 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
TRIM the ****ing post, you ****. You've left 200 or so
lines of stuff in here that shouldn't be there. Get a ****ing CLUE, will you? Scented Nectar wrote: > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > k.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>Rudy Canoza wrote in message rthlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"rick" > wrote in message . earthlink.net... >>>>> >>>>> See how much more readable it is now, you ignorant asshole? >>>>>>>That's why I just do the best I >>>>>>>reasonably can, and am satisfied >>>>>>>with that. >>>>>> >>>>>>======================= >>>>>>No, you don't. That's been proven over and over, killer. You do >>>>>>only what doesn't interfere with your selish conveniences, which >>>>>>in reality is nothing. Proven again by your posting your inane >>>>>>spew to usenet... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It's me who decides what I >>>>>consider reasonable, not you. >>>> >>>>There it is: "you're not the boss of me!" That's >>>>never far from the surface. >>>> >>>>In fact, you do NOT get to decide, unilaterally, what >>>>is reasonable. Reasonableness is a social construct. >>> >>> >>>For many things, like whether >>>or not someone buys local or >>>not, it's not a social construct. >> >>Yes, it is. > > > Are you trying to say that what > is considered reasonable to a > person is not determined by > themselves? I'm saying that what IS reasonable is not yours alone to decide. I'm also saying that you, a demonstrated case of arrested development, are especially unqualified what is reasonable. You're a liar and a shirker, and you clearly use "reasonable" as an excuse not to do things that ARE perfectly reasonable. You're too gutless to admit that you just don't *want* to do something, so you cook up a phony "reasonableness" objection to perfectly reasonable suggestions. >>>>You may try to tell a jury that you found it >>>>"reasonable" to kill your neighbor in order to get his >>>>DVD player, and the jury will nonetheless find you >>>>guilty of murder. >>> >>> >>>Legalities which vary from place >>>to place are not a measure of >>>reasonable. >> >> >>Yes, they are. > > > No. They often may overlap. Legalities are DESIGNED with reasonableness in mind. You don't know what you're talking about. Stop pretending you do. >>You're just doing your stale old >>denial-instead-of-refutation thing again. Acknowledged. >> >> >>>>>You can only decide that for >>>>>yourself. >>>> >>>>No, that's false. Others DO get to judge if what you >>>>do or don't want to do is reasonable. That's just how >>>>it is. You might say that, in some areas of life, >>>>other people ARE the boss of you. >>> >>> >>>Not in determining those things >>>which should be self determined >> >>Circular reasoning. I am say *precisely* that the >>reasonableness of many of these things is NOT self >>determined. You're arguing circularly if you simply >>insist they are self determined. You can't simply say >>that they are self determined; you have to demonstrate, >>logically, WHY they are self determined when others say >>there is a social determination of reasonableness to them. > > > You have simply said they are > not self determined. No, I've demonstrated why they aren't. You aren't refuting what I've said; you're just reflexively denying it, as you always do, BECAUSE you can't refute it. > >>>such as what parts of the >>>marketplace one buys from. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>If you feel it's important >>>>>to only use local things, that's up >>>>>to you, but don't expect that I >>>>>have to agree. >>>> >>>>It *doesn't matter* if you agree or not. It is not >>>>reasonable for you to say you "need" exotic imported >>>>spices and other foodstuffs to satisfy your craving >>>>(not "need") for variety, if the importation causes a >>>>massive amount of harm to animals, and you are claiming >>>>to be trying to minimize the harm to animals that you >>>>directly cause. >>> >>> >>>I'm not against the transportation >>>industry. >> >>This is not a discussion of the virtues of the >>transportation industry, you stupid asshole. This is a >>discussion of the reasonableness of YOUR use of the >>transportation industry, if your use of it means - and >>it does - that you are violating your alleged moral >>beliefs. It has nothing to do with "the transportation >>industry". Bad try at diversion. > > > I'm not violating my moral beliefs, You are. >>>>>>I can't magically change >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>the world, ending all pain and >>>>>>>suffering everywhere. >>>>>> >>>>>>============= >>>>>>You don't even try to hlep locally either, killer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>How does one avoid all non- >>>>>local things? >>>> >>>>One doesn't necessarily avoid all non-local things, you >>>>ignorant ****. But one doesn't attempt to justify >>>>one's consumption of clearly INESSENTIAL and ELECTIVE >>>>non-local items by inventing a "need" for them out of >>>>thin air, then unilaterally saying that it wouldn't be >>>>"reasonable" to expect you to forgo them. >>>> >>>>You clearly do not "need" a single exotic imported >>>>spice or seasoning. You could eat a perfectly varied >>>>diet seasoning with nothing but salt, pepper and >>>>whatever herbs can be grown locally. I suspect the >>>>herbs that can be grown in Ontario actually comprise a >>>>pretty extensive list. >>> >>> >>>So, YOU go ahead and do that. >> >>No. *I* am not the one making extravagant claims about >>it being wrong to kill animals, then engaging in >>completely frivolous commerce that kills more animals, >>merely to satisfy some preposterously alleged "need" >>for dietary variety. >> >>YOU go ahead and do it, ****, or realize that you are >>admitting to massive hypocrisy. > > > When veganics No such word. > become an available > option I will. There's that disgusting but predictable passivity again. You're always waiting for others to act. > Until then, shut up, > because there is no choice. Wrong. We've been through this, and you lost; humiliatingly. There IS a choice; you just don't want to exercise it. > There is no hypocrisy There is hypocrisy. It's thoroughly demonstrated. > since if > there was a choice, There is a choice. You refuse it. > I'd pick the > better one. You claim commerce > is frivolous No. I claim your "need" for spices is frivolous. It is. > >>>Don't say that I must if you don't >>>even do it yourself. >> >>YOU are the one making the extravagant claims, not I. > > > I have never said that I must eat > only local foods. No, you didn't. It's the clear and unavoidable implication of your not-worth-a-shit claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals other than in self defense. >>>I doubt any >>>animals are killed unreasonably >>>for a crate of cinnamon. >> >>You have no clue; absolutely none. > > > Then do share. How many animals > are killed in the shipping of a > crate of cinnamon? I don't care how many are killed in the cultivation, harvesting, processing, storage and distribution of cinnamon, you stupid ****. But you SHOULD care, based on your stupid and false statement of moral belief. It isn't my job to find out, since I don't care and have no reason to care. It is YOUR job to find out the effects of your consumption, but because you are terminally lazy and passive, you won't do it. >>>By the >>>way, where does that pepper >>>grow? >> >>In my back yard. Pepper trees are all over California. > > > Not here. So much for your > expectation. The pepper trees of California are a lot closer to Toronto than the spices of Indonesia and Africa. >>>And where is your salt >>>mined? >> >>Probably Utah. > > > That sounds like transportation > to me, if you claim to live in > California. ****: I am not the one who has made the extravagant moral claim that obligates me to try to avoid causing animal death; YOU are. I can enjoy exotic things all I want, because I haven't claimed to believe in something that implies I ought to avoid imported goods. YOU have. You are so ****ing CLUELESS. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
hlink.net... > TRIM the ****ing post, you ****. You've left 200 or so > lines of stuff in here that shouldn't be there. Get a > ****ing CLUE, will you? Trim your temper a bit, will you? It's not the biggest of crimes. > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > k.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >>>Rudy Canoza wrote in message > rthlink.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>"rick" > wrote in message > . earthlink.net... > >>>>> > >>>>> > > See how much more readable it is now, you ignorant asshole? Sure Rudey, whatever you say. *eyes rolling* > >>>>>>>That's why I just do the best I > >>>>>>>reasonably can, and am satisfied > >>>>>>>with that. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>======================= > >>>>>>No, you don't. That's been proven over and over, killer. You do > >>>>>>only what doesn't interfere with your selish conveniences, which > >>>>>>in reality is nothing. Proven again by your posting your inane > >>>>>>spew to usenet... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>It's me who decides what I > >>>>>consider reasonable, not you. > >>>> > >>>>There it is: "you're not the boss of me!" That's > >>>>never far from the surface. > >>>> > >>>>In fact, you do NOT get to decide, unilaterally, what > >>>>is reasonable. Reasonableness is a social construct. > >>> > >>> > >>>For many things, like whether > >>>or not someone buys local or > >>>not, it's not a social construct. > >> > >>Yes, it is. > > > > > > Are you trying to say that what > > is considered reasonable to a > > person is not determined by > > themselves? > > I'm saying that what IS reasonable is not yours alone > to decide. Except for legalities, it is my own to decide, unless I want help from others, which may be offered or asked for. > I'm also saying that you, a demonstrated case of > arrested development, are especially unqualified what > is reasonable. You're a liar and a shirker, and you > clearly use "reasonable" as an excuse not to do things > that ARE perfectly reasonable. You're too gutless to > admit that you just don't *want* to do something, so > you cook up a phony "reasonableness" objection to > perfectly reasonable suggestions. Why say that I don't admit to not wanting to do certain things? I don't want to start my own co-op because it feels unreasonably like too much for me to currently do. I don't want to go to committee meetings and board meetings. I'll leave that for the younger set who still enjoy that sort of thing (and older people who like it too). I do however, find it reasonable and wanted, to join and buy from such a co-op. > >>>>You may try to tell a jury that you found it > >>>>"reasonable" to kill your neighbor in order to get his > >>>>DVD player, and the jury will nonetheless find you > >>>>guilty of murder. > >>> > >>> > >>>Legalities which vary from place > >>>to place are not a measure of > >>>reasonable. > >> > >> > >>Yes, they are. > > > > > > No. They often may overlap. > > Legalities are DESIGNED with reasonableness in mind. No. They are simply rules designed for the protection of designated rights and safety. > You don't know what you're talking about. Stop > pretending you do. I understand me just fine. > >>You're just doing your stale old > >>denial-instead-of-refutation thing again. > > Acknowledged. > > > >> > >> > >>>>>You can only decide that for > >>>>>yourself. > >>>> > >>>>No, that's false. Others DO get to judge if what you > >>>>do or don't want to do is reasonable. That's just how > >>>>it is. You might say that, in some areas of life, > >>>>other people ARE the boss of you. > >>> > >>> > >>>Not in determining those things > >>>which should be self determined > >> > >>Circular reasoning. I am say *precisely* that the > >>reasonableness of many of these things is NOT self > >>determined. You're arguing circularly if you simply > >>insist they are self determined. You can't simply say > >>that they are self determined; you have to demonstrate, > >>logically, WHY they are self determined when others say > >>there is a social determination of reasonableness to them. > > > > > > You have simply said they are > > not self determined. > > No, I've demonstrated why they aren't. You aren't > refuting what I've said; you're just reflexively > denying it, as you always do, BECAUSE you can't refute it. No, you've not demonstrated why reasonableness is not self determined by people themselves. Other than having to follow certain laws and rules, everyone determines for themselves what is reasonable for them to do. > >>>such as what parts of the > >>>marketplace one buys from. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>If you feel it's important > >>>>>to only use local things, that's up > >>>>>to you, but don't expect that I > >>>>>have to agree. > >>>> > >>>>It *doesn't matter* if you agree or not. It is not > >>>>reasonable for you to say you "need" exotic imported > >>>>spices and other foodstuffs to satisfy your craving > >>>>(not "need") for variety, if the importation causes a > >>>>massive amount of harm to animals, and you are claiming > >>>>to be trying to minimize the harm to animals that you > >>>>directly cause. > >>> > >>> > >>>I'm not against the transportation > >>>industry. > >> > >>This is not a discussion of the virtues of the > >>transportation industry, you stupid asshole. This is a > >>discussion of the reasonableness of YOUR use of the > >>transportation industry, if your use of it means - and > >>it does - that you are violating your alleged moral > >>beliefs. It has nothing to do with "the transportation > >>industry". Bad try at diversion. > > > > > > I'm not violating my moral beliefs, > > You are. I would know if I were. Since I'm not feeling such a violation, I don't believe that one is occurring. > >>>>>>I can't magically change > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>the world, ending all pain and > >>>>>>>suffering everywhere. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>============= > >>>>>>You don't even try to hlep locally either, killer. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>How does one avoid all non- > >>>>>local things? > >>>> > >>>>One doesn't necessarily avoid all non-local things, you > >>>>ignorant ****. But one doesn't attempt to justify > >>>>one's consumption of clearly INESSENTIAL and ELECTIVE > >>>>non-local items by inventing a "need" for them out of > >>>>thin air, then unilaterally saying that it wouldn't be > >>>>"reasonable" to expect you to forgo them. > >>>> > >>>>You clearly do not "need" a single exotic imported > >>>>spice or seasoning. You could eat a perfectly varied > >>>>diet seasoning with nothing but salt, pepper and > >>>>whatever herbs can be grown locally. I suspect the > >>>>herbs that can be grown in Ontario actually comprise a > >>>>pretty extensive list. > >>> > >>> > >>>So, YOU go ahead and do that. > >> > >>No. *I* am not the one making extravagant claims about > >>it being wrong to kill animals, then engaging in > >>completely frivolous commerce that kills more animals, > >>merely to satisfy some preposterously alleged "need" > >>for dietary variety. > >> > >>YOU go ahead and do it, ****, or realize that you are > >>admitting to massive hypocrisy. > > > > > > When veganics > > No such word. Neither are meatarian, orthorexia flexitarian,and ****wit, yet they are used regularly on these newsgroups. > > become an available > > option I will. > > There's that disgusting but predictable passivity > again. You're always waiting for others to act. I'm not a miracle worker. WTF are you expecting? > > Until then, shut up, > > because there is no choice. > > Wrong. We've been through this, and you lost; > humiliatingly. There IS a choice; you just don't want > to exercise it. I lost nothing, in my view. I think I made my opinions and positions quite clear. > > There is no hypocrisy > > There is hypocrisy. It's thoroughly demonstrated. > > > > since if > > there was a choice, > > There is a choice. You refuse it. > > > > I'd pick the > > better one. You claim commerce > > is frivolous > > No. I claim your "need" for spices is frivolous. It is. I find it unreasonable to give them up. You'll just have to accept that. > >>>Don't say that I must if you don't > >>>even do it yourself. > >> > >>YOU are the one making the extravagant claims, not I. > > > > > > I have never said that I must eat > > only local foods. > > No, you didn't. It's the clear and unavoidable > implication of your not-worth-a-shit claim to believe > that it is wrong to kill animals other than in self > defense. That's where you always make your mistake. In what you think is implied. You are mistaking what my beliefs are. Part of the 'mostly' in 'killing animals is mostly wrong', comes from the lack of choice consumers have. That's part of what moves it from something like 'completely' down to 'mostly', a sad and unfortunate, but difficult to avoid reality. So as you can now hopefully see, 'mostly' doesn't only cover self defense and euthanasia exceptions. > >>>I doubt any > >>>animals are killed unreasonably > >>>for a crate of cinnamon. > >> > >>You have no clue; absolutely none. > > > > > > Then do share. How many animals > > are killed in the shipping of a > > crate of cinnamon? > > I don't care how many are killed in the cultivation, > harvesting, processing, storage and distribution of > cinnamon, you stupid ****. But you SHOULD care, based > on your stupid and false statement of moral belief. > > It isn't my job to find out, since I don't care and > have no reason to care. It is YOUR job to find out the > effects of your consumption, but because you are > terminally lazy and passive, you won't do it. Calm down, Rudey. > >>>By the > >>>way, where does that pepper > >>>grow? > >> > >>In my back yard. Pepper trees are all over California. > > > > > > Not here. So much for your > > expectation. > > The pepper trees of California are a lot closer to > Toronto than the spices of Indonesia and Africa. How far, in miles or kilometers, means the difference between local and non-local foods? > >>>And where is your salt > >>>mined? > >> > >>Probably Utah. > > > > > > That sounds like transportation > > to me, if you claim to live in > > California. > > ****: I am not the one who has made the extravagant > moral claim that obligates me to try to avoid causing > animal death; YOU are. I can enjoy exotic things all I > want, because I haven't claimed to believe in something > that implies I ought to avoid imported goods. YOU > have. You are so ****ing CLUELESS. Talk about clueless. You are freaking out over nothing. I too can enjoy imported foods if I like because I don't claim to have anything against them. Again you are claiming that my beliefs are of an absolute nature, leaving out the 'mostly'. -- 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:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > >>TRIM the ****ing post, you ****. You've left 200 or so >>lines of stuff in here that shouldn't be there. Get a >>****ing CLUE, will you? > > > Trim your temper a bit, will you? > It's not the biggest of crimes. Why is it you can't be bothered to do ANY of the common usenet courtesies? TRIM the old parts of the post, for christall****ingmighty. Don't leave several hundred lines nested 10 or 12 carats deep. Just DO it. >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message link.net... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote in message . earthlink.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message s.earthlink.net... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>See how much more readable it is now, you ignorant asshole? > > > Sure Rudey, whatever you say. > *eyes rolling* It is. Look at this bit immediately below. It's indented NINE carats now. That means it's nine posts back. It no longer is essential to the discussion. TRIM the old stuff, you lazy skank. >>>>>>>>>That's why I just do the best I >>>>>>>>>reasonably can, and am satisfied >>>>>>>>>with that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>======================= >>>>>>>>No, you don't. That's been proven over and over, killer. You do >>>>>>>>only what doesn't interfere with your selish conveniences, which >>>>>>>>in reality is nothing. Proven again by your posting your inane >>>>>>>>spew to usenet... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's me who decides what I >>>>>>>consider reasonable, not you. >>>>>> >>>>>>There it is: "you're not the boss of me!" That's >>>>>>never far from the surface. >>>>>> >>>>>>In fact, you do NOT get to decide, unilaterally, what >>>>>>is reasonable. Reasonableness is a social construct. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>For many things, like whether >>>>>or not someone buys local or >>>>>not, it's not a social construct. >>>> >>>>Yes, it is. >>> >>> >>>Are you trying to say that what >>>is considered reasonable to a >>>person is not determined by >>>themselves? >> >>I'm saying that what IS reasonable is not yours alone >>to decide. > > > Except for legalities, it is > my own to decide No, it isn't. >>I'm also saying that you, a demonstrated case of >>arrested development, are especially unqualified what >>is reasonable. You're a liar and a shirker, and you >>clearly use "reasonable" as an excuse not to do things >>that ARE perfectly reasonable. You're too gutless to >>admit that you just don't *want* to do something, so >>you cook up a phony "reasonableness" objection to >>perfectly reasonable suggestions. > > > Why say that I don't admit to > not wanting to do certain things? Because it's established fact. > I don't want to start my own co-op > because it feels unreasonably > like too much for me to currently > do. I don't want THERE it is. It's not that it's unreasonable; you just DON'T WANT to do it. You don't want to do ANY amounf of several perfectly reasonable suggestions you've been given. > to go to > committee meetings and board > meetings. Right. You want to sit on your fat ass and smoke dope. You can't be bothered to do a ****ing thing to put some meaning behind your supposed ethical beliefs. You're a fraud. >>>>>>You may try to tell a jury that you found it >>>>>>"reasonable" to kill your neighbor in order to get his >>>>>>DVD player, and the jury will nonetheless find you >>>>>>guilty of murder. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Legalities which vary from place >>>>>to place are not a measure of >>>>>reasonable. >>>> >>>> >>>>Yes, they are. >>> >>> >>>No. They often may overlap. >> >>Legalities are DESIGNED with reasonableness in mind. > > > No. Yes. The term "reasonable man" occurs in judicial decisions and jury instructions over and over. >>You don't know what you're talking about. Stop >>pretending you do. > > > I understand me just fine. You don't even understand that, but you sure as **** don't understand "legalities". >>>>You're just doing your stale old >>>>denial-instead-of-refutation thing again. >> >>Acknowledged. >> >> >> >>>> >>>>>>>You can only decide that for >>>>>>>yourself. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, that's false. Others DO get to judge if what you >>>>>>do or don't want to do is reasonable. That's just how >>>>>>it is. You might say that, in some areas of life, >>>>>>other people ARE the boss of you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Not in determining those things >>>>>which should be self determined >>>> >>>>Circular reasoning. I am say *precisely* that the >>>>reasonableness of many of these things is NOT self >>>>determined. You're arguing circularly if you simply >>>>insist they are self determined. You can't simply say >>>>that they are self determined; you have to demonstrate, >>>>logically, WHY they are self determined when others say >>>>there is a social determination of reasonableness to them. >>> >>> >>>You have simply said they are >>>not self determined. >> >>No, I've demonstrated why they aren't. You aren't >>refuting what I've said; you're just reflexively >>denying it, as you always do, BECAUSE you can't refute it. > > > No, you've not demonstrated Yes, I've demonstrated it. > >>>>>such as what parts of the >>>>>marketplace one buys from. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>If you feel it's important >>>>>>>to only use local things, that's up >>>>>>>to you, but don't expect that I >>>>>>>have to agree. >>>>>> >>>>>>It *doesn't matter* if you agree or not. It is not >>>>>>reasonable for you to say you "need" exotic imported >>>>>>spices and other foodstuffs to satisfy your craving >>>>>>(not "need") for variety, if the importation causes a >>>>>>massive amount of harm to animals, and you are claiming >>>>>>to be trying to minimize the harm to animals that you >>>>>>directly cause. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I'm not against the transportation >>>>>industry. >>>> >>>>This is not a discussion of the virtues of the >>>>transportation industry, you stupid asshole. This is a >>>>discussion of the reasonableness of YOUR use of the >>>>transportation industry, if your use of it means - and >>>>it does - that you are violating your alleged moral >>>>beliefs. It has nothing to do with "the transportation >>>>industry". Bad try at diversion. >>> >>> >>>I'm not violating my moral beliefs, >> >>You are. > > > I would know if I were. You would not. You're a case of arrested development, and you're deeply morally confused. >>>>>>>>I can't magically change >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>the world, ending all pain and >>>>>>>>>suffering everywhere. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>============= >>>>>>>>You don't even try to hlep locally either, killer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>How does one avoid all non- >>>>>>>local things? >>>>>> >>>>>>One doesn't necessarily avoid all non-local things, you >>>>>>ignorant ****. But one doesn't attempt to justify >>>>>>one's consumption of clearly INESSENTIAL and ELECTIVE >>>>>>non-local items by inventing a "need" for them out of >>>>>>thin air, then unilaterally saying that it wouldn't be >>>>>>"reasonable" to expect you to forgo them. >>>>>> >>>>>>You clearly do not "need" a single exotic imported >>>>>>spice or seasoning. You could eat a perfectly varied >>>>>>diet seasoning with nothing but salt, pepper and >>>>>>whatever herbs can be grown locally. I suspect the >>>>>>herbs that can be grown in Ontario actually comprise a >>>>>>pretty extensive list. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>So, YOU go ahead and do that. >>>> >>>>No. *I* am not the one making extravagant claims about >>>>it being wrong to kill animals, then engaging in >>>>completely frivolous commerce that kills more animals, >>>>merely to satisfy some preposterously alleged "need" >>>>for dietary variety. >>>> >>>>YOU go ahead and do it, ****, or realize that you are >>>>admitting to massive hypocrisy. >>> >>> >>>When veganics >> >>No such word. > > > Neither are meatarian Right. > orthorexia That's a word. > flexitarian, That's a word people use to describe themselves. "Meatarian" isn't a word because it's a word asshole ****ed-up-in-the-head "vegans" use to describe others. > and ****wit http://www.****wit.info/whatis.htm It's a word. > > >>>become an available >>>option I will. >> >>There's that disgusting but predictable passivity >>again. You're always waiting for others to act. > > > I'm not a miracle worker. You're disgustingly passive and lazy. You don't have a milligram of initiative. >>>Until then, shut up, >>>because there is no choice. >> >>Wrong. We've been through this, and you lost; >>humiliatingly. There IS a choice; you just don't want >>to exercise it. > > > I lost nothing, in my view. Your view is wrong. You claimed there is no choice, and you and everone else were shown there IS a choice; you just DON'T LIKE the things from which to choose. The choice exists; you refuse to make it. >>>There is no hypocrisy >> >>There is hypocrisy. It's thoroughly demonstrated. >> >> >> >>>since if >>>there was a choice, >> >>There is a choice. You refuse it. >> >> >> >>>I'd pick the >>>better one. You claim commerce >>>is frivolous >> >>No. I claim your "need" for spices is frivolous. It is. > > > I find it unreasonable to give them > up. You'll just have to accept that. I don't, because we all KNOW that you are using "unreasonable" as a lame excuse. It isn't unreasonable; you're just being self absorbed and pig headed, AS ALWAYS. You always are. >>>>>Don't say that I must if you don't >>>>>even do it yourself. >>>> >>>>YOU are the one making the extravagant claims, not I. >>> >>> >>>I have never said that I must eat >>>only local foods. >> >>No, you didn't. It's the clear and unavoidable >>implication of your not-worth-a-shit claim to believe >>that it is wrong to kill animals other than in self >>defense. > > > That's where you always make > your mistake. No mistake made. > In what you think > is implied. It IS implied. If you believe it is morally wrong to kill animals, and you claim to believe that, then it is NECESSARILY implied that you must make considerable efforts not to cause any animals to die. You aren't doing what your supposed beliefs dictate you must try to do. You're a hypocrite and a liar. .. You are mistaking > what my beliefs are. No, I'm not. > Part of the 'mostly' ALL of the "mostly" is bullshit. You lost on that, too. It is logically impossible to believe it's "mostly" wrong to kill animals. You can claim as much as you like that you do believe it; you do not, because it's impossible. >>>>>I doubt any >>>>>animals are killed unreasonably >>>>>for a crate of cinnamon. >>>> >>>>You have no clue; absolutely none. >>> >>> >>>Then do share. How many animals >>>are killed in the shipping of a >>>crate of cinnamon? >> >>I don't care how many are killed in the cultivation, >>harvesting, processing, storage and distribution of >>cinnamon, you stupid ****. But you SHOULD care, based >>on your stupid and false statement of moral belief. >> >>It isn't my job to find out, since I don't care and >>have no reason to care. It is YOUR job to find out the >>effects of your consumption, but because you are >>terminally lazy and passive, you won't do it. > > > Calm down **** off. You find out how many animals are killed. You know that some are, and it is YOUR belief that requires you to try not to do it. > >>>>>By the >>>>>way, where does that pepper >>>>>grow? >>>> >>>>In my back yard. Pepper trees are all over California. >>> >>> >>>Not here. So much for your >>>expectation. >> >>The pepper trees of California are a lot closer to >>Toronto than the spices of Indonesia and Africa. > > > How far, The exotic imported spices you stupidly claim to "need" come from TOO far away. >>>>>And where is your salt >>>>>mined? >>>> >>>>Probably Utah. >>> >>> >>>That sounds like transportation >>>to me, if you claim to live in >>>California. >> >>****: I am not the one who has made the extravagant >>moral claim that obligates me to try to avoid causing >>animal death; YOU are. I can enjoy exotic things all I >>want, because I haven't claimed to believe in something >>that implies I ought to avoid imported goods. YOU >>have. You are so ****ing CLUELESS. > > > Talk about clueless. Yes: you are utterly clueless. > You are freaking out over nothing. I am not 'freaking out' over anything. > I too can enjoy imported foods > if I like Not morally. Your enjoyment is immoral according to your own alleged beliefs. OF course, you're a liar. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Leslie" > wrote in message > ... > >>Found scrawled in the outhouse on Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:06:00 -0400, > > "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: >> >> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... >>> >>>>Skanky wrote: >>> >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>>>>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. >>> >>>No reasonable suggestion has >>>yet to be offered. >> >>Bullshit, dearie! US has given you four below, which you promptly wave > > away with excuses. > > Not excuses. Reasons. Good > ones too. > > >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>>>>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. >> >>See? There they are....and here you go: >> >> >>>1.Can't grow my own yet. You could if you wanted to. >>>2.There are no veganic co-ops Nothing but your disgusting sloth and passivity are stopping you from forming the first one. >>>3.Foraging would take me too far >>> outside the city, and not feed >>> me well enough. But it could make *some* kind of improvement. As usual, you're full of excuses: "too far", "not well enough". You ALWAYS have excuses handy. It's obvious you don't really want to do anything. >>>4.Can't afford to pay the farmer >>> unless it's as part of a co-op. If you just put together a buyers' co-op, you have no idea what might result. But you can't be bothered. >> >>My reply is: >>1. Don't you have flower pots and a window? > > > Not enough to make a difference. > > >>2. How do you know since you haven't really looked or put up a flyer >> asking for local interest. > > > There are no veganic farmers yet. > So there's no veganic co-ops yet. Start one. Oh, wait - that would be work, and Skanky is a lazy slug who doesn't like to work; prefers to sit around and spark the owl. >>3. I'm sure that your previous experience in dumpster-diving would aid > > your foraging > >>efforts. Dumpster-diving certainly *will* feed you well enough, provided > > that you ate what > >>you scrounged. > > > Now you're just going into insult > mode. There's no need for that. > Why say that I'm a dumpster diver? Not insulting at all. In fact, there are some people who are strictly vegetarian as far as what they buy at the store, but who will eat meat salvaged from dumpsters on the theory that it doesn't create an incentive to farmers to raise more livestock. You COULD do it, but you're too lazy and passive, and have far too much of a nasty princess complex. > > >>4. See #2. Perhaps you could spend a little time on your computer doing something other >>than engaging in hypocrisy on newsgroups, like making posters, sending flyers, doing a >>survey, etc. (on persons interested in co-op gardens, just in case you thought I was >>referring to *anything* else.) > > > I guess I'm just not extreme enough > to take on such tasks. If someone > else does, I'll gladly join in. There's that disgusting, zero-initiative passivity at its absolute worst. It's truly revolting. "Not extreme enough", bullshit. What you mean is, you have ZERO meaningful commitment. You just like to talk. And talk. And talk. And talk some more. All to no end at all. >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>>>I'm not a vegan. My diet is vegetarian. >>> >>>If you are a 'strict' vegetarian, >>>there are some people who >>>would call you vegan, in the >>>dietary sense rather than >>>the philosophical one. >> >>Off on another tangent again. What's it to you whether US is "strict" or >>not? At least he acknowledges his role as a consumer. > > > And I'm not? Of course I'm a > consumer too. And I recognize > the fact that cds happen. But you don't DO anything about it; absolutely nothing at all. > I don't go to extremes, You don't do ANYTHING to abide by your supposed moral beliefs. That's why I say you don't really believe them; it just makes you feel good - superior - to blabber the statement of belief. But it's completely empty. > but then, neither > does US, does he. He and I don't hold to the brainless belief that you do, so we're under no self-imposed moral obligation to eliminate our contribution to CDs; you are. > My belief that > killing animals is mostly wrong You don't believe that. It's a logical absurdity. You can't believe that any more than you could genuinely believe that white is black. The finding that something is wrong just IS a binary finding, and "mostly" is utter nonsense. > is making people say I must go > to extremes. You don't go ANYWHERE. You don't do a ****ING THING to try to stop killing animals. You just don't consume meat, but that does NOT lead to a minimizing position. >>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>>>>I'm considering now is just being an >>>>>ovo-vegetarian, giving up all milk >>>>>products >>>> >>>>Why? >>> >>>Eggs can be produced without >>>any harm other than the growing >>>of the chicken feed. If I get eggs >>>that are organic, free range, and >>>not fed any animal products, I >>>would like to include them >>>occasionally as a source of B12 >>>and because they are tasty. >> >>BWAHAHAHA..!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!! No other harm except in the growing of the chicken feed!! >>Do you have a CLUE as to what is in, say, your basic hen scratch?? It is a combination of >>row crop grains idiot! Corn, milo, soy, plus wheat or oats if the market drops in those >>areas. In fact, scratch grains are a great place to find little, teeny animal >>parts...which those free-rangers adore! > > > Why the laughter? Because you are unintentionally hilarious. You're forty-****ing-two years old, and you're as naive as a sixteen-year-old. Wait! I almost forgot - you're only *chronologically* 42; emotionally and intellectually, you're 16. Bingo. It's still mighty ****ing funny, though. > I don't deny that cds happen. You do try to deny sharing in any responsibility for them, yet you say you would seek out "death-free" food if you could do it at zero effort. Why would you even bother, if you don't feel you're responsible for the deaths in any way? All this horseshit about what you're "gonna do" when you retire is pointless if you don't feel responsible for the deaths. You DO share in the responsibility, of course, whether or not you "feel" you do. >><picking self up off floor from laughing jag> Look, SN. We *want* to help you. We really >>do. But you have GOT to get your head out of those clouds. More than that, Leslie, she has to develop some spine. She needs to stop being so ****ING passive about everything; EVERY ****ING THING. She doesn't show initiative in any aspect of her life. >>For the millenniums that man >>has grown food, with or without machinery, there have been animal casualties. It's a >>natural effect of the encroachment of man upon previously virgin ground. As people became >>more urban with the acceleration of industry and commerce, the demand for easy to buy >>foods increased, thus resulting in your local Super Wal-Mart. >> >>Yes, that is a simplistic over-generalization but you seem to think in those directions. >>So, the moral of the story is that you have the courage of your convictions She has NO convictions, Leslie - none. Her sole motivating impulse is hedonic pleasu if if feels good to Skanky, she does it. >> and ACT, See above about her thorough-going and disgusting passivity. She does not, will not, CAN not act. >>while accepting the fact that it may not be possible for anyone to avoid the CD's. > > Of course I know that cds are > not currently unavoidable. ONLY if you're not willing, as you are not willing, to grow your own food. > Have you not been reading what I type? He has. He's seen the disgusting passivity, the continual excuse-making, the out-and-out lying. > That it requires further action on > my part is what I'm disputing. How about ANY action? > I openly dislike that cds happen, nothing but empty lip service. > but I also openly have stated how > far I personally will go to prevent > them. Not one centimeter. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Leslie" > wrote in message > ... > >>Found scrawled in the outhouse on Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:28:04 -0400, > > "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: >> >> >>>"VSA" > wrote in message >>>news:1119822088.bdbbaf47f11de21cd5df7c5d8b0bf15 1@meganetnews2... >>> >>>>On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:08:56 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote the following in >>>>alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message om... >>>> >>>>[snip] >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Why do we have overpopulations of deer and feral pigs in Texas? >>>>> >>>>>Those would balance out if >>>>>left alone. >>>> >>>>Wrong again. Lacking enough predators they do massive crop damage as >>>>well as damage woodlands. The only way they would eventually "balance >>>>out" is through massive starvation *after* they have already caused >>>>massive damage to crops and forests. Then, after the forests and >>>>croplands recover, the wildlife populations would recover and again >>>>overpopulate, starting the cycle of damage and starvation all over >>>>again. >>> >>>Hmmm. Provided that they are >>>still protected from overhunting, >>>it now seems a little less wrong >>>to hunt and eat these ones in >>>particular. I see degrees in the >>>wrongness of different animal >>>deaths, based on different >>>factors. The reason I worry >>>about overhunting is because >>>of animals like the buffalo and >>>cod. Humans just don't know >>>when to stop sometimes. >> >>You have no reason to worry about either buffalo or cod. The buffalo > > population has grown > >>so well that they can and are used as a meat product all over the USA, and > > shipped to some > >>foreign markets. There are plenty of safeguards already in place to > > prevent extinction by > >>either hunting (which is not routinely done) or commercial processing. > > > I still don't trust humans not to > overhunt. No one trusts you to tell the truth or show any initiative. > > >>>>If vegans are so concerned with animal suffering, why would you opt >>>>for these animals dying a slow and painful death rather than being >>>>taken relatively quickly (usually) by a hunter's bullet? >>> >>>If starvation is definitely happening, >>>the bullet would be more like >>>euthenasia. As for the eating of >>>them, I'll choose not to, but I know >>>there's lot's of people who would.  >> >>Yummy elk and deer. And it's also very good for you. However, if we didn't > > hunt these > >>animals their deaths by starvation would be inevitable. And horrible. > > > We differ in our belief on the health > benefits. Your beliefs are folklore; not scientifically grounded. > > >>>>Have you lived your whole life in a metropolitan area by any chance? >>> >>>Unfortunately almost completely. >> >>Well, this explains why you have no real concept of farming or hunting. > > Living in a city > >>is a CHOICE. How about *choosing* to get out - at least to the suburbs. > > > I've lived in the suburbs, and saw > no deer or pigs there. You could grow some food there. Of course, you have no intention of ever growing any food. > > >>>>Have you ever witnessed animals starving in the wild from >>>>overpopulation? >>> >>>Can't say I have. Are there no >>>natural predators that eat deer >>>and pigs? >>> >> >>Of course there are. Wolf, mountain lion, sometimes bear... go to a zoo! >>A kill often feeds a variety of animals that had no part in the hunt or > > death. However, > >>feral hogs *are* substantially harder for the large cats and pack animals > > to kill. And > >>they do enormous damage in their wake. > > > Then open season on the pigs > to prevent damage, but I'll pass > on the pork chops. I will however > enjoy the smell of bacon frying, as > that is a smell I happen to like > regardless of it's source. Rather > than hypocrisy, No, not "rather than". Hypocrisy is what you do. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
. net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > hlink.net... > > > >>TRIM the ****ing post, you ****. You've left 200 or so > >>lines of stuff in here that shouldn't be there. Get a > >>****ing CLUE, will you? > > > > > > Trim your temper a bit, will you? > > It's not the biggest of crimes. > > Why is it you can't be bothered to do ANY of the common > usenet courtesies? TRIM the old parts of the post, for > christall****ingmighty. Don't leave several hundred > lines nested 10 or 12 carats deep. Just DO it. In the post by YOU that preceded my trimless one, YOU didn't trim by that same amount too. > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote in message > . earthlink.net... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message > s.earthlink.net... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>See how much more readable it is now, you ignorant asshole? > > > > > > Sure Rudey, whatever you say. > > *eyes rolling* > > It is. Look at this bit immediately below. It's > indented NINE carats now. That means it's nine posts > back. It no longer is essential to the discussion. > TRIM the old stuff, you lazy skank. Then you were lazy first, as YOUR post that preceded my trimless one ALSO didn't trim. Here's a little something just for you: [--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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > . net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message arthlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>TRIM the ****ing post, you ****. You've left 200 or so >>>>lines of stuff in here that shouldn't be there. Get a >>>>****ing CLUE, will you? >>> >>> >>>Trim your temper a bit, will you? >>>It's not the biggest of crimes. >> >>Why is it you can't be bothered to do ANY of the common >>usenet courtesies? TRIM the old parts of the post, for >>christall****ingmighty. Don't leave several hundred >>lines nested 10 or 12 carats deep. Just DO it. > > > In the post by YOU that preceded > my trimless one, YOU didn't trim > by that same amount too. But then there were two more posts in the thread, and you didn't do any trimming. You NEVER do any trimming. Why does what I might do or not do have any bearing on what you OUGHT to do? Trim the posts. Just stop with the clueless defiance, and ****ing DO it. >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message thlink.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote in message s.earthlink.net... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message . pas.earthlink.net... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>See how much more readable it is now, you ignorant asshole? >>> >>> >>>Sure Rudey, whatever you say. >>>*eyes rolling* >> >>It is. Look at this bit immediately below. It's >>indented NINE carats now. That means it's nine posts >>back. It no longer is essential to the discussion. >>TRIM the old stuff, you lazy skank. > > > Then you were lazy first No. I'm never lazy. You ALWAYS are lazy, and disgustingly passive. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
link.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > . net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > arthlink.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>TRIM the ****ing post, you ****. You've left 200 or so > >>>>lines of stuff in here that shouldn't be there. Get a > >>>>****ing CLUE, will you? > >>> > >>> > >>>Trim your temper a bit, will you? > >>>It's not the biggest of crimes. > >> > >>Why is it you can't be bothered to do ANY of the common > >>usenet courtesies? TRIM the old parts of the post, for > >>christall****ingmighty. Don't leave several hundred > >>lines nested 10 or 12 carats deep. Just DO it. > > > > > > In the post by YOU that preceded > > my trimless one, YOU didn't trim > > by that same amount too. > > But then there were two more posts in the thread, and > you didn't do any trimming. You NEVER do any trimming. > Why does what I might do or not do have any bearing > on what you OUGHT to do? You're the one upset at the lack of trimming. A little too upset if you ask me. Calm down. > Trim the posts. Just stop with the clueless defiance, > and ****ing DO it. If you felt so strongly about it, you could have done it yourself in the previous post of yours that had just as much unsnipped stuff. > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > thlink.net... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote in message > s.earthlink.net... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message > . pas.earthlink.net... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >>>>See how much more readable it is now, you ignorant asshole? > >>> > >>> > >>>Sure Rudey, whatever you say. > >>>*eyes rolling* > >> > >>It is. Look at this bit immediately below. It's > >>indented NINE carats now. That means it's nine posts > >>back. It no longer is essential to the discussion. > >>TRIM the old stuff, you lazy skank. > > > > > > Then you were lazy first > > No. I'm never lazy. You ALWAYS are lazy, and > disgustingly passive. Always glad to disgust you. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
VSA wrote:
>>>>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? >> >>She stupidly proposes that we discuss collateral deaths so vegans >>reading these groups will know about the issue and eventually make >>enough racket that large-scale farmers will know these vegans are ****ed >>off about it. She *won't*, however, change her own behavior. > > Somehow I doubt if the large-scale farmers worry much about what a > tiny radical minority think. They don't worry, they don't care. > If the vegans don't like the way the food > is produced, then they're free to produce their own, or they can > starve in protest. They prefer engaging in their peculiar food-based authoritarianism, even if they're hypocrites about it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message .earthlink.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>TRIM the ****ing post, you ****. You've left 200 or so >>>>>>lines of stuff in here that shouldn't be there. Get a >>>>>>****ing CLUE, will you? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Trim your temper a bit, will you? >>>>>It's not the biggest of crimes. >>>> >>>>Why is it you can't be bothered to do ANY of the common >>>>usenet courtesies? TRIM the old parts of the post, for >>>>christall****ingmighty. Don't leave several hundred >>>>lines nested 10 or 12 carats deep. Just DO it. >>> >>> >>>In the post by YOU that preceded >>>my trimless one, YOU didn't trim >>>by that same amount too. >> >>But then there were two more posts in the thread, and >>you didn't do any trimming. You NEVER do any trimming. >> Why does what I might do or not do have any bearing >>on what you OUGHT to do? > > > You're the one upset at the lack > of trimming. You're the one who NEVER trims. >>Trim the posts. Just stop with the clueless defiance, >>and ****ing DO it. > > > If you felt so strongly about it, you > could have done it yourself in the > previous post of yours that had > just as much unsnipped stuff. Ultimately I *always* do it. You, you slovenly naive asshole, NEVER do it. DO IT. Shut your ****ing yap and just DO it. You don't have anything else to say on the topic. >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message arthlink.net... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote in message . pas.earthlink.net... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message s.pas.earthlink.net... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>See how much more readable it is now, you ignorant asshole? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Sure Rudey, whatever you say. >>>>>*eyes rolling* >>>> >>>>It is. Look at this bit immediately below. It's >>>>indented NINE carats now. That means it's nine posts >>>>back. It no longer is essential to the discussion. >>>>TRIM the old stuff, you lazy skank. >>> >>> >>>Then you were lazy first >> >>No. I'm never lazy. You ALWAYS are lazy, and >>disgustingly passive. > > > Always glad to disgust you. Right. That's part of that arrested-development, juvenile defiance thing that cripples you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>><...> >> >>>>>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. >> >>Where do you think the manufacturers get their ideas, dummy? Demand >>drives their supply, too. > > > I think No, you don't. I doubt you've ever had a clear thought in your adult life. > I've been quite clear Clarity is something most people here don't recognize in your "thoughts." > on the fact that I would like to see > demand go up. The problem, you brain-dead pot-smoking imbecile, is that farm machinery is based on what FARMERS demand. All the great inventions in farming were from those who labored in the fields. They looked for ways to increase efficiency to reduce costs and increase profitability. They didn't give a shit if a few more rodents got run over or diced to pieces. Farming implements aren't inventions dreamed up by people in ivory towers who tell farmers to take it or leave it. The only people in ivory towers completely devoid of reason and out of touch with reality are you vegans and ARAs who prate about "veganic" agriculture. >>>The manufactures don't >>>have any designs or ideas for >>>animal safe machinery. >> >>Because the farmers demand efficiency. Before "veganism" started in >>1944, nobody cared if mice were killed in the course of food production. >> >>>Any consumer that >> >>WHO, not that. >> >>>doesn't grow their >> >>HIS OR HER, not their. > > Are you a grammar freak, Usual? I appreciate clear sentences written in a manner showing familiarity with acceptable English usage. > I think I make myself understood > just fine, no matter what my > grammar is like. Perhaps to other semi-literate drug abusers. >>>own food is reliant on >>>the commercial foods grown >>>the above ways. >> >>They can rely on themselves but freely choose instead to fully >>participate in a commercial agricultural system which kills animals >>intentionally, negligently, and indifferently as a matter of normal >>practice. > > How can they opt out? We've given you many ways. You've given us excuses. >><...> >> >>>>>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. >> >>That separation occurs already so long as employers are hiring workers >>and people on welfare aren't taking the jobs available. > > Workfare would fix that. I'm unconvinced that it would alter any underlying social problems by merely subsidizing labor for certain jobs, much less the real issue of chronic unemployment. Why should the agriculture industry benefit from subsidized "workfare" employment if all other industries don't? What would this do to those who are already willing to do the work for wages those forced into "workfare" won't currently accept (either in agriculture or in any other industry)? > A lot > of people wouldn't be happy > with that though. No shit. Welfare is an anti-work subsidy. Until it's treated as such, and thereby ended, it will continue to subsidize no-work. What economic incentive does anyone on welfare have to go out and work if welfare is more lucrative than earning a salary? Even if a "workfare" wage is higher than welfare, you have to address the utility cost of the time spent working versus the time spent on welfare. Someone on welfare gets $x for sitting around all day doing nothing. "Workfare" and minimum wage jobs pay $x or $x-plus some other small amount. Neither is an incentive to work since the recipient dole scrounger already receives $x for nothing. Why give up 40 hours a week for what one already gets for "free"? The solution is to stop paying people not to work in the first place. > As for all the > women having babies just so > they can collect the bigger > welfare checks, I say, workfare > also, I say cut them off, too. Let churches and other private charities help them. Leave taxpayers alone. > but with daycare centers > and many breaks for breast- > feeding women. Run by the same bureaucrats who run agencies like the post office? No thanks. > I would like > for people to start thinking of > welfare more as a guaranteed > job to tide you over between > real jobs. We agree somewhat that it needs to be temporary. I'd rather there be a really nasty stigma associated with it, and, if there will continue to be welfare, that it be limited to just a few months -- like three to six. After that, people have to learn to help themselves rather than siphon off those who carefully plan their lives, work hard, and save for their futures. >>>I've known people who >>>validly used it for short periods >>>of time and people who have >>>abused it. >> >>I figured you and your friends were dole-scroungers. No wonder you and >>Derek like each other so much. Birds of a feather... > > No, luckily I have a good job. School cafeteria worker? > As for Derek, he has a disability > and provided that it's legit, No. He crippled himself on a bet. When he tried to lift the engine block out of the car, he found out his back was as weak as his mind. > has every right to a disability 'dole'. He's admitted his injury was of his own volition. >><...> >> >>>>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, >> >>Nobody will. It's just fantasy. > > Probably. Absolutely fantasy. >>>but I may some day >>>get a chance to grow some >>>of my own food.; assuming >>>I'm still able bodied when I >>>retire. >> >>You're saving your strength for that day by sitting on your flabby ass. > > There's that Get off it and get some exercise, Skanky. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Idiot wrote:
> So my views on this are > actually a bit to the left and a bit > to the right. I'd increase $, but > also increase ID and work > expectations, Non sequitur. You moron, ID cards aren't a "right wing" idea. Opposition to them runs the gamut from right to left (libertarianism, in both the narrower civil libertarian sense and the broader sense). Support for national ID cards also transcends party because left and right have those who either have no concern for liberties or who think we can balance liberties with security. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote:
> Scented Nectar wrote: > >>> <...> >>>> It's kind of a no win situation. >>>> The farmer is reliant on the >>>> equipment the manufacturers >>>> make. >>> >>> >>> Where do you think the manufacturers get their ideas, dummy? Demand >>> drives their supply, too. >> >> >> >> I think > > > No, you don't. I doubt you've ever had a clear thought in your adult life. Half because intellectually, she never has had an adult life; and half due to having developed too much feel for the bong. > >> I've been quite clear > > > Clarity is something most people here don't recognize in your "thoughts." Exactly. > >> on the fact that I would like to see >> demand go up. > > > The problem, you brain-dead pot-smoking imbecile, is that farm machinery > is based on what FARMERS demand. And what farmers demand is on behalf of what their customers demand. Their customers don't give a **** about animal collateral deaths, and so neither do the farmers. > All the great inventions in farming > were from those who labored in the fields. They looked for ways to > increase efficiency to reduce costs and increase profitability. They > didn't give a shit if a few more rodents got run over or diced to > pieces. Farming implements aren't inventions dreamed up by people in > ivory towers who tell farmers to take it or leave it. The only people in > ivory towers completely devoid of reason and out of touch with reality > are you vegans and ARAs who prate about "veganic" agriculture. > >>>> The manufactures don't >>>> have any designs or ideas for >>>> animal safe machinery. >>> >>> >>> Because the farmers demand efficiency. Before "veganism" started in >>> 1944, nobody cared if mice were killed in the course of food production. >>> >>>> Any consumer that >>> >>> >>> WHO, not that. Skanky doesn't know relative pronouns from moral relativity. She's ignorant. >>> >>>> doesn't grow their >>> >>> >>> HIS OR HER, not their. >> >> >> Are you a grammar freak, Usual? > > > I appreciate clear sentences written in a manner showing familiarity > with acceptable English usage. > >> I think I make myself understood >> just fine, no matter what my >> grammar is like. > > > Perhaps to other semi-literate drug abusers. > >>>> own food is reliant on >>>> the commercial foods grown >>>> the above ways. >>> >>> >>> They can rely on themselves but freely choose instead to fully >>> participate in a commercial agricultural system which kills animals >>> intentionally, negligently, and indifferently as a matter of normal >>> practice. >> >> >> How can they opt out? > > > We've given you many ways. You've given us excuses. > >>> <...> >>> >>>>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> That separation occurs already so long as employers are hiring workers >>> and people on welfare aren't taking the jobs available. >> >> >> Workfare would fix that. > > > I'm unconvinced that it would alter any underlying social problems by > merely subsidizing labor for certain jobs, much less the real issue of > chronic unemployment. Why should the agriculture industry benefit from > subsidized "workfare" employment if all other industries don't? What > would this do to those who are already willing to do the work for wages > those forced into "workfare" won't currently accept (either in > agriculture or in any other industry)? > >> A lot of people wouldn't be happy >> with that though. > > > No shit. Welfare is an anti-work subsidy. Until it's treated as such, > and thereby ended, it will continue to subsidize no-work. What economic > incentive does anyone on welfare have to go out and work if welfare is > more lucrative than earning a salary? Even if a "workfare" wage is > higher than welfare, you have to address the utility cost of the time > spent working versus the time spent on welfare. Someone on welfare gets > $x for sitting around all day doing nothing. "Workfare" and minimum wage > jobs pay $x or $x-plus some other small amount. Neither is an incentive > to work since the recipient dole scrounger already receives $x for > nothing. Why give up 40 hours a week for what one already gets for "free"? > > The solution is to stop paying people not to work in the first place. > >> As for all the >> women having babies just so >> they can collect the bigger >> welfare checks, I say, workfare >> also, > > > I say cut them off, too. Let churches and other private charities help > them. Leave taxpayers alone. > >> but with daycare centers >> and many breaks for breast- >> feeding women. > > > Run by the same bureaucrats who run agencies like the post office? No > thanks. > >> I would like >> for people to start thinking of >> welfare more as a guaranteed >> job to tide you over between >> real jobs. > > > We agree somewhat that it needs to be temporary. I'd rather there be a > really nasty stigma associated with it, and, if there will continue to > be welfare, that it be limited to just a few months -- like three to > six. After that, people have to learn to help themselves rather than > siphon off those who carefully plan their lives, work hard, and save for > their futures. > >>>> I've known people who >>>> validly used it for short periods >>>> of time and people who have >>>> abused it. >>> >>> >>> I figured you and your friends were dole-scroungers. No wonder you and >>> Derek like each other so much. Birds of a feather... >> >> >> No, luckily I have a good job. > > > School cafeteria worker? > >> As for Derek, he has a disability >> and provided that it's legit, > > > No. He crippled himself on a bet. When he tried to lift the engine block > out of the car, he found out his back was as weak as his mind. > >> has every right to a disability 'dole'. > > > He's admitted his injury was of his own volition. > >>> <...> >>> >>>>> 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, >>> >>> >>> Nobody will. It's just fantasy. >> >> >> Probably. > > > Absolutely fantasy. > >>>> but I may some day >>>> get a chance to grow some >>>> of my own food.; assuming >>>> I'm still able bodied when I >>>> retire. >>> >>> >>> You're saving your strength for that day by sitting on your flabby ass. >> >> >> There's that > > > Get off it and get some exercise, Skanky. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Skanky wrote:
> [--snip--] > > >>>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. > > No reasonable suggestion has > yet to be offered. There are four reasonable suggestions below. > [--snip--] > > >>>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. > > > 1.Can't grow my own yet. Excuse. > 2.There are no veganic co-ops Excuse. Start your own. > 3.Foraging would take me too far > outside the city, and not feed > me well enough. Excuse. I gave you links to URBAN foraging sites. > 4.Can't afford to pay the farmer Get a second job. > unless it's as part of a co-op. Circular excuse from 2. > [--snip--] > > >>I'm not a vegan. My diet is vegetarian. > > If you are a 'strict' vegetarian, > there are some people who > would call you vegan, They would be wrong. > in the > dietary sense rather than > the philosophical one. The former is not vegan, the latter is. > [--snip--] > > >>>I'm considering now is just being an >>>ovo-vegetarian, giving up all milk >>>products >> >>Why? > > Eggs can be produced without > any harm other than the growing > of the chicken feed. So you continue to add to your pile of CDs for your own tastes, rather than consuming in a manner consistent with your belief that it's wrong to kill animals. > If I get eggs > that are organic, free range, and > not fed any animal products, I > would like to include them > occasionally as a source of B12 > and because they are tasty. In that case, feel free to eat grass-fed beef. > [--snip--] > > >>>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. > > I still think that hamburgers and > cooked chicken have a bit of > a barnyard poo smell. You have NO idea what a barnyard smells like, dimwit. > I don't > like boca burgers because they > have somehow captured that > smell even though they are > veg. We have Boca Burgers in the freezer. They do NOT smell or taste of "poo." > As for other meats, I'll > probably always like the smell > of bacon frying and some > steaks. You like tube steak? > That doesn't mean I > want to eat them. I don't > crave meat. Yes, you do. > [--snip--] > > >>Inventing? No. You may tinker around, but there's nothing original on >>your website. > > There's lots of original content. None. > Especially my chili It's spaghetti sauce, not chili. Real chili has very little (if any) tomatoes in it at all, and it certainly has no basil or other Italian herbs (as your pasta sauce does). That is NOT chili. Get that through your thick empty skull. > if you are > talking about my favourite recipes. > Some are completely my own, > and some are variations on other > people's recipes, Which shows a lack of originality. > most of which > I don't remember where I got. Stop smoking pot and your memory will improve. >>>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 > > Sounds like it might be tasty. It IS tasty and, aside from some fiddling around with kinds of fat and ingredients, they're fairly authentic. I don't cook or eat boring food. > [--snip--] > > >>>>>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. > > That's possible. That's actually quite probable. In any event, you should get off your lazy hypocritical ass and call them. >>>>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). > > A case of TB occured recently > in a young kid in the US from > imported unpasteurized cheese. *A* case? Try several cases, dummy. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/3217744 http://tinyurl.com/bogdk > It was in a recent ProMed post. Trying to decide which is more faulty, your memory or the third-hand hysteria that gets passed through ProMed. > Organic foods must be washed > properly with soap and water, > and/or cooked. The issue with queso fresco isn't whether or not it's organic, it's whether or not it's been pasteurized and properly stored. Women are caught daily smuggling tainted cheese into the US under their skirts and even inserted vaginally (you probably have a large enough snatch to make quite a living as a queso smuggler). > Just because > they are organic, doesn't mean > germ-free. Organic produce is never tested for pesticide residues or pathogens. Conventional produce is. > [--snip--] > > >>>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. > > Those gardens, even if I could > obtain one, are too small to be > worth the extra hours of daily or > almost daily effort. HOURS?! The garden in my backyard (no crops in the last year) has been *much* larger than the plots at our community gardens and it takes me a couple hours a week *MAX* to tend it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>[--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. >> >>What was his basis for saying that? Is it "quicker and not prolonged" >>when pesticides build up in non-target species? When a raccoon burrowing >>near a mound of burning straw dies of smoke inhalation? When mice or >>birds burn to death? When rabbits drown due to flooding of rice fields? >>When aquatic species in rice fields slowly dry to death? >> >>How do all those deaths compare to the treatment of the pigs in the pics >>above? They're housed and protected, have access to light, and have >>plenty to eat. They appear quite healthy. Their slaughter will come >>quickly: a quick stun before they're bled to death -- a death which >>starts with a rapid loss of consciousness from blood exiting the brain. > > It's pretty much ALL no good. > Both the pig's and the non-pig's > crop foods cause cds. There's > also the health factor. I don't > believe that eating pork is > healthy. On what you base this "belief"? >>>I'm paraphrasing but I think I've >>>got the idea. Makes sense to >>>me. >> >>It doesn't make any sense. >> >> >>>[--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. >> >>Wrong. Some of the initial sellers were established supermarkets, as >>well as direct sales from producers to consumers. > > Not that I saw. Small sample problem. > I only noticed them > in the natural food stores. Small sample problem. > But > then again, I don't tend to notice > meat in stores anyways, so who > knows for Toronto? You certainly don't, dummy. > All I know is > that recently there have been > ads for things like chicken that > haven't been fed animal by- > products etc. That tells you what's selling now, not what was being sold ten to twenty years ago. >>>It took years before they started >>>appearing in the normal stores. >> >>No, it didn't. >> >> >>>>>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. >> >>Why do we have overpopulations of deer and feral pigs in Texas? > > Those would balance out if > left alone. You heartless bitch. They would "balance out" through starvation and disease after they've run farmers and ranchers out of business. The REAL PROBLEM, though, is what you consider "balance." In case you didn't know it, these feral swine are *NON-NATIVE* species which are very destructive to NATIVE and DOMESTICATED species and to the native habitat. The problem with feral pigs is so bad in Hawaii and Australia that wildlife officials are considering poisoning pigs to get them under control faster than hunting will. The problem is so bad here in Texas that feral pigs no longer have a season -- you can shoot them any time of year, and some farmers and ranchers allow free access to their land for pig hunting. http://www.rarehawaii.org/pigpage/animalcontrol.htm http://www.rarehawaii.org/pigpage/pigs.htm http://texnat.tamu.edu/symposia/feral/feral-13.htm Etc. >>>[--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, >> >>Or any other science. Established. That includes nutritional science. >>>so I'll go with what the source >>>article says, provided it was >>>from a good source. >> >>NASA. >> >> >>>[--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. >> >>The thing is, the whole story was made up. She fell for it. > > There are also people who think > that if they live in a no-pollution > zone they can become 'breatharians' > and not need any food at all. The foot-rubbing ditz mentioned that at the time. >>>>>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. >> >>Last year, there were 3,531 acres of industrial hemp grown in Canada. >>The largest crop was in 1999, when industrial hemp was grown on 34,657 >>acres across Canada. Beyond the tight regulations, issues related to >>(surprise!) the market for hemp and transportation to processors have >>led to siginficant reductions in the number of farmers applying for >>licenses; license applications increased again in 2004. >> >>http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/econ9631 >>http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/...cts/00-067.htm >>etc. > > That's a lot more farmers than the > last time I saw a news show about > it. Yay Canada! If there's a market for industrial hemp, fine. Just don't tell me sailors still prefer hemp to synthetics for sails or rigging because they don't; pot activists only want to smoke it, not make jeans. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
<...> >>More hand labor adding even more cost to your product. > > Manageable on a small scale, Then grow your own, nitwit. <...> > I don't have a house currently, but I > know that if/when I do, You won't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "VSA" > wrote in message > news:1119816291.46014afe2d34e934f06ccf3cdc3f2c08@m eganetnews2... > >>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:45:17 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote the following in >>alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian: >> >> >>>Humans can't be trusted not to >>>overhunt. >> >>Every state has game management programs to prevent over hunting. In >>fact some state game managers are concerned that there aren't *enough* >>hunters to keep some game species from over populating. >> >>--------------------------------------------------------- >>Pennsylvania's deer population is expected to number 1.4 million this >>fall. That's up about 200,000 from last year's pre-hunting season >>population. Unfortunately, this increase isn't necessarily perceptible >>to hunters and other Pennsylvanians. >> >>"Seeing is believing to most of us," explained PGC deer biologist >>George Kelly. "Still, having a record population of deer doesn't mean >>there will be one behind every tree, or that you'll see more while >>hunting or driving around. But if you pay attention, you'll see signs >>of deer overpopulation: unhealthy and small-bodied deer, increased >>crop and property damage, increased deer-automobile collisions, >>habitat destruction, including a reduction in plant diversity, and >>does with fewer fawns and bucks with smaller racks." >>http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...TION_ID=159995 >>--------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Other states are having similar problems. Once again, you seem to be a >>bit out of touch with reality. >> >>As I stated before, vegans might do better if they stopped spouting >>vegan propaganda and start dealing with facts and reality. > > > Sounds like deer are overpopulated > in spots, but not all animals are so. > Some get endangered from poaching. Name ONE North American species currently endangered from poaching. > Those are the ones I worry about. Then name ONE of them, worrywart. > You have convinced me though that > deer and pig hunting in the US isn't > as wrong as certain other hunts > seem to me. Hunting is a legitimate form of wildlife management. It's certainly safer than putting wolves and mountain lions in the middle of a ****ing city like Austin where we have an overpopulation of the deer in an URBAN environment. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>Why do we have overpopulations of deer and feral pigs in Texas? >>> >>>Those would balance out if >>>left alone. >> >>Wrong again. Lacking enough predators they do massive crop damage as >>well as damage woodlands. The only way they would eventually "balance >>out" is through massive starvation *after* they have already caused >>massive damage to crops and forests. Then, after the forests and >>croplands recover, the wildlife populations would recover and again >>overpopulate, starting the cycle of damage and starvation all over >>again. > > Hmmm. Provided that they are > still protected from overhunting, How the **** can a species which doubles every three or four years be overhunted?! > it now seems a little less wrong > to hunt and eat these ones in > particular. There's nothing wrong, especially when they cause more deaths and injuries in the US alone than shark attacks do worlwide. > I see degrees in the > wrongness of different animal > deaths, based on different > factors. Meaning, if it involves something you like to eat versus something you don't like to eat. Your standards are pretty low. > The reason I worry > about overhunting is because > of animals like the buffalo and > cod. Both of which had more to do with your own predilection for imported foods -- the flesh and bison hides were sent overseas and to large cities in the East to satsify demand. It's no different than all the animals you endanger through your current consumption of tropical foods and exotic spices. > Humans just don't know > when to stop sometimes. You sure as hell don't. >>Have you lived your whole life in a metropolitan area by any chance? > > Unfortunately almost completely. Stop lying. Summer camp doesn't count as "rural living." You've completely lived your life in a large metropolitan area. >>Have you ever witnessed animals starving in the wild from >>overpopulation? > > Can't say I have. Are there no > natural predators that eat deer > and pigs? Mountain lions, wolves. Do you favor reintroducing them to areas with fairly large human populations where the feral pig and deer problems also exist? How would you explain it to parents when their children are killed and carried off by cougars and left hidden in trees? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
hlink.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > nk.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > .earthlink.net... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>TRIM the ****ing post, you ****. You've left 200 or so > >>>>>>lines of stuff in here that shouldn't be there. Get a > >>>>>>****ing CLUE, will you? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Trim your temper a bit, will you? > >>>>>It's not the biggest of crimes. > >>>> > >>>>Why is it you can't be bothered to do ANY of the common > >>>>usenet courtesies? TRIM the old parts of the post, for > >>>>christall****ingmighty. Don't leave several hundred > >>>>lines nested 10 or 12 carats deep. Just DO it. > >>> > >>> > >>>In the post by YOU that preceded > >>>my trimless one, YOU didn't trim > >>>by that same amount too. > >> > >>But then there were two more posts in the thread, and > >>you didn't do any trimming. You NEVER do any trimming. > >> Why does what I might do or not do have any bearing > >>on what you OUGHT to do? > > > > > > You're the one upset at the lack > > of trimming. > > You're the one who NEVER trims. Bullshit. I do sometimes. My personal snip looks like this: [--snip--] > >>Trim the posts. Just stop with the clueless defiance, > >>and ****ing DO it. > > > > > > If you felt so strongly about it, you > > could have done it yourself in the > > previous post of yours that had > > just as much unsnipped stuff. > > Ultimately I *always* do it. You, you slovenly naive > asshole, NEVER do it. DO IT. Shut your ****ing yap > and just DO it. You don't have anything else to say on > the topic. Think calm, Rudey, calm. You may not have noticed my snips but go do a search on my particular snip format and you'll see a few. Now take some deep breaths. > >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > arthlink.net... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote in message > . pas.earthlink.net... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message > s.pas.earthlink.net... > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>See how much more readable it is now, you ignorant asshole? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Sure Rudey, whatever you say. > >>>>>*eyes rolling* > >>>> > >>>>It is. Look at this bit immediately below. It's > >>>>indented NINE carats now. That means it's nine posts > >>>>back. It no longer is essential to the discussion. > >>>>TRIM the old stuff, you lazy skank. > >>> > >>> > >>>Then you were lazy first > >> > >>No. I'm never lazy. You ALWAYS are lazy, and > >>disgustingly passive. > > > > > > Always glad to disgust you. > > Right. That's part of that arrested-development, > juvenile defiance thing that cripples you. Look at all that unnecessary stuff you didn't snip out. -- 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 Idiot wrote: > > So my views on this are > > actually a bit to the left and a bit > > to the right. I'd increase $, but > > also increase ID and work > > expectations, > > Non sequitur. You moron, ID cards aren't a "right wing" idea. Opposition > to them runs the gamut from right to left (libertarianism, in both the > narrower civil libertarian sense and the broader sense). Support for > national ID cards also transcends party because left and right have > those who either have no concern for liberties or who think we can > balance liberties with security. What's with all the gratuitous insults? From someone who was so upset at being called a boy, this doesn't look good on you. You claimed that my calling you a boy was racist so I stopped (to you anyways) using that word, even though my intent was to mean being juvenile rather than black. Yet I see on this newsgroup that you are sizeist (calling Derek fat), ableist (making fun of his disability), and just in general insulting, as shown in your above use of idiot and moron. This far outweighs any insults you may have perceived coming at you from others. -- 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: > >><...> > >> > >>>>>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. > >> > >>Where do you think the manufacturers get their ideas, dummy? Demand > >>drives their supply, too. > > > > > > I think > > No, you don't. I doubt you've ever had a clear thought in your adult life. > > > I've been quite clear > > Clarity is something most people here don't recognize in your "thoughts." > > > on the fact that I would like to see > > demand go up. > > The problem, you brain-dead pot-smoking imbecile, is that farm machinery Do you have any friends who drink recreationally? Do you call them brain-dead imbeciles? > is based on what FARMERS demand. All the great inventions in farming > were from those who labored in the fields. They looked for ways to > increase efficiency to reduce costs and increase profitability. They > didn't give a shit if a few more rodents got run over or diced to > pieces. Farming implements aren't inventions dreamed up by people in > ivory towers who tell farmers to take it or leave it. The only people in > ivory towers completely devoid of reason and out of touch with reality > are you vegans and ARAs who prate about "veganic" agriculture. I've been very clear. About how it's unrealistic that I'll ever see such a thing in my lifetime, etc. > >>>The manufactures don't > >>>have any designs or ideas for > >>>animal safe machinery. > >> > >>Because the farmers demand efficiency. Before "veganism" started in > >>1944, nobody cared if mice were killed in the course of food production. > >> > >>>Any consumer that > >> > >>WHO, not that. > >> > >>>doesn't grow their > >> > >>HIS OR HER, not their. > > > > Are you a grammar freak, Usual? > > I appreciate clear sentences written in a manner showing familiarity > with acceptable English usage. > > > I think I make myself understood > > just fine, no matter what my > > grammar is like. > > Perhaps to other semi-literate drug abusers. In that case, you don't understand things I type. What haven't you understood? An example please. Something where the grammar caused you to not understand me. Interesting comment about drug abusers. Do you mean that if I increase my pot usage to an abusive level, I'll understand more things? > >>>own food is reliant on > >>>the commercial foods grown > >>>the above ways. > >> > >>They can rely on themselves but freely choose instead to fully > >>participate in a commercial agricultural system which kills animals > >>intentionally, negligently, and indifferently as a matter of normal > >>practice. > > > > How can they opt out? > > We've given you many ways. You've given us excuses. Nope. Reasons. > >><...> > >> > >>>>>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. > >> > >>That separation occurs already so long as employers are hiring workers > >>and people on welfare aren't taking the jobs available. > > > > Workfare would fix that. > > I'm unconvinced that it would alter any underlying social problems by > merely subsidizing labor for certain jobs, much less the real issue of > chronic unemployment. Why should the agriculture industry benefit from > subsidized "workfare" employment if all other industries don't? What > would this do to those who are already willing to do the work for wages > those forced into "workfare" won't currently accept (either in > agriculture or in any other industry)? First of all, all industries and companies (small ones) could apply to have this labour. Secondly, what makes you think that workfare workers won't accept their pay, which as welfare is, lower than min. wage. Those on welfare or unemployment insurance ARE the unemployed, save for a few that have enough savings for tiding them over between jobs. > > A lot > > of people wouldn't be happy > > with that though. > > No shit. Welfare is an anti-work subsidy. Until it's treated as such, > and thereby ended, it will continue to subsidize no-work. What economic > incentive does anyone on welfare have to go out and work if welfare is > more lucrative than earning a salary? Even if a "workfare" wage is > higher than welfare, you have to address the utility cost of the time > spent working versus the time spent on welfare. Someone on welfare gets > $x for sitting around all day doing nothing. "Workfare" and minimum wage > jobs pay $x or $x-plus some other small amount. Neither is an incentive > to work since the recipient dole scrounger already receives $x for > nothing. Why give up 40 hours a week for what one already gets for "free"? > > The solution is to stop paying people not to work in the first place. A total elimination would be no good. Many people live paycheck to paycheck as they don't make much money. If welfare/workfare was considered as a tide-over rather than an occupation it would be better. Perhaps for about 3 months the $ would be liveable and then it would go down drastically. Attempts to find work, and acceptances of jobs found for them would be essential in order not to be cut off. > > As for all the > > women having babies just so > > they can collect the bigger > > welfare checks, I say, workfare > > also, > > I say cut them off, too. Let churches and other private charities help > them. Leave taxpayers alone. Since they are obviously having unprotected sex, they and their children, many anyways, will probably die of AIDS soon anyways. Maybe a push for better sex ed about protection in the schools would be good. Letting it just keep happening and then expecting charities to help will turn us into 3rd world nations complete with skinny suckling babies and their starving mothers living on some worn out ground. > > but with daycare centers > > and many breaks for breast- > > feeding women. > > Run by the same bureaucrats who run agencies like the post office? No > thanks. Canada's postal service runs quite well. > > I would like > > for people to start thinking of > > welfare more as a guaranteed > > job to tide you over between > > real jobs. > > We agree somewhat that it needs to be temporary. I'd rather there be a > really nasty stigma associated with it, and, if there will continue to > be welfare, that it be limited to just a few months -- like three to > six. After that, people have to learn to help themselves rather than > siphon off those who carefully plan their lives, work hard, and save for > their futures. I disagree about the stigma. No need for shame just because a person finds themselves between jobs. > >>>I've known people who > >>>validly used it for short periods > >>>of time and people who have > >>>abused it. > >> > >>I figured you and your friends were dole-scroungers. No wonder you and > >>Derek like each other so much. Birds of a feather... > > > > No, luckily I have a good job. > > School cafeteria worker? Keep fishing. > > As for Derek, he has a disability > > and provided that it's legit, > > No. He crippled himself on a bet. When he tried to lift the engine block > out of the car, he found out his back was as weak as his mind. Regardless of how it happened, if it is a legit disability, it qualifies. If however, instead of a bet, it was to shoot himself in the foot on purpose that might be a different story. > > has every right to a disability 'dole'. > > He's admitted his injury was of his own volition. But was his intention to become disabled or to win a bet? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > >>>>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, > >> > >>Nobody will. It's just fantasy. > > > > Probably. > > Absolutely fantasy. > > >>>but I may some day > >>>get a chance to grow some > >>>of my own food.; assuming > >>>I'm still able bodied when I > >>>retire. > >> > >>You're saving your strength for that day by sitting on your flabby ass. > > > > There's that > > Get off it and get some exercise, Skanky. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Renco wrote:
> "VSA" > wrote in message: > >>....(edited)... If vegans are so concerned with animal suffering, why would > > you opt > >>for these animals dying a slow and painful death rather than being >>taken relatively quickly (usually) by a hunter's bullet? >> >>Have you lived your whole life in a metropolitan area by any chance? >> >>Have you ever witnessed animals starving in the wild from >>overpopulation? > > ================== > Isn't it strange the way we humans think. - It's OK to kill off animals to > control their populations, rationalizing that it is actually the humane > thing to do as it will prevent them from dying horrible deaths by > starvation. That makes sense to me. Yet 10s of thousands of humans die > horrible deaths from starvation every day, Due to political issues which prevent food distribution, not from a lack of food as is the case with wildlife. Thus, you're comparing apples and oranges. > and we of course could never > contemplate taking such "humane" action against other humans to prevent > their suffering. You're quite wrong -- that's done in various parts of the world, albeit not merely because groups of people are starving. Rather, it's done in addition to the deliberate starvation of human beings. For example, not only are the people of Darfur starving, they're also being targeted and systematically murdered by Sudanese militia. http://www.darfurgenocide.org/ That's what happens when you let leftists run the UN. > I could never consider the thought of such a repulsive > thing even for a split second... Then join the call for removing Kofi Annan as UN Secretary General. > But I have to consider, as far as opinions go about this anyway.... Should > I really be critical of someone else who may find it repulsive to kill > animals, Yes, especially when the option is to let them starve and suffer when we can use their meat to feed hungry humans (at least where we can distribute food). http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...?A=11&Q=156082 http://www.countryworldnews.com/Edit...106hunters.htm http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...7928--,00.html Etc. > even to prevent their suffering from starvation, thereby putting > animals in the same category as humans in this type of situation, Who's doing that? > or MUST we > all believe we have to treat the animals more humanely? Your question seems to indicate that you believe hunting is inhumane in any instance. Am I reading you correctly? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Renco" > wrote in message > .. . > >>"VSA" > wrote in message: >> >>>....(edited)... If vegans are so concerned with animal suffering, why > > would > >>you opt >> >>>for these animals dying a slow and painful death rather than being >>>taken relatively quickly (usually) by a hunter's bullet? >>> >>>Have you lived your whole life in a metropolitan area by any chance? >>> >>>Have you ever witnessed animals starving in the wild from >>>overpopulation? >> >>================== >>Isn't it strange the way we humans think. - It's OK to kill off animals to >>control their populations, rationalizing that it is actually the humane >>thing to do as it will prevent them from dying horrible deaths by >>starvation. That makes sense to me. Yet 10s of thousands of humans die >>horrible deaths from starvation every day, and we of course could never >>contemplate taking such "humane" action against other humans to prevent >>their suffering. I could never consider the thought of such a repulsive >>thing even for a split second... >> >>But I have to consider, as far as opinions go about this anyway.... > > Should > >>I really be critical of someone else who may find it repulsive to kill >>animals, even to prevent their suffering from starvation, thereby putting >>animals in the same category as humans in this type of situation, or MUST > > we > >>all believe we have to treat the animals more humanely? > > > That's some VERY interesting > food for thought. Especially > about euthanizing starving humans. I hope you're being sarcastic. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Idiot wrote:
>>>So my views on this are >>>actually a bit to the left and a bit >>>to the right. I'd increase $, but >>>also increase ID and work >>>expectations, >> >>Non sequitur. You moron, ID cards aren't a "right wing" idea. Opposition >>to them runs the gamut from right to left (libertarianism, in both the >>narrower civil libertarian sense and the broader sense). Support for >>national ID cards also transcends party because left and right have >>those who either have no concern for liberties or who think we can >>balance liberties with security. > > What's with all the gratuitous > insults? They're not gratuitous. You've earned them. > I see on this newsgroup that > you are sizeist (calling Derek > fat), He is fat. > ableist (making fun of his > disability), Specifically, how he disabled himself. Note you didn't address the substance of my remarks, as usual. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>is based on what FARMERS demand. All the great inventions in farming >>were from those who labored in the fields. They looked for ways to >>increase efficiency to reduce costs and increase profitability. They >>didn't give a shit if a few more rodents got run over or diced to >>pieces. Farming implements aren't inventions dreamed up by people in >>ivory towers who tell farmers to take it or leave it. The only people in >>ivory towers completely devoid of reason and out of touch with reality >>are you vegans and ARAs who prate about "veganic" agriculture. > > I've been very clear. Never. > About how > it's unrealistic that I'll ever see > such a thing in my lifetime, etc. Yet you prate about "increasing demand" via usenet. Dope. >>>How can they opt out? >> >>We've given you many ways. You've given us excuses. > > Nope. Yep. > Reasons. Excuses. *Pitiful* excuses. >>>>>True, but it would separate the >>>>>wheat from the chaff as far as >>>>>who really wants to get off of >>>>>welfare. >>>> >>>>That separation occurs already so long as employers are hiring workers >>>>and people on welfare aren't taking the jobs available. >>> >>>Workfare would fix that. >> >>I'm unconvinced that it would alter any underlying social problems by >>merely subsidizing labor for certain jobs, much less the real issue of >>chronic unemployment. Why should the agriculture industry benefit from >>subsidized "workfare" employment if all other industries don't? What >>would this do to those who are already willing to do the work for wages >>those forced into "workfare" won't currently accept (either in >>agriculture or in any other industry)? > > First of all, all industries and > companies (small ones) could > apply to have this labour. Realistically, who'll want to hire the deadbeats who've lived off the generosity of taxpayers their whole lives instead of preparing themselves to work in the real world? > Secondly, what makes you > think that workfare workers > won't accept their pay, which > as welfare is, lower than min. > wage. Wrong, at least here where welfare encompasses more than cash for not working. It also includes various health care programs, housing subsidies, and a variety of other funds which varies by state. http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html > Those on welfare or > unemployment insurance ARE > the unemployed, More than that. Welfare attracts many who are willing to defraud taxpayers, as do various unemployment schemes. I include workers' compensation funds which pay people who are "injured," whether they really are or not. > save for a > few that have enough savings > for tiding them over between > jobs. And all the able-bodied parasites draining the economy through fraud. >>>A lot >>>of people wouldn't be happy >>>with that though. >> >>No shit. Welfare is an anti-work subsidy. Until it's treated as such, >>and thereby ended, it will continue to subsidize no-work. What economic >>incentive does anyone on welfare have to go out and work if welfare is >>more lucrative than earning a salary? Even if a "workfare" wage is >>higher than welfare, you have to address the utility cost of the time >>spent working versus the time spent on welfare. Someone on welfare gets >>$x for sitting around all day doing nothing. "Workfare" and minimum wage >>jobs pay $x or $x-plus some other small amount. Neither is an incentive >>to work since the recipient dole scrounger already receives $x for >>nothing. Why give up 40 hours a week for what one already gets for "free"? >> >>The solution is to stop paying people not to work in the first place. > > A total elimination would be > no good. Bullshit. It would be the best thing for the taxpayers and the welfare recipients. As long as you pay people not to work, they won't. > Many people live > paycheck to paycheck as they > don't make much money. So you choose to force taxpayers to subsidize their frivolous spending and lack of interest in bettering their situations. How generous of you. > If welfare/workfare was considered > as a tide-over rather than an > occupation it would be better. I believe that's the whole concept behind such schemes, but in reality you end up subsidizing sloth for as long as people can get away with being idle. That's not good for the individuals on welfare, it's not good for society, and it's a drain on the economy. > Perhaps for about 3 months > the $ would be liveable and > then it would go down drastically. To zero. > Attempts to find work, and > acceptances of jobs found > for them would be essential > in order not to be cut off. No, don't qualify it. Cut the slackers off. >>>As for all the >>>women having babies just so >>>they can collect the bigger >>>welfare checks, I say, workfare >>>also, >> >>I say cut them off, too. Let churches and other private charities help >>them. Leave taxpayers alone. > > Since they are obviously having > unprotected sex, they and their > children, many anyways, will > probably die of AIDS soon > anyways. Non sequitur. HIV isn't nearly so rampant as to cause such an epidemic. > Maybe a push for > better sex ed about protection > in the schools would be good. They can't even teach kids to read or write, they shouldn't be teaching them to ****. > Letting it just keep happening > and then expecting charities > to help will turn us into 3rd > world nations complete with > skinny suckling babies and > their starving mothers living on > some worn out ground. I think you have it the other way around. Those third-world nations expect us to give them hand-outs, and for all our generosity we only get more of the same: more starvation, more children born into poverty, and so on. Private charities working in those regions have a better success record than various governments and the UN which have tried to eradicate poverty because those charities work hands-on with recipients and require some accountability. The UN and various nations who send aid loosely tie it to measures, but still look the other way when rules are broken. Simplest economic rules to remember: you get less of what you tax and more of what you subsidize. If you pay people not to work, they won't. >>>but with daycare centers >>>and many breaks for breast- >>>feeding women. >> >>Run by the same bureaucrats who run agencies like the post office? No >>thanks. > > Canada's postal service runs > quite well. Suck up. And bullshit. I've had some issues with your postal service, including beating back a postcard by a whole ****ing month, so don't tell me it's flawless. When given a choice, I'll send things via private carriers like FedEx or DHL rather than USPS and/or Canada Post. >>>I would like >>>for people to start thinking of >>>welfare more as a guaranteed >>>job to tide you over between >>>real jobs. >> >>We agree somewhat that it needs to be temporary. I'd rather there be a >>really nasty stigma associated with it, and, if there will continue to >>be welfare, that it be limited to just a few months -- like three to >>six. After that, people have to learn to help themselves rather than >>siphon off those who carefully plan their lives, work hard, and save for >>their futures. > > I disagree about the stigma. You would. You see your drug use as a positive. > No need for shame just because > a person finds themselves himself, herself > between jobs. There should be shame associated with being entirely dependent on others. >>>>>I've known people who >>>>>validly used it for short periods >>>>>of time and people who have >>>>>abused it. >>>> >>>>I figured you and your friends were dole-scroungers. No wonder you and >>>>Derek like each other so much. Birds of a feather... >>> >>>No, luckily I have a good job. >> >>School cafeteria worker? > > Keep fishing. School janitor. I'm not knocking it. Those are respectable jobs that have to be done. >>>As for Derek, he has a disability >>>and provided that it's legit, >> >>No. He crippled himself on a bet. When he tried to lift the engine block >>out of the car, he found out his back was as weak as his mind. > > Regardless of how it happened, It does matter how it happened. > if it is a legit disability, it > qualifies. If however, instead of > a bet, it was to shoot himself in > the foot on purpose that might > be a different story. Self-inflicted injury either way. >>>has every right to a disability 'dole'. >> >>He's admitted his injury was of his own volition. > > But was his intention to > become disabled or to win > a bet? You're defending the loss of a £5 bet which resulted in a lifetime on the public dole. His intention of winning the bet caused his injury. He's deserving of his fate and of paying his own bills resulting from his own stupidity. The taxpayers of his nation should be ****ed off that they're subsidizing his stupidity and his failed bets. How dare you defend that. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote:
<...> >> Secondly, what makes you >> think that workfare workers >> won't accept their pay, which >> as welfare is, lower than min. >> wage. > > Wrong, at least here where welfare encompasses more than cash for not > working. It also includes various health care programs, housing > subsidies, and a variety of other funds which varies by state. > > http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html See also: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-25.html http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html Issues in Canada: http://tinyurl.com/b8dkx Etc. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:49:04 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>He's admitted his injury was of his own volition. >> >> But was his intention to >> become disabled or to win >> a bet? > >You're defending the loss of a £5 bet which resulted in a lifetime on >the public dole. His intention of winning the bet caused his injury. Why do you feel the need to lie about EVERY issue, dummy? I've told you plenty of times now that I damaged my back while going about my usual work in a garage, not for a bet of any kind. You just can't stop yourself, can you? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat, self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote:
>>>>He's admitted his injury was of his own volition. >>> >>>But was his intention to >>>become disabled or to win >>>a bet? >> >>You're defending the loss of a £5 bet which resulted in a lifetime on >>the public dole. His intention of winning the bet caused his injury. > > Why do you feel I don't. Why did you try to lift an engine block out of a car instead of using the equipment available to you? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
right on cue, and with nothing meaningful to say,
Skanky gurgled: > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message rthlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message link.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message tl.earthlink.net... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>TRIM the ****ing post, you ****. You've left 200 or so >>>>>>>>lines of stuff in here that shouldn't be there. Get a >>>>>>>>****ing CLUE, will you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Trim your temper a bit, will you? >>>>>>>It's not the biggest of crimes. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why is it you can't be bothered to do ANY of the common >>>>>>usenet courtesies? TRIM the old parts of the post, for >>>>>>christall****ingmighty. Don't leave several hundred >>>>>>lines nested 10 or 12 carats deep. Just DO it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>In the post by YOU that preceded >>>>>my trimless one, YOU didn't trim >>>>>by that same amount too. >>>> >>>>But then there were two more posts in the thread, and >>>>you didn't do any trimming. You NEVER do any trimming. >>>> Why does what I might do or not do have any bearing >>>>on what you OUGHT to do? >>> >>> >>>You're the one upset at the lack >>>of trimming. >> >>You're the one who NEVER trims. > > > Bullshit. No, you don't. Stop lying. >>>>Trim the posts. Just stop with the clueless defiance, >>>>and ****ing DO it. >>> >>> >>>If you felt so strongly about it, you >>>could have done it yourself in the >>>previous post of yours that had >>>just as much unsnipped stuff. >> >>Ultimately I *always* do it. You, you slovenly naive >>asshole, NEVER do it. DO IT. Shut your ****ing yap >>and just DO it. You don't have anything else to say on >>the topic. > > > Think calm, Trim the posts, ****. Look below. It's getting too deep again. I'm leaving it for you to do, since I know you'll reflexively argue. >>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message .earthlink.net... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote in message s.pas.earthlink.net... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message ews.pas.earthlink.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>See how much more readable it is now, you ignorant asshole? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sure Rudey, whatever you say. >>>>>>>*eyes rolling* >>>>>> >>>>>>It is. Look at this bit immediately below. It's >>>>>>indented NINE carats now. That means it's nine posts >>>>>>back. It no longer is essential to the discussion. >>>>>>TRIM the old stuff, you lazy skank. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Then you were lazy first >>>> >>>>No. I'm never lazy. You ALWAYS are lazy, and >>>>disgustingly passive. >>> >>> >>>Always glad to disgust you. >> >>Right. That's part of that arrested-development, >>juvenile defiance thing that cripples you. > > > Look at all that Look at all your bad attitude and horseshit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:42:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >>>>> >>>>>He's admitted his injury was of his own volition. >>>> >>>>But was his intention to >>>>become disabled or to win >>>>a bet? >>> >>>You're defending the loss of a £5 bet which resulted in a lifetime on >>>the public dole. His intention of winning the bet caused his injury. >> >> Why do you feel > >I don't. You do, and when caught you snip all the evidence of your lies away to fend off embarrassment. You see, lying about me so obviously only damages your own position and reputation rather than mine, so why do you do it? Why make it impossible for anyone to believe a word you write? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat, self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:42:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Claire's fat, self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >> >>>>>>He's admitted his injury was of his own volition. >>>>> >>>>>But was his intention to >>>>>become disabled or to win >>>>>a bet? >>>> >>>>You're defending the loss of a £5 bet which resulted in a lifetime on >>>>the public dole. His intention of winning the bet caused his injury. >>> >>>Why do you feel >> >>I don't. > > You do not. **** off, fatso. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat, self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:42:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Claire's fat, self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >> >>>>>>He's admitted his injury was of his own volition. >>>>> >>>>>But was his intention to >>>>>become disabled or to win >>>>>a bet? >>>> >>>>You're defending the loss of a £5 bet which resulted in a lifetime on >>>>the public dole. His intention of winning the bet caused his injury. >>> >>>Why do you feel >> >>I don't. > > > You Why did YOU try to lift an engine block out of a car instead of using the equipment available to you, fatso? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:02:35 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:42:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>> >>>>>>>He's admitted his injury was of his own volition. >>>>>> >>>>>>But was his intention to >>>>>>become disabled or to win >>>>>>a bet? >>>>> >>>>>You're defending the loss of a £5 bet which resulted in a lifetime on >>>>>the public dole. His intention of winning the bet caused his injury. >>>> >>>>Why do you feel >>> >>>I don't. >> >> You > >Why did YOU try to lift an engine block out of a car It wasn't for a bet, as you've insisted while lying about me. How long will it be before you start whining again when others refuse to believe a word you write, 'usual liar'? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat, self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:02:35 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Claire's fat, self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:42:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's fat, self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>He's admitted his injury was of his own volition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>But was his intention to >>>>>>>become disabled or to win >>>>>>>a bet? >>>>>> >>>>>>You're defending the loss of a £5 bet which resulted in a lifetime on >>>>>>the public dole. His intention of winning the bet caused his injury. >>>>> >>>>>Why do you feel >>>> >>>>I don't. >>> >>>You >> >>Why did YOU try to lift an engine block out of a car > > > It wasn't for Answer the question, fatso. *Why* did *you* try to lift an engine block out of a car instead of using a hoist? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:12:19 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:02:35 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:42:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>He's admitted his injury was of his own volition. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>But was his intention to >>>>>>>>become disabled or to win >>>>>>>>a bet? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You're defending the loss of a £5 bet which resulted in a lifetime on >>>>>>>the public dole. His intention of winning the bet caused his injury. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why do you feel >>>>> >>>>>I don't. >>>> >>>>You >>> >>>Why did YOU try to lift an engine block out of a car >> >> It wasn't for [unsnip]a bet , as you've insisted >> while lying about me. How long will it be before >> you start whining again when others refuse to >> believe a word you write, 'usual liar'? > >Answer the question I have done several times in the past, and directly to you, yet you still insist on lying about it, claiming I did it for a bet in this instance. You're an habitual liar, so why should I waste my time in explaining it all over again, only for you to lie about me later on? It's small wonder why I and anyone of any merit doubts you while making your outrageous claims here, so I don't know WHY you bother crying about it the way you always do, 'usual crybaby.' |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat, self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:12:19 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Claire's fat, self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:02:35 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's fat, self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:42:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Claire's fat, self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>He's admitted his injury was of his own volition. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>But was his intention to >>>>>>>>>become disabled or to win >>>>>>>>>a bet? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You're defending the loss of a £5 bet which resulted in a lifetime on >>>>>>>>the public dole. His intention of winning the bet caused his injury. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Why do you feel >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't. >>>>> >>>>>You >>>> >>>>Why did YOU try to lift an engine block out of a car >>> >>>It wasn't for >> >>Answer the question > > I have Not. Evasions noted. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Found scrawled in the outhouse on Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:31:41 -0400, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote: >"Leslie" > wrote in message .. . >> Found scrawled in the outhouse on Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:06:00 -0400, >"Scented Nectar" >> > wrote: >> >> >"usual suspect" > wrote in message >> .. . >> >> Skanky wrote: >> > >> >[--snip--] >> > >> >> > 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. >> > >> >No reasonable suggestion has >> >yet to be offered. >> >> Bullshit, dearie! US has given you four below, which you promptly wave >away with excuses. > >Not excuses. Reasons. Good >ones too. What is so unreasonable (your word) about the suggestions you have been offered? Oh yeah...they might require some ambition. >> >[--snip--] >> > >> >> > 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. >> >> See? There they are....and here you go: >> >> >1.Can't grow my own yet. >> >2.There are no veganic co-ops >> >3.Foraging would take me too far >> > outside the city, and not feed >> > me well enough. >> >4.Can't afford to pay the farmer >> > unless it's as part of a co-op. >> >> My reply is: >> 1. Don't you have flower pots and a window? > >Not enough to make a difference. You can grow lots of different veggies in planters and pots with the light you have available. Just rotate your crops from window to window. Oh yeah...forgot...that would require AMBITION. >> 2. How do you know since you haven't really looked or put up a flyer >asking for local >> interest. > >There are no veganic farmers yet. >So there's no veganic co-ops yet. Answer the question, shitwit. Have you sent out flyers? Have you done any research before making statements like "there are no veganic farmers"? >> 3. I'm sure that your previous experience in dumpster-diving would aid >your foraging >> efforts. Dumpster-diving certainly *will* feed you well enough, provided >that you ate what >> you scrounged. > >Now you're just going into insult >mode. There's no need for that. >Why say that I'm a dumpster diver? You complained that you wouldn't be able to forage enough to sustain yourself. Dumpster diving is a source of forage. Think of it this way: you can claim the dumpster behind the Pizza Hut for your own. Then just pick through all the veggies tossed out, find an edible crust and voila! Your own, free vegan pizza. You will be getting some needed exercise by diving and reducing the waste that might otherwise end up at a landfill. See the benefits? >> 4. See #2. Perhaps you could spend a little time on your computer doing >something other >> than engaging in hypocrisy on newsgroups, like making posters, sending >flyers, doing a >> survey, etc. (on persons interested in co-op gardens, just in case you >thought I was >> referring to *anything* else.) > >I guess I'm just not extreme enough >to take on such tasks. If someone >else does, I'll gladly join in. It isn't about being extreme, SN. It's about getting off your ass and practicing what you insist on preaching here. You choose to remain part of the problem. You are a shiftless slag. >> > [--snip--] >> > >> >> I'm not a vegan. My diet is vegetarian. >> > >> >If you are a 'strict' vegetarian, >> >there are some people who >> >would call you vegan, in the >> >dietary sense rather than >> >the philosophical one. >> >> Off on another tangent again. What's it to you whether US is "strict" or >not? At least he >> acknowledges his role as a consumer. > >And I'm not? Of course I'm a >consumer too. And I recognize >the fact that cds happen. I don't >go to extremes, but then, neither >does US, does he. My belief that >killing animals is mostly wrong >is making people say I must go >to extremes. That's just not the >case. Maybe if my belief was >that killing them was completely >and absolutely wrong, but it's not. > Okay. Here is the quick and dirty way to get yourself out of that corner and fall in with the world of the rational: shut the **** up! At least until such time as you get that one neuron in your brain firing again. After that, admit that you can't possibly be a vegan without accepting that animals must die for your grazing preferences. >> >[--snip--] >> > >> >> > I'm considering now is just being an >> >> > ovo-vegetarian, giving up all milk >> >> > products >> >> >> >> Why? >> > >> >Eggs can be produced without >> >any harm other than the growing >> >of the chicken feed. If I get eggs >> >that are organic, free range, and >> >not fed any animal products, I >> >would like to include them >> >occasionally as a source of B12 >> >and because they are tasty. >> >> BWAHAHAHA..!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!! No other harm except in the growing of the >chicken feed!! >> Do you have a CLUE as to what is in, say, your basic hen scratch?? It is a >combination of >> row crop grains idiot! Corn, milo, soy, plus wheat or oats if the market >drops in those >> areas. In fact, scratch grains are a great place to find little, teeny >animal >> parts...which those free-rangers adore! > >Why the laughter? I don't deny >that cds happen. They would >also happen if those crops were >going towards making cornbread >or tofu. That's right, killer! Now that neuron is showing a little spark of life. >> <picking self up off floor from laughing jag> Look, SN. We *want* to help >you. We really >> do. But you have GOT to get your head out of those clouds. For the >millenniums that man >> has grown food, with or without machinery, there have been animal >casualties. It's a >> natural effect of the encroachment of man upon previously virgin ground. >As people became >> more urban with the acceleration of industry and commerce, the demand for >easy to buy >> foods increased, thus resulting in your local Super Wal-Mart. >> >> Yes, that is a simplistic over-generalization but you seem to think in >those directions. >> So, the moral of the story is that you have the courage of your >convictions and ACT, while >> accepting the fact that it may not be possible for anyone to avoid the >CD's. > >Of course I know that cds are >not currently unavoidable. Have >you not been reading what I type? >That it requires further action on >my part is what I'm disputing. You are objecting to WORK!!! This from the "workfare" moralist! And you wonder why I'm laughing.<snort> > I >openly dislike that cds happen, >but I also openly have stated how >far I personally will go to prevent >them. My days of committees and >co-op organizing are long gone. >I shall leave that to the younger, >more cause-oriented new veg*ns. >However, I'll gladly join existing >co-ops if they ever appear. So >far there are no veganic ones. Nor >might there ever be. I fully >acknowledge that. No. You fully acknowledge that you have spent your entire life in a city; have no clue as to raising anything bigger than a begonia; and have NO intention of doing a single thing to prevent even one single collateral death. >> Do you have any pets? Can you exclude the dry or canned food you feed to >it/them? NO! And, >> if you have any cats, what do you think they might be doing as you turn up >the earth, even >> by hand? They will be waiting for that nice little mousy snack you scared >into their >> waiting jaws. > >That's ok, they are meant to >be carnivores. They are generalized as carnivores. However, they are fairly omnivorous like, well, humans! Fish and eggs are very appealing to cats. >> Collateral deaths happen. Right down to the driver of that Wal-Mart truck >that just >> creamed 25 chipmunks on his delivery route. > >That seems a little high for >roadkill. I don't think you realize >that I DO accept that some cds >will happen. That's the "appalling >passivity" I'm being accused of, >while my belief that killing animals >is mostly wrong is seen as >extremist. > No, that is a pretty reasonable number for road kill between Bentonville, Arkansas and Colorado. Your appalling passivity is now being targeted because of your demand and rejection of all those suggestions for individual efforts you could make to reduce the CD's. Get it yet? >> >[--snip--] >> > >> <snip> >> >> >> food-borne illness in the US have occurred with organic foods (Odwalla >> >> juice comes to mind). >> > >> >A case of TB occured recently >> >in a young kid in the US from >> >imported unpasteurized cheese. >> >It was in a recent ProMed post. >> >Organic foods must be washed >> >properly with soap and water, >> >and/or cooked. Just because >> >they are organic, doesn't mean >> >germ-free. >> >> Oh MY GOD!!! You are talking about killing another organism!!! <dripping >sarcasm> > >You haven't been reading my >posts for too long. I don't disagree >with the killing of pest animals, eg >aphids or bacteria. > I was being sarcastic. That poor little neuron is fading.... >> >[--snip--] >> <snip> >> >> 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. >> > >> >Those gardens, even if I could >> >obtain one, are too small to be >> >worth the extra hours of daily or >> >almost daily effort. >> >> Well, US said it and you just agreed: you have no ambition. > >Not enough to waste a few hours >every day just to tend to an >undersized little plot of land. > I have MS plus 6 inches of titanium screwed to my spine but I still get out there and plant lettuce, corn, cucumbers, tomatoes, radishes, and watermelon in a garden the size of a Wendys restroom. I'll bet that I'm older than you, too. That little plot of land takes very little tending and yields enough of the veggies I like to supply me through summer and into winter. My fertilizer is a mixture of poultry, horse and goat shit. The birds and goats also supply the natural pesticides and herbicides. Varmint control is carried out by dogs and cats. And I'm a meat eater! So, what was your excuse again? >> >[--snip--] >> > >> >> > And quit accusing me of drug abuse. >> >> >> >> I will after you complete rehab. >> > >> >Do you accuse your recreational >> >drinking friends as being alcoholics? >> >Do you even know the difference >> >between responsible use of mild >> >substances and irresponsible use? >> > >> That is a question for another SUBJECT heading. > >Well, what can I say, he keeps >bringing up the fact that I have >openly admitted to recreational >pot use. Shit. Who hasn't? Unfortunately, I developed an allergy to it in the 70's, and I wouldn't touch the stuff grown after that decade BECAUSE of all the foreign substance in it now. Too bad, since it would be perfectly legal for me to use in my state for the MS. Maybe he has a problem with your lack of acknowledgement of the CD's associated with pot harvesting. It would be another hypocrisy. Cheers 2 U, Leslie "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Found scrawled in the outhouse on Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:32:31 -0400, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote: <snippage> > >Then open season on the pigs >to prevent damage, but I'll pass >on the pork chops. I will however >enjoy the smell of bacon frying, as >that is a smell I happen to like >regardless of it's source. Rather >than hypocrisy, I just am a mix of >views, sometimes being accused >of passivity and sometimes >extremism. The accusations come when you try to advocate a practice that you yourself will not, cannot be bothered to engage in. "Do as I say, not as I do" does NOT go over well in any forum. If you can restrain yourself from behaving this way you would likely experience less acrimony on Usenet. Cheers 2 U, Leslie "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Found scrawled in the outhouse on Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:11:21 GMT, usual suspect
> wrote: >Scented Nectar wrote: >> "VSA" > wrote in message >> news:1119816291.46014afe2d34e934f06ccf3cdc3f2c08@m eganetnews2... >> <snip> >> You have convinced me though that >> deer and pig hunting in the US isn't >> as wrong as certain other hunts >> seem to me. > >Hunting is a legitimate form of wildlife management. It's certainly >safer than putting wolves and mountain lions in the middle of a ****ing >city like Austin where we have an overpopulation of the deer in an URBAN >environment. Been there, seen that. When I lived in Nebraska several years ago the deer population was out of control. Ten thousand deer taken in 3 hunting seasons a year didn't even make a dent. So, the wildlife guys went to Colorado and picked themselves up a few mountain lions. Only they didn't tell anyone, particularly the farmers, about their little project. Well, the lions did their job well BUT they, like SN, opted for the easy pickins of hogs and calves. After a couple of years of telling the farmers in my area that they needed to seek psychiatric help because they were seeing phantom mountain lions, the DOW finally copped to the introduction. Now, the population of lions has grown. They still kill deer but they also have been coming into yards and killing dogs, cats, poultry, pigs and calves. It was a good idea if natural predation were taking place in the wilderness. But this was populated farm land. Lions just don't mix well with human populations because they are simply not intimidated. Cheers 2 U, Leslie "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Skanky wrote: > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>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. > > > > No reasonable suggestion has > > yet to be offered. > > There are four reasonable suggestions below. Unreasonable. > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>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. > > > > > > 1.Can't grow my own yet. > > Excuse. Reason. > > 2.There are no veganic co-ops > > Excuse. Start your own. Nope. I'll leave that for the younger, more 'into committees' types. I will however join any existing ones when they come about. > > 3.Foraging would take me too far > > outside the city, and not feed > > me well enough. > > Excuse. I gave you links to URBAN foraging sites. Urban vegetarian foraging? I don't remember that one. One can't eat plants too close to the roads because of exhaust toxins. Are you sure you're not talking about dumpster diving, in which case, all I have to say is 'yeah, right'. > > 4.Can't afford to pay the farmer > > Get a second job. That's not reasonable as per my time usage requirements. > > unless it's as part of a co-op. > > Circular excuse from 2. > > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>I'm not a vegan. My diet is vegetarian. > > > > If you are a 'strict' vegetarian, > > there are some people who > > would call you vegan, > > They would be wrong. They would be right according to some dictionaries, as the more modern usage also includes one definition that is entirely diet based. > > in the > > dietary sense rather than > > the philosophical one. > > The former is not vegan, the latter is. > > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>I'm considering now is just being an > >>>ovo-vegetarian, giving up all milk > >>>products > >> > >>Why? > > > > Eggs can be produced without > > any harm other than the growing > > of the chicken feed. > > So you continue to add to your pile of CDs for your own tastes, rather > than consuming in a manner consistent with your belief that it's wrong > to kill animals. The unfertilized egg can in no way be killing an animal. The cd ratio on eggs is one I don't know yet, although one thing is for sure. My consumption of them would be rare. > > If I get eggs > > that are organic, free range, and > > not fed any animal products, I > > would like to include them > > occasionally as a source of B12 > > and because they are tasty. > > In that case, feel free to eat grass-fed beef. No. I don't eat animals killed for my food. I don't feel they are healthy. > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>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. > > > > I still think that hamburgers and > > cooked chicken have a bit of > > a barnyard poo smell. > > You have NO idea what a barnyard smells like, dimwit. It's not like I've never visited farms. Just because I live in the city, doesn't prevent outings. Also, there's that manure smell when farmers are adding it to their fields. You don't even have to leave the car for that one. > > I don't > > like boca burgers because they > > have somehow captured that > > smell even though they are > > veg. > > We have Boca Burgers in the freezer. They do NOT smell or taste of "poo." To you. They smell of cow manure to me. > > As for other meats, I'll > > probably always like the smell > > of bacon frying and some > > steaks. > > You like tube steak? Why, Usual! Are you trying to flirt with me? Forget it. > > That doesn't mean I > > want to eat them. I don't > > crave meat. > > Yes, you do. Nope. > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>Inventing? No. You may tinker around, but there's nothing original on > >>your website. > > > > There's lots of original content. > > None. My 3d skybox textures which are used by many Doom level builders. My animarbles were fully made by me. My botanical picture tubes are my own. Dusty, needlepoint, all the tiling textures, but one, are my own. And all the rest, though partially mine and partially others, I have made the websites for them. Oh yeah, all the wallpapers are my own too. Of course my veg site with the link collection is my own too. > > Especially my chili > > It's spaghetti sauce, not chili. Real chili has very little (if any) > tomatoes in it at all, and it certainly has no basil or other Italian > herbs (as your pasta sauce does). That is NOT chili. Get that through > your thick empty skull. It comes out as a very thick chili, with mostly a cumin and paprika spicing. The rest only add subtle differences. > > if you are > > talking about my favourite recipes. > > Some are completely my own, > > and some are variations on other > > people's recipes, > > Which shows a lack of originality. > > > most of which > > I don't remember where I got. > > Stop smoking pot and your memory will improve. > > >>>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 > > > > Sounds like it might be tasty. > > It IS tasty and, aside from some fiddling around with kinds of fat and > ingredients, they're fairly authentic. I don't cook or eat boring food. > > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>>>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. > > > > That's possible. > > That's actually quite probable. In any event, you should get off your > lazy hypocritical ass and call them. One of these days. Meanwhile I can get lots of organics nearby me. It may even turn out that getting these CSA baskets are not as convenient as the health food store, and that I will continue to go there. > >>>>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). > > > > A case of TB occured recently > > in a young kid in the US from > > imported unpasteurized cheese. > > *A* case? Try several cases, dummy. > > http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/3217744 > http://tinyurl.com/bogdk > > > It was in a recent ProMed post. > > Trying to decide which is more faulty, your memory or the third-hand > hysteria that gets passed through ProMed. ProMed has become a valuable tool for doctors and researchers world-wide. > > Organic foods must be washed > > properly with soap and water, > > and/or cooked. > > The issue with queso fresco isn't whether or not it's organic, it's > whether or not it's been pasteurized and properly stored. Women are > caught daily smuggling tainted cheese into the US under their skirts and > even inserted vaginally (you probably have a large enough snatch to make > quite a living as a queso smuggler). Make up your mind. Either I have cankles and a flabby ass, or I'm attractive enough to have had enough traffic to cause an enlarged snatch. Get your insults straight. > > Just because > > they are organic, doesn't mean > > germ-free. > > Organic produce is never tested for pesticide residues or pathogens. > Conventional produce is. > > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>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. > > > > Those gardens, even if I could > > obtain one, are too small to be > > worth the extra hours of daily or > > almost daily effort. > > HOURS?! The garden in my backyard (no crops in the last year) has been > *much* larger than the plots at our community gardens and it takes me a > couple hours a week *MAX* to tend it. That's because you don't have to drive through rush time traffic to get to it, and the same for getting home after tending the garden. When you have a backyard, most days need no more than an early morning watering. You don't need to drive to it and back, or longer yet timewise, take the public transit. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
| 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
