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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-04-2005, 09:03 PM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:22:53 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:46:55 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:41:15 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] x.com...
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:49:18 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] 4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang
wrote:
In article
as.earthlink.net,
"rick" wrote:

[..]
It takes more grain to produce meat than to
produce
grain. More than half of America's crop
production
is fed to livestock.
======================
ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right?

I guess I'll have to do the research for you
tomorrow,
meat industry apologist. It has been a while since I
looked into that, but that's the number I remember.
Or
do you already have an idea of how much grain in the
U.S goes to livestock?

'..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains
consumed
directly per capita are just a small fraction of the
total per capita cereal grains consumption (directly
and indirectly) in the United States. In fact, of the
total
domestic consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to
feed livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption,
and the remaining 17% are used by the food industry
to
produce different food products and alcoholic
beverages.
Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are
consumed
indirectly by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for
soybeans and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans
is
used for feeding livestock, either directly or in the
form of
by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in
the
food industry to produce soy oil for human
consumption.'
http://dieoff.org/page55.htm
=================
I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks twit.
You
just proved him wrong....

Rather, those percentages prove you wrong and 'Sprang'
right. Learn to read.
=================
I have, maybe you should learn. He claimed that 90% of
all
crops are ed to animals.

Look at the top of this post and you'll see that he
claimed, "More than half of America's crop production
is fed to livestock.", not 90%, liar Ricky, As it turns
out, his 51% guess is 21% shy of the actual 72%
given by David Pimentel Cornell University and Mario
Giampietro Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome.
===============
Yeah, I picked the 90 from your idiocy.

You don't get to blame me for your errors and subsequent
lies, Ricky.

When are you going to explain why you lied? He never
made the claim of 90%, like you insisted he did.


If you're not prepared to explain why you lied about
"Sprang's" claim, why should anyone believe a word
you write?

You still haven't proven him right, killer..

He claimed that, "More than half of America's crop
production is fed to livestock.", and the evidence
which gives a 72 % is exactly as he said: more than
half, which proves he was right.
========================
Still have comprehension problems, don't you fool.
Your claim is that 72% of grains are fed to animals.

Which supports his claim of "More than half ..." Look
again at the evidence I produced above.


My guess is that the evidence which support his claim
is just too hard for you to refute, and that's why you lied
about his claim.

He claimed more than half of all crops are fed to animals.

And he was correct to do so, according to the evidence
I produced. You, however, lied by insisting, " He claimed
that 90% of all crops are ed to animals."
=====================

No, he wasn't correct, and neither are your attempts...


Evidence shows that he was correct. More than half
the grain he was referring to in his paragraph DOES go
to feed livestock.

Too bad you are too stupid to even read, eh killer?

Don't you realise that 72% is "More than half..." yet
Rick?

================
Sure


Then you have no option but to concede and take on
board that more than half the grain "Sprang" referred
to in his paragraph at the top of this page goes to feed
livestock.

This is very basic
stuff Rick, and if you can't admit you're wrong on
something as simple and as obvious as this, then it's
certain you'll never admit to being wrong about
anything, even when forced to look at the facts.
====================
You haven't presented the facts to prove what he said.

You're lying again. Just look above and read what I
brought here as evidence to prove it.
=================

No, you haven't, killer.


It's there, exactly where I put it, and hiding from it
doesn't help you out of the hole you've dug yourself
into.

"In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal
grains

*72% are used to feed livestock,**
============================
Too bad you still haven't proved him right.

72% is more than half, which proves 'Sprang' was
right.

His statement was "America's crop production"

He was referring to grain;
"It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce
grain. More than half of America's crop production
is fed to livestock."
======================
Nope.

Yep. Your math is clearly very poor. Believe it or not,
72% is "More than half ...", just like he said.
=======================

Nope.


Half of something is 50% of it. More than half of something
over 50% of it. 72% of something is more than half of it,
meaning "Sprang" was right and you're incredibly poor in
basic math.

====================
No, you've proven that your english comprehension is bad.






  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2005, 01:31 AM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:03:43 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:22:53 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message news

[..]
He was referring to grain;
"It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce
grain. More than half of America's crop production
is fed to livestock."
======================
Nope.

Yep. Your math is clearly very poor. Believe it or not,
72% is "More than half ...", just like he said.
=======================
Nope.


Half of something is 50% of it. More than half of something
over 50% of it. 72% of something is more than half of it,
meaning "Sprang" was right and you're incredibly poor in
basic math.

====================
No


Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a
keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would
be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that your
handwriting is that of a child's in primary school.
  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2005, 11:25 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a
keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would
be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that your
handwriting is that of a child's in primary school.


Potent observation.

Now let me get this straight, this all-out unmitigated sheepish attack
on anything vegan and veganism was spurred by a link to this:

http://www.lessmeat.com

The meatie-centric ill informed children here must have something
better to do. But i could be wrong.

i am a vegan, but i find this attack posturing of the meatie apologists
here quite absurd.

  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2005, 11:35 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book attacks and
hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft.

  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2005, 11:35 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book attacks and
hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft.



  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 12:01 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a
keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would
be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that your
handwriting is that of a child's in primary school.


Potent observation.

Now let me get this straight, this all-out unmitigated sheepish
attack
on anything vegan and veganism was spurred by a link to this:

http://www.lessmeat.com

The meatie-centric ill informed children here must have
something
better to do. But i could be wrong.

i am a vegan, but i find this attack posturing of the meatie
apologists
here quite absurd.

====================
Of course you do. Your brain is mush, so what else could you do?

And, no, you are not vegan. I you really were you wouldn't be
here on usenet, killer.





  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 12:01 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a
keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would
be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that your
handwriting is that of a child's in primary school.


Potent observation.

Now let me get this straight, this all-out unmitigated sheepish
attack
on anything vegan and veganism was spurred by a link to this:

http://www.lessmeat.com

The meatie-centric ill informed children here must have
something
better to do. But i could be wrong.

i am a vegan, but i find this attack posturing of the meatie
apologists
here quite absurd.

====================
Of course you do. Your brain is mush, so what else could you do?

And, no, you are not vegan. I you really were you wouldn't be
here on usenet, killer.





  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 12:03 AM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 30 Apr 2005 15:25:19 -0700, wrote:

Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a
keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would
be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that your
handwriting is that of a child's in primary school.


Potent observation.


More a snide remark, really, but probably true. Without
the convenience of a keyboard, Rick would certainly
be utterly incomprehensible.

Now let me get this straight, this all-out unmitigated sheepish attack
on anything vegan and veganism was spurred by a link to this:

http://www.lessmeat.com

In a broad sense, yes, so the meatie-centric tent do their
best to address that death imbalance by referring their
critics to the collateral deaths of small animals associated
with the production of their own food: veg. Meatarians
kill vicariously for food, and their task is to force through
the proposition that vegans kill vicariously for food as well.

The meatie-centric ill informed children here must have something
better to do. But i could be wrong.

i am a vegan, but i find this attack posturing of the meatie apologists
here quite absurd.


Tactically, yes.
  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 12:03 AM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 30 Apr 2005 15:25:19 -0700, wrote:

Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a
keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would
be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that your
handwriting is that of a child's in primary school.


Potent observation.


More a snide remark, really, but probably true. Without
the convenience of a keyboard, Rick would certainly
be utterly incomprehensible.

Now let me get this straight, this all-out unmitigated sheepish attack
on anything vegan and veganism was spurred by a link to this:

http://www.lessmeat.com

In a broad sense, yes, so the meatie-centric tent do their
best to address that death imbalance by referring their
critics to the collateral deaths of small animals associated
with the production of their own food: veg. Meatarians
kill vicariously for food, and their task is to force through
the proposition that vegans kill vicariously for food as well.

The meatie-centric ill informed children here must have something
better to do. But i could be wrong.

i am a vegan, but i find this attack posturing of the meatie apologists
here quite absurd.


Tactically, yes.
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 12:05 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
ups.com...
i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book attacks
and
hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft.

=====================
Really? Then refute anything we've said, killer. If you want
by-the-book recitations then the web-site posted isthe perfect
example, fool. It's a mish-mash of lys told over and over by the
wannabe vegan brain-dead.








  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 12:05 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
ups.com...
i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book attacks
and
hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft.

=====================
Really? Then refute anything we've said, killer. If you want
by-the-book recitations then the web-site posted isthe perfect
example, fool. It's a mish-mash of lys told over and over by the
wannabe vegan brain-dead.






  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 12:05 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
ups.com...
i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book attacks
and
hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft.

=====================
Really? Then refute anything we've said, killer. If you want
by-the-book recitations then the web-site posted isthe perfect
example, fool. It's a mish-mash of lys told over and over by the
wannabe vegan brain-dead.






  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 04:30 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote

Numbers don't make an argument. Matheny is a master of
the strawman. Matheny is not a scientist and has done no research.


Very well. I will put it over on sci.skeptic myself, and crosslink it
to here, and we shall see what we shall see.....

and you will end up crying in the corner.


I'm still waiting...


  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 04:30 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote

Numbers don't make an argument. Matheny is a master of
the strawman. Matheny is not a scientist and has done no research.


Very well. I will put it over on sci.skeptic myself, and crosslink it
to here, and we shall see what we shall see.....

and you will end up crying in the corner.


I'm still waiting...


  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 06:10 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:33:03 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


http://home.datawest.net/esn-recover...re%20facts%20p

resented
19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a
variant of the 'play dumb' rule.

Ignores request for facts,


Rule 19 of disinformation, 'Demand impossible proofs'


Let's take this over to sci.sketpic shall we? Then you can see
how they will tear you to shreds over there. Whimpering over
demds for proof just doesn't cut it. I double dare you.


No it isn't, it is on me to present a reasonable case supported by
facts. I have done so.


You have not.


Fraid so.


If you cannot prove it then it's just all fluff.


Wrong, this is a debate about ethics, not a counting game.


Dude, I am not a vegan. I am a vegetarian.


Dude?


However, that article you linked to also had the link to its own
rebuttal, which did present some hard numbers.


Numbers don't make an argument. Matheny is a master of
the strawman. Matheny is not a scientist and has done no research.


Very well. I will put it over on sci.skeptic myself, and crosslink it
to here, and we shall see what we shall see.....

and you will end up crying in the corner.


Bring it on, "dude".


In other words, the rebuttal article was solid, and the one you
quoted was ridiculous.


In other words, Davis research gores your ox. The research reveals
that machine harvesting decimates populations of mammals, and it
destroys populations of amphibians and insects. It does not even
discuss the effects of spraying, which are even more harmful. These
facts should cause any thoughtful person who has embraced the
"vegan ethic" to re-assess their ethical model. The curious thing is
that it seldom does, it causes people like dropout Matheny and you
to launch campaigns of denial, disinformation and strawmen.


The use of the term "populations" seems a bit of an overstatement,


Does it really?

intended to maximize the lack of numbers or research you have to back
up anyhitng you say.


Do you always whiff off this badly? When are you going to make a post to
sci.skeptics?




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
(2007-07-11) Survey on the RFC site: Are you a Picky Eater? Chatty Cathy General Cooking 13 12-07-2007 05:10 PM
After the Deletion of Google Answers U Got Questions Fills the Gap Answering and Asking the Tough Questions Linux Flash Drives General Cooking 0 07-05-2007 06:38 PM
rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers Darrell Greenwood Sourdough 0 16-10-2004 05:28 AM
rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers Darrell Greenwood Sourdough 0 28-09-2004 05:17 AM
Questions and answers C. James Strutz Vegan 84 23-02-2004 11:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017