyway. I've already figured you out, haven't I. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > >><...> > >> > >>>If I am lucky enough to still be > >>>able bodied when I retire, > >> > >>You'll neither retire nor be able-bodied. Your sloth will catch up with > >>you. > > > > We'll see when the time comes. > > We already see it now: you don't practice what you preach. Yes I do. > >>>I'm going to be wanting to grow > >>>much of my food. > >> > >>You're also "going to be wanting to" learn better grammar. > > > > I don't care about my grammar > > No kidding! > > >>>Meanwhile > >>>though, I'm content with just > >> > >>giving lip service. Another quarter-century of hypocritical lip service > >>about "killing animals is wrong" while you wantonly kill them. > > > > I guess > > You wantonly kill animals while you feebly delude yourself (which is an > easy task) into thinking others are to blame for your personal consumption. You're mighty quick to want to blame me for something others are doing. > >>>doing what I can while my > >>>obligations and current goals > >>>are in the city. > >> > >>Cop outs. > > Established. > > >>>The collateral > >>>deaths can't be avoided > >>>while I'm in the city, > >> > >>Bullshit, they can. Any of the suggestions offered would be reasonable > >>steps to most people, but you're not a reasonanle person. You fly off > >>the handle at the suggestion that you join a co-op or community garden > >>IN the city. You become defiant at suggestion that you alter your > >>consumption and focus on consuming locally-grown foods. Etc. You don't > >>make any effort, you only make excuses. > > > > Co-ops do not bring about > > death-free foods. > > They can if you form one with that intention. And what farms exist for such a co-op to buy from? 0. That's why there has to first be a demand for such foods. > > A community garden is > > almost impossible to > > obtain > > Wrong. I gave you links for community gardens in and around Toronto. The city allotment gardens are almost unobtainable. > > and is a very small > > size. > > You can pay for more than one plot, dummy. You're lucky if you can get even one. Also, I don't have time to travel to an out of the way part of the city just to water and weed every day. None of the allotment gardens are nearby me. Anyways, it doesn't matter. YOU are the one expecting this all from me, not me. > > CSAs don't sell > > death-free foods (they don't > > answer their emails > > inquiring about Toronto info > > either). You should stop > > lumping me in with people > > who are against the food > > import/export business > > because I'm not, nor do > > I believe that 2 days in > > local storage kills more > > animals than 2 days in > > shipping storage. > > It's a lot more than two days of transportation and storage, dummy. Nowadays things get transported fairly quickly. > >>>as I'm dependant on commercial > >>>foods. > >> > >>Only because you refuse to break your dependencies. > > Established. > > >>>However, one thing > >>>I can do that's in standing > >>>with my personal ethics is > >>>encourage a demand for > >>>cruelty-free food. > >> > >>Which is LIP SERVICE. Your pontifications about demanding "cruelty-free" > >>food are bullshit because your demand hasn't changed. You continue to > >>demand and *purchase* high-CD foods. > > ESTABLISHED! Shut up with your fake established crap. If it truly were, then I would believe you too. But I don't so it's obviously not established. > >>>My ethics > >>>don't require me to > >> > >>do anything. They're sham ethics. > > > > My ethics are > > excuses and cop outs. > > >>>go to > >>>extremes like some of the > >>>suggestions I've gotten in > >>>these groups. > >> > >>Joining a community garden isn't extreme. Buying local isn't extreme. > >>Joining a co-op isn't extreme. Leasing land isn't extreme. You see only > >>costs, yet you don't object to the costs -- financial or to animals -- > >>of your current consumption. You're a poseur. > > > > When I retire, > > You won't. Why not? > > I'll be able to > > afford to live anywhere with > > a mailing address. > > You don't need a mailing address. You can get a post office box or hire > a mail service. Yeah, what's your point? Those are types of mailing addresses too. > > By taking > > care of my money, > > You have none. Much more than I'd have if I followed your suggestions that I walk off into the rural sunset. > > and not > > attempting something that > > takes away my job security > > You put your own security above your false principles, period. Saying > you'll start practicing what you preach in 20+ years is bullshit. It > shows you have no principles. On top of that, you defiantly refuse to > alter your consumption to be more congruent with your stated principles. > You'll NEVER do anything other than what you already do -- which is to > speak of meaningless platitudes which you never intend to achieve > yourself. You're a creature of habit, Skanky, and all your habits are > pretty bad. I'm already practicing what I preach. As for altering my ways, you've not convinced me that it's necessary for me do so. I am not against the transportation industry, even though you seem to be. Can you name one non-food item you have bought that was made purely locally to you? That means no far-away made machinery or parts. No chemicals or anything non-local. Virtually everything including the wheels on the trucks that dole out your local produce were made somewhere else. That you demand localness of food but nothing else is silly. > > and ability to afford a farm, > > I am being prudent. And > > realistic. > > No, you're being hypocritical because you're not living up to your own > standards and you have no intention of ever living up to them. Why do you have to keep on being retold that I already am living according to MY standards. Not YOUR interpretation of what you think they must mean. -- 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: > >>>[--snip--] > >>> > >>>>>Not in providing > >>>>>meat, unless you're a cannibal. > >>>> > >>>>I wouldn't even THINK of eating you, Dopey. Cattle have more purpose in > >>>>life than you do. > >>> > >>>What purpose do you think > >>>humans have in life? > >> > >>You have no purpose in life. > > > > Then what purpose is served > > You have no purpose in life. > > >>>Do you think it's necessary to have a > >>>purpose? > >> > >>You clearly don't, else you'd have some semblence of purpose. > > > > That's not an answer. > > Yes, it is. Apparently some people, especially dope-addled slackers like > you, have no purpose in life. You answered neither questions. What purpose do you think that humans have in life? Do you think it's necessary to have a purpose? > >>>[--snip--] > >>> > >>>>>Meanwhile though, my very > >>>>>realistic retirement plans > >>>>>might very well do that. > >>>> > >>>>Sleazy pipe dreams. The sleazy part of it is that you would wait 23 > >>>>years -- A QUARTER CENTURY -- to practice what you preach. You won't. > >>>>You're already complacent and too addicted to your sloth to do anything. > >>> > >>>So what if it's some years > >>>down the line? > >> > >>It shows that you have no principle, just lip service. In mocking, whiny > >>voice: "Killing animals is wrong, but I'm not gonna stop until I retire > >>in a quarter century and buy five acres." > > > > It's rational to not buy a farm > > until one can afford to. > > What's irrational is your obsession buying a five-acre farm and refusal > to practice what you preach until then. I'm being practical and prudent. As to practicing what I preach, I already do. When I have some land though, I'll be able to grow much of my own food. That won't change the way commercial food is produced. Only by raising awareness about cds will that happen, due to new demands for cruelty-free foods. > >>>I'm already > >>>practicing what I preach > >> > >>You preach nothing, you practice nothing. It's twaddle. Lip service. > > > > If nothing else, > > It is "nothing else" because you don't practice what you preach. You're > a smug passivist, waiting for OTHERS to practice what you preach so > you'll never have to. So, are you saying I'm some sort of teacher or something? Telling others what to do and waiting for them to do it? > > Even if that's all I ever accomplish and > > I die on retirement day, I'll have > > at least done something > > positive. > > Your passivity is *NOT* positive. It's repulsive. Spreading the word about cruel farming practices is not a passive thing. If you are repulsed, who cares. > >>>by doing what I reasonably can. > >> > >>That's a cop out -- a weak, weasely cop out. > > > > I call it realistic. > > That doesn't change what it clearly is: a weak, weasely cop out. > > >>>[--snip--] > >>> > >>>>Removing yourself from the food chain means suicide. > >>> > >>>I was referring to the commercial > >>>food chain. > >> > >>Food SUPPLY. > > > > No, I meant the commercial > > food chain. > > I know conventional definitions confound you, but you meant food supply. > > FOOD CHAIN: a community of organisms where each member is eaten > in turn by another member. > > An interconnected chain of organisms indicating which species > are predators and which are prey in relation to one another. All > energy in a food chain will begin with the autotrophs, which > will be fed upon by herbivores. > http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/food_chain The vole gets eaten by the plow. The food gets eaten by the human, or, in the case of a meat eater, the food gets eaten by the animal, The animal gets eaten by the human. > Twit. Play nice, or I'll ask your mother to take your keyboard away. > >>>>>that won't change it. > >>>> > >>>>It will with respect to your own consumption in light of your > >>>>principles. That's when you'll earn my respect. > >>> > >>>My consumption won't alter the > >>>number of cds. > >> > >>It will with respect to what you consume. It may be but a drop in the > >>bucket, but a respectable one if you believe killing animals is wrong. > >>As it stands now, you kill many animals through your consumption. You > >>say killing them is wrong. Why do you want to wait a QUARTER CENTURY > >>before you stop doing what you say is wrong? > >> > >>Twenty-three years of killing tens of thousands of animals per year > >>means you won't stop until you're in the millions. Do you consider that > >>ethical at all? > > > > You're making up numbers. > > The numbers I use are credible estimates. Your imagination is not good for estimates. > > The truth is that no one knows how > > many cds happen. > > In that case, are you prepared to admit that I may have grossly > *underestimated* the actual number of CDs attributable to your stubborn > and defiant refusal to practice what you preach? I have never made an estimate at all stating it as fact. If/as studies are dones re different foods, we will learn what the true numbers and types of animals are killed during food production. As for your guessed/hoped for numbers, I'm guessing that you have grossly overestimated. But you know what? Neither of us will know until such studies are done. > >>>>>That's where > >>>>>people like you come in. > >>>>>You inform people of the > >>>>>unseen cruelty in the farming > >>>>>industry and thus increase > >>>>>the demand for cruelty-free > >>>>>foods. )> >>>> > >>>>And where's your ****ing gratitude for it?! > >>> > >>>If you weren't just a barrel of > >>>insults, > >> > >>I'm not. > > > > My memory's bad, but not that > > bad. > > Yes, it is. > > >>>maybe I would thank > >>>you. > >> > >>You never would under any circumstance. > > > > I'll thank you right now for bringing > > up the topic of cds to new vegans > > and vegetarians here. I used to > > be annoyed by how you went on > > ad nauseum, but now I see it > > more as a segue to more demand > > for cruelty-free foods. > > Your assumption that this is increasing demand for "cruelty-free" food > is entirely unfounded. The more people who learn about cds, especially those who are into animal rights, the more demand goes up for cruelty free foods. Why is this a hard concept for you to grasp? > > Only that will change the existing ways. > > No, it won't. Just as the evergrowing demand for organics has been happening, I think cruelty free foods have a chance at it too. > > Even if I completely remove > > myself from it all by growing all > > my own foods, it will still > > continue in my absence > > without such demand. > > There aren't enough clueless urbanite vegans to cause a farming > revolution of the scope for which you're passively waiting so you don't > have to practice what you preach. There are probably more than you realize. > >>>But too bad. I will use > >>>your posts about cds to help > >>>inform people of the unseen > >>>harm, and thus increase the > >>>demand for cruelty-free foods. > >> > >>It hasn't affected your demand. You continue to demand and purchase > >>high-CD foods. > > > > Not when given a less > > harmful choice, like Lundberg > > over other rices. > > Lundberg rice is *no different* from any other rice. Stop gullibly > believing salesmanship over facts. Their no-burn practices are mandated > by law, dumb ass. Their practices in protecting waterfowl are no > different than any other grower. They still engage in agricultural > practices like applying pesticides and herbicides, using mechanized > equipment, and flooding and draining fields which kill every kind of > animal inhabiting their fields. Why are you stuck on their no burn thing? I only mentioned it once a while ago. > > However, on the other side of things, > > they happen to have the best > > quality of brown rice and that > > may be influencing me too. > > Your acceptance of their websites sales spin only shows how gullible you > are. Quality is a completely unrelated issue to the ones you raise. Dummy. > > >>>[--snip--] > >>> > >>>>>I'm more of a Babylon 5 type. > >>>> > >>>>Same thing. How long did you stand in line to see _Revenge of the Shit_ > >>>>and which costume did you wear? > >>> > >>>Huh? > >> > >>Same thing. How long did you stand in line to see _Revenge of the Shit_ > >>and which costume did you wear? > > > > I don't know what you're > > referring to, and I don't > > wear costumes. > > Sure ya don't. ;-) Sorry Usual, the only costumes are the ones in your head. > >>>[--snip--] > >>> > >>>>>However, I > >>>>>would much rather see > >>>>>better storage procedures > >>>>>practiced and better > >>>>>housekeeping at food storage > >>>>>places, instead of having > >>>>>to kill mice and rats. > >>>> > >>>>Health guidelines require both "better housekeeping" and pro-active pest > >>>>control. The realistic way to minimize animal deaths from > >>>>stored/transported foods is to buy as locally as possible. Too bad you > >>>>object strenuously to that and choose to be a hypocrite instead. > >>> > >>>If good housekeeping was > >>>practiced, > >> > >>It is. Health codes still require pro-active pest control. > > > > As long as nothing is accessable > > to the rodents, > > Have you ever been to a granary or warehouse? No. > > > there will be no > > problem and the traps will lay > > empty. > > Ipse dixit. > > > I should mention here > > that I consider competition > > deaths (the mice against us > > for our foods) to be less wrong > > on the scale than other > > intentional deaths. > > No, you shouldn't mention that because it illustrates what a sham your > stated principles are. You think they are a sham but I don't. Obviously we just have different principles. By the way, what are yours? > >>>there would be > >>>no rodents to kill, > >> > >>You have no ****ing idea about rodents and other pests and how they > >>affect stored foods. > > > > I know enough. > > No, you don't. > > > I once lived > > in a mouse infested home. > > Not the same as a food warehouse or granary. > > > Plastic containers weren't > > good enough. Little buggers > > chewed right through and ate > > my peanut butter. > > They gnaw through other materials, too. That's why health codes require > pro-active treatment to keep pest problems under control. They don't gnaw through thick metal. > > I quickly moved. > > Wuss. Why stay in an infested home? No one else in the place was keeping all their food in the fridge but me, so the mice kept coming. You're just looking for another reason to insult. > >>>even if > >>>measures are put in place. > >> > >>You're talking out of your wrinkled old ass. > > > > No, my wrinkled old ass can't > > type very good. > > Your wrinkled old ass isn't worth much anyway. > > >>>>>A good pickup truck > >>>> > >>>>You take the bus. They won't let you carry wastes aboard the bus. > >>> > >>>When I retire, > >> > >>In a quarter-century. At the earliest. I'm not convinced you'll retire. > > > > At a certain point I'll have to, > > (laws), and I'll want to. If I > > won the lottery, I'd retire > > today. > > Thanks for admitting you have no purpose or ambition in life. So you think purpose and ambition are soley job-related? That must suck, because when you get older, you will feel purposeless. I don't have such job=purpose beliefs. Sometimes a job can give a good sense of purpose, and sometimes not. If you surround yourself with making it a MUST sort of thing, that's pathetic. It's like you don't feel deserving without the important purpose. > >>>I will probably > >>>want a pickup. > >> > >>Your grammar, as horrendous as it is, conveys your own hesitation and > >>uncertainty about your future plans. > > > > The future is always uncertain. > > Your future is uncertain because you're a stoned slacker. Everyone's future is uncertain. Smoking pot has nothing to do with that. You are just looking to insult again. > > And plans are always able > > to be redetailed at any point. > > Life does not always go as > > expected. > > Especially when you drop out of school early, take up smoking and drugs, > and are too immature to control your sexual urges. Heheh Is that what you did? I still won't sleep with you. And stop fishing about my education and sexual history. > >>>As for driving now, > >> > >>You don't. You take the bus or walk. > > > > Usually, yes. Anything wrong > > with that? > > Nothing at all. I'll even commend you for that and your honesty (finally). I've always been honest with you. > >>>it's only occasionally > >>>needed when living in the city. > >> > >>You wouldn't need a truck in the country, either. It may be more > >>convenient than hiring others to haul things for you, but it's not a NEED. > > > > In a rural setting a vehicle > > is definitely needed. > > No, it isn't. The Amish don't use cars. They can also build a barn in one day, I can't. I don't plan on keeping horses, so there goes that idea, eh? > > A pickup is a good choice. > > Not always. It's what I'm leaning towards. > >>>>>and I can > >>>>>pick up many company's food > >>>>>wastes. > >>>> > >>>>You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming > >>>>locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, > >>>>and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, > >>>>because you object to practicing what you preach. > >>> > >>>Fish and beef are not veg*n. > >> > >>I separated those from produce even though you still like to smell meat, > >>and you still like meat in your mouth; you only stick the fake stuff in > >>your flappy yapper now. > > > > I like the smell of steaks > > barbequing and bacon > > frying. > > I know you do, Skanky. I'm also sure you wish you could feel some salty > meat in your mouth. > > > I also like the smell > > of a forest floor, doesn't mean > > I want to eat it. I rarely eat > > fake meats, but why do you > > go on about my ocassional > > use of them? > > Because they show that your stated principles and your arguments against > meat (especially with respect to "wasting resources") are bullshit. Well, since I rarely use them, the above is bull. > >>>Also, stop pushing local-only > >>>expectations on me. > >> > >>They're not "expectations." They're foods compatible with your stated > >>principles. My diet is a lot closer to your principles than your diet > >>is, and I don't share your principles. So you should drop your > >>sanctimonious contempt for me because I'm doing a "better" job at your > >>principles than you are. > > > > My principles are to do the > > best I reasonably can. > > That's NOT a principle. That's a cop out. I live out your principles > better than you do. Why aren't you giving me props instead of calling me > "meatarian" or "meat lobby" or other names reflecting your baseless > contempt? You want lauding for the names you have called me? You want props for being mostly veg? Prop yourself. Whatever your principles are is how you should be living. Don't give me this crap about you living up to my principles. If you happen to, good for you, but it's your own that count, not what someone else's is. > > I believe that the human body > > does best on a large variety > > of foods > > Including meat? No. But I can accept that there are some people who truly believe it's a necessity. > > and that importing > > is not the big evil you make > > it out to be. > > It is with respect to your stated principles. No it's not. > >>>>Based on pseudoethics. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air > >>>>to transport bananas from Central America to Toronto, killing many more > >>>>animals than the one animal from which you'd eat a fraction of flesh? > >>> > >>>If you believed that, you yourself > >>>would be a beef eater. > >> > >>I asked you a question. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air > >>so you can have tropical foods in Toronto? Why is it more ethical to > >>poison so many animals but unethical to eat just one? > > > > I believe food to be just a > > small part of the transportation > > industry. > > You haven't answered the questions. Why is it ethical to pollute the > oceans and air so you can have tropical foods in Toronto? Why is it more > ethical to poison so many animals but unethical to eat just one? You'll never get it. I'm not going to try and explain these things again and again... > >>>[--snip--] > >>> > >>>>>Pearl has shown > >>>>>in her posts how grass-fed > >>>>>cows are not necessarily > >>>>>well cared for. > >>>> > >>>>She's a foot-rubbing lunatic who believes Mount Shasta is inhabited by > >>>>enlightened beings. > >>> > >>>I don't care about that. > >> > >>You should. She's a raving lunatic. > > > > From what I've read, there > > are some things about her > > that I agree with, > > Inner earth beings? Hollow earth? Zapper? Reflexology? What's zapper? From the above I only agree with reflexology and not as a cure all, but a good therapeutic thing similar to accupressure. > > and some > > things that I completely > > disagree with. > > Which things are those? > > > And that's > > fine. I have no need to be > > anyone's clone. > > The issue isn't about being a clone, it's about relying on a blithering > airhead for (mis and dis)information. > > >>>She posted > >>>some info about grass-fed cows > >> > >>When? > > > > Once fairly recently, and once > > some weeks back. > > Find the posts for me. No. I can't do that. You, King Usual, have officially declared me slothful, so I must refuse out of lazyness! Heheh > >>>that I found interesting. > >> > >>You find blood-type fad diets interesting. You're as loony as Lesley is. > > > > I have an interest in bloodtypes > > without a predetermined > > outcome. > > The only way to accept the theory about such diets is to throw out > objectivity. It's based on pseudoscience. Then let's get some good science involved. > > I'm as interested in > > further studies whether or not > > they show it to be right. > > Propose some methodologies for such studies. What specifically would you > try to measure and how would you measure it? Include information about > proposed control groups. Sorry, I'm feeling too slothful Heheheheheh. > >>>And as for > >>>wild caught fish, you know my view > >>>on that. > >> > >>Yes: it's acceptable to indiscriminantly poison them with diesel and jet > >>emissions and run off from banana plantations, but unacceptable to eat > >>them. > > ESTABLISHED. > > >>>[--snip--] > >>> > >>>>>On my personal site, which is > >>>>>a mostly lacto-ovo one, at > >>>>>http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/recipes/ > >>>> > >>>>Stop advertising your site in these groups. From your ISP's AUP: > >>>>Newsgroups and Online Forums > >>>>Messages posted to newsgroups and online forums must comply with > >>>>the written charters or FAQs for those newsgroups and online > >>>>forums. Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial > >>>>messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and online > >>>>forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*. > >>>>http://www.shoprogers.com/business/b...nternetaup.asp > >>> > >>>There's no commercial advertisements > >>>on my site. > >> > >>You're advertising your site in these groups, neither of which explicity > >>permits such advertising in its charter or FAQ. You are violating your > >>ISP's acceptable use policy. > > > > It's not considered advertising > > to them unless you are trying > > to sell something. > > Ipse dixit. > > > Everything > > at my site is free. > > So are things at other sites which abuse usenet by advertising. > > >>>A person's sig with > >>>their personal website listed is NOT > >>>in violation of anything. > >> > >>It's a violation of your ISP's AUP. > > > > I disagree. > > "Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial messages should be > posted only in those newsgroups and online forums whose charters or FAQs > *explicitly permit them*." The charters and FAQs of these two groups > don't explicitly permit such advertisements. If you feel I'm in violation, complain. > >>>Are you > >>>advertising for Rogers commercial > >>>services by posting the above? No. > >> > >>I'm telling you their policy and explaining how you're violating it. > > > > And to do so, you refered to > > a website in the content of your > > post. > > Not a page about their services, only about the policy which you're > willfully violating. What's in your sig? Just a hobby homepage, like a million other sigs. > > When I referred to the > > fake meat issue, I did the > > same. > > No, you advertised your site. All I did was point out what your > advertisement violates in your ISP's AUP. I'm not in violation. > >>>And that's even though they are > >>>a business. My site's not even a > >>>business. > >> > >>The link to their site is to the page with their AUP. Stop spinning, > >>Skanky, and stop advertising your site and violating your terms of > >>service. > > > > If there is an FAQ for this > > newsgroup, and if it explicitly > > forbids signatures, > > That's not the policy of your ISP! "Advertisements, solicitations, or > other commercial messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and > online forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*." "..other commercial messages..." > > then I'm in violation, > > You are. Nope. > > but if not, then I'm not. > > As usual, you have it backasswards. "Advertisements, solicitations, or > other commercial messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and > online forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*." And what's commercial about my websites? > >>>>>Good, because it's not very > >>>>>nice to go into people's stash. > >>>> > >>>>Since you bring up the issue and you still believe your drug use doesn't > >>>>harm anyone else, what do you have to say about the very brief tenure of > >>>>the last chief of police in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico? > >>>> > >>>>http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...pstory/3219377 > >>> > >>>That site > >> > >>Article. From a newspaper. > >> > >> > >>>is about the import of > >>>hard drugs like cocaine. > >> > >>No, it's not. You drug abusing idiots don't realize that your habits and > >>choices cause battles between rival groups who want to control > >>distribution. The irony is dopeheads like you tend to blast corporations > >>for engaging in "predatory" competition while your own toking causes > >>far, far worse consequences between competitors and regulators (since > >>the police are trying to clean this shit up). > >> > >>The drug wars in Nuevo Laredo -- right across the US border from Laredo, > >>Texas -- are over routes used to smuggle *all* drugs from Mexico and > >>Central America. Why is Nuevo Laredo important? Because I-35 is the > >>largest corridor for commercial transportation between Mexico and Canada. > >> > >>State detectives said the slaying of Dominguez appeared to be > >>the work of drug gangs fighting for control of lucrative > >>smuggling routes into Texas. > >> > >>Control access to the I-35 corridor, and you control access to right > >>through the heart of the US (with access to all major cities via the > >>interstate highway system) and up to the Canadian border. Access to > >>Canada is important because your nation is relaxing its marijuana laws. > >> > >> > >>>Marijuana tends to be in grow houses in the > >>>same country and city as where > >>>it's dispersed. > >> > >>Not *entirely* accurate, Skanky, but you never are. While that may be > >>more true than false today, it won't be if you continue to relax your > >>marijuana policies. > >> > >>Most of the marijuana consumed in Canada is produced in that > >>country; however, marijuana smuggled into Canada from countries > >>such as Mexico and Jamaica, some of which transits the United > >>States, also is available. > >>http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/marijuan.htm > >> > >>Relaxing your marijuana laws increases the likelihood of more marijuana > >>flowing across your border from Mexico through the US. Mexican and > >>Central American drug cartels can grow and distribute cheaper than your > >>BC stoners can. They'll undercut (in more than one way) your domestic > >>growers. The war in Nuevo Laredo today is for access to I-35. The wars > >>tomorrow will be along your border for routes to your cities, and the > >>turf wars will eventually be fought on your own streets. > > > > From what I've heard, > > We're not talking about anecdotes, Skanky. We're talking about blood > running on the streets in Mexico. The Houston CHRONICLE had an > interesting cover story this morning about how your drug culture is > affecting Mexicans. It's worth reading: > http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/page1/3220962 You are talking about hard drugs, I'm not. > > domestic pot is becoming the norm > > everywhere. > > Wrong. With the recent easing of your laws, Mexican, Central American, > and Columbian drug cartels are trying to stake out routes to flood your > country with cheap marijuana. Soon they'll be going after our precious body fluids, right? > > However, with > > heroin and cocaine, imports > > take place. > > Wrong. You don't comprehend how your nation's relaxed marijuana policies > are driving foreign producers to get in on your action. That was one of > the Nixon Administration's (and Congress') objections to the Shafer > Commission's suggestion that we ease enforcement of our laws: it would > escalate *violent* criminal activity rather than reduce it because drug > cartels would fight for greater pieces of the distribution pie. > Unfortunately, it's YOUR country's demand for cheap marijuana that's > causing bloodshed on OUR southern border. Even more unfortunate, it will > eventually move up the transportation corridors to your own southern border. Uh huh Have you ever read about the prohibition times of liquor and the violence it caused? Only when it was legalized did that stop. > >>>You could say it's local produce. > >> > >>I can also say that you endanger the lives of others by smoking it. > > > > I only smoke pot in places > > You smoke pot, period. Where or how you smoke it is irrelevant in terms > of its effects on those who grow and distribute it, whether we're > discussing YOUR OWN suppliers or their competitors. Those effects > include violence and death of dealers, distributors, and law enforcement > officials like the slain police chief in Nuevo Laredo. Your hands are > bloody, you ignorant cow. You are stark raving. > >>BTW, you forgot to tell me how old you were when you dropped out of > >>school. You also snipped out all my remarks last week about how the > >>girls who smoked were the sluttiest in my school. Were you that way, > >>too? Is that why you left school early? > > > > Why are you fishing about my > > schooling? As for being slutty, > > I can feel fairly sure, that no > > sluttiness from me will ever be > > directed at you, so don't worry. > > I'm not worried. I have standards AND self-restraint, two things > contrary to your (bad) character. > > > And don't fish about my sexual > > history > > I think you dropped out in your mid-teens, 15 or 16, and that you were > completely out of control sexually. I'm almost willing to bet that the > latter had something to do with why you dropped out, but I wouldn't be > surprised if your dropping out was more a cost:benefit thing because you > weren't ever going to set the world on fire anyway. I've already figured > you out, haven't I. Nope. Don't stop trying though. -- 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:
>>>><...> >>>> >>>>>If I am lucky enough to still be >>>>>able bodied when I retire, >>>> >>>>You'll neither retire nor be able-bodied. Your sloth will catch up with >>>>you. >>> >>>We'll see when the time comes. >> >>We already see it now: you don't practice what you preach. > > Yes I do. No, you do not. You never have. >>>>>I'm going to be wanting to grow >>>>>much of my food. >>>> >>>>You're also "going to be wanting to" learn better grammar. >>> >>>I don't care about my grammar >> >>No kidding! >> >> >>>>>Meanwhile >>>>>though, I'm content with just >>>> >>>>giving lip service. Another quarter-century of hypocritical lip service >>>>about "killing animals is wrong" while you wantonly kill them. >>> >>>I guess >> >>You wantonly kill animals while you feebly delude yourself (which is an >>easy task) into thinking others are to blame for your personal >>consumption. > > You're mighty quick And you're mighty slow. >>>>>doing what I can while my >>>>>obligations and current goals >>>>>are in the city. >>>> >>>>Cop outs. >> >>Established. >> >> >>>>>The collateral >>>>>deaths can't be avoided >>>>>while I'm in the city, >>>> >>>>Bullshit, they can. Any of the suggestions offered would be reasonable >>>>steps to most people, but you're not a reasonanle person. You fly off >>>>the handle at the suggestion that you join a co-op or community garden >>>>IN the city. You become defiant at suggestion that you alter your >>>>consumption and focus on consuming locally-grown foods. Etc. You don't >>>>make any effort, you only make excuses. >>> >>>Co-ops do not bring about >>>death-free foods. >> >>They can if you form one with that intention. > > And what farms exist for such a > co-op to buy from? Power in numbers, dumb ass. You keep prating about increasing demand for "veganic" food. Find your fellow like-minded dweebs in Toronto and approach a farmer to grow in a manner consistent with your principles. > 0. That's also your IQ. > That's why there has to first be a > demand for such foods. You've said there is. The way to demonstrate it is to gather your fellow travelers together and use your clout, pool your resources, etc. You make way too many excuses, and not one of them is sensible. >>>A community garden is >>>almost impossible to >>>obtain >> >>Wrong. I gave you links for community gardens in and around Toronto. > > The city allotment gardens are > almost unobtainable. Especially when you refuse to get off your flabby old ass to go get one. >>>and is a very small >>>size. >> >>You can pay for more than one plot, dummy. > > You're lucky if you can get even > one. You haven't even tried, have you. > Also, I don't have time to > travel to an out of the way part > of the city just to water and > weed every day. And you think you will when you're a quarter-century older? > None of the > allotment gardens are nearby > me. Take the bus. > Anyways, it doesn't matter. Because you'll never practice what you preach. You have the opportunity now and you make excuses. > YOU are the one expecting I don't expect you to do *anything* beyond make excuses when asked if you practice what you preach. I already see you as a charlatan and poseur, a rank hypocrite. >>>CSAs don't sell >>>death-free foods (they don't >>>answer their emails >>>inquiring about Toronto info >>>either). You should stop >>>lumping me in with people >>>who are against the food >>>import/export business >>>because I'm not, nor do >>>I believe that 2 days in >>>local storage kills more >>>animals than 2 days in >>>shipping storage. >> >>It's a lot more than two days of transportation and storage, dummy. > > Nowadays things get transported > fairly quickly. How many days does it take a cargo ship to go from the tropics to a port of entry, and then how many days does it take the cargo to make its way to Toronto? Longer than two days. Dittos for shipping grains and soy to Yves in Vancouver so it can be processed and shipped back out to clueless urbanites across the continent in Toronto. Dittos, too, for the California rice you buy. >>>>>as I'm dependant on commercial >>>>>foods. >>>> >>>>Only because you refuse to break your dependencies. >> >>Established. >> >> >>>>>However, one thing >>>>>I can do that's in standing >>>>>with my personal ethics is >>>>>encourage a demand for >>>>>cruelty-free food. >>>> >>>>Which is LIP SERVICE. Your pontifications about demanding "cruelty-free" >>>>food are bullshit because your demand hasn't changed. You continue to >>>>demand and *purchase* high-CD foods. >> >>ESTABLISHED! > > Shut up GFY, Skanky. It's established. >>>>>My ethics >>>>>don't require me to >>>> >>>>do anything. They're sham ethics. >>> >>>My ethics are >> >>excuses and cop outs. >> >> >>>>>go to >>>>>extremes like some of the >>>>>suggestions I've gotten in >>>>>these groups. >>>> >>>>Joining a community garden isn't extreme. Buying local isn't extreme. >>>>Joining a co-op isn't extreme. Leasing land isn't extreme. You see only >>>>costs, yet you don't object to the costs -- financial or to animals -- >>>>of your current consumption. You're a poseur. >>> >>>When I retire, >> >>You won't. > > Why not? In a sense, you already are. You do nothing. You're shiftless, a slacker. >>>I'll be able to >>>afford to live anywhere with >>>a mailing address. >> >>You don't need a mailing address. You can get a post office box or hire >>a mail service. > > Yeah, what's your point? Those > are types of mailing addresses > too. You're the one who blathered about "living anywhere with a mailing address." >>>By taking >>>care of my money, >> >>You have none. > > Much more than I'd have if I > followed your suggestions that > I walk off into the rural sunset. Not necessarily. Urban living has financial costs, too. I suspect rural life would cost you a lot less if you truly practiced self-sufficiency. Then again, I don't think you're capable of self-sufficiency and I think you agree because of your excuses and procrastination in living by your stated principles. >>>and not >>>attempting something that >>>takes away my job security >> >>You put your own security above your false principles, period. Saying >>you'll start practicing what you preach in 20+ years is bullshit. It >>shows you have no principles. On top of that, you defiantly refuse to >>alter your consumption to be more congruent with your stated principles. >>You'll NEVER do anything other than what you already do -- which is to >>speak of meaningless platitudes which you never intend to achieve >>yourself. You're a creature of habit, Skanky, and all your habits are >>pretty bad. > > I'm already practicing what I > preach. No, you only make excuses. > As for altering my > ways, You never will, city or country. > you've not convinced > me that it's necessary for me > do so. I am not against the > transportation industry, even > though you seem to be. Strawman. >>>and ability to afford a farm, >>>I am being prudent. And >>>realistic. >> >>No, you're being hypocritical because you're not living up to your own >>standards and you have no intention of ever living up to them. > > Why do you have to keep ....reminding you that you're a hypocrite. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>[--snip--] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>Not in providing >>>>>>>meat, unless you're a cannibal. >>>>>> >>>>>>I wouldn't even THINK of eating you, Dopey. Cattle have more purpose > > in > >>>>>>life than you do. >>>>> >>>>>What purpose do you think >>>>>humans have in life? >>>> >>>>You have no purpose in life. >>> >>>Then what purpose is served >> >>You have no purpose in life. Established. >>>>>[--snip--] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>Meanwhile though, my very >>>>>>>realistic retirement plans >>>>>>>might very well do that. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sleazy pipe dreams. The sleazy part of it is that you would wait 23 >>>>>>years -- A QUARTER CENTURY -- to practice what you preach. You won't. >>>>>>You're already complacent and too addicted to your sloth to do > > anything. > >>>>>So what if it's some years >>>>>down the line? >>>> >>>>It shows that you have no principle, just lip service. In mocking, whiny >>>>voice: "Killing animals is wrong, but I'm not gonna stop until I retire >>>>in a quarter century and buy five acres." >>> >>>It's rational to not buy a farm >>>until one can afford to. >> >>What's irrational is your obsession buying a five-acre farm and refusal >>to practice what you preach until then. > > I'm being practical and prudent. You're neither. > As to practicing what I preach, I You don't. > When I have some > land though, I'll be able to grow > much of my own food. You're talking 20-25 years down the road. You do NOTHING now about your consumption to live up to your own standards. > That won't change the way ....you do things. You'll stubbornly refuse to change your ways when you retire and cite the same litany of excuses you do now. You'll add new ones, too. Like, "I need to be near the city because I'm older and need to be closer to medical care if I need it. It wouldn't be practical to live out in the boondocks at my age. You can't expect me to risk my life for my principles." Etc. >>>>>I'm already >>>>>practicing what I preach >>>> >>>>You preach nothing, you practice nothing. It's twaddle. Lip service. >>> >>>If nothing else, >> >>It is "nothing else" because you don't practice what you preach. You're >>a smug passivist, waiting for OTHERS to practice what you preach so >>you'll never have to. > > So, are you saying I'm some > sort of teacher or something? No, not at all. Stop posting when you're stoned. > Telling others what to do and > waiting for them to do it? That isn't teaching, you nut job. >>>Even if that's all I ever accomplish and >>>I die on retirement day, I'll have >>>at least done something >>>positive. >> >>Your passivity is *NOT* positive. It's repulsive. > > Spreading the word about > cruel farming practices is not > a passive thing. You're not even doing that. You're waiting for others -- farmers -- to change so you don't have to. > If you are > repulsed, I am. You should be, too, and ashamed for being so passive. >>>>>by doing what I reasonably can. >>>> >>>>That's a cop out -- a weak, weasely cop out. >>> >>>I call it realistic. >> >>That doesn't change what it clearly is: a weak, weasely cop out. Established. >>>>>[--snip--] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Removing yourself from the food chain means suicide. >>>>> >>>>>I was referring to the commercial >>>>>food chain. >>>> >>>>Food SUPPLY. >>> >>>No, I meant the commercial >>>food chain. >> >>I know conventional definitions confound you, but you meant food supply. >> >>FOOD CHAIN: a community of organisms where each member is eaten >>in turn by another member. >> >>An interconnected chain of organisms indicating which species >>are predators and which are prey in relation to one another. All >>energy in a food chain will begin with the autotrophs, which >>will be fed upon by herbivores. >>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/food_chain > > The vole gets eaten by the plow. A plow isn't an organism, nor does it eat voles. You imbecile. >>Twit. > > Play nice, Eat me. > or I'll ask your mother > to take your keyboard away. She'd tell you what a hypocrite you are and tell you to insert a painfully large object in at least one of your orifices. >>>>>>>that won't change it. >>>>>> >>>>>>It will with respect to your own consumption in light of your >>>>>>principles. That's when you'll earn my respect. >>>>> >>>>>My consumption won't alter the >>>>>number of cds. >>>> >>>>It will with respect to what you consume. It may be but a drop in the >>>>bucket, but a respectable one if you believe killing animals is wrong. >>>>As it stands now, you kill many animals through your consumption. You >>>>say killing them is wrong. Why do you want to wait a QUARTER CENTURY >>>>before you stop doing what you say is wrong? >>>> >>>>Twenty-three years of killing tens of thousands of animals per year >>>>means you won't stop until you're in the millions. Do you consider that >>>>ethical at all? >>> >>>You're making up numbers. >> >>The numbers I use are credible estimates. > > Your imagination Fifty-percent loss of voles alone isn't imagination. >>>The truth is that no one knows how >>>many cds happen. >> >>In that case, are you prepared to admit that I may have grossly >>*underestimated* the actual number of CDs attributable to your stubborn >>and defiant refusal to practice what you preach? > > I have never made an estimate > at all stating it as fact. Liar. You repeatedly do that. You did about "vegetarians buy most of the organics." You have when insisting that cattle and other animals require some astronomical amount of feed. Etc. > If/as > studies are dones re different > foods, we will learn what the > true numbers and types of > animals are killed during > food production. Studies aren't needed to pin concrete numbers. We already know that animals DO die in the course of food production. The number of dead animals is greater than one. You object only to the 1001st death -- the death of an animal which is eaten. > As for your > guessed/hoped for numbers, > I'm guessing that you have > grossly overestimated. But > you know what? Neither of > us will know until such studies > are done. You want to play a counting game while you claim that your diet is ethical. >>>>>>>That's where >>>>>>>people like you come in. >>>>>>>You inform people of the >>>>>>>unseen cruelty in the farming >>>>>>>industry and thus increase >>>>>>>the demand for cruelty-free >>>>>>>foods. )>>>>>> >>>>>>And where's your ****ing gratitude for it?! >>>>> >>>>>If you weren't just a barrel of >>>>>insults, >>>> >>>>I'm not. >>> >>>My memory's bad, but not that >>>bad. >> >>Yes, it is. Established. >>>>>maybe I would thank >>>>>you. >>>> >>>>You never would under any circumstance. >>> >>>I'll thank you right now for bringing >>>up the topic of cds to new vegans >>>and vegetarians here. I used to >>>be annoyed by how you went on >>>ad nauseum, but now I see it >>>more as a segue to more demand >>>for cruelty-free foods. >> >>Your assumption that this is increasing demand for "cruelty-free" food >>is entirely unfounded. > > The more people who learn > about cds, especially those > who are into animal rights, the > more demand goes up for > cruelty free foods. Ipse dixit. > Why is this > a hard concept for you to grasp? You're the one trying to establish your fantasies as reality, when reality shows us that "serious vegetarians" make up less than 2% of the population. There is no clamor for "veganic" food. There never will be outside your small clique of urban idiots who have no idea how food is produced. >>>Only that will change the existing ways. >> >>No, it won't. > > Just as the evergrowing demand > for organics has been happening, > I think cruelty free foods have a > chance at it too. Non sequitur. The popularity of organics is mostly predicated on mis/disinformation about organic techniques (e.g., the persistent distortion that organic foods have been grown without any pesticides or that they're inherently safer or more nutritious). Also, the largest growth sector in organics is meat. People who eat meat don't give a shit about animal deaths. >>>Even if I completely remove >>>myself from it all by growing all >>>my own foods, it will still >>>continue in my absence >>>without such demand. >> >>There aren't enough clueless urbanite vegans to cause a farming >>revolution of the scope for which you're passively waiting so you don't >>have to practice what you preach. > > There are probably more than > you realize. No, there aren't. We're talking about a further tiny fraction of the less-than 2% of the population who are "serious" vegetarians. >>>>>But too bad. I will use >>>>>your posts about cds to help >>>>>inform people of the unseen >>>>>harm, and thus increase the >>>>>demand for cruelty-free foods. >>>> >>>>It hasn't affected your demand. You continue to demand and purchase >>>>high-CD foods. >>> >>>Not when given a less >>>harmful choice, like Lundberg >>>over other rices. >> >>Lundberg rice is *no different* from any other rice. Stop gullibly >>believing salesmanship over facts. Their no-burn practices are mandated >>by law, dumb ass. Their practices in protecting waterfowl are no >>different than any other grower. They still engage in agricultural >>practices like applying pesticides and herbicides, using mechanized >>equipment, and flooding and draining fields which kill every kind of >>animal inhabiting their fields. > > Why are you stuck on their > no burn thing? Why are you stuck on parroting their advertising? > I only mentioned > it once a while ago. You've mentioned it more than once, and you continue to parrot their self-serving advertisements from their website. >>>However, on the other side of things, >>>they happen to have the best >>>quality of brown rice and that >>>may be influencing me too. >> >>Your acceptance of their websites sales spin only shows how gullible you >>are. Quality is a completely unrelated issue to the ones you raise. Dummy. Established. >>>>>[--snip--] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>I'm more of a Babylon 5 type. >>>>>> >>>>>>Same thing. How long did you stand in line to see _Revenge of the > > Shit_ > >>>>>>and which costume did you wear? >>>>> >>>>>Huh? >>>> >>>>Same thing. How long did you stand in line to see _Revenge of the Shit_ >>>>and which costume did you wear? >>> >>>I don't know what you're >>>referring to, and I don't >>>wear costumes. >> >>Sure ya don't. ;-) > > Sorry Usual, You should be. >>>>>[--snip--] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>However, I >>>>>>>would much rather see >>>>>>>better storage procedures >>>>>>>practiced and better >>>>>>>housekeeping at food storage >>>>>>>places, instead of having >>>>>>>to kill mice and rats. >>>>>> >>>>>>Health guidelines require both "better housekeeping" and pro-active > > pest > >>>>>>control. The realistic way to minimize animal deaths from >>>>>>stored/transported foods is to buy as locally as possible. Too bad you >>>>>>object strenuously to that and choose to be a hypocrite instead. >>>>> >>>>>If good housekeeping was >>>>>practiced, >>>> >>>>It is. Health codes still require pro-active pest control. >>> >>>As long as nothing is accessable >>>to the rodents, >> >>Have you ever been to a granary or warehouse? No. Established. >>>there will be no >>>problem and the traps will lay >>>empty. >> >>Ipse dixit. >> >> >>>I should mention here >>>that I consider competition >>>deaths (the mice against us >>>for our foods) to be less wrong >>>on the scale than other >>>intentional deaths. >> >>No, you shouldn't mention that because it illustrates what a sham your >>stated principles are. > > You think they are a sham but I > don't. You think it's acceptable to say one thing and the do the opposite. >>>>>there would be >>>>>no rodents to kill, >>>> >>>>You have no ****ing idea about rodents and other pests and how they >>>>affect stored foods. >>> >>>I know enough. >> >>No, you don't. >> >> >>>I once lived >>>in a mouse infested home. >> >>Not the same as a food warehouse or granary. >> >> >>>Plastic containers weren't >>>good enough. Little buggers >>>chewed right through and ate >>>my peanut butter. >> >>They gnaw through other materials, too. That's why health codes require >>pro-active treatment to keep pest problems under control. > > They don't gnaw through thick > metal. They gnaw through enough prevalent building materials that health codes require pro-active pest control. >>>I quickly moved. >> >>Wuss. > > Why stay in an infested home? Kill the mice. You don't object to dead animals, just eating them. >>>>>even if >>>>>measures are put in place. >>>> >>>>You're talking out of your wrinkled old ass. >>> >>>No, my wrinkled old ass can't >>>type very good. >> >>Your wrinkled old ass isn't worth much anyway. Established. >>>>>>>A good pickup truck >>>>>> >>>>>>You take the bus. They won't let you carry wastes aboard the bus. >>>>> >>>>>When I retire, >>>> >>>>In a quarter-century. At the earliest. I'm not convinced you'll retire. >>> >>>At a certain point I'll have to, >>>(laws), and I'll want to. If I >>>won the lottery, I'd retire >>>today. >> >>Thanks for admitting you have no purpose or ambition in life. > > So you think purpose and > ambition are soley job-related? Strawman. > That must suck, because when > you get older, you will feel > purposeless. I don't have such > job=purpose beliefs. Most slackers don't. > Sometimes > a job can give a good sense of > purpose, and sometimes not. Your job as a scullery maid probably doesn't. >>>>>I will probably >>>>>want a pickup. >>>> >>>>Your grammar, as horrendous as it is, conveys your own hesitation and >>>>uncertainty about your future plans. >>> >>>The future is always uncertain. >> >>Your future is uncertain because you're a stoned slacker. > > Everyone's future is uncertain. Especially when discussing slackers. > Smoking pot has nothing to do > with that. It has a lot to do with that. > You are just looking to > insult again. You insult yourself, Skanky. >>>And plans are always able >>>to be redetailed at any point. >>>Life does not always go as >>>expected. >> >>Especially when you drop out of school early, take up smoking and drugs, >>and are too immature to control your sexual urges. > > Heheh It's sad, not amusing. Worse, you haven't changed much since then. > I still won't sleep with you. You got that right. >>>>>As for driving now, >>>> >>>>You don't. You take the bus or walk. >>> >>>Usually, yes. Anything wrong >>>with that? >> >>Nothing at all. I'll even commend you for that and your honesty (finally). > > I've always been honest with you. No, you haven't. You also haven't been honest with yourself. You don't practice what you preach. >>>>>it's only occasionally >>>>>needed when living in the city. >>>> >>>>You wouldn't need a truck in the country, either. It may be more >>>>convenient than hiring others to haul things for you, but it's not a > > NEED. > >>>In a rural setting a vehicle >>>is definitely needed. >> >>No, it isn't. The Amish don't use cars. > > They can also build a barn in one > day, With the help of their friends and neighbors. Are your dope-smoking friends of any use to you in achieving your goals (other than getting stoned) or living out your principles? No. NO. They're as good for nothing as you are. > I can't. Then lay off the weed. > I don't plan on keeping > horses, so there goes that idea, eh? You don't need horses, either. There are plenty of ways to transport things without the use of horses or automobiles. >>>A pickup is a good choice. >> >>Not always. > > It's what I'm leaning towards. Leaning *in over twenty ****ing years*. >>>>>>>and I can >>>>>>>pick up many company's food >>>>>>>wastes. >>>>>> >>>>>>You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming >>>>>>locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, >>>>>>and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, >>>>>>because you object to practicing what you preach. >>>>> >>>>>Fish and beef are not veg*n. >>>> >>>>I separated those from produce even though you still like to smell meat, >>>>and you still like meat in your mouth; you only stick the fake stuff in >>>>your flappy yapper now. >>> >>>I like the smell of steaks >>>barbequing and bacon >>>frying. >> >>I know you do, Skanky. I'm also sure you wish you could feel some salty >>meat in your mouth. Established. >>>I also like the smell >>>of a forest floor, doesn't mean >>>I want to eat it. I rarely eat >>>fake meats, but why do you >>>go on about my ocassional >>>use of them? >> >>Because they show that your stated principles and your arguments against >>meat (especially with respect to "wasting resources") are bullshit. > > Well, since I rarely use them, You rarely live by your principles. That's all. >>>>>Also, stop pushing local-only >>>>>expectations on me. >>>> >>>>They're not "expectations." They're foods compatible with your stated >>>>principles. My diet is a lot closer to your principles than your diet >>>>is, and I don't share your principles. So you should drop your >>>>sanctimonious contempt for me because I'm doing a "better" job at your >>>>principles than you are. >>> >>>My principles are to do the >>>best I reasonably can. >> >>That's NOT a principle. That's a cop out. I live out your principles >>better than you do. Why aren't you giving me props instead of calling me >>"meatarian" or "meat lobby" or other names reflecting your baseless >>contempt? > > You want lauding for the names > you have called me? You want > props for being mostly veg? > Prop yourself. Whatever your > principles are is how you should > be living. You should live by your own principles, and you should stop expecting farmers to help you out by adopting your principles in their methods. They won't. So you're stuck in your own hypocrisy. > Don't give me this > crap about you living up to my > principles. It's not crap, it's true. I more closely practice what you preach than you do. That's the only point I made. Not looking for your approval. >>>I believe that the human body >>>does best on a large variety >>>of foods >> >>Including meat? > > No. Based on pseudoscience. > But I can accept that there > are some people who truly > believe it's a necessity. Here you go with BELIEF again when we have objective data on the issue. >>>and that importing >>>is not the big evil you make >>>it out to be. >> >>It is with respect to your stated principles. > > No it's not. Yes, it is. >>>>>>Based on pseudoethics. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air >>>>>>to transport bananas from Central America to Toronto, killing many > > more > >>>>>>animals than the one animal from which you'd eat a fraction of flesh? >>>>> >>>>>If you believed that, you yourself >>>>>would be a beef eater. >>>> >>>>I asked you a question. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air >>>>so you can have tropical foods in Toronto? Why is it more ethical to >>>>poison so many animals but unethical to eat just one? >>> >>>I believe food to be just a >>>small part of the transportation >>>industry. >> >>You haven't answered the questions. Why is it ethical to pollute the >>oceans and air so you can have tropical foods in Toronto? Why is it more >>ethical to poison so many animals but unethical to eat just one? > > You'll never get it. You mean *you* won't. You object only to the 1001st death: the animal that gets eaten. You don't care if 1000 animals die for your own diet because they're not eaten. > I'm not going > to try and explain these things > again and again... Again? You haven't even addressed it once. >>>>>[--snip--] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>Pearl has shown >>>>>>>in her posts how grass-fed >>>>>>>cows are not necessarily >>>>>>>well cared for. >>>>>> >>>>>>She's a foot-rubbing lunatic who believes Mount Shasta is inhabited by >>>>>>enlightened beings. >>>>> >>>>>I don't care about that. >>>> >>>>You should. She's a raving lunatic. >>> >>>From what I've read, there >>>are some things about her >>>that I agree with, >> >>Inner earth beings? Hollow earth? Zapper? Reflexology? > > What's zapper? It's some electronic device you put on your body to cure AIDS and cancer and all kinds of other diseases. Lesley uses her Zapper on her cats and on the people whose feet she rubs. Yes, I have recently come across Hulda Clark's therapy. The zapper, even the 'unsophisticated' type I have is incredible. I used it on myself and my pets at first as a trial and feel better than I have for years, the cats are finally free of the cat flu'. I confess to now (unrepentantly) zapping my clients, in addition to a dose of Black Walnut tincture, _knowing_ that there is no infection interfering with their recovery. In fact recovery is, of course, more rapid. I am convinced that Hulda _really_ knows her stuff; her diagnosis' are confirmed by my findings through the reflexes. Using the zapper alone can halt acute infection and disease, however, following the information given in her books wrt toxic chemicals and metals, liver, bowel and kidney cleanses, is necessary to carry on towards optimum health. Thank You Hulda, and God Bless. http://tinyurl.com/v5p8 > From the above > I only agree with reflexology and > not as a cure all, Lesley thinks it's a cure-all. I think foot massage can serve to relax someone, and that such stress-reduction is beneficial. But other forms of stress reduction have shown greater benefit: LAUGHTER http://tinyurl.com/e2mn http://tinyurl.com/e2mv MUSIC http://tinyurl.com/e2nb http://tinyurl.com/e2nf ANIMALS/PETS http://tinyurl.com/e2nn http://tinyurl.com/e2ns > but a good > therapeutic thing similar to > accupressure. It has value only as touch therapy. >>>and some >>>things that I completely >>>disagree with. >> >>Which things are those? Hellllllllloooooooooooooooo? >>>And that's >>>fine. I have no need to be >>>anyone's clone. >> >>The issue isn't about being a clone, it's about relying on a blithering >>airhead for (mis and dis)information. >> >> >>>>>She posted >>>>>some info about grass-fed cows >>>> >>>>When? >>> >>>Once fairly recently, and once >>>some weeks back. >> >>Find the posts for me. > > No. I can't do that. Sure you can. > You, > King Usual, have officially > declared me slothful, so > I must refuse out of lazyness! > Heheh And out of your bad spelling: laziness. >>>>>that I found interesting. >>>> >>>>You find blood-type fad diets interesting. You're as loony as Lesley is. >>> >>>I have an interest in bloodtypes >>>without a predetermined >>>outcome. >> >>The only way to accept the theory about such diets is to throw out >>objectivity. It's based on pseudoscience. > > Then let's get some good science > involved. The entire premise of that theory is based on pseudoscience. Running studies won't change that. >>>I'm as interested in >>>further studies whether or not >>>they show it to be right. >> >>Propose some methodologies for such studies. What specifically would you >>try to measure and how would you measure it? Include information about >>proposed control groups. > > Sorry, I'm feeling too slothful No shit. >>>>>And as for >>>>>wild caught fish, you know my view >>>>>on that. >>>> >>>>Yes: it's acceptable to indiscriminantly poison them with diesel and jet >>>>emissions and run off from banana plantations, but unacceptable to eat >>>>them. >> >>ESTABLISHED. >> >> >>>>>[--snip--] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>On my personal site, which is >>>>>>>a mostly lacto-ovo one, at >>>>>>>http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/recipes/ >>>>>> >>>>>>Stop advertising your site in these groups. From your ISP's AUP: >>>>>>Newsgroups and Online Forums >>>>>>Messages posted to newsgroups and online forums must comply with >>>>>>the written charters or FAQs for those newsgroups and online >>>>>>forums. Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial >>>>>>messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and online >>>>>>forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*. >>>>>>http://www.shoprogers.com/business/b...nternetaup.asp >>>>> >>>>>There's no commercial advertisements >>>>>on my site. >>>> >>>>You're advertising your site in these groups, neither of which explicity >>>>permits such advertising in its charter or FAQ. You are violating your >>>>ISP's acceptable use policy. >>> >>>It's not considered advertising >>>to them unless you are trying >>>to sell something. >> >>Ipse dixit. >> >> >>>Everything >>>at my site is free. >> >>So are things at other sites which abuse usenet by advertising. >> >> >>>>>A person's sig with >>>>>their personal website listed is NOT >>>>>in violation of anything. >>>> >>>>It's a violation of your ISP's AUP. >>> >>>I disagree. >> >>"Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial messages should be >>posted only in those newsgroups and online forums whose charters or FAQs >>*explicitly permit them*." The charters and FAQs of these two groups >>don't explicitly permit such advertisements. > > If you feel I'm in violation, complain. Don't tempt me. >>>>>Are you >>>>>advertising for Rogers commercial >>>>>services by posting the above? No. >>>> >>>>I'm telling you their policy and explaining how you're violating it. >>> >>>And to do so, you refered to >>>a website in the content of your >>>post. >> >>Not a page about their services, only about the policy which you're >>willfully violating. What's in your sig? > > Just a hobby homepage, Amateurish. > like > a million other sigs. Which may or may not violate their ISPs' AUPs. >>>When I referred to the >>>fake meat issue, I did the >>>same. >> >>No, you advertised your site. All I did was point out what your >>advertisement violates in your ISP's AUP. > > > I'm not in violation. You are. >>>>>And that's even though they are >>>>>a business. My site's not even a >>>>>business. >>>> >>>>The link to their site is to the page with their AUP. Stop spinning, >>>>Skanky, and stop advertising your site and violating your terms of >>>>service. >>> >>>If there is an FAQ for this >>>newsgroup, and if it explicitly >>>forbids signatures, >> >>That's not the policy of your ISP! "Advertisements, solicitations, or >>other commercial messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and >>online forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*." > > "..other commercial messages..." I don't read that it applies only to commercial advertising or solicitations. >>>then I'm in violation, >> >>You are. > > Nope. Yes. >>>but if not, then I'm not. >> >>As usual, you have it backasswards. "Advertisements, solicitations, or >>other commercial messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and >>online forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*." > > And what's commercial about > my websites? I don't read that it applies only to commercial advertising or solicitations. >>>>>>>Good, because it's not very >>>>>>>nice to go into people's stash. >>>>>> >>>>>>Since you bring up the issue and you still believe your drug use > > doesn't > >>>>>>harm anyone else, what do you have to say about the very brief tenure > > of > >>>>>>the last chief of police in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico? >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...pstory/3219377 >>>>> >>>>>That site >>>> >>>>Article. From a newspaper. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>is about the import of >>>>>hard drugs like cocaine. >>>> >>>>No, it's not. You drug abusing idiots don't realize that your habits and >>>>choices cause battles between rival groups who want to control >>>>distribution. The irony is dopeheads like you tend to blast corporations >>>>for engaging in "predatory" competition while your own toking causes >>>>far, far worse consequences between competitors and regulators (since >>>>the police are trying to clean this shit up). >>>> >>>>The drug wars in Nuevo Laredo -- right across the US border from Laredo, >>>>Texas -- are over routes used to smuggle *all* drugs from Mexico and >>>>Central America. Why is Nuevo Laredo important? Because I-35 is the >>>>largest corridor for commercial transportation between Mexico and > > Canada. > >>>>State detectives said the slaying of Dominguez appeared to be >>>>the work of drug gangs fighting for control of lucrative >>>>smuggling routes into Texas. >>>> >>>>Control access to the I-35 corridor, and you control access to right >>>>through the heart of the US (with access to all major cities via the >>>>interstate highway system) and up to the Canadian border. Access to >>>>Canada is important because your nation is relaxing its marijuana laws. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Marijuana tends to be in grow houses in the >>>>>same country and city as where >>>>>it's dispersed. >>>> >>>>Not *entirely* accurate, Skanky, but you never are. While that may be >>>>more true than false today, it won't be if you continue to relax your >>>>marijuana policies. >>>> >>>>Most of the marijuana consumed in Canada is produced in that >>>>country; however, marijuana smuggled into Canada from countries >>>>such as Mexico and Jamaica, some of which transits the United >>>>States, also is available. >>>>http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/marijuan.htm >>>> >>>>Relaxing your marijuana laws increases the likelihood of more marijuana >>>>flowing across your border from Mexico through the US. Mexican and >>>>Central American drug cartels can grow and distribute cheaper than your >>>>BC stoners can. They'll undercut (in more than one way) your domestic >>>>growers. The war in Nuevo Laredo today is for access to I-35. The wars >>>>tomorrow will be along your border for routes to your cities, and the >>>>turf wars will eventually be fought on your own streets. >>> >>>From what I've heard, >> >>We're not talking about anecdotes, Skanky. We're talking about blood >>running on the streets in Mexico. The Houston CHRONICLE had an >>interesting cover story this morning about how your drug culture is >>affecting Mexicans. It's worth reading: >>http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/page1/3220962 > > You are talking about hard > drugs, I'm not. No, I'm talking about marijuana -- the same shit that causes you to be so incoherent and to not comprehend what's being discussed. >>>domestic pot is becoming the norm >>>everywhere. >> >>Wrong. With the recent easing of your laws, Mexican, Central American, >>and Columbian drug cartels are trying to stake out routes to flood your >>country with cheap marijuana. > > Soon they'll be going after > our precious body fluids, right? Yours aren't precious. Yours are already all over Toronto anyway. >>>However, with >>>heroin and cocaine, imports >>>take place. >> >>Wrong. You don't comprehend how your nation's relaxed marijuana policies >>are driving foreign producers to get in on your action. That was one of >>the Nixon Administration's (and Congress') objections to the Shafer >>Commission's suggestion that we ease enforcement of our laws: it would >>escalate *violent* criminal activity rather than reduce it because drug >>cartels would fight for greater pieces of the distribution pie. >>Unfortunately, it's YOUR country's demand for cheap marijuana that's >>causing bloodshed on OUR southern border. Even more unfortunate, it will >>eventually move up the transportation corridors to your own southern >> border. > > Uh huh Have you ever read > about the prohibition times > of liquor and the violence it > caused? Only when it was > legalized did that stop. Non sequitur. The recommendation of the Shafer Commission was NOT to legalize or decriminalize, it was to not *prosecute*. That's pretty much your new policy in Canada, isn't it? Your policy does nothing to reduce competition for illegal distribution of marijuana. That, along with demand for it in the US, is leading to bloodshed over control of smuggling routes from Mexico. Your habit is injurious to yourself and those who get between its source and you. >>>>>You could say it's local produce. >>>> >>>>I can also say that you endanger the lives of others by smoking it. >>> >>>I only smoke pot in places >> >>You smoke pot, period. Where or how you smoke it is irrelevant in terms >>of its effects on those who grow and distribute it, whether we're >>discussing YOUR OWN suppliers or their competitors. Those effects >>include violence and death of dealers, distributors, and law enforcement >>officials like the slain police chief in Nuevo Laredo. Your hands are >>bloody, you ignorant cow. > > You are stark raving. Don't shoot the messenger, Skanky. You're doing your part to cause Mexicans to kill each other. >>>>BTW, you forgot to tell me how old you were when you dropped out of >>>>school. You also snipped out all my remarks last week about how the >>>>girls who smoked were the sluttiest in my school. Were you that way, >>>>too? Is that why you left school early? >>> >>>Why are you fishing about my >>>schooling? As for being slutty, >>>I can feel fairly sure, that no >>>sluttiness from me will ever be >>>directed at you, so don't worry. >> >>I'm not worried. I have standards AND self-restraint, two things >>contrary to your (bad) character. >> >> >>>And don't fish about my sexual >>>history >> >>I think you dropped out in your mid-teens, 15 or 16, and that you were >>completely out of control sexually. I'm almost willing to bet that the >>latter had something to do with why you dropped out, but I wouldn't be >>surprised if your dropping out was more a cost:benefit thing because you >>weren't ever going to set the world on fire anyway. I've already figured >>you out, haven't I. > > Nope. You don't fool me, Skanky. How old were you when you got pregnant? Was that why you quit smoking in '81? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>><...> > >>>> > >>>>>If I am lucky enough to still be > >>>>>able bodied when I retire, > >>>> > >>>>You'll neither retire nor be able-bodied. Your sloth will catch up with > >>>>you. > >>> > >>>We'll see when the time comes. > >> > >>We already see it now: you don't practice what you preach. > > > > Yes I do. > > No, you do not. You never have. Yes, I do. I don't however practice what YOU think I'm preaching. Maybe you should read the wording more carefully. > >>>>>I'm going to be wanting to grow > >>>>>much of my food. > >>>> > >>>>You're also "going to be wanting to" learn better grammar. > >>> > >>>I don't care about my grammar > >> > >>No kidding! > >> > >> > >>>>>Meanwhile > >>>>>though, I'm content with just > >>>> > >>>>giving lip service. Another quarter-century of hypocritical lip service > >>>>about "killing animals is wrong" while you wantonly kill them. > >>> > >>>I guess > >> > >>You wantonly kill animals while you feebly delude yourself (which is an > >>easy task) into thinking others are to blame for your personal > >>consumption. > > > > You're mighty quick > > And you're mighty slow. You're mighty quick to blame people for things they are not to blame for. > >>>>>doing what I can while my > >>>>>obligations and current goals > >>>>>are in the city. > >>>> > >>>>Cop outs. > >> > >>Established. > >> > >> > >>>>>The collateral > >>>>>deaths can't be avoided > >>>>>while I'm in the city, > >>>> > >>>>Bullshit, they can. Any of the suggestions offered would be reasonable > >>>>steps to most people, but you're not a reasonanle person. You fly off > >>>>the handle at the suggestion that you join a co-op or community garden > >>>>IN the city. You become defiant at suggestion that you alter your > >>>>consumption and focus on consuming locally-grown foods. Etc. You don't > >>>>make any effort, you only make excuses. > >>> > >>>Co-ops do not bring about > >>>death-free foods. > >> > >>They can if you form one with that intention. > > > > And what farms exist for such a > > co-op to buy from? > > Power in numbers, dumb ass. You keep prating about increasing demand for > "veganic" food. Find your fellow like-minded dweebs in Toronto and > approach a farmer to grow in a manner consistent with your principles. If I was an extremist, maybe I would do that. Maybe someone more extreme than I will read this and start one. I won't start such a co-op, but I would certainly join one. But thanks for admitting that veganic co-ops don't exist yet. > > 0. > > That's also your IQ. I think the higher the number of insults, the lower the IQ. > > That's why there has to first be a > > demand for such foods. > > You've said there is. The way to demonstrate it is to gather your fellow > travelers together and use your clout, pool your resources, etc. You > make way too many excuses, and not one of them is sensible. I am feeling in more of a sharing info mood. I think it's great that this opportunity exists to inform people of cds, and create a demand for no-cd foods. > >>>A community garden is > >>>almost impossible to > >>>obtain > >> > >>Wrong. I gave you links for community gardens in and around Toronto. > > > > The city allotment gardens are > > almost unobtainable. > > Especially when you refuse to get off your flabby old ass to go get one. The lots are so overspoken for that it would take years. I notice again that you have to resort to insults. > >>>and is a very small > >>>size. > >> > >>You can pay for more than one plot, dummy. > > > > You're lucky if you can get even > > one. > > You haven't even tried, have you. I read about their availability. > > Also, I don't have time to > > travel to an out of the way part > > of the city just to water and > > weed every day. > > And you think you will when you're a quarter-century older? When I'm living in the same place where I'm doing the growing, it's easy. You step outside and you're there. > > None of the > > allotment gardens are nearby > > me. > > Take the bus. That would take too long and cut into my time allotted for working etc. When I'm retired that will be different. Anyways, why are going on so much about it? Are you that upset that I didn't find your suggestions viable? Or are you upset that I didn't fall for the bait of you trying to claim I MUST do this or that to live up to MY ethics (as interpreted by you). > > Anyways, it doesn't matter. > > Because you'll never practice what you preach. You have the opportunity > now and you make excuses. What opportunity? And don't say allotment gardens. They are too small and distant. Don't say CSAs or co-ops because they don't do veganics. I'm already practicing what I'm preaching. Are you? You preach all these alternatives as a must. Do you do all these? If not, your principles must not be extreme enough just like mine. So who are you to fling bricks? > > YOU are the one expecting > > I don't expect you to do *anything* beyond make excuses when asked if > you practice what you preach. I already see you as a charlatan and > poseur, a rank hypocrite. No. You're expecting me to do things you don't even expect out of yourself. > >>>CSAs don't sell > >>>death-free foods (they don't > >>>answer their emails > >>>inquiring about Toronto info > >>>either). You should stop > >>>lumping me in with people > >>>who are against the food > >>>import/export business > >>>because I'm not, nor do > >>>I believe that 2 days in > >>>local storage kills more > >>>animals than 2 days in > >>>shipping storage. > >> > >>It's a lot more than two days of transportation and storage, dummy. > > > > Nowadays things get transported > > fairly quickly. > > How many days does it take a cargo ship to go from the tropics to a port > of entry, and then how many days does it take the cargo to make its way > to Toronto? Longer than two days. Dittos for shipping grains and soy to > Yves in Vancouver so it can be processed and shipped back out to > clueless urbanites across the continent in Toronto. Dittos, too, for the > California rice you buy. What about the clothes you wear? Were they all made from locally grown cotton or wool? And produced on equipment that was produced from locally mined ores? This silliness over transportation can go on forever. > >>>>>as I'm dependant on commercial > >>>>>foods. > >>>> > >>>>Only because you refuse to break your dependencies. > >> > >>Established. > >> > >> > >>>>>However, one thing > >>>>>I can do that's in standing > >>>>>with my personal ethics is > >>>>>encourage a demand for > >>>>>cruelty-free food. > >>>> > >>>>Which is LIP SERVICE. Your pontifications about demanding "cruelty-free" > >>>>food are bullshit because your demand hasn't changed. You continue to > >>>>demand and *purchase* high-CD foods. > >> > >>ESTABLISHED! > > > > Shut up > > GFY, Skanky. It's established. Not to me, and that's what counts. Resorting again to insults noted. > >>>>>My ethics > >>>>>don't require me to > >>>> > >>>>do anything. They're sham ethics. > >>> > >>>My ethics are > >> > >>excuses and cop outs. > >> > >> > >>>>>go to > >>>>>extremes like some of the > >>>>>suggestions I've gotten in > >>>>>these groups. > >>>> > >>>>Joining a community garden isn't extreme. Buying local isn't extreme. > >>>>Joining a co-op isn't extreme. Leasing land isn't extreme. You see only > >>>>costs, yet you don't object to the costs -- financial or to animals -- > >>>>of your current consumption. You're a poseur. > >>> > >>>When I retire, > >> > >>You won't. > > > > Why not? > > In a sense, you already are. You do nothing. You're shiftless, a slacker. I guess you're answerless. Why won't I retire? Even though I like my work, I'll like retiring even more. > >>>I'll be able to > >>>afford to live anywhere with > >>>a mailing address. > >> > >>You don't need a mailing address. You can get a post office box or hire > >>a mail service. > > > > Yeah, what's your point? Those > > are types of mailing addresses > > too. > > You're the one who blathered about "living anywhere with a mailing address." Yeah, what's your point? Those are types of mailing addresses too. > >>>By taking > >>>care of my money, > >> > >>You have none. > > > > Much more than I'd have if I > > followed your suggestions that > > I walk off into the rural sunset. > > Not necessarily. Urban living has financial costs, too. I suspect rural > life would cost you a lot less if you truly practiced self-sufficiency. > Then again, I don't think you're capable of self-sufficiency and I think > you agree because of your excuses and procrastination in living by your > stated principles. I won't be trying for total self sufficiency. Take clothes for example, or paper, or gasoline, or fill in the rest. > >>>and not > >>>attempting something that > >>>takes away my job security > >> > >>You put your own security above your false principles, period. Saying > >>you'll start practicing what you preach in 20+ years is bullshit. It > >>shows you have no principles. On top of that, you defiantly refuse to > >>alter your consumption to be more congruent with your stated principles. > >>You'll NEVER do anything other than what you already do -- which is to > >>speak of meaningless platitudes which you never intend to achieve > >>yourself. You're a creature of habit, Skanky, and all your habits are > >>pretty bad. > > > > I'm already practicing what I > > preach. > > No, you only make excuses. > > > As for altering my > > ways, > > You never will, city or country. > > > you've not convinced > > me that it's necessary for me > > do so. I am not against the > > transportation industry, even > > though you seem to be. > > Strawman. No strawman, you keep bringing it up. > >>>and ability to afford a farm, > >>>I am being prudent. And > >>>realistic. > >> > >>No, you're being hypocritical because you're not living up to your own > >>standards and you have no intention of ever living up to them. > > > > Why do you have to keep > > ...reminding you that you're a hypocrite. Nope. In fact, these discussions serve a purpose. So far you haven't said what your principles are though. What are they? -- 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: [--snip--] > >>What's irrational is your obsession buying a five-acre farm and refusal > >>to practice what you preach until then. > > > > I'm being practical and prudent. > > You're neither. I don't believe in buying what you can't yet afford. > > As to practicing what I preach, I > > You don't. I completely do. Do you? > > When I have some > > land though, I'll be able to grow > > much of my own food. > > You're talking 20-25 years down the road. You do NOTHING now about your > consumption to live up to your own standards. I can't help it if I'm too young to retire right now, this minute. I realize that you don't like it, but I consider this the best that I can reasonably do at this time. And since it's me who I'm satisfying by living this way, it's me who determines whether I am and how happy about it I am, not you. You have no say in whether I'm living up to my principles. > > That won't change the way > > ...you do things. You'll stubbornly refuse to change your ways when you > retire and cite the same litany of excuses you do now. You'll add new > ones, too. Like, "I need to be near the city because I'm older and need > to be closer to medical care if I need it. It wouldn't be practical to > live out in the boondocks at my age. You can't expect me to risk my life > for my principles." Etc. The only possible thing that will keep me from rural living is my physical health. I expect there to be no problem there though. Unless I develop crippling arthritis or something then there's no reason not to live rurally. I like rural settings and to retire there would be very enjoyable. Maybe you've forgotten the value I place on enjoyment as being good for the health and mind. [--snip--] > >>Your passivity is *NOT* positive. It's repulsive. > > > > Spreading the word about > > cruel farming practices is not > > a passive thing. > > You're not even doing that. You're waiting for others -- farmers -- to > change so you don't have to. I'm actually waiting for you to mention cds again. ) That'swhat brings up the demand. Knowledge. And you're doing a very good job in helping to spread the idea that there should be cruelty free farming methods. If the demand goes up, at least a few farmers will test the ground with such goods. > > If you are > > repulsed, > > I am. You should be, too, and ashamed for being so passive. Ashamed for what passivity? And remember, my life's retirement time is not determined by me, but by my retirement income and when it begins. > > Play nice, > > Eat me. If we crash in a plane together, on a snowy mountainside, I'll remember your offer when I for emergency purposes take leave of my vegetarian diet!! > > or I'll ask your mother > > to take your keyboard away. > > She'd tell you what a hypocrite you are and tell you to insert a > painfully large object in at least one of your orifices. Your mother sounds as lovely a person as you. > >>>You're making up numbers. > >> > >>The numbers I use are credible estimates. > > > > Your imagination > > Fifty-percent loss of voles alone isn't imagination. I was the one who posted the info on vole cds. Did some of your work for you. Even got a "well done!" from Dutch. I want to know something though. Obviously each year's vole population arises from survivors of the previous years. Do the crops cause an unnatural explosion of voles, which is then balanced out by the number killed? Not that this mitigates things completely but it might be worth considering. [--snip--] > > I have never made an estimate > > at all stating it as fact. > > Liar. You repeatedly do that. You did about "vegetarians buy most of the > organics." You have when insisting that cattle and other animals require > some astronomical amount of feed. Etc. I type what I believe at the time. If meat eaters share in the future demand for cruelty free foods, good. > > If/as > > studies are dones re different > > foods, we will learn what the > > true numbers and types of > > animals are killed during > > food production. > > Studies aren't needed to pin concrete numbers. We already know that > animals DO die in the course of food production. The number of dead > animals is greater than one. You object only to the 1001st death -- the > death of an animal which is eaten. Numbers are needed. Does each potato cause 1/100th of a death or 1/1000th for instance (guessing numbers used). > > As for your > > guessed/hoped for numbers, > > I'm guessing that you have > > grossly overestimated. But > > you know what? Neither of > > us will know until such studies > > are done. > > You want to play a counting game while you claim that your diet is ethical. The 2 can be simultaneous. [--snip--] > > Why is this > > a hard concept for you to grasp? > > You're the one trying to establish your fantasies as reality, when > reality shows us that "serious vegetarians" make up less than 2% of the > population. There is no clamor for "veganic" food. There never will be > outside your small clique of urban idiots who have no idea how food is > produced. I think I can speak for most meat eaters and veggies I know that they would prefer ALL their food to be as cruelty-free as possible. So even if some of the driving force behind this is from meat eaters, the demand will still be there. > >>>Only that will change the existing ways. > >> > >>No, it won't. > > > > Just as the evergrowing demand > > for organics has been happening, > > I think cruelty free foods have a > > chance at it too. > > Non sequitur. The popularity of organics is mostly predicated on > mis/disinformation about organic techniques (e.g., the persistent > distortion that organic foods have been grown without any pesticides or > that they're inherently safer or more nutritious). Also, the largest > growth sector in organics is meat. People who eat meat don't give a shit > about animal deaths. The meat eaters I know would choose the less cruel lives and deaths for their meats, and probably other foods too if they knew about cds. Sort of like the animal welfare stuff that DH talks about. [--snip--] > > Why stay in an infested home? > > Kill the mice. You don't object to dead animals, just eating them. Nah, the cds stop at my door. Roaches I would kill (or, better, practice better housekeeping) but mice I don't need to kill. My cat keeps them away. [--snip--] > > So you think purpose and > > ambition are soley job-related? > > Strawman. No. I'm asking because I am trying to figure out where your ideas are coming from. [--snip--] > > You are just looking to > > insult again. > > You insult yourself, Skanky. Prove that. You can't because I like myself a lot. I don't insult myself. [--snip--] > > It's what I'm leaning towards. > > Leaning *in over twenty ****ing years*. Can I help it if I'm too young to retire yet? [--snip--] > > You want lauding for the names > > you have called me? You want > > props for being mostly veg? > > Prop yourself. Whatever your > > principles are is how you should > > be living. > > You should live by your own principles, and you should stop expecting > farmers to help you out by adopting your principles in their methods. > They won't. So you're stuck in your own hypocrisy. I do live fully by my own principles. The demand for cruelty-free food will take it's own time to develop but it will. > > Don't give me this > > crap about you living up to my > > principles. > > It's not crap, it's true. I more closely practice what you preach than > you do. That's the only point I made. Not looking for your approval. All you're saying is that you're doing the best you reasonably can. No different than me. [--snip--] > > But I can accept that there > > are some people who truly > > believe it's a necessity. > > Here you go with BELIEF again when we have objective data on the issue. Data that it's a necessity? I don't think so. [--snip--] > >>>From what I've read, there > >>>are some things about her > >>>that I agree with, > >> > >>Inner earth beings? Hollow earth? Zapper? Reflexology? > > > > What's zapper? > > It's some electronic device you put on your body to cure AIDS and cancer > and all kinds of other diseases. Lesley uses her Zapper on her cats and > on the people whose feet she rubs. > > Yes, I have recently come across Hulda Clark's therapy. > The zapper, even the 'unsophisticated' type I have > is incredible. > I used it on myself and my pets at first as a trial and > feel better than I have for years, the cats are finally > free of the cat flu'. > I confess to now (unrepentantly) zapping my clients, > in addition to a dose of Black Walnut tincture, > _knowing_ that there is no infection interfering with > their recovery. In fact recovery is, of course, more rapid. > I am convinced that Hulda _really_ knows her stuff; > her diagnosis' are confirmed by my findings through > the reflexes. > Using the zapper alone can halt acute infection and > disease, however, following the information given in > her books wrt toxic chemicals and metals, liver, bowel > and kidney cleanses, is necessary to carry > on towards optimum health. > Thank You Hulda, and God Bless. > http://tinyurl.com/v5p8 From that, I can say I doubt it. [--snip--] > > but a good > > therapeutic thing similar to > > accupressure. > > It has value only as touch therapy. I'm not sure of that. Since the different parts of the foot corelate to specific body areas, and since my mother went for this treatment, finding that her tender areas coorelated to her medical problems, I think there might be something to it. Not as a cure all though, just in conjunction to other treatments. > >>>and some > >>>things that I completely > >>>disagree with. > >> > >>Which things are those? > > Hellllllllloooooooooooooooo? Howdy! Give me another of those lists you like to float around about her, and I'll address each one. [--snip--] > > Just a hobby homepage, > > Amateurish. Well, let's see yours. [--snip--] > > "..other commercial messages..." > > I don't read that it applies only to commercial advertising or > solicitations. It clearly shows that they are talking about commercial sites. They wouldn't have used the word 'other' otherwise. [--snip--] > > Uh huh Have you ever read > > about the prohibition times > > of liquor and the violence it > > caused? Only when it was > > legalized did that stop. > > Non sequitur. The recommendation of the Shafer Commission was NOT to > legalize or decriminalize, it was to not *prosecute*. That's pretty much > your new policy in Canada, isn't it? Your policy does nothing to reduce > competition for illegal distribution of marijuana. That, along with > demand for it in the US, is leading to bloodshed over control of > smuggling routes from Mexico. Your habit is injurious to yourself and > those who get between its source and you. No pot is being smuggled into Canada anymore. According to what I see on the news, every second suburban house is a grow-op. It's been many, many years since pot came all compressed (a sign of possible importation). I thought most US pot came from the hills in California, or was that just in the 80s? I'm pretty sure that US pot is local, and that only the hard drugs get smuggled in anymore. [--snip--] > Don't shoot the messenger, Skanky. You're doing your part to cause > Mexicans to kill each other. No. I stay away from all hard drugs. I don't even like alcohol. [--snip--] -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Found scrawled in the outhouse on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 13:59:25 +0100, Derek
> wrote: >On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:07:19 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Claire's fat, cuckolded Uncle Derek wrote: >>>>>>You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming >>>>>>locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, >>>>>>and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, >>>>>>because you object to >>>>> >>>>>... your unsupported claim that those foods will actually >>>>>reduce collateral deaths. >>>> >>>>How many CDs accrue to wild game in a forest or fish in a lake or river >>> >>> I've no idea. >> >>Liar: the answer is nil. > >Then I hope you can back that unsupported assertion >with some facts, because as it stands I have no reason >to believe it other than your word, and I'm not about to >start believing your word on anything, Usually Stupid. Use your head, dolt! That would be that lump 3 feet above your ass! Oh wait: aren't you the one who believed himself to be invulnerable to the basic principals of leverage and enormous weight (like engine blocks)? >>>>Compare that to the number of animals killed in producing your >>>>and Skanky's consumption of mechanically-harvested grains and legumes. >>> >>> They may well be the same for all we know. >> >>You know better than that > >No, I don't, and neither do you. More neener...neener...neener..? How about trying to support just one of your statements like an adult? >>> To conclude one causes more than another without >>> any reliable figures for either would be absurd. >> >>The only absurdity is your chronic denial > >Writes the meat pusher who denies collateral deaths >accrue during hunting or fishing. And what would those be, grasshopper? Perhaps a worm on a fish hook, but what is it that you believe dies, besides the targeted prey, while hunting? Jeers 2 U, Leslie "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:21:19 -0600, Leslie > wrote:
> Derek > wrote: >>On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:07:19 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming >>>>>>>locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, >>>>>>>and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, >>>>>>>because you object to >>>>>> >>>>>>... your unsupported claim that those foods will actually >>>>>>reduce collateral deaths. >>>>> >>>>>How many CDs accrue to wild game in a forest or fish in a lake or river >>>> >>>> I've no idea. >>> >>>Liar: the answer is nil. >> >>Then I hope you can back that unsupported assertion >>with some facts, because as it stands I have no reason >>to believe it other than your word, and I'm not about to >>start believing your word on anything, Usually Stupid. > >Use your head Would that tell me how many collateral deaths are associated with hunting and fishing? No, I didn't think so. > >>>>>Compare that to the number of animals killed in producing your >>>>>and Skanky's consumption of mechanically-harvested grains and legumes. >>>> >>>> They may well be the same for all we know. >>> >>>You know better than that >> >>No, I don't, and neither do you. > >More neener...neener...neener..? How about trying to support just one of your statements >like an adult? My statement is supported by the fact that no one knows how many alleged collateral deaths are associated with the production of grains and legumes. You, being the child that you are seem ready to assume huge numbers arise from crop these foods simply because others tell you, even without any figures to base that assumption on. Good luck with that, but don't expect me to follow suit. >>>> To conclude one causes more than another without >>>> any reliable figures for either would be absurd. >>> >>>The only absurdity is your chronic denial >> >>Writes the meat pusher who denies collateral deaths >>accrue during hunting or fishing. > >And what would those be According to Usually Stupid, "the answer is nil." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>><...> >>>>>> >>>>>>>If I am lucky enough to still be >>>>>>>able bodied when I retire, >>>>>> >>>>>>You'll neither retire nor be able-bodied. Your sloth will catch up > > with > >>>>>>you. >>>>> >>>>>We'll see when the time comes. >>>> >>>>We already see it now: you don't practice what you preach. >>> >>>Yes I do. >> >>No, you do not. You never have. > > Yes, I do. Wrong. You say killing animals is wrong yet you continue to engage in behaviors which wantonly kill animals. >>>>>>>I'm going to be wanting to grow >>>>>>>much of my food. >>>>>> >>>>>>You're also "going to be wanting to" learn better grammar. >>>>> >>>>>I don't care about my grammar >>>> >>>>No kidding! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>Meanwhile >>>>>>>though, I'm content with just >>>>>> >>>>>>giving lip service. Another quarter-century of hypocritical lip > > service > >>>>>>about "killing animals is wrong" while you wantonly kill them. >>>>> >>>>>I guess >>>> >>>>You wantonly kill animals while you feebly delude yourself (which is an >>>>easy task) into thinking others are to blame for your personal >>>>consumption. >>> >>>You're mighty quick >> >>And you're mighty slow. > > You're mighty quick You're mighty slow. >>>>>>>doing what I can while my >>>>>>>obligations and current goals >>>>>>>are in the city. >>>>>> >>>>>>Cop outs. >>>> >>>>Established. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>The collateral >>>>>>>deaths can't be avoided >>>>>>>while I'm in the city, >>>>>> >>>>>>Bullshit, they can. Any of the suggestions offered would be reasonable >>>>>>steps to most people, but you're not a reasonanle person. You fly off >>>>>>the handle at the suggestion that you join a co-op or community garden >>>>>>IN the city. You become defiant at suggestion that you alter your >>>>>>consumption and focus on consuming locally-grown foods. Etc. You don't >>>>>>make any effort, you only make excuses. >>>>> >>>>>Co-ops do not bring about >>>>>death-free foods. >>>> >>>>They can if you form one with that intention. >>> >>>And what farms exist for such a >>>co-op to buy from? >> >>Power in numbers, dumb ass. You keep prating about increasing demand for >>"veganic" food. Find your fellow like-minded dweebs in Toronto and >>approach a farmer to grow in a manner consistent with your principles. > > If I was an extremist, You are an extremist. You believe that killing animals is wrong, which is extremist. You believe eating ANY meat is deleterious, which is extremist. And on and on and on. > maybe I > would do that. Maybe someone > more extreme than I will read > this and start one. Disgusting passivist. ALWAYS waiting for someone else to do your work. > I won't start > such a co-op, It would require you to get off your flabby ass. That won't happen. > but I would > certainly join one. You won't even join the ones which already exist. > But thanks > for admitting that veganic > co-ops don't exist yet. Thanking me?! You're the nitwit who's yet to admit that and who keeps ranting about "veganics" as if it were more than a pipedream of urban vegan slackers like you. >>>0. >> >>That's also your IQ. > > I think the higher No, your IQ is zero. The same as a rock. >>>That's why there has to first be a >>>demand for such foods. >> >>You've said there is. The way to demonstrate it is to gather your fellow >>travelers together and use your clout, pool your resources, etc. You >>make way too many excuses, and not one of them is sensible. > > I am feeling But you aren't THINKING or DOING. That's the problem with you. >>>>>A community garden is >>>>>almost impossible to >>>>>obtain >>>> >>>>Wrong. I gave you links for community gardens in and around Toronto. >>> >>>The city allotment gardens are >>>almost unobtainable. >> >>Especially when you refuse to get off your flabby old ass to go get one. > > The lots are so overspoken for > that it would take years. You haven't even inquired. >>>>>and is a very small >>>>>size. >>>> >>>>You can pay for more than one plot, dummy. >>> >>>You're lucky if you can get even >>>one. >> >>You haven't even tried, have you. > > I read about their availability. You haven't even inquired about getting a plot. >>>Also, I don't have time to >>>travel to an out of the way part >>>of the city just to water and >>>weed every day. >> >>And you think you will when you're a quarter-century older? > > When I'm living in the same > place Precisely. You'll never leave the city. You'll never have your five acres. You'll never practice "veganic" agriculture. >>>None of the >>>allotment gardens are nearby >>>me. >> >>Take the bus. > > That would take too long I realize you find your principles to be an inconvenience. Surely, though, you can come up with a better excuse than this. >>>Anyways, it doesn't matter. >> >>Because you'll never practice what you preach. You have the opportunity >>now and you make excuses. > > What opportunity? Many opportunities. You find your principles to be an inconvenience. And don't ask others what they do -- we're talking about YOUR OWN principles and how YOU act according to them. >>>YOU are the one expecting >> >>I don't expect you to do *anything* beyond make excuses when asked if >>you practice what you preach. I already see you as a charlatan and >>poseur, a rank hypocrite. > > No. Yes! > You're expecting me to do > things you don't even expect > out of yourself. Wrong. The issue is what YOU do about YOUR OWN principles. >>>>>CSAs don't sell >>>>>death-free foods (they don't >>>>>answer their emails >>>>>inquiring about Toronto info >>>>>either). You should stop >>>>>lumping me in with people >>>>>who are against the food >>>>>import/export business >>>>>because I'm not, nor do >>>>>I believe that 2 days in >>>>>local storage kills more >>>>>animals than 2 days in >>>>>shipping storage. >>>> >>>>It's a lot more than two days of transportation and storage, dummy. >>> >>>Nowadays things get transported >>>fairly quickly. >> >>How many days does it take a cargo ship to go from the tropics to a port >>of entry, and then how many days does it take the cargo to make its way >>to Toronto? Longer than two days. Dittos for shipping grains and soy to >>Yves in Vancouver so it can be processed and shipped back out to >>clueless urbanites across the continent in Toronto. Dittos, too, for the >>California rice you buy. > > What about Stop changing the subject. YOU make very specific claims ("killing animals is wrong") and then do nothing to live up to YOUR OWN principles. >>>>>>>as I'm dependant on commercial >>>>>>>foods. >>>>>> >>>>>>Only because you refuse to break your dependencies. >>>> >>>>Established. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>However, one thing >>>>>>>I can do that's in standing >>>>>>>with my personal ethics is >>>>>>>encourage a demand for >>>>>>>cruelty-free food. >>>>>> >>>>>>Which is LIP SERVICE. Your pontifications about demanding > > "cruelty-free" > >>>>>>food are bullshit because your demand hasn't changed. You continue to >>>>>>demand and *purchase* high-CD foods. >>>> >>>>ESTABLISHED! >>> >>>Shut up >> >>GFY, Skanky. It's established. > > Not to me, Yes, it is. >>>>>>>My ethics >>>>>>>don't require me to >>>>>> >>>>>>do anything. They're sham ethics. >>>>> >>>>>My ethics are >>>> >>>>excuses and cop outs. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>go to >>>>>>>extremes like some of the >>>>>>>suggestions I've gotten in >>>>>>>these groups. >>>>>> >>>>>>Joining a community garden isn't extreme. Buying local isn't extreme. >>>>>>Joining a co-op isn't extreme. Leasing land isn't extreme. You see > > only > >>>>>>costs, yet you don't object to the costs -- financial or to animals -- >>>>>>of your current consumption. You're a poseur. >>>>> >>>>>When I retire, >>>> >>>>You won't. >>> >>>Why not? >> >>In a sense, you already are. You do nothing. You're shiftless, a slacker. > > I guess Then do something about it. >>>>>I'll be able to >>>>>afford to live anywhere with >>>>>a mailing address. >>>> >>>>You don't need a mailing address. You can get a post office box or hire >>>>a mail service. >>> >>>Yeah, what's your point? Those >>>are types of mailing addresses >>>too. >> >>You're the one who blathered about "living anywhere with a mailing >>address." > > Yeah, So you can live or go even where you DON'T have a mailing address at that location. >>>>>By taking >>>>>care of my money, >>>> >>>>You have none. >>> >>>Much more than I'd have if I >>>followed your suggestions that >>>I walk off into the rural sunset. >> >>Not necessarily. Urban living has financial costs, too. I suspect rural >>life would cost you a lot less if you truly practiced self-sufficiency. >>Then again, I don't think you're capable of self-sufficiency and I think >>you agree because of your excuses and procrastination in living by your >>stated principles. > > I won't be trying You don't try, think, or do. You fantasize and try to BS others into thinking you have noteworthy ambitions. >>>>>and not >>>>>attempting something that >>>>>takes away my job security >>>> >>>>You put your own security above your false principles, period. Saying >>>>you'll start practicing what you preach in 20+ years is bullshit. It >>>>shows you have no principles. On top of that, you defiantly refuse to >>>>alter your consumption to be more congruent with your stated principles. >>>>You'll NEVER do anything other than what you already do -- which is to >>>>speak of meaningless platitudes which you never intend to achieve >>>>yourself. You're a creature of habit, Skanky, and all your habits are >>>>pretty bad. >>> >>>I'm already practicing what I >>>preach. >> >>No, you only make excuses. Established. >>>As for altering my >>>ways, >> >>You never will, city or country. Established. >>>you've not convinced >>>me that it's necessary for me >>>do so. I am not against the >>>transportation industry, even >>>though you seem to be. >> >>Strawman. > > No Yes. >>>>>and ability to afford a farm, >>>>>I am being prudent. And >>>>>realistic. >>>> >>>>No, you're being hypocritical because you're not living up to your own >>>>standards and you have no intention of ever living up to them. >>> >>>Why do you have to keep >> >>...reminding you that you're a hypocrite. > > Nope. Yes. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> [--snip--] > > >>>>What's irrational is your obsession buying a five-acre farm and refusal >>>>to practice what you preach until then. >>> >>>I'm being practical and prudent. >> >>You're neither. > > I don't believe in practicing what one preaches. That's all. >>>As to practicing what I preach, I >> >>You don't. > > I completely do. No, you do not. >>>When I have some >>>land though, I'll be able to grow >>>much of my own food. >> >>You're talking 20-25 years down the road. You do NOTHING now about your >>consumption to live up to your own standards. > > I can't help it Yes, you can. >>>That won't change the way >> >>...you do things. You'll stubbornly refuse to change your ways when you >>retire and cite the same litany of excuses you do now. You'll add new >>ones, too. Like, "I need to be near the city because I'm older and need >>to be closer to medical care if I need it. It wouldn't be practical to >>live out in the boondocks at my age. You can't expect me to risk my life >>for my principles." Etc. > > The only possible thing There are plenty of possibilities you've not considered. > [--snip--] > > >>>>Your passivity is *NOT* positive. It's repulsive. >>> >>>Spreading the word about >>>cruel farming practices is not >>>a passive thing. >> >>You're not even doing that. You're waiting for others -- farmers -- to >>change so you don't have to. > > I'm actually waiting I know. That's what you passivists do. You pass the buck. Incessantly. >>>If you are >>>repulsed, >> >>I am. You should be, too, and ashamed for being so passive. > > Ashamed for what passivity? Yours. >>>Play nice, >> >>Eat me. > > If we crash in a plane together, We'll never be in the same room, much less in a confined space like an airplane together. You don't fly. You probably never have. >>>or I'll ask your mother >>>to take your keyboard away. >> >>She'd tell you what a hypocrite you are and tell you to insert a >>painfully large object in at least one of your orifices. > > Your mother sounds as lovely She is, and she's a better person than you'll ever be. >>>>>You're making up numbers. >>>> >>>>The numbers I use are credible estimates. >>> >>>Your imagination >> >>Fifty-percent loss of voles alone isn't imagination. > > I was the one who posted the > info on vole cds. Did some of > your work for you. Bullshit, you lying bitch. Go to the archives and look at how many times we've discussed Davis' work in these groups and how many times the percentage of dead voles has been discussed. I just quoted from the OSU website the other day. > Obviously each year's vole > population arises from survivors > of the previous years. Do the > crops cause an unnatural > explosion of voles, which is > then balanced out by the > number killed? Not that this > mitigates things completely > but it might be worth > considering. I believe killing animals is wrong. -- Skanky > [--snip--] > > >>>I have never made an estimate >>>at all stating it as fact. >> >>Liar. You repeatedly do that. You did about "vegetarians buy most of the >>organics." You have when insisting that cattle and other animals require >>some astronomical amount of feed. Etc. > > I type what I believe at the > time. HAW HAW! >>>If/as >>>studies are dones re different >>>foods, we will learn what the >>>true numbers and types of >>>animals are killed during >>>food production. >> >>Studies aren't needed to pin concrete numbers. We already know that >>animals DO die in the course of food production. The number of dead >>animals is greater than one. You object only to the 1001st death -- the >>death of an animal which is eaten. > > Numbers are needed. To show that "x > 1" really is greater than one? >>>As for your >>>guessed/hoped for numbers, >>>I'm guessing that you have >>>grossly overestimated. But >>>you know what? Neither of >>>us will know until such studies >>>are done. >> >>You want to play a counting game while you claim that your diet is >> ethical. > > The 2 can be simultaneous. Wrong. You've already rejected your own premise the moment you start counting deaths. > [--snip--] > > >>>Why is this >>>a hard concept for you to grasp? >> >>You're the one trying to establish your fantasies as reality, when >>reality shows us that "serious vegetarians" make up less than 2% of the >>population. There is no clamor for "veganic" food. There never will be >>outside your small clique of urban idiots who have no idea how food is >>produced. > > I think I can speak for No, Skanky, you speak only for yourself. You sure as hell can't project your peculiar views -- NONE of them -- upon meateaters. >>>>>Only that will change the existing ways. >>>> >>>>No, it won't. >>> >>>Just as the evergrowing demand >>>for organics has been happening, >>>I think cruelty free foods have a >>>chance at it too. >> >>Non sequitur. The popularity of organics is mostly predicated on >>mis/disinformation about organic techniques (e.g., the persistent >>distortion that organic foods have been grown without any pesticides or >>that they're inherently safer or more nutritious). Also, the largest >>growth sector in organics is meat. People who eat meat don't give a shit >>about animal deaths. > > The meat eaters I know would > choose the less cruel lives and > deaths for their meats, Then why have you persistently refused to recommend others consume such meats? I still can't be expected to recommend any meat... -- Skanky, 19 May 05 > [--snip--] > >>>Why stay in an infested home? >> >>Kill the mice. You don't object to dead animals, just eating them. > > Nah, Yes. > [--snip--] > > >>>So you think purpose and >>>ambition are soley job-related? >> >>Strawman. > > No. Yes. > [--snip--] >>>You are just looking to >>>insult again. >> >>You insult yourself, Skanky. > > Prove that. http://tinyurl.com/cfrvf > [--snip--] > > >>>It's what I'm leaning towards. >> >>Leaning *in over twenty ****ing years*. > > Can I help it Yes. You can practice what you preach NOW, or at least make more of an effort at it. > [--snip--] > > >>>You want lauding for the names >>>you have called me? You want >>>props for being mostly veg? >>>Prop yourself. Whatever your >>>principles are is how you should >>>be living. >> >>You should live by your own principles, and you should stop expecting >>farmers to help you out by adopting your principles in their methods. >>They won't. So you're stuck in your own hypocrisy. > > I do live fully No, you don't. You live stoned. That's not living life to it's fullest, that's dulling your already dulled senses. > The demand > for cruelty-free food will > take it's own time to develop You don't demand it. You're passively waiting for others to live according to your own principles. >>>Don't give me this >>>crap about you living up to my >>>principles. >> >>It's not crap, it's true. I more closely practice what you preach than >>you do. That's the only point I made. Not looking for your approval. > > All you're saying is that I live closer to YOUR principles than YOU do. > [--snip--] >>>But I can accept that there >>>are some people who truly >>>believe it's a necessity. >> >>Here you go with BELIEF again when we have objective data on the issue. > > Data that it's a necessity? Your beliefs go far, far beyond "necessity." > [--snip--] > > >>>>>From what I've read, there >>>> >>>>>are some things about her >>>>>that I agree with, >>>> >>>>Inner earth beings? Hollow earth? Zapper? Reflexology? >>> >>>What's zapper? >> >>It's some electronic device you put on your body to cure AIDS and cancer >>and all kinds of other diseases. Lesley uses her Zapper on her cats and >>on the people whose feet she rubs. >> >> Yes, I have recently come across Hulda Clark's therapy. >> The zapper, even the 'unsophisticated' type I have >> is incredible. >> I used it on myself and my pets at first as a trial and >> feel better than I have for years, the cats are finally >> free of the cat flu'. >> I confess to now (unrepentantly) zapping my clients, >> in addition to a dose of Black Walnut tincture, >> _knowing_ that there is no infection interfering with >> their recovery. In fact recovery is, of course, more rapid. >> I am convinced that Hulda _really_ knows her stuff; >> her diagnosis' are confirmed by my findings through >> the reflexes. >> Using the zapper alone can halt acute infection and >> disease, however, following the information given in >> her books wrt toxic chemicals and metals, liver, bowel >> and kidney cleanses, is necessary to carry >> on towards optimum health. >> Thank You Hulda, and God Bless. >> http://tinyurl.com/v5p8 > > From that, I can say I doubt it. Good. There's hope for you. > [--snip--] >>>but a good >>>therapeutic thing similar to >>>accupressure. >> >>It has value only as touch therapy. > > I'm not sure of that. I am, and you should be. > Since the > different parts of the foot > corelate to specific body > areas, They do NOT. The "maps" they've used have changed over the years. Blind studies have shown that reflexology is crap. http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/reflex.html http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...s/massage.html > and since my mother > went for this treatment, > finding that her tender areas > coorelated to her medical > problems, I think there might > be something to it. Purely anecdotal. > Not as > a cure all though, just in > conjunction to other treatments. Other treatments cure. Reflexology, massage, and other touch therapies can reduce stress which can help other LEGITIMATE therapies work better or at all. >>>>>and some >>>>>things that I completely >>>>>disagree with. >>>> >>>>Which things are those? >> >>Hellllllllloooooooooooooooo? > > Howdy! Give me another of > those lists you like to float > around about her, and I'll > address each one. "veganism" "inner earth beings" "hollow earth" that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef rain forest destruction Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) Stolen French flying saucer Zapper Foot massage (as cure-all) Astrology Numerology Alien abduction Holocaust denial Leprechauns Channeling Polar fountains Sun gazing Chemtrails AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory Crop circles sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts participation in skinhead subculture the validity of online IQ tests crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories Jeff Rense for "news" > [--snip--] > > >>>Just a hobby homepage, >> >>Amateurish. > > Well, You get what you pay for. > [--snip--] > > >>>"..other commercial messages..." >> >>I don't read that it applies only to commercial advertising or >>solicitations. > > It clearly shows that they are > talking about commercial sites. No: Messages posted to newsgroups and online forums must comply with the written charters or FAQs for those newsgroups and online forums. Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and online forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*. Your advertising of your site may not be commercial, but it's neither explicitly permitted by the charters/FAQs of these groups nor with your ISP's AUP. > [--snip--] >>>Uh huh Have you ever read >>>about the prohibition times >>>of liquor and the violence it >>>caused? Only when it was >>>legalized did that stop. >> >>Non sequitur. The recommendation of the Shafer Commission was NOT to >>legalize or decriminalize, it was to not *prosecute*. That's pretty much >>your new policy in Canada, isn't it? Your policy does nothing to reduce >>competition for illegal distribution of marijuana. That, along with >>demand for it in the US, is leading to bloodshed over control of >>smuggling routes from Mexico. Your habit is injurious to yourself and >>those who get between its source and you. > > No pot is being smuggled into > Canada anymore. Wrong. http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=3449573 http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2005...065291-cp.html Etc. > According > to what I see on the news, every > second suburban house is a > grow-op. You're a clueless urbanite. > It's been many, many > years since pot came all > compressed (a sign of possible > importation). I thought most > US pot came from the hills > in California, or was that just > in the 80s? Most US pot comes in from Mexico, a product of either Mexico or other Central and South American countries. Pot is also increasingly coming in from BC. > I'm pretty sure You're a horse's ass. You believe what you want to believe despite all the evidence to the contrary. > that US pot is local, and that > only the hard drugs get > smuggled in anymore. You should stop reading pot activist sites and HIGH TIMES, the only sources where such propanganda thrives. Read through Google news sometime. > [--snip--] >>Don't shoot the messenger, Skanky. You're doing your part to cause >>Mexicans to kill each other. > > No. Yes. The drug war in Nuevo Laredo involves marijuana as well as other drugs. > [--snip--] You keep repeating the same old BS, but I responded anyway (I intended to snip it and ask the following questions you snipped). Tell us something new. How old were you when you got pregnant? Was that why you quit smoking in '81? Is that why you dropped out of school? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:12:02 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
> >You pass the buck. Incessantly. Says he while passing the buck from the actual killers and onto everyone else. > Go to the archives and look at how many times >we've discussed Davis' work in these groups and how many times the >percentage of dead voles has been discussed .. and how many times those figures have been found to be nothing other than guesswork. Davis' guesswork is not peer-reviewed and has many flaws, as follows; [While eating animals who are grazed rather than intensively confined would vastly improve the welfare of farmed animals given their current mistreatment, Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable to vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in ruminant and crop production systems and ignores important considerations about the welfare of animals under both systems; and third, he does not consider the number of animals who are prevented from existing under the two systems. After correcting for these errors, Davis’s argument makes a strong case for, rather than against, adopting a vegetarian diet. First, Davis makes an error in calculating how many animals would be killed to feed a vegan-vegetarian population. He explains: There are 120 million ha of cropland harvested in the USA each year. If all of that land was used to produce crops to support a vegan diet, and if 15 animals of the field are killed per ha per year, then 15 x 120 million = 1800 million or 1.8 billion animals would be killed annually to produce a vegan diet for the USA (p. 5). Davis estimates that only 7.5 animals of the field per hectare die in ruminant-pasture. If we were to convert half of the 120 million hectares of U.S. cropland to ruminant-pasture and half to growing vegetables, Davis claims we could feed the U.S. population on a diet of ruminant meat and crops and kill only 1.35 billion animals annually in the process. Thus, Davis concludes his omnivorous proposal would save the lives of 450 million animals each year (p. 6-7). Davis mistakenly assumes the two systems—crops only and crops with ruminant-pasture—using the same total amount of land, would feed identical numbers of people (i.e., the U.S. population). In fact, crop and ruminant systems produce different amounts of food per hectare -- the two systems would feed different numbers of people. To properly compare the harm caused by the two systems, we ought to calculate how many animals are killed in feeding equal populations—or the number of animals killed per consumer. Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5). If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food, a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar 1998; UNFAO 1996). As such, to obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis- style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis’s math, we see that a vegan-vegetarian population would kill the fewest number of wild animals, followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population. However, suppose this were not the case and that, in fact, fewer animals would be killed under Davis’s omnivorism. Would it follow that Davis’s plan causes the least harm? Not necessarily. Early in the paper, Davis shifts from discussing the harm done to animals under different agricultural systems to the number of animals killed. This shift is not explained by Davis and is not justified by the most common moral views, all of which recognize harms in addition to those associated with killing.] http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm Davis' guesswork and bad math was debunked years ago, so it's mall wonder why he hasn't put his little paper up for a peer review. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>><...> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>If I am lucky enough to still be > >>>>>>>able bodied when I retire, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You'll neither retire nor be able-bodied. Your sloth will catch up > > > > with > > > >>>>>>you. > >>>>> > >>>>>We'll see when the time comes. > >>>> > >>>>We already see it now: you don't practice what you preach. > >>> > >>>Yes I do. > >> > >>No, you do not. You never have. > > > > Yes, I do. > > Wrong. You say killing animals is wrong yet you continue to engage in > behaviors which wantonly kill animals. You mean I'm the end consumer in a process which kills animals. I'm the most important animal in my life, and so I'm not about to starve in order to boycott the 'bad' farmers. Also, the stress of the extreme measure Rudy thinks I should take (quit my job and start farming, just like that), is unacceptable to me. Unreasonable. So I do what I can. If that's not enough for you too bad. I'm just not cut out for being an extremist. [--snip--] > >>Power in numbers, dumb ass. You keep prating about increasing demand for > >>"veganic" food. Find your fellow like-minded dweebs in Toronto and > >>approach a farmer to grow in a manner consistent with your principles. > > > > If I was an extremist, > > You are an extremist. You believe that killing animals is wrong, which > is extremist. You believe eating ANY meat is deleterious, which is > extremist. And on and on and on. I believe that killing animals is MOSTLY wrong. Get it right for once will you. I happen to think that eating meat is unhealthy, but I can accept that others may not share that view, and that they might think it's necessary for health. I don't think I'm being extremist. And what ever happened to that accusation of me being too passive? > > maybe I > > would do that. Maybe someone > > more extreme than I will read > > this and start one. > > Disgusting passivist. ALWAYS waiting for someone else to do your work. Ah, there it is. > > I won't start > > such a co-op, > > It would require you to get off your flabby ass. That won't happen. If I do say so myself, I have a pretty decent ass for a 42 year old! > > but I would > > certainly join one. > > You won't even join the ones which already exist. Being interested in organic foods and the idea of a surprise basket of food each time, I sent an email enquiring about the Toronto CSAs. I have yet to hear back from them. I'll give it another week or so, and then I'll email them again. I'm pretty sure I bookmarked the site,so there might be a phone number I can call. > > But thanks > > for admitting that veganic > > co-ops don't exist yet. > > Thanking me?! You're the nitwit who's yet to admit that and who keeps > ranting about "veganics" as if it were more than a pipedream of urban > vegan slackers like you. Todays pipedream might be tomorrows fringe food like organics are today. Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows? [--snip--] > > The lots are so overspoken for > > that it would take years. > > You haven't even inquired. They are so overspoken for that the website said something about new ones having to be brand new and that you have to pick a spot and then apply to have it declared a public allotment garden. Nothing about the existing ones. [--snip--] > >>Because you'll never practice what you preach. You have the opportunity > >>now and you make excuses. > > > > What opportunity? > > Many opportunities. You find your principles to be an inconvenience. And > don't ask others what they do -- we're talking about YOUR OWN principles > and how YOU act according to them. My principles are to do the best I reasonably can. I act fully according to them. And by the way, it's ME who determines that, not you. [--snip--] > Stop changing the subject. YOU make very specific claims ("killing > animals is wrong") and then do nothing to live up to YOUR OWN principles. You are getting the wording of my claims wrong and the wording of my principles wrong too it seems. [--snip--] > >>>Yeah, what's your point? Those > >>>are types of mailing addresses > >>>too. > >> > >>You're the one who blathered about "living anywhere with a mailing > >>address." > > > > Yeah, > > So you can live or go even where you DON'T have a mailing address at > that location. Well then, that means I'll be able to pretty much live anywhere, so what's your point? [--snip--] > You don't try, think, or do. You fantasize and try to BS others into > thinking you have noteworthy ambitions. I never said that my ambitions should be considered noteworthy to others. It's only myself that I need to satisfy that way. [--snip--] -- 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: > > [--snip--] > >>>When I have some > >>>land though, I'll be able to grow > >>>much of my own food. > >> > >>You're talking 20-25 years down the road. You do NOTHING now about your > >>consumption to live up to your own standards. > > > > I can't help it > > Yes, you can. It's not within my current reasonable abilities. I am content for now to use this forum as a way to encourage cruelty-free or lessened foods. Even among meat eaters. At first I thought you were just being shit disturbers when you mention cds all the time, but now I see it for what it is, a very real concern. If that changes due to increasing demand, that's great. So, anyways, I feel like I AM doing something proactive when I get into cd discussions with you and the rest. > > The only possible thing > > There are plenty of possibilities you've not considered. There IS the possibility of me getting a house in the city before retiring, and then selling and rebuying when I retire. If I buy in the city, then at least I'll have more of a garden then a balcony gives. More than what an allotment garden gives. [--snip--] > >>>Play nice, > >> > >>Eat me. > > > > If we crash in a plane together, > > We'll never be in the same room, much less in a confined space like an > airplane together. You don't fly. You probably never have. For all I know, we HAVE flown together. I'm not a big fan of flying, but I do it when I have to. [--snip--] > > I was the one who posted the > > info on vole cds. Did some of > > your work for you. > > Bullshit, you lying bitch. Go to the archives and look at how many times > we've discussed Davis' work in these groups and how many times the > percentage of dead voles has been discussed. I just quoted from the OSU > website the other day. I posted a more recent study on the cds of voles. Maybe Dutch can help here if he remembers it. If I didn't know about you posting stuff on them previously do you really think that's reason to call me a lying bitch? Are you throwing a rage fit? > > Obviously each year's vole > > population arises from survivors > > of the previous years. Do the > > crops cause an unnatural > > explosion of voles, which is > > then balanced out by the > > number killed? Not that this > > mitigates things completely > > but it might be worth > > considering. > > I believe killing animals is wrong. > -- Skanky If you are going to quote me, here's 2 things to keep in mind. 1, my AKA is Skunky, so keep your insults in check if you want the same in return. 2, My more recent, and very well known by now, wording is that killing animals is MOSTLY wrong. [--snip--] > > The meat eaters I know would > > choose the less cruel lives and > > deaths for their meats, > > Then why have you persistently refused to recommend others consume such > meats? I'll freely admit that I would rather see meat eaters eat meats from cruelty-lessened farms than factory farms. As far as approving of it, what more are you looking for? Shall I carry a sign that says "Meat Eaters, Switch to Kind Farms"? You know full well that I agree with DH on the benefits of kind animal farming over factory farming, even if we do disagree on what constitutes kind. > I still can't be expected to recommend any meat... > -- Skanky, 19 May 05 For health reasons, I won't. But IF a person is going to eat meat anyways, then better if it's from the kinder farms. [--snip--] > > The demand > > for cruelty-free food will > > take it's own time to develop > > You don't demand it. You're passively waiting for others to live > according to your own principles. Our discussions here on the topic may have some influence on the readers by making them aware of cds. We both know that most vegetarians and vegans don't know about them. Maybe it's time that they do. [--snip--] > > Since the > > different parts of the foot > > corelate to specific body > > areas, > > They do NOT. The "maps" they've used have changed over the years. Blind > studies have shown that reflexology is crap. > > http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/reflex.html > http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...s/massage.html Well, I'm no expert. I just have the experience of knowing someone who it helped. From that, I lean towards thinking that there may be something to it. > > and since my mother > > went for this treatment, > > finding that her tender areas > > coorelated to her medical > > problems, I think there might > > be something to it. > > Purely anecdotal. > > > Not as > > a cure all though, just in > > conjunction to other treatments. > > Other treatments cure. Reflexology, massage, and other touch therapies > can reduce stress which can help other LEGITIMATE therapies work better > or at all. Then it's no different than a pain killer, reducing stress and making the patient feel better. I never claimed to believe it's a cure all. [--snip--] > >>Hellllllllloooooooooooooooo? > > > > Howdy! Give me another of > > those lists you like to float > > around about her, and I'll > > address each one. > > "veganism" Yes. > "inner earth beings" No. However, I believe that microbes might exist deeper than we realize. > "hollow earth" No. Molten stuff. > that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe Don't know about that one. > your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef Unsure. I've seen so many different numbers and claims floating around (even from me) that I'm left unsure of accuracy. > rain forest destruction Yes, unfortunately. > Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) Don't know about this one. What's being exported? > Stolen French flying saucer Did they leave the keys inside? Flying saucer, I doubt it, but that it could get stolen? Maybe! > Zapper No. > Foot massage (as cure-all) Not as a cure all. > Astrology No. > Numerology No. > Alien abduction No. > Holocaust denial No. > Leprechauns No. > Channeling No. > Polar fountains I don't know what these are. My only knowledge of the poles is that they are cold and magnetic. > Sun gazing No. Dangerous. > Chemtrails I read about these, and I still don't know what chemical they think is being dispersed. Anyways, no. > AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory Possible. > Crop circles Not by aliens, but something's doing a good job of making them. > sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts No. I like my ex-convicts to be non-violent. > participation in skinhead subculture No. > the validity of online IQ tests I want to say yes on this one, but I know that they are probably not very accurate. > crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories Not sure which of the many theories these are. > Jeff Rense for "news" From what I've googled, he seems a bit kooky and conspiratorial-based. Who knows, maybe he gets the occasional story right or wrong. I can't say. [--snip--] > > It clearly shows that they are > > talking about commercial sites. > > No: > Messages posted to newsgroups and online forums must comply with > the written charters or FAQs for those newsgroups and online > forums. Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial > messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and online > forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*. > > Your advertising of your site may not be commercial, but it's neither > explicitly permitted by the charters/FAQs of these groups nor with your > ISP's AUP. I really think it's ok as long as the site's not commercial, but if you want, I'll give them a call and confirm (and comply). Only if you want me to bother though because they make you wait on the phone for ages. I can also ask them what is the case in a group that doesn't have any FAQs like this one. > > No pot is being smuggled into > > Canada anymore. > > Wrong. > > http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=3449573 This one doesn't say which direction the smuggling was taking place. I have heard that over on the west coast, pot from BC gets smuggled into the US, but I think soon enough, if not already, the US will have enough local grow-ops that they won't need to smuggle. > http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2005...065291-cp.html This one sounds like it was all within Canada, the smuggling being inter-provincial. [--snip--] > > It's been many, many > > years since pot came all > > compressed (a sign of possible > > importation). I thought most > > US pot came from the hills > > in California, or was that just > > in the 80s? > > Most US pot comes in from Mexico, a product of either Mexico or other > Central and South American countries. Pot is also increasingly coming in > from BC. You guys should get more self sufficient. You know, local produce vs import. > > No. > > Yes. The drug war in Nuevo Laredo involves marijuana as well as other drugs. It's illegalization causes a lot of bloodshed and crimes. > > [--snip--] > > You keep repeating the same old BS, but I responded anyway (I intended > to snip it and ask the following questions you snipped). Tell us > something new. How old were you when you got pregnant? Was that why you > quit smoking in '81? Is that why you dropped out of school? Quit fishing for my parental/family status, and my education. All I've told you was that I quit smoking and turned vegetarian in 1981. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > "Laurie" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "Dutch" > wrote in message >> ... >> > why are you posting to a newsgroup about ethics if you have no >> > interest >> > in or understanding of ethics? >> I understand ethics, and I fully understand that personal, > idiosyncratic >> ethics are not at all related to the annoying attempts to convince others >> that they are unethical -because of their diet-. > > Ethics are an integral part of the social fabric of society. As usual, you completely miss the point and go off on a meaningless rant. My point remains unchallenged: since ethics are idiosyncratic, they can NOT be used logically in discussions of DIETARY choice. >> > Your flippant dismissal of ethics as an issue does not ring true. >> So, WHY don't you attempt to disprove it by revealing an OBJECTIVE >> set of ethics? > Disprove what? The existence of a consistent social ethic is self-evident, > it's shown in laws, and proscribed in every religion. Have a look at "The > Ten Commandments", "The Golden Rule". NONE of which are OBJECTIVE. Try looking up the meaning of "objective" before embarrassing yourself further. > I just told you, what you say doesn't ring true. I'm calling you a liar. Call me anything you want, that only demonstrates your lack of intellectual integrity. PROVE anything I say is in error with facts and logic; oh wait, that would take some intelligence and effort, and name-calling is so much easier and you are so much better at it, right? > The entire massive body of evidence that underpins modern nutritional > science supports the notion that meat is a positive heath factor in the > proper amounts. Yet, there are thousands of studies that show a positive correlation between meat consumption and "degenerative diseases". Choosing to ignore these because of your early cultural conditioning by similarly-ignorant parents is self-destructive. http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html > All this tossing out of scientific sounding words does not > impress me. Neither do facts and logic. > At a fundamental level, the economic playing field is > self-regulating, government are just one of the players. What a joke; if it were "self-regulating" the government would not be involved, "regulating" it. > You CHOOSE to be a frothing-at-the-mouth diet looney, ... Personal insults always increases your credibility, right? > Awareness and consciousness does not lead to the extremism you promote. What is "extreme" about our biologically-correct diet? > Your dismissal of ethics as a factor undermines your whole > position, which is already shaky at best. I have proven that ethics is NOT related to diet; I do not advocate "dismissal of ethics" in general, as you distort my statements. E.g. you and the rest of the propagandizing necrophages here should try to develop some intellectual ethics. Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Laurie" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote [..] >> > why are you posting to a newsgroup about ethics if you have no >>> > interest >>> > in or understanding of ethics? >>> I understand ethics, and I fully understand that personal, >> idiosyncratic >>> ethics are not at all related to the annoying attempts to convince >>> others >>> that they are unethical -because of their diet-. >> >> Ethics are an integral part of the social fabric of society. > As usual, you completely miss the point and go off on a meaningless > rant. > My point remains unchallenged: since ethics are idiosyncratic, they can > NOT be used logically in discussions of DIETARY choice. Since ethics are *not* "idiosyncratic", your point is absurd. It is trivial to postulate examples of unethical dietary choices, killing and eating endangered species, other people or higher primates, neighbourhood pets. Then there is following diets which may result in excessive environmental damage, or promoting diets which cause poor health in people, those, if shown to be true, would arguably be unethical acts. >>> > Your flippant dismissal of ethics as an issue does not ring true. >>> So, WHY don't you attempt to disprove it by revealing an OBJECTIVE >>> set of ethics? >> Disprove what? The existence of a consistent social ethic is >> self-evident, >> it's shown in laws, and proscribed in every religion. Have a look at "The >> Ten Commandments", "The Golden Rule". > NONE of which are OBJECTIVE. Try looking up the meaning of > "objective" before embarrassing yourself further. "Objectivity" is a diversion. All of our views are subjective ones. >> I just told you, what you say doesn't ring true. I'm calling you a liar. > Call me anything you want, that only demonstrates your lack of > intellectual integrity. No it doesn't, it indicates that I don't believe you. > PROVE anything I say is in error with facts and logic; oh wait, that would > take some intelligence and effort, and name-calling is so much easier and > you are so much better at it, right? Is the irony of that sentence completely lost on you? >> The entire massive body of evidence that underpins modern nutritional >> science supports the notion that meat is a positive heath factor in the >> proper amounts. > Yet, there are thousands of studies that show a positive correlation > between meat consumption and "degenerative diseases". Choosing to ignore > these because of your early cultural conditioning by similarly-ignorant > parents is self-destructive. > http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html Insulting me isn't enough for you huh? You have to insult my parents. >> All this tossing out of scientific sounding words does not >> impress me. > Neither do facts and logic. You don't present either, you rant and rage that nobody but you knows what they are talking about, yet you fail to show why anyone else should view you that way. >> At a fundamental level, the economic playing field is >> self-regulating, government are just one of the players. > What a joke; if it were "self-regulating" the government would not be > involved, "regulating" it. As I said, governments are just economic players. >> You CHOOSE to be a frothing-at-the-mouth diet looney, ... > Personal insults always increases your credibility, right? No, you just attract them, like flies to shit. >> Awareness and consciousness does not lead to the extremism you promote. > What is "extreme" about our biologically-correct diet? Which is what, raw-food/fadism? I find the critics of it more credible than you. >> Your dismissal of ethics as a factor undermines your whole >> position, which is already shaky at best. > I have proven that ethics is NOT related to diet; No you haven't, you have just refused to consider the correlation. > I do not advocate "dismissal of ethics" in general, as you distort my > statements. Yes you do, you said, "since ethics are idiosyncratic, they can NOT be used logically in discussions of DIETARY choice" If ethics are so subjective that they cannot be used in any logical discussion in your view, then that is pure dismissal. > E.g. you and the rest of the propagandizing necrophages here should try to > develop some intellectual ethics. Keep up the irony, there LARRY, you're a laugh a minute. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > Since ethics are *not* "idiosyncratic", your point is absurd. idiosyncratic: A behavioral characteristic peculiar to an individual or group. Does that help you?? Interesting, you contradict yourself further down the page: "All of our views are subjective ones." > It is trivial to postulate examples of unethical dietary choices, > killing and eating endangered species, other people or higher > primates, neighbourhood pets. But, YOU are 'postulating' the examples and not everyone in the universe will agree with YOU; that is to say, "ethics" are purely idiosyncratic. You make up yours; they make up theirs. YOU are welcome to wallow in your own personal ethical construct, strangely in which intellectual dishonesty is acceptable, but you can NOT force it on everyone, period. Thus, your opinions on "ethics" are just as meaningless as anyone else's. The only way ethics could not be idiosyncratic would be IF there were an Objective Set somewhere, and there is not. Of course, if you were God and could actually produce the Objective Set, you might be able to make a useful contribution... > Then there is following diets > which may result in excessive environmental damage, or > promoting diets which cause poor health in people, those, > if shown to be true, would arguably be unethical acts. There is overwhelming evidence that animal-centric human diets do exactly that. You just choose to ignore it. > "Objectivity" is a diversion. All of our views are subjective ones. Thank you for finally agreeing that "ethics" are purely idiosyncratic and thus can NOT be used to support dietary preferences, nor practices. And, they especially can not be used in silly attempts to -convince- others to change their diet. And, if you really believe that "All of our views are subjective ones", why do you harass and insult people here for their subjective views? If you really understand that everyone's subjective views are equally meaningless, then why do you attempt to force yours down peoples' throats? Why can't they be in peace? > No it doesn't, it indicates that I don't believe you. Who cares what you believe, since your beliefs are purely subjective? I don't. I a interested in what can be supported by facts and logic, you see, a bit more objective. And when I ask you for facts and logic supporting your propagandistic claims, you simply can not support them, and neither can the other necrophagic trolls, here. > Insulting me isn't enough for you huh? You have to insult > my parents. No insult, a simple fact. Neither you nor your parents have even attempted to intelligently look at human nutrition/diet, none of you have done any experiential research. Your willful ignorance is a repeatedly demonstrated fact here, you simply ignore studies or facts that challenge your infantile social conditioning. Ignorance is a state of being, however, it can be cured by facts. Even you may start to educate yourself someday in an attempt to escape your current prison of ignorance. There is hope for you, really. > No, you just attract them, like flies to shit. Thanks for another example of the level of education and intelligence you choose to emulate. No one HAS to be this idiotic, why do you choose to denigrate yourself so?? >> What is "extreme" about our biologically-correct diet? > Which is what, raw-food/fadism? All Life on this planet evolved on a raw diet; cooking is a recent fad practiced by the sickest species on the planet. YOU are the food faddist, blindly following your cultural hypnosis to the grave. > If ethics are so subjective that they cannot be used in any > logical discussion in your view, then that is pure dismissal. No, missed the point again? Discussing them is a waste of time. Developing a reasonable set of intellectual ethics would be in your best interests, however. Thus, one can ascribe to one's own set of ethics, and not babble in public about them, thus there is no "dismissal" as you so falsely claim. Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Laurie" > wrote
It's interesting that you chose to alter the Subject of this thread to "Dutch's ethics". What possible meaning could that have, since you have stated categorically that ethics are completely idiosyncratic? It's just one more indicator why I do not believe you, at all. You are a poseur and an imposter. > "Dutch" > wrote >> Since ethics are *not* "idiosyncratic", your point is absurd. > idiosyncratic: A behavioral characteristic peculiar to an individual or > group. Does that help you?? You're the one who needs help, and tap dancing is not going to get it for you. If you are referring to ethics as we know them as "idiosyncratic" to Western culture, then although that may be somewhat supportable, it is not meaningful. > Interesting, you contradict yourself further down the page: "All of our > views are subjective ones." Those comments don't contradict one another. >> It is trivial to postulate examples of unethical dietary choices, >> killing and eating endangered species, other people or higher >> primates, neighbourhood pets. > But, YOU are 'postulating' the examples and not everyone in the > universe will agree with YOU; that is to say, "ethics" are purely > idiosyncratic. You make up yours; they make up theirs. That is incorrect, I did not make up any of those ideas. > YOU are welcome to wallow in your own personal ethical construct, > strangely in which intellectual dishonesty is acceptable, but you can NOT > force it on everyone, period. Thus, your opinions on "ethics" are just as > meaningless as anyone else's. That is just a ridiculous paragraph. I do *not* have a "personal ethical construct", I do *not* accept intellectual dishonesty, I have *not* suggested forcing my ethics on anyone, and opinions on ethics are not meaningless. > The only way ethics could not be idiosyncratic would be IF there were > an Objective Set somewhere, and there is not. "Objective" is just a buzzword you like to use to make yourself feel important. Ethics are a result of many generations of social evolution, not idiosyncratic at all, but founded in a vital core set of principles. > Of course, if you were God and could actually produce the Objective Set, > you might be able to make a useful contribution... Holding you to account for your BS is useful enought for me. > >> Then there is following diets >> which may result in excessive environmental damage, or >> promoting diets which cause poor health in people, those, >> if shown to be true, would arguably be unethical acts. > There is overwhelming evidence that animal-centric human diets do > exactly that. If you believe that, then why do you find it so wrong to say that promoting such diets is unethical? >You just choose to ignore it. No I don't, I am just not having that particular discussion at this time. >> "Objectivity" is a diversion. All of our views are subjective ones. > Thank you for finally agreeing that "ethics" are purely idiosyncratic > and thus can NOT be used to support dietary preferences, nor practices. I didn't agree to that. > And, they especially can not be used in silly attempts to -convince- > others to change their diet. Why would it be silly to argue that it is wrong to promote bad health and environmental degradation? > And, if you really believe that "All of our views are subjective ones", > why do you harass and insult people here for their subjective views? Ask yourself, why do you insult me in your replies? When I find people's ideas to be foolish and irrational, AND they demonstrate stubborn adherence to those ideas, I am sometimes moved to inform them that they are fools. All subjective ideas are not created equal. > If you really understand that everyone's subjective views are equally > meaningless, I didn't say ideas were meaningless. > then why do you attempt to force yours down peoples' throats? I don't. > Why can't they be in peace? People with idiotic ideas are well served by being straightened out. > >> No it doesn't, it indicates that I don't believe you. > Who cares what you believe, since your beliefs are purely subjective? I do. I > don't. I don't care about what you care about. I a interested in what can be supported by facts and logic, you see, > a bit more objective. I have supported my belief that you are a liar and a poseur, a fruit and a egomaniac. > And when I ask you for facts and logic supporting your propagandistic > claims, you simply can not support them, and neither can the other > necrophagic trolls, here. Nice irony, accusing us of propagndizing with a paragraph that would make The National Front proud. >> Insulting me isn't enough for you huh? You have to insult >> my parents. > No insult, a simple fact. No, an insult, a low blow at that. Exacly what I expect from a ****ant like you. > Neither you nor your parents have even attempted to intelligently look at > human nutrition/diet, You have ZERO knowledge of what I have read on nutrition, much less my parents. > none of you have done any experiential research. What papers have *you* published? > Your willful ignorance is a repeatedly demonstrated fact here, you > simply ignore studies or facts that challenge your infantile social > conditioning. I thought you were averse to using insults to make your points. Doesn't it indicate infantile behaviour when YOU do it? > Ignorance is a state of being, however, it can be cured by facts. Even > you may start to educate yourself someday in an attempt to escape your > current prison of ignorance. There is hope for you, really. More verbal diarrhea. You are a joke. >> No, you just attract them, like flies to shit. > Thanks for another example of the level of education and intelligence > you choose to emulate. No one HAS to be this idiotic, why do you choose > to denigrate yourself so?? The question is, why do you choose to be a complete shit-for-brains? > >>> What is "extreme" about our biologically-correct diet? >> Which is what, raw-food/fadism? > All Life on this planet evolved on a raw diet; So what? > cooking is a recent fad practiced by the sickest species on the planet. Ipse dixit. > YOU are the food faddist, blindly following your cultural hypnosis to the > grave. http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...ide%20of%20raw > >> If ethics are so subjective that they cannot be used in any >> logical discussion in your view, then that is pure dismissal. > No, missed the point again? Discussing them is a waste of time. Then go away. > Developing a reasonable set of intellectual ethics would be in your best > interests, however. Why? If all ethics are meaningless. > Thus, one can ascribe to one's own set of ethics, and not babble in public > about them, thus there is no "dismissal" as you so falsely claim. Denial. You have foolishly attempted to dismiss ethics and now have been reduced to attempts at bullying and ad hominem to divert attention from the falseness of that position. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Found scrawled in the outhouse on Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:12:39 -1000, "Laurie" >
wrote: > >"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > <snip circular argument> >> If ethics are so subjective that they cannot be used in any >> logical discussion in your view, then that is pure dismissal. > No, missed the point again? Discussing them is a waste of time. But *you* brought the subject up. See header. >Developing a reasonable set of intellectual ethics would be in your best >interests, however. Thus, one can ascribe to one's own set of ethics, and >not babble in public about them, thus there is no "dismissal" as you so >falsely claim. > > Laurie Aren't you babbling in public about your own set of ethics? Haven't you dismissed Dutch's comments without giving them some consideration? Therefore, doesn't that fly in the face of your claim of "intellectual ethics"? Cheers 2 U, Leslie "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
>>You pass the buck. Incessantly. > > Says Why do you continue to engage in commerce you know causes animal injuries and deaths, Nash? >>Go to the archives and look at how many times >>we've discussed Davis' work in these groups and how many times the >>percentage of dead voles has been discussed > > .. and how many times those figures have been found > to be nothing other than guesswork. Wrong. Davis surveyed the area and measured vole populations before and after harvest. That's not mere guesswork, fatso, nor are inferences made from such surveys, and particularly so when the issue at hand is what kind of diet causes the least harm to animals. The premise of veganism is entirely unfounded and false: animals DO suffer and die in the course of providing food for their meatless meals, they're just not eaten. > [While eating animals who are grazed rather than > intensively confined would vastly improve the welfare > of farmed animals given their current mistreatment, > Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable > to vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical > error in using total rather than per capita estimates > of animals killed; Are vegan claims to cause *zero harm* to animals based on per capita estimates? No. This is NOT Davis' error, Nash, it's your own. > second, he focuses on the number > of animals killed in ruminant and crop production > systems and ignores important considerations about > the welfare of animals under both systems; What considerations would these be? This is nothing but a goalpost move -- taking the issue from animal DEATHS to how activists claim all livestock are treated. > and third, > he does not consider the number of animals who are > prevented from existing under the two systems. Do you *really* want to hang your hat on this absurd Harrisonism, fatso? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>>><...> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If I am lucky enough to still be >>>>>>>>>able bodied when I retire, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You'll neither retire nor be able-bodied. Your sloth will catch up >>> >>>with >>> >>> >>>>>>>>you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We'll see when the time comes. >>>>>> >>>>>>We already see it now: you don't practice what you preach. >>>>> >>>>>Yes I do. >>>> >>>>No, you do not. You never have. >>> >>>Yes, I do. >> >>Wrong. You say killing animals is wrong yet you continue to engage in >>behaviors which wantonly kill animals. > > You mean I'm the end consumer > in a process which kills animals. You *freely* engage in commerce which causes animals to die despite your platitudes about "killing animals is wrong." > I'm the most important animal in > my life, We agree: you are self-centered. > and so I'm not about to > starve in order to boycott the > 'bad' farmers. Non sequitur. You have alternatives which would keep you from starving. Also, the farmers aren't "bad" -- *you* are for freely engaging in commerce with those whom you consider "bad" because they do things you think are "wrong." > [--snip--] > > >>>>Power in numbers, dumb ass. You keep prating about increasing demand for >>>>"veganic" food. Find your fellow like-minded dweebs in Toronto and >>>>approach a farmer to grow in a manner consistent with your principles. >>> >>>If I was an extremist, >> >>You are an extremist. You believe that killing animals is wrong, which >>is extremist. You believe eating ANY meat is deleterious, which is >>extremist. And on and on and on. > > I believe that killing animals is > MOSTLY wrong. Irrelevant qualifier, especially considering your qualification is based on tangential issues like euthanasia and hypothetical issues involving starvation in extreme situations. That there are exceptions to rules is irrelevant. It's the *rule* -- *YOUR OWN NORM* -- with which you display your moral confusion and hypocrisy. > Get it right I already have. You need to deal with your norm, not your blithering attempts to deflect from it with qualifications which have absolutely no bearing on your stated sense of ethics. > I happen to think that eating meat is > unhealthy, You have no evidence to support such a claim. It's a belief. An unfounded and irrational belief. > but I can accept > that others may not share > that view, Many of them base it on evidence rather than articles of your faith. > and that they might > think it's necessary for > health. Vegetables aren't necessary, either. Neither is anything else you eat. > I don't think I'm being > extremist. Self-delusion. > And what ever > happened to that accusation > of me being too passive? The two aren't mutually exclusive. >>>maybe I >>>would do that. Maybe someone >>>more extreme than I will read >>>this and start one. >> >>Disgusting passivist. ALWAYS waiting for someone else to do your work. > > Ah, there it is. Why do you demand others practice what you preach, and why do you not practice it yourself? >>>I won't start >>>such a co-op, >> >>It would require you to get off your flabby ass. That won't happen. > > If I do say so myself, You may as well since no one else will... > I have a pretty decent ass for a 42 year > old! It's flabby, pimply, and pasty from sitting on it all freaking day. >>>but I would >>>certainly join one. >> >>You won't even join the ones which already exist. > > Being interested in organic > foods Your interest is limited to organic industry propaganda despite the evidence shown to you to the contrary. > and the idea of a surprise > basket of food each time, I can understand how a stoned loser would get excited by that. > I sent > an email enquiring about the > Toronto CSAs. I have yet to > hear back from them. I'll give > it another week or so, and then > I'll email them again. Just call them, you passivist dummy. >>>But thanks >>>for admitting that veganic >>>co-ops don't exist yet. >> >>Thanking me?! You're the nitwit who's yet to admit that and who keeps >>ranting about "veganics" as if it were more than a pipedream of urban >>vegan slackers like you. > > Todays pipedream might be > tomorrows fringe food like > organics are today. The organic isn't exactly fringe, but many of the claims peddled by the industry and its activists are fraudulent. > Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows? I do. You do. The rest of the bullshit artists you're parroting about it know it, too. > [--snip--] > > >>>The lots are so overspoken for >>>that it would take years. >> >>You haven't even inquired. > > They are so overspoken for that > the website said something about > new ones having to be brand new > and that you have to pick a spot > and then apply to have it declared > a public allotment garden. Nothing > about the existing ones. So you haven't even inquired. > [--snip--] > > >>>>Because you'll never practice what you preach. You have the opportunity >>>>now and you make excuses. >>> >>>What opportunity? >> >>Many opportunities. You find your principles to be an inconvenience. And >>don't ask others what they do -- we're talking about YOUR OWN principles >>and how YOU act according to them. > > My principles are bullshit. You say one thing and do another by freely engaging in commerce with those who do things you consider wrong. You're culpable for their "wrongs" because you do nothing to avoid your own free participation in what they do. > [--snip--] > > >>Stop changing the subject. YOU make very specific claims ("killing >>animals is wrong") and then do nothing to live up to YOUR OWN principles. > > You are getting the wording > of my claims wrong Not at all. As noted above, your "allowable" exceptions to killing animals do nothing to mitigate against your rule, which is to freely engage in commerce with those who harm animals. > and the > wording of my principles wrong > too it seems. Not at all, retard. I'm not interested in splitting hairs over the exceptions you'd accept, I want to discuss the *norms* of your behavior and how those norms conflict head-on with your stated sense of ethics. > [--snip--] > > >>>>>Yeah, what's your point? Those >>>>>are types of mailing addresses >>>>>too. >>>> >>>>You're the one who blathered about "living anywhere with a mailing >>>>address." >>> >>>Yeah, >> >>So you can live or go even where you DON'T have a mailing address at >>that location. > > Well then, You won't retire and you'll continue making irrational excuses for not practicing what you preach. That includes the one you tried to get away with about mailing addresses. > [--snip--] > > >>You don't try, think, or do. You fantasize and try to BS others into >>thinking you have noteworthy ambitions. > > I never said that my ambitions > should be considered noteworthy > to others. Good, because they aren't noteworthy. They're despicable, sleazy, and contemptible because you refuse to practice what you preach. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Skanky wrote:
>>>[--snip--] > > >>>>>When I have some >>>>>land though, I'll be able to grow >>>>>much of my own food. >>>> >>>>You're talking 20-25 years down the road. You do NOTHING now about your >>>>consumption to live up to your own standards. >>> >>>I can't help it >> >>Yes, you can. > > It's not within my current > reasonable abilities. Yes, it is. Stop making excuses. > I am content for now to use this > forum to preach what you refuse to practice. That's all. > At first I thought you were > just being shit disturbers > when you mention cds all the > time, but now I see it for what > it is, a very real concern. Why are you doing nothing about it if it's a real concern to you? > If that changes due to increasing > demand, that's great. It hasn't affected your own demand. You continue to freely engage in commerce which injures and kills animals. > So, anyways, I feel like I AM doing > something proactive No, you filthy skank. You're doing what you always have: preaching without practicing, making excuses, passively waiting for others to do what you refuse to do yourself. That's not pro-active. That's not even active. It's entirely passive. It's also not laudable, so stop patting yourself on your hairy back. >>>The only possible thing >> >>There are plenty of possibilities you've not considered. > > There IS the possibility of me > getting a house in the city > before retiring, No chance. > and then > selling and rebuying when > I retire. Fantasy. > If I buy in the city, > then at least I'll have more > of a garden then a balcony > gives. More than what an > allotment garden gives. And much less than you'd have by leasing land on the outskirts of town for the purpose of growing your own food, which would cost you far less than buying a house or groceries. > [--snip--] > > >>>>>Play nice, >>>> >>>>Eat me. >>> >>>If we crash in a plane together, >> >>We'll never be in the same room, much less in a confined space like an >>airplane together. You don't fly. You probably never have. > > For all I know, You know nothing. > we HAVE flown together. No, we haven't. > I'm not a big fan of > flying, but I do it when I have to. How many times have you flown and when was the last time? > [--snip--] > > >>>I was the one who posted the >>>info on vole cds. Did some of >>>your work for you. >> >>Bullshit, you lying bitch. Go to the archives and look at how many times >>we've discussed Davis' work in these groups and how many times the >>percentage of dead voles has been discussed. I just quoted from the OSU >>website the other day. > > I posted a more recent study on > the cds of voles. Maybe Dutch > can help here if he remembers > it. If I didn't know about you > posting stuff on them previously > do you really think that's reason > to call me a lying bitch? Yes, and a brazen one, too, for suggesting you've ever done work for me. I just searched the archives for posts you've made which include the words "vole" and "voles" and there's not one of any study involving them -- and most of the hits were for things written *to* you, not by you. >>>Obviously each year's vole >>>population arises from survivors >>>of the previous years. Do the >>>crops cause an unnatural >>>explosion of voles, which is >>>then balanced out by the >>>number killed? Not that this >>>mitigates things completely >>>but it might be worth >>>considering. >> >>I believe killing animals is wrong. >>-- Skanky > > If you are going to quote me, Stop complaining. I got the gist of it right. Your qualifications are irrelevant because they only attempt to address EXCEPTIONS rather than your RULE. > 1, my AKA is Skunky, Skanky. > so keep > your insults in check if you want > the same in return. Yawn. > 2, My more > recent, and very well known by > now, wording is that killing > animals is MOSTLY wrong. What do you preach? What do you practice? Your attempts to deflect the discussion away -- and that's all this "mostly wrong" bullshit is -- from your normal behavior as a consumer are pathetic. > [--snip--] > > >>>The meat eaters I know would >>>choose the less cruel lives and >>>deaths for their meats, >> >>Then why have you persistently refused to recommend others consume such >>meats? > > I'll freely admit that I would rather > see meat eaters eat meats > from cruelty-lessened farms > than factory farms. The overwhelming majority of farms you would call "factory" farms are not cruel operations. Their animals are well-fed and cared for, and they're treated humanely. > As far as > approving of it, what more > are you looking for? Prior to this, you've refused to even cede that there are alternative meats which are healthier for both animal and human. > You know full well that I agree > with DH I don't know this because I generally don't read ****wit's posts (except when I need a good laugh, and then I go to see what he's posted to bicycle and boat newsgroups). > on the benefits of > kind animal farming over > factory farming, even if we do > disagree on what constitutes > kind. You're entirely ignorant about farming methods anyway. >>I still can't be expected to recommend any meat... >>-- Skanky, 19 May 05 > > For health reasons, I won't. You mean, you won't based upon your irrational beliefs about nutrition. > But IF a person is going to > eat meat anyways, then better > if it's from the kinder farms. You charlatan, if your objection is about health -- human health -- then you should recommend leaner cuts regardless of the kind of livestock operation. Your statement shows me how little health matters to you and how much AR does. > [--snip--] > > >>>The demand >>>for cruelty-free food will >>>take it's own time to develop >> >>You don't demand it. You're passively waiting for others to live >>according to your own principles. > > Our discussions here on the topic > may have some influence on the > readers Or not influence them at all. It certainly hasn't affected your own behavior. You stubbornly refuse to practice what you preach. > We both know that most > vegetarians and vegans don't > know about them. Maybe it's > time that they do. Knowing about them is one thing, doing something about them is another. You know about them and haven't done a damn thing to reduce the number of animal deaths attributable to your own diet. You even attempt to justify and make excuses for your selfish behavior as a consumer. > [--snip--] > > >>>Since the >>>different parts of the foot >>>corelate to specific body >>>areas, >> >>They do NOT. The "maps" they've used have changed over the years. Blind >>studies have shown that reflexology is crap. >> >>http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/reflex.html >>http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...s/massage.html > > Well, I'm no expert. No shit, Skanky. > I just have > the experience of knowing > someone who it helped. Anecdotal, and you have no way of knowing if the reflexology was directly or even solely beneficial. Most people who engage in alternative therapies continue with a variety of other therapies including medication. > From that, I lean towards thinking > that there may be something to it. You're not leaning, you're stretching. >>>and since my mother >>>went for this treatment, >>>finding that her tender areas >>>coorelated to her medical >>>problems, I think there might >>>be something to it. >> >>Purely anecdotal. >> >> >>>Not as >>>a cure all though, just in >>>conjunction to other treatments. >> >>Other treatments cure. Reflexology, massage, and other touch therapies >>can reduce stress which can help other LEGITIMATE therapies work better >>or at all. > > Then it's no different than a > pain killer, reducing stress and > making the patient feel better. Stress reduction is a very good thing, but in and of itself doesn't always eliminate or reduce acute pain (as a "pain killer" does) or deal with other organic underlying issues. > I never claimed to believe it's > a cure all. Lesley does. > [--snip--] >> "inner earth beings" > > No. However, I believe that > microbes might exist deeper > than we realize. She's not talking about microbes. She thinks the earth is hollow and filled with enlightened beings. She also has written that she doesn't think they're "little green men." There you go again with 'little green men'. If anyone's hanging around under mountains, they're far from little, and not green. http://tinyurl.com/9fqbn >> that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe > > Don't know about that one. She used a patent for an illuminated globe as evidence that the earth is hollow, and even went so far as to say (or parrot) that the patent in question was one of the most important scientific discoveries in history. >> your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef > > Unsure. I've seen so many > different numbers and claims > floating around (even from me) > that I'm left unsure of accuracy. I think livestock producers and food scientists, such as the ones I used to disabuse your error, have a better idea of how much feed it takes to produce beef than urban-based animal rights zealots do. >> rain forest destruction > > Yes, unfortunately. No evidence. >> Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) > > Don't know about this one. > What's being exported? Beef. >> Stolen French flying saucer > > Did they leave the keys inside? She claimed US forces took it and did something to its French inventor following WW2. I don't know if she still has a page on her website (which is even more amateurish than yours). > Flying saucer, I doubt it, but that > it could get stolen? Maybe! No. >> Zapper > > No. She claims it's a cure-all and has posted about her "highly modified" zapper (jackrabbit vibrator?). >> Polar fountains > > I don't know what these are. Ions which result in the northern and southern lights. > My only knowledge of the poles > is that they are cold and magnetic. Lesley believes they're open and that light emits from them. http://tinyurl.com/938kc >> Sun gazing > > No. Dangerous. She bought into it and pasted in the following article, which was later disavowed by NASA (who said they'd never heard of this nutcase). http://tinyurl.com/v5fp >> Chemtrails > > I read about these, and I still don't > know what chemical they think is > being dispersed. Anyways, no. There are no chemicals being systematically sprayed. >> AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory > > Possible. Oh please. >> Crop circles > > Not by aliens, but something's > doing a good job of making > them. She thinks aliens. >> sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts > > No. I like my ex-convicts to be > non-violent. Did you meet your ******* partner in jail? >> the validity of online IQ tests > > I want to say yes on this one, You shouldn't. You really, really shouldn't. > but I know that they are probably not > very accurate. They're not only inaccurate, she kept re-taking it to get her score up (lol). She wrote: I told you that I might raise it a notch or two if I took a little more time and care than I did at first. http://tinyurl.com/v5gk >> crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories > > Not sure which of the many theories > these are. She thinks there were no Islamic terrorists, that the planes were flown by remote control, and that the WTC towers came down from implosion by explosives. >> Jeff Rense for "news" > > From what I've googled, he > seems a bit kooky and > conspiratorial-based. Bingo! But that's her preferred source for "news." >>>No pot is being smuggled into >>>Canada anymore. >> >>Wrong. >> >>http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=3449573 > > This one doesn't say which > direction the smuggling was > taking place. Other articles said into Canada. > I have heard > that over on the west coast, > pot from BC gets smuggled > into the US, but I think soon > enough, if not already, the > US will have enough local > grow-ops that they won't > need to smuggle. You drug-addled imbecile. According to 2004 statistics released Wednesday, the [Texas] Department of Public Safety seized 1.5 tons of cocaine, 38 tons of marijuana and 191 pounds of methamphetamine. Troopers also made 2,117 drug arrests. They seized more than $189.1 million worth of illegal drugs during routine patrols. http://www.news8austin.com/content/t...sp?ArID=139934 > [--snip--] > > >>>It's been many, many >>>years since pot came all >>>compressed (a sign of possible >>>importation). I thought most >>>US pot came from the hills >>>in California, or was that just >>>in the 80s? >> >>Most US pot comes in from Mexico, a product of either Mexico or other >>Central and South American countries. Pot is also increasingly coming in >>from BC. > > You guys should get more > self sufficient. Marijuana doesn't lead to independence or self-sufficiency. Addiction is dependence, bondage. >>>No. >> >>Yes. The drug war in Nuevo Laredo involves marijuana as well as other >>drugs. > > It's illegalization causes a lot > of bloodshed and crimes. You failed to address the issue, which is whether or not it's a hard drug problem or marijuana problem. Texas DPS confiscated 38 tons of pot and only 1.5 tons of cocaine last year. Nearly all of that pot was imported, not grown in Texas. It's a drug problem, and marijuana accounted for 96.2% (by weight) of the drugs confiscated last year. >>>[--snip--] >> >>You keep repeating the same old BS, but I responded anyway (I intended >>to snip it and ask the following questions you snipped). Tell us >>something new. How old were you when you got pregnant? Was that why you >>quit smoking in '81? Is that why you dropped out of school? > > Quit fishing for my parental/family > status, and my education. All I've > told you was that I quit smoking > and turned vegetarian in 1981. Because you were pregnant and your parents refused to pay for any more abortions. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Skanky wrote: > >>>>>>>><...> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>If I am lucky enough to still be > >>>>>>>>>able bodied when I retire, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>You'll neither retire nor be able-bodied. Your sloth will catch up > >>> > >>>with > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>you. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>We'll see when the time comes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>We already see it now: you don't practice what you preach. > >>>>> > >>>>>Yes I do. > >>>> > >>>>No, you do not. You never have. > >>> > >>>Yes, I do. > >> > >>Wrong. You say killing animals is wrong yet you continue to engage in > >>behaviors which wantonly kill animals. > > > > You mean I'm the end consumer > > in a process which kills animals. > > You *freely* engage in commerce which causes animals to die despite your > platitudes about "killing animals is wrong." Not so freely. > > I'm the most important animal in > > my life, > > We agree: you are self-centered. Everyone is. After all we ARE ourselves. > > and so I'm not about to > > starve in order to boycott the > > 'bad' farmers. > > Non sequitur. You have alternatives which would keep you from starving. > Also, the farmers aren't "bad" -- *you* are for freely engaging in > commerce with those whom you consider "bad" because they do things you > think are "wrong." You're playing word games. > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>>Power in numbers, dumb ass. You keep prating about increasing demand for > >>>>"veganic" food. Find your fellow like-minded dweebs in Toronto and > >>>>approach a farmer to grow in a manner consistent with your principles. > >>> > >>>If I was an extremist, > >> > >>You are an extremist. You believe that killing animals is wrong, which > >>is extremist. You believe eating ANY meat is deleterious, which is > >>extremist. And on and on and on. > > > > I believe that killing animals is > > MOSTLY wrong. > > Irrelevant qualifier, especially considering your qualification is based > on tangential issues like euthanasia and hypothetical issues involving > starvation in extreme situations. That there are exceptions to rules is > irrelevant. It's the *rule* -- *YOUR OWN NORM* -- with which you display > your moral confusion and hypocrisy. My own norm is that I harm as few animals as I reasonably can. I can't help it if the world doesn't always run according to my expectations. > > Get it right > > I already have. You need to deal with your norm, not your blithering > attempts to deflect from it with qualifications which have absolutely no > bearing on your stated sense of ethics. It has everything to do with ethics. The issue of animal harm is an ethical one. You're picking on me for not having extreme enough beliefs. > > I happen to think that eating meat is > > unhealthy, > > You have no evidence to support such a claim. It's a belief. An > unfounded and irrational belief. I only need to support such a claim to myself. I don't force my dietary choices on anyone else. > > but I can accept > > that others may not share > > that view, > > Many of them base it on evidence rather than articles of your faith. Many of both sides do both. Evidence and faith. > > and that they might > > think it's necessary for > > health. > > Vegetables aren't necessary, either. Neither is anything else you eat. According to you, but it's me who decides it for me, just as you decide for you. > > I don't think I'm being > > extremist. > > Self-delusion. Yet you think my 'mostly' word is not extreme enough. And that I must meet a goal of NO animal harm. > > And what ever > > happened to that accusation > > of me being too passive? > > The two aren't mutually exclusive. Ah, ok. > >>>maybe I > >>>would do that. Maybe someone > >>>more extreme than I will read > >>>this and start one. > >> > >>Disgusting passivist. ALWAYS waiting for someone else to do your work. > > > > Ah, there it is. > > Why do you demand others practice what you preach, and why do you not > practice it yourself? I do what I reasonably can. I hope to be in good health still when I retire, one of my hopes being that I can grow some of my own food, if not most. > >>>I won't start > >>>such a co-op, > >> > >>It would require you to get off your flabby ass. That won't happen. > > > > If I do say so myself, > > You may as well since no one else will... > > > I have a pretty decent ass for a 42 year > > old! > > It's flabby, pimply, and pasty from sitting on it all freaking day. Why would you assume any of the above? > >>>but I would > >>>certainly join one. > >> > >>You won't even join the ones which already exist. > > > > Being interested in organic > > foods > > Your interest is limited to organic industry propaganda despite the > evidence shown to you to the contrary. I believe organically grown foods are healthier. Even meats for those of you who eat that. > > and the idea of a surprise > > basket of food each time, > > I can understand how a stoned loser would get excited by that. You've got to see it from the eyes of a mad cooking scientist. What strange food(s) can I make with this mix? > > I sent > > an email enquiring about the > > Toronto CSAs. I have yet to > > hear back from them. I'll give > > it another week or so, and then > > I'll email them again. > > Just call them, you passivist dummy. I probably will one of these days. The lack of email response is a bit worrisome though, like maybe they are not as organized and efficient as they should be. > >>>But thanks > >>>for admitting that veganic > >>>co-ops don't exist yet. > >> > >>Thanking me?! You're the nitwit who's yet to admit that and who keeps > >>ranting about "veganics" as if it were more than a pipedream of urban > >>vegan slackers like you. > > > > Todays pipedream might be > > tomorrows fringe food like > > organics are today. > > The organic isn't exactly fringe, but many of the claims peddled by the > industry and its activists are fraudulent. Regardless of what you might think of their claims, do you mean they are more than fringe? They are starting to appear in the 'normal' supermarkets. If veganic foods are the same when I retire, maybe I'll concentrate my garden on fragrant flowers which are my true gardening love. Otherwise I'll be wanting to grow both food and fragrance gardens. > > Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows? > > I do. You do. The rest of the bullshit artists you're parroting about it > know it, too. Huh? > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>The lots are so overspoken for > >>>that it would take years. > >> > >>You haven't even inquired. > > > > They are so overspoken for that > > the website said something about > > new ones having to be brand new > > and that you have to pick a spot > > and then apply to have it declared > > a public allotment garden. Nothing > > about the existing ones. > > So you haven't even inquired. I didn't need to. The website made it quite clear. Also, having visited the lot of a friend, I saw how small they are. I might barely be able to grow my years supply of parsley and basil. > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>>Because you'll never practice what you preach. You have the opportunity > >>>>now and you make excuses. > >>> > >>>What opportunity? > >> > >>Many opportunities. You find your principles to be an inconvenience. And > >>don't ask others what they do -- we're talking about YOUR OWN principles > >>and how YOU act according to them. > > > > My principles are > > bullshit. You say one thing and do another by freely engaging in > commerce with those who do things you consider wrong. You're culpable > for their "wrongs" because you do nothing to avoid your own free > participation in what they do. > > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>Stop changing the subject. YOU make very specific claims ("killing > >>animals is wrong") and then do nothing to live up to YOUR OWN principles. > > > > You are getting the wording > > of my claims wrong > > Not at all. As noted above, your "allowable" exceptions to killing > animals do nothing to mitigate against your rule, which is to freely > engage in commerce with those who harm animals. I don't know if you've noticed, but there's not much choice in the food that's available. > > and the > > wording of my principles wrong > > too it seems. > > Not at all, retard. I'm not interested in splitting hairs over the > exceptions you'd accept, I want to discuss the *norms* of your behavior > and how those norms conflict head-on with your stated sense of ethics. > > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>>>Yeah, what's your point? Those > >>>>>are types of mailing addresses > >>>>>too. > >>>> > >>>>You're the one who blathered about "living anywhere with a mailing > >>>>address." > >>> > >>>Yeah, > >> > >>So you can live or go even where you DON'T have a mailing address at > >>that location. > > > > Well then, > > You won't retire and you'll continue making irrational excuses for not > practicing what you preach. That includes the one you tried to get away > with about mailing addresses. Well I certainly don't plan to continue working as my retirement hobby. Rest assured, I will retire. In fact it's the law here in Canada that you have to by a certain age. Pensions can be claimed at 65 for the gov't one, but you're allowed to work if you want to for a few years more. For me it will be as early as possible. > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>You don't try, think, or do. You fantasize and try to BS others into > >>thinking you have noteworthy ambitions. > > > > I never said that my ambitions > > should be considered noteworthy > > to others. > > Good, because they aren't noteworthy. They're despicable, sleazy, and > contemptible because you refuse to practice what you preach. There's that broken record 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Skanky wrote: > >>>[--snip--] > > > > > >>>>>When I have some > >>>>>land though, I'll be able to grow > >>>>>much of my own food. > >>>> > >>>>You're talking 20-25 years down the road. You do NOTHING now about your > >>>>consumption to live up to your own standards. > >>> > >>>I can't help it > >> > >>Yes, you can. > > > > It's not within my current > > reasonable abilities. > > Yes, it is. Stop making excuses. No it's not. > > I am content for now to use this > > forum > > to preach what you refuse to practice. That's all. I fully practice what I preach to the best of my capabilities. It's not within my capabilities to go to very extreme measures though, like Rudy's suggestion that I quit my job and take up farming as both a living and a source of all my own food, just like that, walk off into the rural sunset with no large scale farming experience. > > At first I thought you were > > just being shit disturbers > > when you mention cds all the > > time, but now I see it for what > > it is, a very real concern. > > Why are you doing nothing about it if it's a real concern to you? What's the alternative to 'nothing'? > > If that changes due to increasing > > demand, that's great. > > It hasn't affected your own demand. You continue to freely engage in > commerce which injures and kills animals. Like I have a choice. If I did or will have a choice, I'd gladly pay the extra that it took to hand plant and harvest etc. The problem is that it would be more expensive than regular food, so some people might not be able to buy it even though they would prefer to. > > So, anyways, I feel like I AM doing > > something proactive > > No, you filthy skank. You're doing what you always have: preaching > without practicing, making excuses, passively waiting for others to do > what you refuse to do yourself. That's not pro-active. That's not even > active. It's entirely passive. It's also not laudable, so stop patting > yourself on your hairy back. My hairy back?!?!?! How did you know about that? Thatmight very well be the funniest insult I've seen yet on this newsgroup. > >>>The only possible thing > >> > >>There are plenty of possibilities you've not considered. > > > > There IS the possibility of me > > getting a house in the city > > before retiring, > > No chance. Yes chance. The idea of an outdoor garden BEFORE retiring is very tempting. > > and then > > selling and rebuying when > > I retire. > > Fantasy. Why. It's a reasonable option. > > If I buy in the city, > > then at least I'll have more > > of a garden then a balcony > > gives. More than what an > > allotment garden gives. > > And much less than you'd have by leasing land on the outskirts of town > for the purpose of growing your own food, which would cost you far less > than buying a house or groceries. I can go rural when I retire. Largish lots nearby Toronto are far too pricey, and I need to be near/in Toronto until I retire. > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>>>Play nice, > >>>> > >>>>Eat me. > >>> > >>>If we crash in a plane together, > >> > >>We'll never be in the same room, much less in a confined space like an > >>airplane together. You don't fly. You probably never have. > > > > For all I know, > > You know nothing. > > > we HAVE flown together. > > No, we haven't. How do you know? The only way is if you yourself have never flown. > > I'm not a big fan of > > flying, but I do it when I have to. > > How many times have you flown and when was the last time? I'm not sure how many times, but the last time was a quite a few years ago, like more than 10. > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>I was the one who posted the > >>>info on vole cds. Did some of > >>>your work for you. > >> > >>Bullshit, you lying bitch. Go to the archives and look at how many times > >>we've discussed Davis' work in these groups and how many times the > >>percentage of dead voles has been discussed. I just quoted from the OSU > >>website the other day. > > > > I posted a more recent study on > > the cds of voles. Maybe Dutch > > can help here if he remembers > > it. If I didn't know about you > > posting stuff on them previously > > do you really think that's reason > > to call me a lying bitch? > > Yes, and a brazen one, too, for suggesting you've ever done work for me. > I just searched the archives for posts you've made which include the > words "vole" and "voles" and there's not one of any study involving them > -- and most of the hits were for things written *to* you, not by you. Well I posted an article found through EurekAlert ( http://www.eurekalert.org/pubnews.php ) and it even surprised Dutch into saying something like 'good work'. Maybe it was some other animal, but I'm pretty sure it was voles. > >>>Obviously each year's vole > >>>population arises from survivors > >>>of the previous years. Do the > >>>crops cause an unnatural > >>>explosion of voles, which is > >>>then balanced out by the > >>>number killed? Not that this > >>>mitigates things completely > >>>but it might be worth > >>>considering. > >> > >>I believe killing animals is wrong. > >>-- Skanky > > > > If you are going to quote me, > > Stop complaining. I got the gist of it right. Your qualifications are > irrelevant because they only attempt to address EXCEPTIONS rather than > your RULE. No, it also is taking into consideration the lack of alternatives most people have in their source of foods. That's part of the mostly. That's moved it down from, let's say, 'almost completely' wrong. > > 1, my AKA is Skunky, > > Skanky. > > > so keep > > your insults in check if you want > > the same in return. > > Yawn. Go to sleep instead of typing yawn. > > 2, My more > > recent, and very well known by > > now, wording is that killing > > animals is MOSTLY wrong. > > What do you preach? What do you practice? Your attempts to deflect the > discussion away -- and that's all this "mostly wrong" bullshit is -- > from your normal behavior as a consumer are pathetic. I preach (here where the debates on animals and food are on topic), to do the best one reasonably can. > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>The meat eaters I know would > >>>choose the less cruel lives and > >>>deaths for their meats, > >> > >>Then why have you persistently refused to recommend others consume such > >>meats? > > > > I'll freely admit that I would rather > > see meat eaters eat meats > > from cruelty-lessened farms > > than factory farms. > > The overwhelming majority of farms you would call "factory" farms are > not cruel operations. Their animals are well-fed and cared for, and > they're treated humanely. I don't believe that. > > As far as > > approving of it, what more > > are you looking for? > > Prior to this, you've refused to even cede that there are alternative > meats which are healthier for both animal and human. Well, I still wouldn't eat any for health reasons, organic or not. Fringe meats are the exception not the norm anyways. Also, some of the fringe meats, I don't think are as good as you meat eaters have been claiming. > > You know full well that I agree > > with DH > > I don't know this because I generally don't read ****wit's posts (except > when I need a good laugh, and then I go to see what he's posted to > bicycle and boat newsgroups). > > > on the benefits of > > kind animal farming over > > factory farming, even if we do > > disagree on what constitutes > > kind. > > You're entirely ignorant about farming methods anyway. Except small scale. I'm great at that. I don't know how I'd do at large scale. > >>I still can't be expected to recommend any meat... > >>-- Skanky, 19 May 05 > > > > For health reasons, I won't. > > You mean, you won't based upon your irrational beliefs about nutrition. > > > But IF a person is going to > > eat meat anyways, then better > > if it's from the kinder farms. > > You charlatan, if your objection is about health -- human health -- then > you should recommend leaner cuts regardless of the kind of livestock > operation. Your statement shows me how little health matters to you and > how much AR does. I believe that the organic meats are healthier than the others, but I don't think eating meat is healthy so I of course wouldn't recommend it. If someone is going to anyways though, I'd rather see them go for kindly raised organics. > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>The demand > >>>for cruelty-free food will > >>>take it's own time to develop > >> > >>You don't demand it. You're passively waiting for others to live > >>according to your own principles. > > > > Our discussions here on the topic > > may have some influence on the > > readers > > Or not influence them at all. It certainly hasn't affected your own > behavior. You stubbornly refuse to practice what you preach. > > > We both know that most > > vegetarians and vegans don't > > know about them. Maybe it's > > time that they do. > > Knowing about them is one thing, doing something about them is another. > You know about them and haven't done a damn thing to reduce the number > of animal deaths attributable to your own diet. You even attempt to > justify and make excuses for your selfish behavior as a consumer. > > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>Since the > >>>different parts of the foot > >>>corelate to specific body > >>>areas, > >> > >>They do NOT. The "maps" they've used have changed over the years. Blind > >>studies have shown that reflexology is crap. > >> > >>http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/reflex.html > >>http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...s/massage.html > > > > Well, I'm no expert. > > No shit, Skanky. > > > I just have > > the experience of knowing > > someone who it helped. > > Anecdotal, and you have no way of knowing if the reflexology was > directly or even solely beneficial. Most people who engage in > alternative therapies continue with a variety of other therapies > including medication. > > > From that, I lean towards thinking > > that there may be something to it. > > You're not leaning, you're stretching. > > >>>and since my mother > >>>went for this treatment, > >>>finding that her tender areas > >>>coorelated to her medical > >>>problems, I think there might > >>>be something to it. > >> > >>Purely anecdotal. > >> > >> > >>>Not as > >>>a cure all though, just in > >>>conjunction to other treatments. > >> > >>Other treatments cure. Reflexology, massage, and other touch therapies > >>can reduce stress which can help other LEGITIMATE therapies work better > >>or at all. > > > > Then it's no different than a > > pain killer, reducing stress and > > making the patient feel better. > > Stress reduction is a very good thing, but in and of itself doesn't > always eliminate or reduce acute pain (as a "pain killer" does) or deal > with other organic underlying issues. Of course not, I never claimed it did. > > I never claimed to believe it's > > a cure all. > > Lesley does. That's where I disagree with her on the subject then. > > [--snip--] > >> "inner earth beings" > > > > No. However, I believe that > > microbes might exist deeper > > than we realize. > > She's not talking about microbes. She thinks the earth is hollow and > filled with enlightened beings. She also has written that she doesn't > think they're "little green men." > > There you go again with 'little green men'. If anyone's hanging > around under mountains, they're far from little, and not green. > http://tinyurl.com/9fqbn > > >> that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe > > > > Don't know about that one. > > She used a patent for an illuminated globe as evidence that the earth is > hollow, and even went so far as to say (or parrot) that the patent in > question was one of the most important scientific discoveries in history. Then I'd have to say I disagree with her on that one. > >> your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef > > > > Unsure. I've seen so many > > different numbers and claims > > floating around (even from me) > > that I'm left unsure of accuracy. > > I think livestock producers and food scientists, such as the ones I used > to disabuse your error, have a better idea of how much feed it takes to > produce beef than urban-based animal rights zealots do. Either way, it's never a 1:1 ratio. Sometimes veg food isn't also, but it can be more often. > >> rain forest destruction > > > > Yes, unfortunately. > > No evidence. Enough and from good sources. > >> Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) > > > > Don't know about this one. > > What's being exported? > > Beef. I don't know about the Argentina stuff, but I know that I have heard Brazilian beef being referred to. I don't remember the context or the people who used the term. > >> Stolen French flying saucer > > > > Did they leave the keys inside? > > She claimed US forces took it and did something to its French inventor > following WW2. I don't know if she still has a page on her website > (which is even more amateurish than yours). Well, a human-made flying saucer seems more plausible than one flown here by aliens, but I'd have to say no on this one too. > > Flying saucer, I doubt it, but that > > it could get stolen? Maybe! > > No. > > >> Zapper > > > > No. > > She claims it's a cure-all and has posted about her "highly modified" > zapper (jackrabbit vibrator?). No. I'd even worry that it might be dangerous to injured bones. > >> Polar fountains > > > > I don't know what these are. > > Ions which result in the northern and southern lights. I don't know anything about the science behind the lights, but I thought that it was already figured out by mainstream science. Whether that involves fountains of any sort would be up to them. Maybe if I get some time I'll actually google aurora borealis and get a summary somewhere of the science behind it. > > My only knowledge of the poles > > is that they are cold and magnetic. > > Lesley believes they're open and that light emits from them. > http://tinyurl.com/938kc To tell you the truth, I don't know what either of you were talking about in that post. I'm not very up on the space, plasma and iono-whatever sciences. > >> Sun gazing > > > > No. Dangerous. > > She bought into it and pasted in the following article, which was later > disavowed by NASA (who said they'd never heard of this nutcase). > http://tinyurl.com/v5fp That one's pretty kooky, I'll agree. > >> Chemtrails > > > > I read about these, and I still don't > > know what chemical they think is > > being dispersed. Anyways, no. > > There are no chemicals being systematically sprayed. Then, other then airplane tracks in the sky, I don't see their significance. Maybe in photography where it might get in the way of a nice photo. > >> AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory > > > > Possible. > > Oh please. Still possible though. > >> Crop circles > > > > Not by aliens, but something's > > doing a good job of making > > them. > > She thinks aliens. I just don't think aliens would come here and amuse themselves by drawing pictures in a field of wheat. > >> sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts > > > > No. I like my ex-convicts to be > > non-violent. > > Did you meet your ******* partner in jail? Fishing and insulting all in one. Nice try. I'll leave you to wonder. > >> the validity of online IQ tests > > > > I want to say yes on this one, > > You shouldn't. You really, really shouldn't. > > > but I know that they are probably not > > very accurate. > > They're not only inaccurate, she kept re-taking it to get her score up > (lol). She wrote: > I told you that I might raise it a notch or two if I took a > little more time and care than I did at first. > http://tinyurl.com/v5gk Well if it's that Tickle website, they ask or warn about retaking the test. > >> crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories > > > > Not sure which of the many theories > > these are. > > She thinks there were no Islamic terrorists, that the planes were flown > by remote control, and that the WTC towers came down from implosion by > explosives. I saw it live on CNN when the second plane hit and the towers collapsed. It looked like the dust spread out more than it should have for an implosion, but just right for a structural collapse. I personally believe that it was Muslim terrorists, but to each their own. > >> Jeff Rense for "news" > > > > From what I've googled, he > > seems a bit kooky and > > conspiratorial-based. > > Bingo! But that's her preferred source for "news." > > >>>No pot is being smuggled into > >>>Canada anymore. > >> > >>Wrong. > >> > >>http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=3449573 > > > > This one doesn't say which > > direction the smuggling was > > taking place. > > Other articles said into Canada. > > > I have heard > > that over on the west coast, > > pot from BC gets smuggled > > into the US, but I think soon > > enough, if not already, the > > US will have enough local > > grow-ops that they won't > > need to smuggle. > > You drug-addled imbecile. That's pot-enhanced non-imbecile. > According to 2004 statistics released Wednesday, the [Texas] > Department of Public Safety seized 1.5 tons of cocaine, 38 tons > of marijuana and 191 pounds of methamphetamine. Troopers also > made 2,117 drug arrests. > > They seized more than $189.1 million worth of illegal drugs > during routine patrols. > > http://www.news8austin.com/content/t...sp?ArID=139934 > > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>It's been many, many > >>>years since pot came all > >>>compressed (a sign of possible > >>>importation). I thought most > >>>US pot came from the hills > >>>in California, or was that just > >>>in the 80s? > >> > >>Most US pot comes in from Mexico, a product of either Mexico or other > >>Central and South American countries. Pot is also increasingly coming in > >>from BC. > > > > You guys should get more > > self sufficient. > > Marijuana doesn't lead to independence or self-sufficiency. Addiction is > dependence, bondage. Marijuana does not necessarily mean addiction. It's simply a choice of recreational mild drug no different than someone who has a beer or two in the evening or a glass of wine with dinner. > >>>No. > >> > >>Yes. The drug war in Nuevo Laredo involves marijuana as well as other > >>drugs. > > > > It's illegalization causes a lot > > of bloodshed and crimes. > > You failed to address the issue, which is whether or not it's a hard > drug problem or marijuana problem. Texas DPS confiscated 38 tons of pot > and only 1.5 tons of cocaine last year. Nearly all of that pot was > imported, not grown in Texas. It's a drug problem, and marijuana > accounted for 96.2% (by weight) of the drugs confiscated last year. Pot is much heavier than those harder drugs. If it were legal, all those problems with it would disappear. It could also be taxed and used in all of it's hemp uses as well. Almost the whole plant can be used for good stuff. > >>>[--snip--] > >> > >>You keep repeating the same old BS, but I responded anyway (I intended > >>to snip it and ask the following questions you snipped). Tell us > >>something new. How old were you when you got pregnant? Was that why you > >>quit smoking in '81? Is that why you dropped out of school? > > > > Quit fishing for my parental/family > > status, and my education. All I've > > told you was that I quit smoking > > and turned vegetarian in 1981. > > Because you were pregnant and your parents refused to pay for any more > abortions. Just keep casting that fishing rod. I'm going to sleep. Sure enough when I hardly have any time, there are tons of posts to go through, so I might not get through them until the weekend. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>><...> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>If I am lucky enough to still be >>>>>>>>>>>able bodied when I retire, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You'll neither retire nor be able-bodied. Your sloth will catch up >>>>> >>>>>with >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>We'll see when the time comes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>We already see it now: you don't practice what you preach. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes I do. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, you do not. You never have. >>>>> >>>>>Yes, I do. >>>> >>>>Wrong. You say killing animals is wrong yet you continue to engage in >>>>behaviors which wantonly kill animals. >>> >>>You mean I'm the end consumer >>>in a process which kills animals. >> >>You *freely* engage in commerce which causes animals to die despite your >>platitudes about "killing animals is wrong." > > Not so freely. Very freely. ENTIRELY freely. >>>I'm the most important animal in >>>my life, >> >>We agree: you are self-centered. > > Everyone is. Not to the degree you are, you sanctimonious cow. > After all we ARE > ourselves. Please don't reply to messages after you toke. >>>and so I'm not about to >>>starve in order to boycott the >>>'bad' farmers. >> >>Non sequitur. You have alternatives which would keep you from starving. >>Also, the farmers aren't "bad" -- *you* are for freely engaging in >>commerce with those whom you consider "bad" because they do things you >>think are "wrong." > > You're playing word games. There are no word games above, you're just too stoned to comprehend above a third-grade level. YOU're bad for freely engaging in commerce with those whom you consider to do "wrong" things. >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>Power in numbers, dumb ass. You keep prating about increasing demand > > for > >>>>>>"veganic" food. Find your fellow like-minded dweebs in Toronto and >>>>>>approach a farmer to grow in a manner consistent with your principles. >>>>> >>>>>If I was an extremist, >>>> >>>>You are an extremist. You believe that killing animals is wrong, which >>>>is extremist. You believe eating ANY meat is deleterious, which is >>>>extremist. And on and on and on. >>> >>>I believe that killing animals is >>>MOSTLY wrong. >> >>Irrelevant qualifier, especially considering your qualification is based >>on tangential issues like euthanasia and hypothetical issues involving >>starvation in extreme situations. That there are exceptions to rules is >>irrelevant. It's the *rule* -- *YOUR OWN NORM* -- with which you display >>your moral confusion and hypocrisy. > > My own norm is that I harm animals. Period. And several times daily through your own consumption and despite reasonable alternatives suggested to you. > I can't help it if the world doesn't > always run according to my > expectations. You CAN help how and what you consume, but freely choose not to do so. >>>Get it right >> >>I already have. You need to deal with your norm, not your blithering >>attempts to deflect from it with qualifications which have absolutely no >>bearing on your stated sense of ethics. > > It has everything to do with ethics. Your qualification of "mostly" has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with being a poseur. > The issue of animal harm is an > ethical one. Then why do you freely engage in commerce with those who harm and kill animals intentionally, through negligence, or through indifference? Answer: Because you're negligent and/or indifferent about dead animals. You only care when others choose to eat them. > You're picking on me *mock-playing violin* > for not having extreme enough > beliefs. Your beliefs are already extreme. So is your rampant hypocrisy. >>>I happen to think that eating meat is >>>unhealthy, >> >>You have no evidence to support such a claim. It's a belief. An >>unfounded and irrational belief. > > I only need to support such a claim > to myself. Self-delusions aren't "support" for claims. > I don't force my dietary > choices on anyone else. Says she who fantasizes the whole world were vegan even though she isn't one herself. >>>but I can accept >>>that others may not share >>>that view, >> >>Many of them base it on evidence rather than articles of your faith. > > Many of both sides do both. > Evidence and faith. Your side relies entirely on faith -- faith and belief that your food is "cruelty-free" simply because you don't eat meat. >>>and that they might >>>think it's necessary for >>>health. >> >>Vegetables aren't necessary, either. Neither is anything else you eat. > > According to you, It's not my word on the subject. For example, Inuit survive quite well on a diet with little or no plant-based foods. >>>I don't think I'm being >>>extremist. >> >>Self-delusion. > > Yet you think my 'mostly' word > is not extreme enough. Your opinions are extreme whether you want to qualify them or not. > And that I must meet a goal of NO animal > harm. Strawman. All of the suggested alternatives would REDUCE harm to animals. Your current consumption of mechanically-harvested foods, processed foods, and foods transported cross-continent and from other hemispheres does NOT reduce harm to animals, but only increases it. >>>And what ever >>>happened to that accusation >>>of me being too passive? >> >>The two aren't mutually exclusive. > > Ah, ok. Your passivity is displayed in your passing the buck to farmers for killing animals while growing food you freely buy from them and in your fantasies about demand for "veganic" food rising so you don't have to alter your own consumption. Your extremism includes the position you've staked out about "killing animals is wrong" (with or without any qualification). >>>>>maybe I >>>>>would do that. Maybe someone >>>>>more extreme than I will read >>>>>this and start one. >>>> >>>>Disgusting passivist. ALWAYS waiting for someone else to do your work. >>> >>>Ah, there it is. >> >>Why do you demand others practice what you preach, and why do you not >>practice it yourself? > > I do absolutely nothing. You post to usenet. That's doing NOTHING to reduce animal deaths. You've stubbornly rejected any and all recommendations to reduce animal deaths attributable to your diet. You do not practice what you preach. > I hope to be in good health still when I > retire, This isn't about how you fantasize about finally practicing what you've preached in 23 years, Skanky, it's about the here and now. Right now, you have knowledge about the problem (as you see it) and knowledge about various solutions. You stubbornly refuse to do ANYTHING which solves the problem (harming animals through your own behavior as a consumer). That's your reality. You say killing animals is wrong, but you freely engage in activities including commerce with those who cause animals to die. You're a major league hypocrite. >>>>>I won't start >>>>>such a co-op, >>>> >>>>It would require you to get off your flabby ass. That won't happen. >>> >>>If I do say so myself, >> >>You may as well since no one else will... >> >> >>>I have a pretty decent ass for a 42 year >>>old! >> >>It's flabby, pimply, and pasty from sitting on it all freaking day. > > Why would you assume any of the > above? I saw your cankles in the pic of your cat. >>>>>but I would >>>>>certainly join one. >>>> >>>>You won't even join the ones which already exist. >>> >>>Being interested in organic >>>foods >> >>Your interest is limited to organic industry propaganda despite the >>evidence shown to you to the contrary. > > I believe organically grown foods > are healthier. Faith based on propaganda, the facts be damned. > Even meats for those > of you who eat that. Are you basing this on personal belief or upon some study showing such to be the case? >>>and the idea of a surprise >>>basket of food each time, >> >>I can understand how a stoned loser would get excited by that. > > You've got to see it from the eyes > of a mad cooking scientist. There's nothing scientific about you. > What strange food(s) can I make with this > mix? You can play the same silly game in your stoned mind when you stroll your fat ass through the supermarket. >>>I sent >>>an email enquiring about the >>>Toronto CSAs. I have yet to >>>hear back from them. I'll give >>>it another week or so, and then >>>I'll email them again. >> >>Just call them, you passivist dummy. > > I probably will one of these days. Passivist and serial procrastinator. > The lack of email response is a > bit worrisome though, like maybe > they are not as organized and > efficient as they should be. Or maybe they check their phone messages more often than e-mail. >>>>>But thanks >>>>>for admitting that veganic >>>>>co-ops don't exist yet. >>>> >>>>Thanking me?! You're the nitwit who's yet to admit that and who keeps >>>>ranting about "veganics" as if it were more than a pipedream of urban >>>>vegan slackers like you. >>> >>>Todays pipedream might be >>>tomorrows fringe food like >>>organics are today. >> >>The organic isn't exactly fringe, but many of the claims peddled by the >>industry and its activists are fraudulent. > > Regardless of what you might > think of their claims, do you > mean they are more than fringe? I recall sharing data with you showing how quickly their industry is growing (thanks to their half-truths and blatant lies). Organic is going mainstream, if not mainstream already. > They are starting to appear in > the 'normal' supermarkets. They've BEEN in supermarkets here for years. At least 10-15 years. > If veganic foods are the same > when I retire, They WON'T be. Ever. First, consumers will pay a little more for organic, but there are price-points at which most will buy conventional instead. That's a huge hurdle for something as labor-intensive as that which you fantasize. Consumers, over 98% of whom are NOT "serious" vegetarians and don't care if rats or mice are killed or maimed (and a lot of vegetarians who agree with them), will not pay more for such produce; other crops like grains and legumes should expect to have even further prohibitive costs associated with them because of the scale of operations required for profitability. You're fantasizing that farmers will ditch the very things which make them profitable -- machinery and other technology -- to appeal to a very tiny niche market. >>>Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows? >> >>I do. You do. The rest of the bullshit artists you're parroting about it >>know it, too. > > Huh? Stop smoking pot, dummy. The people you're parroting about "veganics" are bullshit artists. So are you. Birds of a feather... >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>> >>>>>The lots are so overspoken for >>>>>that it would take years. >>>> >>>>You haven't even inquired. >>> >>>They are so overspoken for that >>>the website said something about >>>new ones having to be brand new >>>and that you have to pick a spot >>>and then apply to have it declared >>>a public allotment garden. Nothing >>>about the existing ones. >> >>So you haven't even inquired. > > I didn't need to. The website > made it quite clear. Also, having > visited the lot of a friend, I saw > how small they are. I might > barely be able to grow my years > supply of parsley and basil. So says the clueless urbanite who threw the number five out of her fat, hairy ass on the issue of how many acres her retirement garden should be. I suspect the lots are of reasonable size and capable of producing more tomatoes than a saggy ditz like you can use in a year. >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>Because you'll never practice what you preach. You have the > > opportunity > >>>>>>now and you make excuses. >>>>> >>>>>What opportunity? >>>> >>>>Many opportunities. You find your principles to be an inconvenience. And >>>>don't ask others what they do -- we're talking about YOUR OWN principles >>>>and how YOU act according to them. >>> >>>My principles are >> >>bullshit. You say one thing and do another by freely engaging in >>commerce with those who do things you consider wrong. You're culpable >>for their "wrongs" because you do nothing to avoid your own free >>participation in what they do. >> >> >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>> >>>>Stop changing the subject. YOU make very specific claims ("killing >>>>animals is wrong") and then do nothing to live up to YOUR OWN > > principles. > >>>You are getting the wording >>>of my claims wrong >> >>Not at all. As noted above, your "allowable" exceptions to killing >>animals do nothing to mitigate against your rule, which is to freely >>engage in commerce with those who harm animals. > > I don't know if you've noticed, but > there's not much choice in the > food that's available. Maybe you're the one who hasn't noticed that you not only have choices about foods grown by others, but that you also have choices in growing or foraging for yourself. Your drug abuse has led you to only think inside the box -- and I don't mean Karen's. >>>and the >>>wording of my principles wrong >>>too it seems. >> >>Not at all, retard. I'm not interested in splitting hairs over the >>exceptions you'd accept, I want to discuss the *norms* of your behavior >>and how those norms conflict head-on with your stated sense of ethics. >> >> >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>Yeah, what's your point? Those >>>>>>>are types of mailing addresses >>>>>>>too. >>>>>> >>>>>>You're the one who blathered about "living anywhere with a mailing >>>>>>address." >>>>> >>>>>Yeah, >>>> >>>>So you can live or go even where you DON'T have a mailing address at >>>>that location. >>> >>>Well then, >> >>You won't retire and you'll continue making irrational excuses for not >>practicing what you preach. That includes the one you tried to get away >>with about mailing addresses. > > Well I certainly don't plan to > continue working You don't work now, why should you start then. >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>> >>>>You don't try, think, or do. You fantasize and try to BS others into >>>>thinking you have noteworthy ambitions. >>> >>>I never said that my ambitions >>>should be considered noteworthy >>>to others. >> >>Good, because they aren't noteworthy. They're despicable, sleazy, and >>contemptible because you refuse to practice what you preach. > > There's that broken record again. Raise your standards if the truth bothers you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>>>>>>When I have some >>>>>>>land though, I'll be able to grow >>>>>>>much of my own food. >>>>>> >>>>>>You're talking 20-25 years down the road. You do NOTHING now about > > your > >>>>>>consumption to live up to your own standards. >>>>> >>>>>I can't help it >>>> >>>>Yes, you can. >>> >>>It's not within my current >>>reasonable abilities. >> >>Yes, it is. Stop making excuses. > > No it's not. Yes, it is. >>>I am content for now to use this >>>forum >> >>to preach what you refuse to practice. That's all. > > I fully practice what I preach No, you do not. You never have and you never will. >>>At first I thought you were >>>just being shit disturbers >>>when you mention cds all the >>>time, but now I see it for what >>>it is, a very real concern. >> >>Why are you doing nothing about it if it's a real concern to you? > > What's the alternative to 'nothing'? SOMEthing. ANYthing. >>>If that changes due to increasing >>>demand, that's great. >> >>It hasn't affected your own demand. You continue to freely engage in >>commerce which injures and kills animals. > > Like I have a choice. You have plenty of choices. The two choices you've made, though, are to make excuses for yourself and to pass the buck to those whom you freely engage in commerce. > If I did or > will have a choice, I'd gladly pay > the extra that it took to hand plant > and harvest etc. Freely engage a farmer to do that. > The problem is > that it would be more expensive > than regular food, No shit, Skanky. Put your money where your own smeggy mouth is. > so some > people might not be able to buy > it even though they would prefer > to. We're not talking about other people. We're talking about what YOU do, or rather, what you WON'T do (i.e., practice what you preach). >>>So, anyways, I feel like I AM doing >>>something proactive >> >>No, you filthy skank. You're doing what you always have: preaching >>without practicing, making excuses, passively waiting for others to do >>what you refuse to do yourself. That's not pro-active. That's not even >>active. It's entirely passive. It's also not laudable, so stop patting >>yourself on your hairy back. > > My hairy back?!?!?! Yes. You really should shave it, Lassie. > How didyou know about that? I have my ways. > That > might very well be the funniest > insult I've seen yet on this > newsgroup. It's not an insult; it's true. >>>>>The only possible thing >>>> >>>>There are plenty of possibilities you've not considered. >>> >>>There IS the possibility of me >>>getting a house in the city >>>before retiring, >> >>No chance. > > Yes chance. No chance. > The idea of an > outdoor garden BEFORE > retiring is very tempting. Not as tempting as freely engaging in commerce with farmers who practices include intentionally killing, negligently killing, and indifferently killing animals. >>>and then >>>selling and rebuying when >>>I retire. >> >>Fantasy. > > Why. Because you won't do it. > It's a reasonable > option. Fantasizing about things, in this case about your ethics and how you live your life according to your ethics, isn't a "reasonable option" since you're *not* living your life according to your ethics. >>>If I buy in the city, >>>then at least I'll have more >>>of a garden then a balcony >>>gives. More than what an >>>allotment garden gives. >> >>And much less than you'd have by leasing land on the outskirts of town >>for the purpose of growing your own food, which would cost you far less >>than buying a house or groceries. > > I can go rural when I retire. You won't. > Largish Who says you need "largish"? Oh yeah, you did when you pulled "five acres" from your ass. > lots nearby Toronto are far too > pricey, They'll also appreciate or at least hold their value. > and I need to be near/in > Toronto until I retire. No, you don't "need" that. >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>Play nice, >>>>>> >>>>>>Eat me. >>>>> >>>>>If we crash in a plane together, >>>> >>>>We'll never be in the same room, much less in a confined space like an >>>>airplane together. You don't fly. You probably never have. >>> >>>For all I know, >> >>You know nothing. >> >> >>>we HAVE flown together. >> >>No, we haven't. > > How do you know? I think it's a very safe assumption, especially given the fact that you can't even remember how long ago you last flew anywhere. > The only > way is if you yourself have > never flown. No, there are other variables from which I can deduce the probablilities. Right now, well under 1%. >>>I'm not a big fan of >>>flying, but I do it when I have to. >> >>How many times have you flown and when was the last time? > > I'm not sure how many times, but > the last time was a quite a few > years ago, like more than 10. That reduces the likelihood. >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>> >>>>>I was the one who posted the >>>>>info on vole cds. Did some of >>>>>your work for you. >>>> >>>>Bullshit, you lying bitch. Go to the archives and look at how many times >>>>we've discussed Davis' work in these groups and how many times the >>>>percentage of dead voles has been discussed. I just quoted from the OSU >>>>website the other day. >>> >>>I posted a more recent study on >>>the cds of voles. Maybe Dutch >>>can help here if he remembers >>>it. If I didn't know about you >>>posting stuff on them previously >>>do you really think that's reason >>>to call me a lying bitch? >> >>Yes, and a brazen one, too, for suggesting you've ever done work for me. >>I just searched the archives for posts you've made which include the >>words "vole" and "voles" and there's not one of any study involving them >>-- and most of the hits were for things written *to* you, not by you. > > Well I posted an article found > through EurekAlert > ( http://www.eurekalert.org/pubnews.php ) > and it even surprised Dutch into > saying something like 'good work'. > Maybe it was some other animal, > but I'm pretty sure it was voles. I've not found your post. >>>>>Obviously each year's vole >>>>>population arises from survivors >>>>>of the previous years. Do the >>>>>crops cause an unnatural >>>>>explosion of voles, which is >>>>>then balanced out by the >>>>>number killed? Not that this >>>>>mitigates things completely >>>>>but it might be worth >>>>>considering. >>>> >>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. >>>>-- Skanky >>> >>>If you are going to quote me, >> >>Stop complaining. I got the gist of it right. Your qualifications are >>irrelevant because they only attempt to address EXCEPTIONS rather than >>your RULE. > > No, it also is taking into consideration > the lack of alternatives most people > have in their source of foods. You have plenty of alternatives, but you choose to make excuses so you can continue with your animal-killing status quo. > That's > part of the mostly. That's moved it > down from, let's say, 'almost > completely' wrong. You're talking about what others do and avoiding the discussion of your principles and your actions. You don't practice what you preach. >>>1, my AKA is Skunky, >> >>Skanky. >> >> >>>so keep >>>your insults in check if you want >>>the same in return. >> >>Yawn. > > Go to sleep instead of typing > yawn. Stop boring me. >>>2, My more >>>recent, and very well known by >>>now, wording is that killing >>>animals is MOSTLY wrong. >> >>What do you preach? What do you practice? Your attempts to deflect the >>discussion away -- and that's all this "mostly wrong" bullshit is -- >>from your normal behavior as a consumer are pathetic. > > I preach but you don't practice. >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>> >>>>>The meat eaters I know would >>>>>choose the less cruel lives and >>>>>deaths for their meats, >>>> >>>>Then why have you persistently refused to recommend others consume such >>>>meats? >>> >>>I'll freely admit that I would rather >>>see meat eaters eat meats >>>from cruelty-lessened farms >>>than factory farms. >> >>The overwhelming majority of farms you would call "factory" farms are >>not cruel operations. Their animals are well-fed and cared for, and >>they're treated humanely. > > I don't believe that. Look at these pics I found for Rupert of "factory" farming operations. http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg Please tell me what you find objectionable in these images of the norm of so-called "factory" farming, and how those hogs are in worse shape than those killed for your food via: 1. Internal bleeding from poisoning (pesticides, herbicides). 2. Being run over by a tractor. 3. Being crushed by a plow. 4. Being sliced and diced by various tractor implements. 5. Drowning (from irrigation). 6. Suffocation (which happens to aquatic life when rice fields are drained). 7. Being burned alive (straw is often burned after harvest). >>>As far as >>>approving of it, what more >>>are you looking for? >> >>Prior to this, you've refused to even cede that there are alternative >>meats which are healthier for both animal and human. > > Well, I still wouldn't eat any for > health reasons, organic or not. Completely bogus, irrational, unfounded "health" reasons. > Fringe meats are the exception > not the norm anyways. They're readily available. You've even seen them in your local health food store. > Also, > some of the fringe meats, I > don't think are as good as you > meat eaters have been claiming. On what grounds? >>>You know full well that I agree >>>with DH >> >>I don't know this because I generally don't read ****wit's posts (except >>when I need a good laugh, and then I go to see what he's posted to >>bicycle and boat newsgroups). The latest ones that made me laugh involved one of his redneck friends teaching him to SCUBA dive and ****wit's questions about recording fish when he dives. >>>on the benefits of >>>kind animal farming over >>>factory farming, even if we do >>>disagree on what constitutes >>>kind. >> >>You're entirely ignorant about farming methods anyway. > > Except small scale. Farming. Not gardening, much less your ****ing flower pots. > I'm great at > that. I don't know how I'd do at > large scale. I have an idea, lol. >>>>I still can't be expected to recommend any meat... >>>>-- Skanky, 19 May 05 >>> >>>For health reasons, I won't. >> >>You mean, you won't based upon your irrational beliefs about nutrition. Established. >>>But IF a person is going to >>>eat meat anyways, then better >>>if it's from the kinder farms. >> >>You charlatan, if your objection is about health -- human health -- then >>you should recommend leaner cuts regardless of the kind of livestock >>operation. Your statement shows me how little health matters to you and >>how much AR does. > > I believe that the organic meats > are healthier than the others, On what grounds? > but I don't think eating meat is healthy On what grounds? > so I of course wouldn't recommend > it. If someone is going to anyways > though, I'd rather see them go for > kindly raised organics. Funny you care how meat animals are raised when you freely consume food which includes deaths by: 1. Internal bleeding from poisoning (pesticides, herbicides). 2. Being run over by a tractor. 3. Being crushed by a plow. 4. Being sliced and diced by various tractor implements. 5. Drowning (from irrigation). 6. Suffocation (which happens to aquatic life when rice fields are drained). 7. Being burned alive (straw is often burned after harvest). Where's YOUR compassion, Skanky? >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>> >>>>>The demand >>>>>for cruelty-free food will >>>>>take it's own time to develop >>>> >>>>You don't demand it. You're passively waiting for others to live >>>>according to your own principles. >>> >>>Our discussions here on the topic >>>may have some influence on the >>>readers >> >>Or not influence them at all. It certainly hasn't affected your own >>behavior. You stubbornly refuse to practice what you preach. Established. >>>We both know that most >>>vegetarians and vegans don't >>>know about them. Maybe it's >>>time that they do. >> >>Knowing about them is one thing, doing something about them is another. >>You know about them and haven't done a damn thing to reduce the number >>of animal deaths attributable to your own diet. You even attempt to >>justify and make excuses for your selfish behavior as a consumer. Established. >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>> >>>>>Since the >>>>>different parts of the foot >>>>>corelate to specific body >>>>>areas, >>>> >>>>They do NOT. The "maps" they've used have changed over the years. Blind >>>>studies have shown that reflexology is crap. >>>> >>>>http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/reflex.html >>>>http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...s/massage.html >>> >>>Well, I'm no expert. >> >>No shit, Skanky. >> >> >>>I just have >>>the experience of knowing >>>someone who it helped. >> >>Anecdotal, and you have no way of knowing if the reflexology was >>directly or even solely beneficial. Most people who engage in >>alternative therapies continue with a variety of other therapies >>including medication. >> >> >>>From that, I lean towards thinking >>>that there may be something to it. >> >>You're not leaning, you're stretching. >> >> >>>>>and since my mother >>>>>went for this treatment, >>>>>finding that her tender areas >>>>>coorelated to her medical >>>>>problems, I think there might >>>>>be something to it. >>>> >>>>Purely anecdotal. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Not as >>>>>a cure all though, just in >>>>>conjunction to other treatments. >>>> >>>>Other treatments cure. Reflexology, massage, and other touch therapies >>>>can reduce stress which can help other LEGITIMATE therapies work better >>>>or at all. >>> >>>Then it's no different than a >>>pain killer, reducing stress and >>>making the patient feel better. >> >>Stress reduction is a very good thing, but in and of itself doesn't >>always eliminate or reduce acute pain (as a "pain killer" does) or deal >>with other organic underlying issues. > > Of course not, I never claimed it > did. You said you think there might be something to it. There isn't beyond its value for stress-reduction and relaxation. The "zones" on foot maps have changed over the years. The studies noted in the links I provided showed that different reflexologists gave remarkably different diagnoses/interpretations for the same person. >>>I never claimed to believe it's >>>a cure all. >> >>Lesley does. > > That's where I disagree with her > on the subject then. You should've said that from the beginning. >>>[--snip--] >>> >>>> "inner earth beings" >>> >>>No. However, I believe that >>>microbes might exist deeper >>>than we realize. >> >>She's not talking about microbes. She thinks the earth is hollow and >>filled with enlightened beings. She also has written that she doesn't >>think they're "little green men." >> >>There you go again with 'little green men'. If anyone's hanging >>around under mountains, they're far from little, and not green. >>http://tinyurl.com/9fqbn Do you think this is pretty ****ing funny coming from someone who's probably about your age? >>>> that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe >>> >>>Don't know about that one. >> >>She used a patent for an illuminated globe as evidence that the earth is >>hollow, and even went so far as to say (or parrot) that the patent in >>question was one of the most important scientific discoveries in history. > > Then I'd have to say I disagree > with her on that one. I found the thread if you're interested. http://tinyurl.com/d2gba >>>> your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef >>> >>>Unsure. I've seen so many >>>different numbers and claims >>>floating around (even from me) >>>that I'm left unsure of accuracy. >> >>I think livestock producers and food scientists, such as the ones I used >>to disabuse your error, have a better idea of how much feed it takes to >>produce beef than urban-based animal rights zealots do. > > Either way, it's never a 1:1 ratio. > Sometimes veg food isn't also, It seldom is, as I've already shown you. > but it can be more often. No. >>>> rain forest destruction >>> >>>Yes, unfortunately. >> >>No evidence. > > Enough None. > and from good sources. No. http://www.cfact.org/site/view_artic...&idarticle=214 >>>> Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) >>> >>>Don't know about this one. >>>What's being exported? >> >>Beef. > > I don't know about the Argentina > stuff, Neither did Lesley. > but I know that I have heard > Brazilian beef being referred to. And probably in the context of "rain forest destruction." > I don't remember the context or > the people who used the term. Activists or others parroting their unfounded Chicken Little-isms. >>>> Stolen French flying saucer >>> >>>Did they leave the keys inside? >> >>She claimed US forces took it and did something to its French inventor >>following WW2. I don't know if she still has a page on her website >>(which is even more amateurish than yours). > > Well, a human-made flying saucer > seems more plausible than one > flown here by aliens, but I'd have to > say no on this one too. Here's the page on her site: http://www.iol.ie/~creature/disc.html >>>Flying saucer, I doubt it, but that >>>it could get stolen? Maybe! >> >>No. >> >> >>>> Zapper >>> >>>No. >> >>She claims it's a cure-all and has posted about her "highly modified" >>zapper (jackrabbit vibrator?). > > No. I'd even worry that it might > be dangerous to injured bones. You don't have bones down there. At least, you shouldn't. >>>> Polar fountains >>> >>>I don't know what these are. >> >>Ions which result in the northern and southern lights. > > I don't know anything about the > science behind the lights, but > I thought that it was already > figured out by mainstream > science. She's a contrarian. If the mainstream says something is so, she doubts it or refuses to accept it. You'll find this throughout her posts whether it involves her quotations from known pseudo writings attributed to early church fathers to her health-related quackery to her crackpot conspiracy theories. > Whether that involves > fountains of any sort would > be up to them. Maybe if I get > some time I'll actually > google aurora borealis and > get a summary somewhere > of the science behind it. In a nutshell, she claimed polar fountains were terrestrial in origin even though her source article noted everything was in the ionosphere and magnetosphere. >>>My only knowledge of the poles >>>is that they are cold and magnetic. >> >>Lesley believes they're open and that light emits from them. >>http://tinyurl.com/938kc > > To tell you the truth, I don't know > what either of you were talking > about in that post. I'm not very > up on the space, plasma and > iono-whatever sciences. Maybe you can try to catch up on all that when you retire, especially since you won't try gardening five acres. >>>> Sun gazing >>> >>>No. Dangerous. >> >>She bought into it and pasted in the following article, which was later >>disavowed by NASA (who said they'd never heard of this nutcase). >>http://tinyurl.com/v5fp > > That one's pretty kooky, I'll agree. That's the kind of stuff she's drawn to the same way a fly is drawn to dogshit. >>>> Chemtrails >>> >>>I read about these, and I still don't >>>know what chemical they think is >>>being dispersed. Anyways, no. >> >>There are no chemicals being systematically sprayed. > > Then, other then airplane tracks in > the sky, I don't see their significance. She thinks covert agencies and sinister forces are trying to get us. > Maybe in photography where it > might get in the way of a nice photo. Some pilots are more creative than others with their chemtrails. A lot of their creativity, though, depends on how much traffic is in their airspace. http://tinyurl.com/b5dvo >>>> AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory >>> >>>Possible. >> >>Oh please. > > Still possible though. It is both unlikely and unthinkable that enough people could engage in such widespread conspiracies to willfully infect other human beings with fatal diseases. The nuts who perpetrate this kind of nonsense point to "secret" tests of unknowing subjects in subways, but those "tests" involved innocuous agents like _Bacillus subtilis_. More was learned from those real-world tests about how quickly such agents spread throughout populated areas than any modeling -- then or now -- could hope to (in fact, the current models are based on things learned from those tests). >>>> Crop circles >>> >>>Not by aliens, but something's >>>doing a good job of making >>>them. >> >>She thinks aliens. > > I just don't think aliens would > come here and amuse themselves > by drawing pictures in a field of > wheat. She does. >>>> sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts >>> >>>No. I like my ex-convicts to be >>>non-violent. >> >>Did you meet your ******* partner in jail? > > Fishing and insulting all in one. Two birds, one stone. > Nice try. I'll leave you to wonder. You did, huh. >>>> the validity of online IQ tests >>> >>>I want to say yes on this one, >> >>You shouldn't. You really, really shouldn't. >> >> >>>but I know that they are probably not >>>very accurate. >> >>They're not only inaccurate, she kept re-taking it to get her score up >>(lol). She wrote: >>I told you that I might raise it a notch or two if I took a >>little more time and care than I did at first. >>http://tinyurl.com/v5gk > > Well if it's that Tickle website, they > ask or warn about retaking the > test. The point is that she defended her numerous retakes despite the information provided to her about the validity of such testing, much less retakes. >>>> crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories >>> >>>Not sure which of the many theories >>>these are. >> >>She thinks there were no Islamic terrorists, that the planes were flown >>by remote control, and that the WTC towers came down from implosion by >>explosives. > > I saw it live on CNN when the > second plane hit and the towers > collapsed. It looked like the dust > spread out more than it should > have for an implosion, but just > right for a structural collapse. And that's how it happened. > I personally believe that it was > Muslim terrorists, but to each > their own. First, to each *his* or *her* own, *not* their. Second, this isn't something open to debate. We have sufficient evidence of what happened, and we also have bin Laden's own admissions on video. >>>> Jeff Rense for "news" >>> >>>From what I've googled, he >>>seems a bit kooky and >>>conspiratorial-based. >> >>Bingo! But that's her preferred source for "news." >> >> >>>>>No pot is being smuggled into >>>>>Canada anymore. >>>> >>>>Wrong. >>>> >>>>http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=3449573 >>> >>>This one doesn't say which >>>direction the smuggling was >>>taking place. >> >>Other articles said into Canada. >> >> >>>I have heard >>>that over on the west coast, >>>pot from BC gets smuggled >>>into the US, but I think soon >>>enough, if not already, the >>>US will have enough local >>>grow-ops that they won't >>>need to smuggle. >> >>You drug-addled imbecile. > > That's pot-enhanced non-imbecile. No, you're an imbecile and "pot-enhanced" is an oxymoron. You're drug-addled. >>According to 2004 statistics released Wednesday, the [Texas] >>Department of Public Safety seized 1.5 tons of cocaine, 38 tons >>of marijuana and 191 pounds of methamphetamine. Troopers also >>made 2,117 drug arrests. >> >>They seized more than $189.1 million worth of illegal drugs >>during routine patrols. >> >>http://www.news8austin.com/content/t...sp?ArID=139934 >> >> >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>> >>>>>It's been many, many >>>>>years since pot came all >>>>>compressed (a sign of possible >>>>>importation). I thought most >>>>>US pot came from the hills >>>>>in California, or was that just >>>>>in the 80s? >>>> >>>>Most US pot comes in from Mexico, a product of either Mexico or other >>>>Central and South American countries. Pot is also increasingly coming in >>> >>>>from BC. >>> >>>You guys should get more >>>self sufficient. >> >>Marijuana doesn't lead to independence or self-sufficiency. Addiction is >>dependence, bondage. > > Marijuana does not necessarily > mean addiction. But it does when you've been smoking it for over twenty years. >>>>>No. >>>> >>>>Yes. The drug war in Nuevo Laredo involves marijuana as well as other >>>>drugs. >>> >>>It's illegalization causes a lot >>>of bloodshed and crimes. >> >>You failed to address the issue, which is whether or not it's a hard >>drug problem or marijuana problem. Texas DPS confiscated 38 tons of pot >>and only 1.5 tons of cocaine last year. Nearly all of that pot was >>imported, not grown in Texas. It's a drug problem, and marijuana >>accounted for 96.2% (by weight) of the drugs confiscated last year. > > Pot is much heavier than those > harder drugs. Bullshit. A kilo of pot weighs just as much as a kilo of cocaine. A kilo of pot takes up much more space than a kilo of cocaine. > If it were legal, > all those problems with it would > disappear. Wrong. You still have drug-related crimes in those parts of Canada where cops look the other way. Dittos for the rampant drug trade in the Netherlands, the nation on our planet with the most libertine drug laws. Not only is Holland's increasingly potent marijuana not staying in the legal coffee shops, but its illegal export brings in far more money than that traditional Dutch export, tulips. Meanwhile,drug addiction has tripled. There are no easy answers to drugs, but naive Dutch legislators have made a hash of drug policy. Partial article available he http://tinyurl.com/d3fps See also: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/09so.htm > It could also be taxed Why should it or anything else be singled out with a tax? Taxing it has the same effect as criminalization -- it creates a black market and the related crimes which accompany black markets. I've been searched twice by your customs people upon entering Canada to make sure I wasn't smuggling cigarettes to Canadians trying to avoid paying your tobacco taxes. WTF makes you think pot would be any different? http://www.healthwatcher.net/Smuggli...728USMUGN.html Etc. > and used in all of it's hemp uses > as well. Industrial hemp is already legal, and it's a big red herring used by decriminalization stoners like you. > Almost the whole plant > can be used for good stuff. Then stop smoking it and start making pants of it if you're sincerely interested in all those other uses. The fact remains you couldn't care less -- you just want to get ****ed up. >>>>>[--snip--] >>>> >>>>You keep repeating the same old BS, but I responded anyway (I intended >>>>to snip it and ask the following questions you snipped). Tell us >>>>something new. How old were you when you got pregnant? Was that why you >>>>quit smoking in '81? Is that why you dropped out of school? >>> >>>Quit fishing for my parental/family >>>status, and my education. All I've >>>told you was that I quit smoking >>>and turned vegetarian in 1981. >> >>Because you were pregnant and your parents refused to pay for any more >>abortions. > > Just keep casting that fishing rod. > I'm going to sleep. Who cares. > Sure enough > when I hardly have any time, there > are tons of posts to go through, so > I might not get through them until > the weekend. Everyone has a cross to bear. How do you manage? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Skanky lied:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>Skanky wrote: >> >>>>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>>>>>>When I have some >>>>>>>land though, I'll be able to grow >>>>>>>much of my own food. >>>>>> >>>>>>You're talking 20-25 years down the road. You do NOTHING now about > > your > >>>>>>consumption to live up to your own standards. >>>>> >>>>>I can't help it >>>> >>>>Yes, you can. >>> >>>It's not within my current >>>reasonable abilities. >> >>Yes, it is. Stop making excuses. > > > No it's not. > > >>>I am content for now to use this >>>forum >> >>to preach what you refuse to practice. That's all. > > > I fully practice what I preach to > the best of my capabilities. > It's not within my capabilities > to go to very extreme measures > though, like Rudy's suggestion > that I quit my job and take up > farming as both a living and > a source of all my own food, > just like that, walk off into the > rural sunset with no large > scale farming experience. > > >>>At first I thought you were >>>just being shit disturbers >>>when you mention cds all the >>>time, but now I see it for what >>>it is, a very real concern. >> >>Why are you doing nothing about it if it's a real concern to you? > > > What's the alternative to 'nothing'? > > >>>If that changes due to increasing >>>demand, that's great. >> >>It hasn't affected your own demand. You continue to freely engage in >>commerce which injures and kills animals. > > > Like I have a choice. If I did or > will have a choice, Why do you keep repeating this lie? It IS a lie. You DO have a choice; you just don't like the options available in the choice. They are feasible, despite your cheap lying to the contrary. Just STOP lying about no choice, Skanky. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're projecting.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Skanky wrote: > >>>>>>>>>><...> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>If I am lucky enough to still be > >>>>>>>>>>>able bodied when I retire, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>You'll neither retire nor be able-bodied. Your sloth will catch up > >>>>> > >>>>>with > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>you. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>We'll see when the time comes. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>We already see it now: you don't practice what you preach. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Yes I do. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No, you do not. You never have. > >>>>> > >>>>>Yes, I do. > >>>> > >>>>Wrong. You say killing animals is wrong yet you continue to engage in > >>>>behaviors which wantonly kill animals. > >>> > >>>You mean I'm the end consumer > >>>in a process which kills animals. > >> > >>You *freely* engage in commerce which causes animals to die despite your > >>platitudes about "killing animals is wrong." > > > > Not so freely. > > Very freely. ENTIRELY freely. Not so, since if given the choice, I would choose harm-free foods. > >>>I'm the most important animal in > >>>my life, > >> > >>We agree: you are self-centered. > > > > Everyone is. > > Not to the degree you are, you sanctimonious cow. Just how overly self centered do you think I am? > > After all we ARE > > ourselves. > > Please don't reply to messages after you toke. What I said makes sense either way. > >>>and so I'm not about to > >>>starve in order to boycott the > >>>'bad' farmers. > >> > >>Non sequitur. You have alternatives which would keep you from starving. > >>Also, the farmers aren't "bad" -- *you* are for freely engaging in > >>commerce with those whom you consider "bad" because they do things you > >>think are "wrong." > > > > You're playing word games. > > There are no word games above, you're just too stoned to comprehend > above a third-grade level. YOU're bad for freely engaging in commerce > with those whom you consider to do "wrong" things. Would starving myself satisfy you? That's probably the only thing that will. > >>>[--snip--] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>Power in numbers, dumb ass. You keep prating about increasing demand > > > > for > > > >>>>>>"veganic" food. Find your fellow like-minded dweebs in Toronto and > >>>>>>approach a farmer to grow in a manner consistent with your principles. > >>>>> > >>>>>If I was an extremist, > >>>> > >>>>You are an extremist. You believe that killing animals is wrong, which > >>>>is extremist. You believe eating ANY meat is deleterious, which is > >>>>extremist. And on and on and on. > >>> > >>>I believe that killing animals is > >>>MOSTLY wrong. > >> > >>Irrelevant qualifier, especially considering your qualification is based > >>on tangential issues like euthanasia and hypothetical issues involving > >>starvation in extreme situations. That there are exceptions to rules is > >>irrelevant. It's the *rule* -- *YOUR OWN NORM* -- with which you display > >>your moral confusion and hypocrisy. > > > > My own norm is that I harm > > animals. Period. And several times daily through your own consumption > and despite reasonable alternatives suggested to you. > > > I can't help it if the world doesn't > > always run according to my > > expectations. > > You CAN help how and what you consume, but freely choose not to do so. Please tell me about these sources of veganic foods. You haven't so far. Your suggestions, while good in other ways, failed to have harm-free options. > >>>Get it right > >> > >>I already have. You need to deal with your norm, not your blithering > >>attempts to deflect from it with qualifications which have absolutely no > >>bearing on your stated sense of ethics. > > > > It has everything to do with ethics. > > Your qualification of "mostly" has nothing to do with ethics and > everything to do with being a poseur. You just insult when you don't know what else to say. > > The issue of animal harm is an > > ethical one. > > Then why do you freely engage in commerce with those who harm and kill > animals intentionally, through negligence, or through indifference? > > Answer: Because you're negligent and/or indifferent about dead animals. > You only care when others choose to eat them. That doesn't even make sense. Why would I care about one but not the other. > > You're picking on me > > *mock-playing violin* > > > for not having extreme enough > > beliefs. > > Your beliefs are already extreme. So is your rampant hypocrisy. You're getting extremely boring. You're like a broken record. > >>>I happen to think that eating meat is > >>>unhealthy, > >> > >>You have no evidence to support such a claim. It's a belief. An > >>unfounded and irrational belief. > > > > I only need to support such a claim > > to myself. > > Self-delusions aren't "support" for claims. What do you care if my choices for my health are different than your choices? If they are, that is, as you are still mostly a dietary vegan. > > I don't force my dietary > > choices on anyone else. > > Says she who fantasizes the whole world were vegan even though she isn't > one herself. I wish I was one too, but I'm doing it gradually. One slight possibility I'm considering now is just being an ovo-vegetarian, giving up all milk products but occasionally having some free range organic eggs, maybe even visiting the farm they are being raised in to check them out (surprise visit?). > >>>but I can accept > >>>that others may not share > >>>that view, > >> > >>Many of them base it on evidence rather than articles of your faith. > > > > Many of both sides do both. > > Evidence and faith. > > Your side relies entirely on faith -- faith and belief that your food is > "cruelty-free" simply because you don't eat meat. Not eating an animal killed for my eating is only part of it. There needs to be harm-free practices done for all crops. That would be ideal. > >>>and that they might > >>>think it's necessary for > >>>health. > >> > >>Vegetables aren't necessary, either. Neither is anything else you eat. > > > > According to you, > > It's not my word on the subject. For example, Inuit survive quite well > on a diet with little or no plant-based foods. And until recently, their average lifespan was 40, I read somewhere. Let's just agree to disagree on what constitutes a healthy diet. > >>>I don't think I'm being > >>>extremist. > >> > >>Self-delusion. > > > > Yet you think my 'mostly' word > > is not extreme enough. > > Your opinions are extreme whether you want to qualify them or not. > > > And that I must meet a goal of NO animal > > harm. > > Strawman. All of the suggested alternatives would REDUCE harm to > animals. Your current consumption of mechanically-harvested foods, > processed foods, and foods transported cross-continent and from other > hemispheres does NOT reduce harm to animals, but only increases it. If I was of an extreme enough mindset to boycott anything that's been transported, I'd be naked and homeless and only treading on locally growing lawns. > >>>And what ever > >>>happened to that accusation > >>>of me being too passive? > >> > >>The two aren't mutually exclusive. > > > > Ah, ok. > > Your passivity is displayed in your passing the buck to farmers for > killing animals while growing food you freely buy from them and in your > fantasies about demand for "veganic" food rising so you don't have to > alter your own consumption. Your extremism includes the position you've > staked out about "killing animals is wrong" (with or without any > qualification). > > >>>>>maybe I > >>>>>would do that. Maybe someone > >>>>>more extreme than I will read > >>>>>this and start one. > >>>> > >>>>Disgusting passivist. ALWAYS waiting for someone else to do your work. > >>> > >>>Ah, there it is. > >> > >>Why do you demand others practice what you preach, and why do you not > >>practice it yourself? > > > > I do > > absolutely nothing. You post to usenet. That's doing NOTHING to reduce > animal deaths. You've stubbornly rejected any and all recommendations to > reduce animal deaths attributable to your diet. You do not practice what > you preach. Maybe our conversation has gotten someone thinking about doing some veganic gardening of their own. Maybe right now, someone is going to set aside some land for harm-free or reduced commercial farming and something will enter the market. > > I hope to be in good health still when I > > retire, > > This isn't about how you fantasize about finally practicing what you've > preached in 23 years, Skanky, it's about the here and now. Right now, > you have knowledge about the problem (as you see it) and knowledge about > various solutions. You stubbornly refuse to do ANYTHING which solves the > problem (harming animals through your own behavior as a consumer). > That's your reality. You say killing animals is wrong, but you freely > engage in activities including commerce with those who cause animals to > die. You're a major league hypocrite. There has been no reasonable alternative solutions suggested to me. > >>>>>I won't start > >>>>>such a co-op, > >>>> > >>>>It would require you to get off your flabby ass. That won't happen. > >>> > >>>If I do say so myself, > >> > >>You may as well since no one else will... > >> > >> > >>>I have a pretty decent ass for a 42 year > >>>old! > >> > >>It's flabby, pimply, and pasty from sitting on it all freaking day. > > > > Why would you assume any of the > > above? > > I saw your cankles in the pic of your cat. You saw my fallen, bunched socks. My skin doesn't show in that photo. If you thought that was skin, no wonder you think I've got a pasty looking butt. > >>>>>but I would > >>>>>certainly join one. > >>>> > >>>>You won't even join the ones which already exist. > >>> > >>>Being interested in organic > >>>foods > >> > >>Your interest is limited to organic industry propaganda despite the > >>evidence shown to you to the contrary. > > > > I believe organically grown foods > > are healthier. > > Faith based on propaganda, the facts be damned. > > > Even meats for those > > of you who eat that. > > Are you basing this on personal belief or upon some study showing such > to be the case? Mostly personal belief, but some read material too. If I were a meat eater, I would definitely choose those over normal ones. > >>>and the idea of a surprise > >>>basket of food each time, > >> > >>I can understand how a stoned loser would get excited by that. > > > > You've got to see it from the eyes > > of a mad cooking scientist. > > There's nothing scientific about you. But I do have a talent in the kitchen. The mixing of spices, inventing new dishes. Unfortunately I don't usually measure stuff, so can't repeat the recipes. > > What strange food(s) can I make with this > > mix? > > You can play the same silly game in your stoned mind when you stroll > your fat ass through the supermarket. Drop the insult shit for a while will you. > >>>I sent > >>>an email enquiring about the > >>>Toronto CSAs. I have yet to > >>>hear back from them. I'll give > >>>it another week or so, and then > >>>I'll email them again. > >> > >>Just call them, you passivist dummy. > > > > I probably will one of these days. > > Passivist and serial procrastinator. I've all the time in the world. Where's the fire? > > The lack of email response is a > > bit worrisome though, like maybe > > they are not as organized and > > efficient as they should be. > > Or maybe they check their phone messages more often than e-mail. Maybe. > >>>>>But thanks > >>>>>for admitting that veganic > >>>>>co-ops don't exist yet. > >>>> > >>>>Thanking me?! You're the nitwit who's yet to admit that and who keeps > >>>>ranting about "veganics" as if it were more than a pipedream of urban > >>>>vegan slackers like you. > >>> > >>>Todays pipedream might be > >>>tomorrows fringe food like > >>>organics are today. > >> > >>The organic isn't exactly fringe, but many of the claims peddled by the > >>industry and its activists are fraudulent. > > > > Regardless of what you might > > think of their claims, do you > > mean they are more than fringe? > > I recall sharing data with you showing how quickly their industry is > growing (thanks to their half-truths and blatant lies). Organic is going > mainstream, if not mainstream already. Well, there's only one thing I can say to that. Good. > > They are starting to appear in > > the 'normal' supermarkets. > > They've BEEN in supermarkets here for years. At least 10-15 years. > > > If veganic foods are the same > > when I retire, > > They WON'T be. Ever. First, consumers will pay a little more for > organic, but there are price-points at which most will buy conventional > instead. That's a huge hurdle for something as labor-intensive as that > which you fantasize. Consumers, over 98% of whom are NOT "serious" > vegetarians and don't care if rats or mice are killed or maimed (and a > lot of vegetarians who agree with them), will not pay more for such > produce; other crops like grains and legumes should expect to have even > further prohibitive costs associated with them because of the scale of > operations required for profitability. You're fantasizing that farmers > will ditch the very things which make them profitable -- machinery and > other technology -- to appeal to a very tiny niche market. Well, if that niche ever appears, and is affordable, I'll be glad to buy from it. > >>>Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows? > >> > >>I do. You do. The rest of the bullshit artists you're parroting about it > >>know it, too. > > > > Huh? > > Stop smoking pot, dummy. The people you're parroting about "veganics" > are bullshit artists. So are you. Birds of a feather... I'm not parroting anyone. > >>>[--snip--] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>The lots are so overspoken for > >>>>>that it would take years. > >>>> > >>>>You haven't even inquired. > >>> > >>>They are so overspoken for that > >>>the website said something about > >>>new ones having to be brand new > >>>and that you have to pick a spot > >>>and then apply to have it declared > >>>a public allotment garden. Nothing > >>>about the existing ones. > >> > >>So you haven't even inquired. > > > > I didn't need to. The website > > made it quite clear. Also, having > > visited the lot of a friend, I saw > > how small they are. I might > > barely be able to grow my years > > supply of parsley and basil. > > So says the clueless urbanite who threw the number five out of her fat, > hairy ass on the issue of how many acres her retirement garden should > be. I suspect the lots are of reasonable size and capable of producing > more tomatoes than a saggy ditz like you can use in a year. Since these gardens need tending everyday and since you bring your own tools, and since the public transit isn't quick enough to get there and still have time to go to work, would the extra smog and gas usage of needing the car take away from the benefit gained by the tomatoes? Also why have you not realized that your needless insults works against your credibility? > >>>[--snip--] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>Because you'll never practice what you preach. You have the > > > > opportunity > > > >>>>>>now and you make excuses. > >>>>> > >>>>>What opportunity? > >>>> > >>>>Many opportunities. You find your principles to be an inconvenience. And > >>>>don't ask others what they do -- we're talking about YOUR OWN principles > >>>>and how YOU act according to them. > >>> > >>>My principles are > >> > >>bullshit. You say one thing and do another by freely engaging in > >>commerce with those who do things you consider wrong. You're culpable > >>for their "wrongs" because you do nothing to avoid your own free > >>participation in what they do. > >> > >> > >>>[--snip--] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Stop changing the subject. YOU make very specific claims ("killing > >>>>animals is wrong") and then do nothing to live up to YOUR OWN > > > > principles. > > > >>>You are getting the wording > >>>of my claims wrong > >> > >>Not at all. As noted above, your "allowable" exceptions to killing > >>animals do nothing to mitigate against your rule, which is to freely > >>engage in commerce with those who harm animals. > > > > I don't know if you've noticed, but > > there's not much choice in the > > food that's available. > > Maybe you're the one who hasn't noticed that you not only have choices > about foods grown by others, but that you also have choices in growing > or foraging for yourself. Your drug abuse has led you to only think > inside the box -- and I don't mean Karen's. I think you're a little hung up on the fact that Karen did a few naked women sketches. And quit accusing me of drug abuse. I treat my drugs kindly and gently, and I never yell at them. > >>>and the > >>>wording of my principles wrong > >>>too it seems. > >> > >>Not at all, retard. I'm not interested in splitting hairs over the > >>exceptions you'd accept, I want to discuss the *norms* of your behavior > >>and how those norms conflict head-on with your stated sense of ethics. > >> > >> > >>>[--snip--] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>Yeah, what's your point? Those > >>>>>>>are types of mailing addresses > >>>>>>>too. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You're the one who blathered about "living anywhere with a mailing > >>>>>>address." > >>>>> > >>>>>Yeah, > >>>> > >>>>So you can live or go even where you DON'T have a mailing address at > >>>>that location. > >>> > >>>Well then, > >> > >>You won't retire and you'll continue making irrational excuses for not > >>practicing what you preach. That includes the one you tried to get away > >>with about mailing addresses. > > > > Well I certainly don't plan to > > continue working > > You don't work now, why should you start then. Stop fishing about what I do for a living. > >>>[--snip--] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>You don't try, think, or do. You fantasize and try to BS others into > >>>>thinking you have noteworthy ambitions. > >>> > >>>I never said that my ambitions > >>>should be considered noteworthy > >>>to others. > >> > >>Good, because they aren't noteworthy. They're despicable, sleazy, and > >>contemptible because you refuse to practice what you preach. > > > > There's that broken record again. > > Raise your standards if the truth bothers you. I don't think you get what I was saying. You're opinions of my noteworthiness are not as considerable for me as my opinions are. -- 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
... > Skanky wrote: [--snip--] > >>>At first I thought you were > >>>just being shit disturbers > >>>when you mention cds all the > >>>time, but now I see it for what > >>>it is, a very real concern. > >> > >>Why are you doing nothing about it if it's a real concern to you? > > > > What's the alternative to 'nothing'? > > SOMEthing. ANYthing. Like.......? [--snip--] > > If I did or > > will have a choice, I'd gladly pay > > the extra that it took to hand plant > > and harvest etc. > > Freely engage a farmer to do that. That would be too costly. It would only be worth the farmer's while if they were to sell me a large quantity. A single buyer can't support that. Maybe some person out there will start a co-op based on that, who knows. [--snip--] > > My hairy back?!?!?! > > Yes. You really should shave it, Lassie. > > > How didyou know about that? > > I have my ways. > > > That > > might very well be the funniest > > insult I've seen yet on this > > newsgroup. > > It's not an insult; it's true. LOL. Are your ways of knowing these things at all connected with voices in your head telling them to you? [--snip--] > > Well I posted an article found > > through EurekAlert > > ( http://www.eurekalert.org/pubnews.php ) > > and it even surprised Dutch into > > saying something like 'good work'. > > Maybe it was some other animal, > > but I'm pretty sure it was voles. > > I've not found your post. Whatever. It doesn't really matter. [--snip--] > http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif > http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg > http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg > http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg > > Please tell me what you find objectionable in these images of the norm > of so-called "factory" farming, and how those hogs are in worse shape > than those killed for your food via: > 1. Internal bleeding from poisoning (pesticides, herbicides). > 2. Being run over by a tractor. > 3. Being crushed by a plow. > 4. Being sliced and diced by various tractor implements. > 5. Drowning (from irrigation). > 6. Suffocation (which happens to aquatic life when rice fields are drained). > 7. Being burned alive (straw is often burned after harvest). In a post I read the other day, I believe it might have been Rupert who said that at least the field deaths are quicker and not prolonged. I'm paraphrasing but I think I've got the idea. Makes sense to me. [--snip--] > > Fringe meats are the exception > > not the norm anyways. > > They're readily available. You've even seen them in your local health > food store. They showed up only in the health food/natural food stores at first. It took years before they started appearing in the normal stores. > > Also, > > some of the fringe meats, I > > don't think are as good as you > > meat eaters have been claiming. > > On what grounds? Humans can't be trusted not to overhunt. [--snip--] > >>>> Zapper > >>> > >>>No. > >> > >>She claims it's a cure-all and has posted about her "highly modified" > >>zapper (jackrabbit vibrator?). > > > > No. I'd even worry that it might > > be dangerous to injured bones. > > You don't have bones down there. At least, you shouldn't. Um, what kind of vibrator are you talking about? She isn't using this 'zapper' 'down there' on people, is she? [--snip--] > > Whether that involves > > fountains of any sort would > > be up to them. Maybe if I get > > some time I'll actually > > google aurora borealis and > > get a summary somewhere > > of the science behind it. > > In a nutshell, she claimed polar fountains were terrestrial in origin > even though her source article noted everything was in the ionosphere > and magnetosphere. Well, I know next to nothing about atmospheric science, so I'll go with what the source article says, provided it was from a good source. [--snip--] > >>>> Sun gazing > >>> > >>>No. Dangerous. > >> > >>She bought into it and pasted in the following article, which was later > >>disavowed by NASA (who said they'd never heard of this nutcase). > >>http://tinyurl.com/v5fp > > > > That one's pretty kooky, I'll agree. > > That's the kind of stuff she's drawn to the same way a fly is drawn to > dogshit. Different strokes for different folks I guess. [--snip--] > No, you're an imbecile and "pot-enhanced" is an oxymoron. You're > drug-addled. Do you insult your friends who recreationally drink? Actually do you insult your friends at all? Do you have friends? You sure do insult a lot for no good reasons. [--snip--] > > Marijuana does not necessarily > > mean addiction. > > But it does when you've been smoking it for over twenty years. Not if it has stayed at a level where it is a recreational, non-harmful practice, meaning no working or driving high, etc. Responsible usage. [--snip--] > > and used in all of it's hemp uses > > as well. > > Industrial hemp is already legal, and it's a big red herring used by > decriminalization stoners like you. There are only a very few farmers allowed to legally grow hemp in Canada. Very few. [--snip--] -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"VSA" > wrote in message
news:1119731017.3289d592c275977512aa9cb5584f00dd@m eganetnews2... > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:42:10 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote the following in > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian: > {...} > > >Maybe right now, someone > >is going to set aside some land for > >harm-free or reduced commercial > >farming and something will enter > >the market. > > How would you propose to do harm-free farming and make it profitable? First there would have to be enough demand for them. I only recently came to know about cds (collateral deaths) in the farming of plants. The people on this newsgroup, who I tend to debate with, are to thank for that. Now I'm definitely a potential customer for cd-free/reduced foods. Maybe as people read about cds at places like this group, awareness will rise about them. The hand-working of the various tilling, seeding, weeding, harvesting would raise the price. I would go ahead and splurge on it, but that might put a lot of people out of their budgets. So demand would have to be high enough that there would be enough high spenders. Another option, which I'm sure some people might hate me for, is to have some of the needed labour supply come from some form of workfare replacing some welfare cases, but where the farmer pays them the difference between what they're getting from welfare and minimum wage. That would reduce the cost of the end product, and it would get some depressed jobless people back into the 5 day week routine. Oh yeah, I would give them paid time off for job interviews that can get them off work/welfare. Anyways, the above is just kind of idealist and unlikely.to happen in my lifetime. I'll be lucky to see any harm-reduced foods, unless I grow my own. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Found scrawled in the outhouse on Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:06:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
> You're projecting. And this is directed at whom, David? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"VSA" > wrote in message
news:1119766030.2f266df9e14c506448fb3947ad0b0609@m eganetnews2... > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:40 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote the following in > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian: > > >"VSA" > wrote in message > >news:1119731017.3289d592c275977512aa9cb5584f00dd@ meganetnews2... > >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:42:10 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >> > wrote the following in > >> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian: > >> {...} > >> > >> >Maybe right now, someone > >> >is going to set aside some land for > >> >harm-free or reduced commercial > >> >farming and something will enter > >> >the market. > >> > >> How would you propose to do harm-free farming and make it profitable? > > > >First there would have to be enough > >demand for them. I only recently > >came to know about cds (collateral > >deaths) in the farming of plants. > >The people on this newsgroup, who > >I tend to debate with, are to thank > >for that. Now I'm definitely a > >potential customer for cd-free/reduced > >foods. Maybe as people read about > >cds at places like this group, > >awareness will rise about them. > > > >The hand-working of the various > >tilling, seeding, weeding, harvesting > >would raise the price. I would go > >ahead and splurge on it, but that > >might put a lot of people out of > >their budgets. So demand would > >have to be high enough that there > >would be enough high spenders. > > Using all hand labor (even paying low wages) would make your veggies > very expensive indeed. While you might get a few wealthy vegans to buy > from your products, it wouldn't be feasible to do on a really large > scale. The end result as far as reducing animal deaths would be > miniscule at best. It's kind of a no win situation. The farmer is reliant on the equipment the manufacturers make. The manufactures don't have any designs or ideas for animal safe machinery. Any consumer that doesn't grow their own food is reliant on the commercial foods grown the above ways. > But even using all hand labor still wouldn't make your farm harm-free. > Simply tilling the ground (by whatever means) is going to cause some > deaths. As for tilling, I wonder if that can be reduced by doing a deep tilling and adding a LOT of compost and good stuff for drainage etc. After that, it might only need retilling every 10 years or so, just maybe a yearly scratching of new compost into the surface. > >Another option, which I'm sure > >some people might hate me for, > >is to have some of the needed > >labour supply come from some > >form of workfare replacing some > >welfare cases, but where the > >farmer pays them the difference > >between what they're getting > >from welfare and minimum wage. > >That would reduce the cost of > >the end product, and it would > >get some depressed jobless > >people back into the 5 day > >week routine. Oh yeah, I would > >give them paid time off for job > >interviews that can get them off > >work/welfare. > > Good luck with that idea! I doubt if many of the people on welfare > would be interested in performing the hard labor required by your > idea. True, but it would separate the wheat from the chaff as far as who really wants to get off of welfare. I've known people who validly used it for short periods of time and people who have abused it. Another thing that I am for but a lot of people are against, is the fingerprinting or retinal scanning of recipients to prevent multiple claims by the same person. > >Anyways, the above is just kind > >of idealist and unlikely.to happen > >in my lifetime. I'll be lucky to see > >any harm-reduced foods, unless > >I grow my own. > > Any of the above is unlikely to happen simply because it wouldn't be > profitable. Keep in mind that any business has to make a profit to > stay in business, and I doubt if there would be enough demand for the > high priced veggies your farm would produce. I probably won't see it in my lifetime, but I may some day get a chance to grow some of my own food.; assuming I'm still able bodied when I retire. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>Wrong. You say killing animals is wrong yet you continue to engage in >>>>>>behaviors which wantonly kill animals. >>>>> >>>>>You mean I'm the end consumer >>>>>in a process which kills animals. >>>> >>>>You *freely* engage in commerce which causes animals to die despite your >>>>platitudes about "killing animals is wrong." >>> >>>Not so freely. >> >>Very freely. ENTIRELY freely. > > Not so, since if given the choice, I > would choose harm-free foods. You're already given the choice and you continue to consume harm-ful foods. So stop lying. >>>>>I'm the most important animal in >>>>>my life, >>>> >>>>We agree: you are self-centered. >>> >>>Everyone is. >> >>Not to the degree you are, you sanctimonious cow. > > Just how overly self centered do you > think I am? "Center-of-the-universe" variety of self-centered. >>>After all we ARE >>>ourselves. >> >>Please don't reply to messages after you toke. > > What I said makes sense either > way. It's ridiculous either way. >>>>>and so I'm not about to >>>>>starve in order to boycott the >>>>>'bad' farmers. >>>> >>>>Non sequitur. You have alternatives which would keep you from starving. >>>>Also, the farmers aren't "bad" -- *you* are for freely engaging in >>>>commerce with those whom you consider "bad" because they do things you >>>>think are "wrong." >>> >>>You're playing word games. >> >>There are no word games above, you're just too stoned to comprehend >>above a third-grade level. YOU're bad for freely engaging in commerce >>with those whom you consider to do "wrong" things. > > Would starving myself satisfy you? > That's probably the only thing that will. That's not one of the alternatives others have suggested to you, drama queen. >>>>>[--snip--] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>Power in numbers, dumb ass. You keep prating about increasing demand >>> >>>for >>> >>> >>>>>>>>"veganic" food. Find your fellow like-minded dweebs in Toronto and >>>>>>>>approach a farmer to grow in a manner consistent with your > > principles. > >>>>>>>If I was an extremist, >>>>>> >>>>>>You are an extremist. You believe that killing animals is wrong, which >>>>>>is extremist. You believe eating ANY meat is deleterious, which is >>>>>>extremist. And on and on and on. >>>>> >>>>>I believe that killing animals is >>>>>MOSTLY wrong. >>>> >>>>Irrelevant qualifier, especially considering your qualification is based >>>>on tangential issues like euthanasia and hypothetical issues involving >>>>starvation in extreme situations. That there are exceptions to rules is >>>>irrelevant. It's the *rule* -- *YOUR OWN NORM* -- with which you display >>>>your moral confusion and hypocrisy. >>> >>>My own norm is that I harm >> >>animals. Period. And several times daily through your own consumption >>and despite reasonable alternatives suggested to you. Established. >>>I can't help it if the world doesn't >>>always run according to my >>>expectations. >> >>You CAN help how and what you consume, but freely choose not to do so. > > Please tell me about these > sources of veganic foods. You > haven't so far. Liar. 1. Grow yourself. 2. Grow with others (co-op). 3. Forage. 4. Pay farmers extra to farm in a manner consistent with your stated values. Etc. > Your suggestions, > while good in other ways, failed > to have harm-free options. Stop making excuses and lying. >>>>>Get it right >>>> >>>>I already have. You need to deal with your norm, not your blithering >>>>attempts to deflect from it with qualifications which have absolutely no >>>>bearing on your stated sense of ethics. >>> >>>It has everything to do with ethics. >> >>Your qualification of "mostly" has nothing to do with ethics and >>everything to do with being a poseur. > > You just insult when you don't > know what else to say. I substantively addressed you: your qualification of "mostly" has nothing to do with ethics. Nothing. You may not appreciate being called a poseur, but it's not an insult. >>>The issue of animal harm is an >>>ethical one. >> >>Then why do you freely engage in commerce with those who harm and kill >>animals intentionally, through negligence, or through indifference? >> >>Answer: Because you're negligent and/or indifferent about dead animals. >>You only care when others choose to eat them. > > That doesn't even make sense. You're moral confusion is non-sensical. > Why would I care about one but not the > other. You tell us. You object to meat-eating but not to poisoning, drowning, burning, running over, or mutilating various species in the course of growing your food. >>>You're picking on me >> >>*mock-playing violin* >> >> >>>for not having extreme enough >>>beliefs. >> >>Your beliefs are already extreme. So is your rampant hypocrisy. > > You're getting extremely boring. > You're like a broken record. Do you think your excuses are novel or creative? >>>>>I happen to think that eating meat is >>>>>unhealthy, >>>> >>>>You have no evidence to support such a claim. It's a belief. An >>>>unfounded and irrational belief. >>> >>>I only need to support such a claim >>>to myself. >> >>Self-delusions aren't "support" for claims. > > What do you care if my choices for > my health are different than your > choices? Yours are entirely unfounded. You base your claims about health on belief, not on science. > If they are, that is, as > you are still mostly a dietary vegan. I'm not a vegan. My diet is vegetarian. >>>I don't force my dietary >>>choices on anyone else. >> >>Says she who fantasizes the whole world were vegan even though she isn't >>one herself. > > I wish I was one too, Keep wishing and click your heels together, Dorothy. > but I'm doing > it gradually. One slight possibility Slight possibility? WTF is that? > I'm considering now is just being an > ovo-vegetarian, giving up all milk > products Why? > but occasionally having > some free range organic eggs, > maybe even visiting the farm > they are being raised in to check > them out (surprise visit?). Why don't you make surprise visits to Lundberg Farms, and maybe offer to give their CDs a proper burial while you're at it? >>>>>but I can accept >>>>>that others may not share >>>>>that view, >>>> >>>>Many of them base it on evidence rather than articles of your faith. >>> >>>Many of both sides do both. >>>Evidence and faith. >> >>Your side relies entirely on faith -- faith and belief that your food is >>"cruelty-free" simply because you don't eat meat. > > Not eating an animal killed for > my eating is only part of it. Animals ARE killed for your "eating" -- frogs, snakes, birds, rodents, and other species are chopped, sliced, diced, burned, drowned, poisoned, etc., so you can have cheap food. > There needs to be harm-free > practices done for all crops. > That would be ideal. You would bitch about the expense -- which would increase your food budget far beyond what it would cost you to lease a garden in the first place. You can fantasize all you want that other people may care if a mouse is crushed by the weight of a combine over its burrow, but most people don't care and never will. Your reliance on such fantasies rather than taking your own steps to practice what you preach shows you to be quite insincere (and though you're sure to claim it's insulting, it shows your hypocrisy in failing to practice what you preach). >>>>>and that they might >>>>>think it's necessary for >>>>>health. >>>> >>>>Vegetables aren't necessary, either. Neither is anything else you eat. >>> >>>According to you, >> >>It's not my word on the subject. For example, Inuit survive quite well >>on a diet with little or no plant-based foods. > > And until recently, their average > lifespan was 40, I read somewhere. http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-...ooked-3h.shtml > Let's just agree to disagree **** you. I agree that we disagree. I refuse to cede that your irrational beliefs are in any way equivalent to those of us who base our statements on founded study. > on what constitutes a healthy diet. You've not studied nutrition. >>>>>I don't think I'm being >>>>>extremist. >>>> >>>>Self-delusion. >>> >>>Yet you think my 'mostly' word >>>is not extreme enough. >> >>Your opinions are extreme whether you want to qualify them or not. Established. >>>And that I must meet a goal of NO animal >>>harm. >> >>Strawman. All of the suggested alternatives would REDUCE harm to >>animals. Your current consumption of mechanically-harvested foods, >>processed foods, and foods transported cross-continent and from other >>hemispheres does NOT reduce harm to animals, but only increases it. > > If I was of an extreme enough > mindset to boycott anything that's > been transported, I'd be naked > and homeless and only treading > on locally growing lawns. Non sequitur(s) and more drama queen-isms. >>>>>And what ever >>>>>happened to that accusation >>>>>of me being too passive? >>>> >>>>The two aren't mutually exclusive. >>> >>>Ah, ok. >> >>Your passivity is displayed in your passing the buck to farmers for >>killing animals while growing food you freely buy from them and in your >>fantasies about demand for "veganic" food rising so you don't have to >>alter your own consumption. Your extremism includes the position you've >>staked out about "killing animals is wrong" (with or without any >>qualification). Established. >>>>>>>maybe I >>>>>>>would do that. Maybe someone >>>>>>>more extreme than I will read >>>>>>>this and start one. >>>>>> >>>>>>Disgusting passivist. ALWAYS waiting for someone else to do your work. >>>>> >>>>>Ah, there it is. >>>> >>>>Why do you demand others practice what you preach, and why do you not >>>>practice it yourself? >>> >>>I do >> >>absolutely nothing. You post to usenet. That's doing NOTHING to reduce >>animal deaths. You've stubbornly rejected any and all recommendations to >>reduce animal deaths attributable to your diet. You do not practice what >>you preach. > > Maybe our conversation has gotten > someone thinking about doing > some veganic gardening of their > own. It hasn't done that to you. > Maybe right now, someone > is going to set aside some land for > harm-free or reduced commercial > farming and something will enter > the market. But YOU won't, and we're talking about the chasm between what YOU say and what YOU do. >>>I hope to be in good health still when I >>>retire, >> >>This isn't about how you fantasize about finally practicing what you've >>preached in 23 years, Skanky, it's about the here and now. Right now, >>you have knowledge about the problem (as you see it) and knowledge about >>various solutions. You stubbornly refuse to do ANYTHING which solves the >>problem (harming animals through your own behavior as a consumer). >>That's your reality. You say killing animals is wrong, but you freely >>engage in activities including commerce with those who cause animals to >>die. You're a major league hypocrite. > > There has been no reasonable > alternative solutions suggested > to me. There have been many. You find them objectionable because they'd require you to alter your behavior, and you're too much a creature of (bad) habit to do that. >>>>>>>I won't start >>>>>>>such a co-op, >>>>>> >>>>>>It would require you to get off your flabby ass. That won't happen. >>>>> >>>>>If I do say so myself, >>>> >>>>You may as well since no one else will... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I have a pretty decent ass for a 42 year >>>>>old! >>>> >>>>It's flabby, pimply, and pasty from sitting on it all freaking day. >>> >>>Why would you assume any of the >>>above? >> >>I saw your cankles in the pic of your cat. > > You saw my fallen, bunched cankles. > My skin doesn't show in that photo. Sure. > If you thought that was skin, no > wonder you think I've got a pasty > looking butt. You do. >>>>>>>but I would >>>>>>>certainly join one. >>>>>> >>>>>>You won't even join the ones which already exist. >>>>> >>>>>Being interested in organic >>>>>foods >>>> >>>>Your interest is limited to organic industry propaganda despite the >>>>evidence shown to you to the contrary. >>> >>>I believe organically grown foods >>>are healthier. >> >>Faith based on propaganda, the facts be damned. Established. >>>Even meats for those >>>of you who eat that. >> >>Are you basing this on personal belief or upon some study showing such >>to be the case? > > Mostly personal belief, Entirely on your personal belief. > but some read material too. Polemics from activists. > If I were a meat > eater, I would definitely choose > those over normal ones. You like everything else about meat. Funny how you've gone from saying it smells and tastes like "poo" to admitting you like how it smells when cooking. You eat fake meat. You may as well eat the real thing. >>>>>and the idea of a surprise >>>>>basket of food each time, >>>> >>>>I can understand how a stoned loser would get excited by that. >>> >>>You've got to see it from the eyes >>>of a mad cooking scientist. >> >>There's nothing scientific about you. > > But I do have a talent in the > kitchen. Are you a lunchroom lady in an elementary school? > The mixing of spices, > inventing new dishes. Inventing? No. You may tinker around, but there's nothing original on your website. > Unfortunately I don't usually > measure stuff, so can't repeat > the recipes. Neither do I, much to the horror of past regulars to this group and others. My tamale tutorial reposted to rfcv: http://tinyurl.com/crb8q >>>What strange food(s) can I make with this >>>mix? >> >>You can play the same silly game in your stoned mind when you stroll >>your fat ass through the supermarket. > > Drop the insult shit for a while > will you. No. You can play the same silly game by buying unique items at the grocery store. >>>>>I sent >>>>>an email enquiring about the >>>>>Toronto CSAs. I have yet to >>>>>hear back from them. I'll give >>>>>it another week or so, and then >>>>>I'll email them again. >>>> >>>>Just call them, you passivist dummy. >>> >>>I probably will one of these days. >> >>Passivist and serial procrastinator. > > I've all the time in the world. See, I told you that you sit around on your ass all day. > Where's the fire? It's certainly not under you (or Derek, either). >>>The lack of email response is a >>>bit worrisome though, like maybe >>>they are not as organized and >>>efficient as they should be. >> >>Or maybe they check their phone messages more often than e-mail. > > Maybe. Probably. Add to that issues related to spam and spam filtering, e-mailing some people can be a bigger challenge than just calling in the first place. >>>>>>>But thanks >>>>>>>for admitting that veganic >>>>>>>co-ops don't exist yet. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanking me?! You're the nitwit who's yet to admit that and who keeps >>>>>>ranting about "veganics" as if it were more than a pipedream of urban >>>>>>vegan slackers like you. >>>>> >>>>>Todays pipedream might be >>>>>tomorrows fringe food like >>>>>organics are today. >>>> >>>>The organic isn't exactly fringe, but many of the claims peddled by the >>>>industry and its activists are fraudulent. >>> >>>Regardless of what you might >>>think of their claims, do you >>>mean they are more than fringe? >> >>I recall sharing data with you showing how quickly their industry is >>growing (thanks to their half-truths and blatant lies). Organic is going >>mainstream, if not mainstream already. > > Well, there's only one thing I can > say to that. Good. In a free market, I have no problem if people are willing to pay a premium for items based on bogus, trumped up claims. I do, however, think truth-in-advertising laws should be applied equally. I also think the organic industry should play by the same rules other food producers must for public safety. Some of the most widespread outbreaks of food-borne illness in the US have occurred with organic foods (Odwalla juice comes to mind). >>>They are starting to appear in >>>the 'normal' supermarkets. >> >>They've BEEN in supermarkets here for years. At least 10-15 years. >> >> >>>If veganic foods are the same >>>when I retire, >> >>They WON'T be. Ever. First, consumers will pay a little more for >>organic, but there are price-points at which most will buy conventional >>instead. That's a huge hurdle for something as labor-intensive as that >>which you fantasize. Consumers, over 98% of whom are NOT "serious" >>vegetarians and don't care if rats or mice are killed or maimed (and a >>lot of vegetarians who agree with them), will not pay more for such >>produce; other crops like grains and legumes should expect to have even >>further prohibitive costs associated with them because of the scale of >>operations required for profitability. You're fantasizing that farmers >>will ditch the very things which make them profitable -- machinery and >>other technology -- to appeal to a very tiny niche market. > > Well, if that niche ever appears, It won't. > and is affordable, It won't be. Why would industrial devolution be less costly? > I'll be glad to buy from it. In the meantime, and after it finally dawns on you that it's a pipedream, you'll continue your mindless platitudes with one hand and ready excuses with the other. >>>>>Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows? >>>> >>>>I do. You do. The rest of the bullshit artists you're parroting about it >>>>know it, too. >>> >>>Huh? >> >>Stop smoking pot, dummy. The people you're parroting about "veganics" >>are bullshit artists. So are you. Birds of a feather... > > I'm not parroting anyone. Yes, you are. You started parroting this whole veganic BS when Coleman was here. >>>>>[--snip--] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>The lots are so overspoken for >>>>>>>that it would take years. >>>>>> >>>>>>You haven't even inquired. >>>>> >>>>>They are so overspoken for that >>>>>the website said something about >>>>>new ones having to be brand new >>>>>and that you have to pick a spot >>>>>and then apply to have it declared >>>>>a public allotment garden. Nothing >>>>>about the existing ones. >>>> >>>>So you haven't even inquired. >>> >>>I didn't need to. The website >>>made it quite clear. Also, having >>>visited the lot of a friend, I saw >>>how small they are. I might >>>barely be able to grow my years >>>supply of parsley and basil. >> >>So says the clueless urbanite who threw the number five out of her fat, >>hairy ass on the issue of how many acres her retirement garden should >>be. I suspect the lots are of reasonable size and capable of producing >>more tomatoes than a saggy ditz like you can use in a year. > > Since these gardens need tending > everyday Not every day. > and since you bring > your own tools, You don't need a tractor with PTO drive for implements in a community garden. Some of the ones around here have a check-out system for loaning tools as well as storage sheds with lockers. All you need for regular maintenance are small hand tools. You only need larger gardening tools periodically, like when you get the soil ready for planting and for turning it over after your last harvest. > and since the > public transit isn't quick enough > to get there and still have time > to go to work, Go after work then. > would the extra > smog and gas usage of needing > the car take away from the > benefit gained by the tomatoes? You wouldn't need a car. Two things you WOULD need, which I think would be far too much for you right now: integrity and ambition. > Also why have you not realized that > your needless insults works > against your credibility? You resented what I wrote (AND insulted me) even before I started using words you find objectionable, so go to hell. >>>>>[--snip--] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>Because you'll never practice what you preach. You have the >>> >>>opportunity >>> >>> >>>>>>>>now and you make excuses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What opportunity? >>>>>> >>>>>>Many opportunities. You find your principles to be an inconvenience. > > And > >>>>>>don't ask others what they do -- we're talking about YOUR OWN > > principles > >>>>>>and how YOU act according to them. >>>>> >>>>>My principles are >>>> >>>>bullshit. You say one thing and do another by freely engaging in >>>>commerce with those who do things you consider wrong. You're culpable >>>>for their "wrongs" because you do nothing to avoid your own free >>>>participation in what they do. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>[--snip--] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Stop changing the subject. YOU make very specific claims ("killing >>>>>>animals is wrong") and then do nothing to live up to YOUR OWN >>> >>>principles. >>> >>> >>>>>You are getting the wording >>>>>of my claims wrong >>>> >>>>Not at all. As noted above, your "allowable" exceptions to killing >>>>animals do nothing to mitigate against your rule, which is to freely >>>>engage in commerce with those who harm animals. >>> >>>I don't know if you've noticed, but >>>there's not much choice in the >>>food that's available. >> >>Maybe you're the one who hasn't noticed that you not only have choices >>about foods grown by others, but that you also have choices in growing >>or foraging for yourself. Your drug abuse has led you to only think >>inside the box -- and I don't mean Karen's. > > I think you're a little hung up on > the fact that Karen did a few > naked women sketches. Not hung up on that at all. Whom did she use for a model? I know it's not you because her drawings don't have cankles. > And quit accusing me of drug abuse. I will after you complete rehab. >>>>>and the >>>>>wording of my principles wrong >>>>>too it seems. >>>> >>>>Not at all, retard. I'm not interested in splitting hairs over the >>>>exceptions you'd accept, I want to discuss the *norms* of your behavior >>>>and how those norms conflict head-on with your stated sense of ethics. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>[--snip--] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>Yeah, what's your point? Those >>>>>>>>>are types of mailing addresses >>>>>>>>>too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You're the one who blathered about "living anywhere with a mailing >>>>>>>>address." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yeah, >>>>>> >>>>>>So you can live or go even where you DON'T have a mailing address at >>>>>>that location. >>>>> >>>>>Well then, >>>> >>>>You won't retire and you'll continue making irrational excuses for not >>>>practicing what you preach. That includes the one you tried to get away >>>>with about mailing addresses. >>> >>>Well I certainly don't plan to >>>continue working >> >>You don't work now, why should you start then. > > Stop fishing about what I do > for a living. School cafeteria worker. >>>>>[--snip--] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>You don't try, think, or do. You fantasize and try to BS others into >>>>>>thinking you have noteworthy ambitions. >>>>> >>>>>I never said that my ambitions >>>>>should be considered noteworthy >>>>>to others. >>>> >>>>Good, because they aren't noteworthy. They're despicable, sleazy, and >>>>contemptible because you refuse to practice what you preach. >>> >>>There's that broken record again. >> >>Raise your standards if the truth bothers you. > > I don't think you get what I was saying. I do. You don't exactly have an ambition: you refuse to practice what you preach. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| (2007-07-11) Survey on the RFC site: Are you a Picky Eater? | General Cooking | |||
| After the Deletion of Google Answers U Got Questions Fills the Gap Answering and Asking the Tough Questions | General Cooking | |||
| rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers | Sourdough | |||
| rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers | Sourdough | |||
| Questions and answers | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
