Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Rudy Canoza wrote: >> >> >> It doesn't take much to give you >> a case of the freak-outs, does it. > > > No "freak-outs". I like pointing out how goddamned stupid you are. > It's fun. > if his joy is hurting other people, than he is sick. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote
> 1. I want to make sure people aren't deluded by the lies people like you > spread about diet, health, nutrition, the conditions in which animals are > raised, etc., so I'm here to add some balance. Quite so, "veganism" is one of the most insidious ideas in modern culture. Due to it's benign reputation, people find themselves ensconced in it's dogma before they know what hit them. The same people who would never fall victim to one of the more obvious cults are easy prey for extreme ARAs who use veganism to promote their agenda. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Beach Runner" > wrote > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > >>> >>> >>> It doesn't take much to give you >>> a case of the freak-outs, does it. >> >> >> No "freak-outs". I like pointing out how goddamned stupid you are. It's >> fun. >> > if his joy is hurting other people, than he is sick. If you can take constructive criticism then it can help you, immensely, otherwise, sticks and stones... |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message . ..
> pearl wrote: > >>>Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . > > > > Your unethical edit is noted. > > It wasn't unethical. You altered my post. You've no credibility. Go 'support your troops', murderous troll. <snip usual defamatory BS> |
|
|||
|
|||
"Abner Hale" > wrote in message oups.com...
> > pearl wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message .. . > > > pearl wrote: > > > > Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . > > > > Your unethical edit is noted. Was- http://www.troopsoutnow.org/ . > > > > You have no credibility whatsoever, 'usual suspect'. > > Coming from a drooling Irish foot-rubbing **** who believes in "Inner > Earth Beings," that's downright hilarious. Coming from a drooling meat-eating ignoramus, that's priceless! [http://www.reflexology-research.com/Abstracts.html http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...p5/inner4.htm] > <snip> > |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:14:00 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> >>>>>>First you're vegan, >>>>> >>>>>I called myself that under the misconception that veganism was about >>>>>food rather than animal rights. >>>> >>>>You declared yourself vegan because you claimed >>>> >>>>1) to "dislike flesh" >>> >>>That's correct, with the exception of fish. >> >> You didn't mention that exception when making >> your statement about your dislike for flesh. > >Was I supposed to enumerate every single like or dislike in every single >post I ever made, tosser? Yes, you were, especially when making categorical statements concerning your dislike for flesh, which, believe it or not, includes fish, liar suspect. You lied when making that statement, so I've every reason to believe you've lied since making it as well. You're an habitual liar. Let's take your quotes concerning hunting, for yet another example of many; "*I* don't hunt." usual suspect Jul 1 2003 http://tinyurl.com/e45k7 But then, just 4 days later you inadvertently confess that you DO hunt after all; "I know from my own hunting as well as from that of family members and friends that nobody wants to put a deer or rabbit or any other creature in pain." usual suspect Jul 5 2003 http://tinyurl.com/c4h4d You're an habitual liar. >>>>2) that "the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is >>>> bad for me, animals, my environment, and the >>>> whole world" >>>>3) that "no animal must die for my nourishment or >>>> enjoyment" >>> >>>I now distinguish between healthful and unhealthful diets >> >> Then you > >The past is irrelevant. Only according to those with a past they would wish to go away and forget about: you, for example. Your past quotes reveal that you've lied about your dislike for flesh. They also show that you have no grounds to launch your pathetic tirades against vegans here who abstain from meat, because like you, the majority of them abstain from meat for the very same reasons you gave, hypocrite. >>>My position now is consistent >> >> Your position is > >based on a learning process. Confusion, more like. <unsnip> "I am vegan" usual suspect 2002-05-09 "First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan." usual suspect 2003-06-10 "No thanks, I'm a vegan." usual suspect 2003-08-14 "You'll find my views have been consistent." usual suspect 2003-09-05 When you've finally made up your mind where your own position is regarding veganism, you might have some say here, but while you continue to attack vegans that aren't as confused as you are regarding their position, your feeble attacks can only be seen as a swipe against those who've bettered you by abiding by their stated principles. Your utter hatred toward those you've tried but failed to aspire to is ugly and so transparent. >>>>Also, in answer to Bart who asked you whether >>>>our dominion over animals includes eating and >>>>slaughtering them for food, you answered no by >>>>quoting Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) >>>> >>>> [start Bart to you] >>>> > So, according to the bible, God gave us dominion >>>> > over the animal kingdom. >>>> [you] >>>> Does dominion include slaughtering and eating them? The >>>> answer is found immediately following one of the verses >>>> you quoted: >>>> >>>> Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And God >>>> said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed >>>> which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose >>>> fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every >>>> beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything >>>> that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given >>>> every green herb for food"; and it was so. >>>> [end] >>>> usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8 >>> >>>Upon further study, I ceded that the account of Noah following the flood >>>mitigated that isolated passage. >> >> You were already aware > >More aware than you'll ever be, blue-foot. And yet, even when armed with all your so-called awareness and understanding of the bible you still chose Genesis 1:29-30 to indicate that our said dominion over animals doesn't include slaughtering them for food. >>>>As for your later assertion, that you've NEVER held >>>>a belief in the proposition of animal rights, read on and >>>>see where you claim NOT to know that answer. >>>> >>>> "Animals are not moral agents and generally operate >>>> by instinct and conditioning (the same can be said of >>>> far too many humans). Animals should be afforded >>>> protection under the law. But are they endowed with >>>> any rights by their creator? I do not know that answer. >>>> usual suspect Date: 2002-06-12 >>> >>>It's a theological question, Derk, and in the above I refused to presume >>>the answer. I don't *know* if God endowed them with any rights >> >> Then you have > >The Bible is incongruent with AR, but consistent with AW. The bible can be interpreted to mean whatever the liar using it wishes it to mean, as you've proved quite effectively in this one thread alone. Take another pet subject I have, for example: personal responsibility. When considering the expression "children carry the sins of their fathers" Deut. 5:9 says, "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me...", but Deut. 24:16 completely contradicts that message (God's word) with, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." The bible is a lie and used by liars like yourself to get them out of tight corners or into people's pockets. >>>>You're a >>> >>>You're a cuckold: >>> I am sure he will tell you that I have shagged his wife and its >>> true I will admit that. >>> David "Judas" Nash - http://tinyurl.com/n292 >> >> You throw that up at every opportunity > >It's true. Study my twin's statement again. Why was he so certain that I would tell the truth over something which would surely cause myself and my wife so much public embarrassment when it would have been so easy for me just to deny it? What was my twin so sure about when making that statement if NOT my commitment to honesty? Also, you might want to take note of something he wrote regarding you. "Over the last couple of years I have been using this news group to vent my anger at my twin brother Derek. I have repeatedly posted stories about how Derek has committed cruelty to animals and his own family. It has been a bitter war and I have enjoyed watching the results as people like Jon Ball and Usual Suspects have become ensnared." http://tinyurl.com/ccnt8 He ensnared you, and you're still just as ensnared as ever you were. I get the last laugh. >So is your wanking which you've admitted. That's another lie. I've not admitted to anything like that, and I'll prove it by bringing the whole quote here and the context in which I wrote it. Read on. > I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and > watch it every time the wife goes shopping. > Derek "Wanksalot" Nash - http://tinyurl.com/nu3s Using that link you supplied, the context isn't about wanking, let alone an announcement from me that I jerk off in the same way you jerk off while watching male wrestlers grapple. [start me] > > You're no Victor Mature, but American girls being > > what they are and not very fussy... <snip> [you] > wtf do you know about American girls? [me] I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and watch it every time the wife goes shopping. What else is there to learn about them? [end] As we can see, when the whole quote is put before us, there's no reference made there about wanking, usual liar. My statement was in response to a question concerning my knowledge of American women's tastes in men; they aren't fussy. >Why did you lie about black olives, you fat orthorexic ex-greasemonkey? > > I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but > stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or > something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to > maintain my ethical standard. > -- Derek "Squid Ink" Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 There's no lie in there. Since learning how black olives are sold in a medium containing squid ink I've stopped eating them to maintain my ethical standard; something you've proven incapable of doing, back-slider. >What is it about your ethical standards that allows you to share your >wife with your twin? He took what he knew to be mine, as always, but instead of wrecking something, like he planned to, he didn't count on my wife's determination to make our marriage succeed for another twenty years; again, something you'll never accomplish. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dutch wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote > > >>1. I want to make sure people aren't deluded by the lies people like you >>spread about diet, health, nutrition, the conditions in which animals are >>raised, etc., so I'm here to add some balance. > > > Quite so, "veganism" is one of the most insidious ideas in modern culture. > Due to it's benign reputation, people find themselves ensconced in it's > dogma before they know what hit them. The same people who would never fall > victim to one of the more obvious cults are easy prey for extreme ARAs who > use veganism to promote their agenda. I think it's apropos and fair to compare veganism to cults. While veganism may not be as systematic as, say, Scientology, it similarly defrauds its adherents, fosters an "us versus them" attitude, and gets them to aggressively proselytize others. |
|
|||
|
|||
pearl wrote:
>>>>>Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . >>> >>>Your unethical edit is noted. >> >>It wasn't unethical. > > You altered The link I provided allows people to support the troops. The one you had is to Internation Action Center and World Workers Party (same organization, same office, same phone numbers, etc.), which is an "orthodox Stalinist" organization -- a group hostile to the troops. With [Ramsey] Clark's name-recognition and homespun, avuncular image, WWP had the opportunity to form a new front group to win over naive liberals. This was the International Action Center (IAC), which remains the top vehicle for Clark's ego and WWP's play for hegemony over the fragmented remnants of the left. http://shadow.autono.net/sin001/clark.htm See also: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=3181 > You've no credibility. That's a compliment coming from someone who believes in and/or peddles: "veganism" "inner earth beings" "hollow earth" that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef rain forest destruction Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) Stolen French flying saucer Zapper Foot massage (as cure-all) Astrology Numerology Alien abduction bestiality Leprechauns Channeling Polar fountains Sun gazing Chemtrails AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory Crop circles sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts participation in skinhead subculture the validity of online IQ tests crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories Jeff Rense for "news" |
|
|||
|
|||
Claire's big, fat Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>>>>>>First you're vegan, >>>>>> >>>>>>I called myself that under the misconception that veganism was about >>>>>>food rather than animal rights. >>>>> >>>>>You declared yourself vegan because you claimed >>>>> >>>>>1) to "dislike flesh" >>>> >>>>That's correct, with the exception of fish. >>> >>>You didn't mention that exception when making >>>your statement about your dislike for flesh. >> >>Was I supposed to enumerate every single like or dislike in every single >>post I ever made, tosser? > > Yes, you were, Talk about a high standard. Where's your comprehensive like-dislike list, fat ****? > Let's take your quotes concerning > hunting, for yet another example of many; > > "*I* don't hunt." > usual suspect Jul 1 2003 http://tinyurl.com/e45k7 > > But then, just 4 days later you inadvertently confess > that you DO hunt after all; > > "I know from my own hunting as well as from that > of family members and friends that nobody wants > to put a deer or rabbit or any other creature in pain." > usual suspect Jul 5 2003 http://tinyurl.com/c4h4d > > You're an habitual liar. That's not a lie. I grew up in a family who hunted. When I posted that in July of 2003, I hadn't hunted in some time. I resumed again later that year (during hunting season) to help control the overpopulation of deer and thereby provide meat to the needy through an assistance program. >>>>>2) that "the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is >>>>> bad for me, animals, my environment, and the >>>>> whole world" >>>>>3) that "no animal must die for my nourishment or >>>>> enjoyment" >>>> >>>>I now distinguish between healthful and unhealthful diets >>> >>>Then you >> >>The past is irrelevant. > > Only according to those Resto I judged the claims of vegan activists and found them to be distortions or outright lies. Shame you still stupidly parrot them. End restore. Why do you continue to believe vegan lies and distortions, Nash? >>>>My position now is consistent >>> >>>Your position is >> >>based on a learning process. > > Confusion, more like. No, I naively bought into certain aspects of veganism -- e.g., some health claims -- but I found them to be lacking in veracity each time I challenged those beliefs/claims. You resent those who challenge, question, or reject the holy vegan dogma. You see me as some kind of heretic. That's fine. I see you for what you a a shit-stirring, morbidly obese, self-crippled yob. >>>>It's a theological question, Derk, and in the above I refused to presume >>>>the answer. I don't *know* if God endowed them with any rights >>> >>>Then you have >> >>The Bible is incongruent with AR, but consistent with AW. > > The bible can be interpreted to mean whatever It's incongruent with AR. It's filled with commands to kill certain animals at certain times, and with examples of the consumption of animals. >>Why did you lie about black olives, you fat orthorexic ex-greasemonkey? >> >> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but >> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or >> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to >> maintain my ethical standard. >> -- Derek "Squid Ink" Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 > > There's no lie in there. Since learning how black olives > are sold in a medium containing squid ink I've stopped > eating them to maintain my ethical standard; something > you've proven incapable of doing, back-slider. They're not sold in anything containing squid ink, dumb ass. Not only do you believe vegan lies, you also peddle them. Why do you vegans keep lying about this? >>What is it about your ethical standards that allows you to share your >>wife with your twin? > > He took No, he didn't take -- that would be rape. She *gave* it to him, and she probably gave it to him *good*. That was her "determination," you loathsome cuckold. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > >>>>>Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . > >>> > >>>Your unethical edit is noted. > >> > >>It wasn't unethical. > > > > You altered And again. The game's up, suspect. You and your ilk are done. > The link I provided allows people to support the troops. Hosted by the 'kind folks' who sent them there. Dumbkopf !! > The one you had > is to Internation Action Center and World Workers Party (same > organization, same office, same phone numbers, etc.), which is an > "orthodox Stalinist" organization -- a group hostile to the troops. Hostile to your damned WAR, you depraved supporter of genocide. <usual malicious, desperate, perverse and twisted defamatory froth> |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:14:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> >>>>>>>>First you're vegan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I called myself that under the misconception that veganism was about >>>>>>>food rather than animal rights. >>>>>> >>>>>>You declared yourself vegan because you claimed >>>>>> >>>>>>1) to "dislike flesh" >>>>> >>>>>That's correct, with the exception of fish. >>>> >>>>You didn't mention that exception when making >>>>your statement about your dislike for flesh. >>> >>>Was I supposed to enumerate every single like or dislike in every single >>>post I ever made, tosser? >> >> Yes, you were, > >Talk about a high standard. You have no standard to begin with, so you attack those who you've tried but failed to aspire to instead. >> Let's take your quotes concerning >> hunting, for yet another example of many; >> >> "*I* don't hunt." >> usual suspect Jul 1 2003 http://tinyurl.com/e45k7 >> >> But then, just 4 days later you inadvertently confess >> that you DO hunt after all; >> >> "I know from my own hunting as well as from that >> of family members and friends that nobody wants >> to put a deer or rabbit or any other creature in pain." >> usual suspect Jul 5 2003 http://tinyurl.com/c4h4d >> >> You're an habitual liar. > >That's not a lie. It's one of many, usual liar. You just can't stop yourself from lying and snipping away the evidence of your lies. And you call yourself a Christian? Pah! You're a joke. >>>>>>2) that "the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is >>>>>> bad for me, animals, my environment, and the >>>>>> whole world" >>>>>>3) that "no animal must die for my nourishment or >>>>>> enjoyment" >>>>> >>>>>I now distinguish between healthful and unhealthful diets >>>> >>>>Then you >>> >>>The past is irrelevant. >> >> Only according to those > >Resto <unsnip> Only according to those with a past they would wish to go away and forget about: you, for example. Your past quotes reveal that you've lied about your dislike for flesh. They also show that you have no grounds to launch your pathetic tirades against vegans here who abstain from meat, because like you, the majority of them abstain from meat for the very same reasons you gave, hypocrite. <end restore> >Why do you continue to believe vegan lies and distortions, Nash? I don't, queer. >>>>>My position now is consistent >>>> >>>>Your position is >>> >>>based on a learning process. >> >> Confusion, more like. > >No Your quotes reveal your confusion, so there's no use in trying to deny it, snippy. <unsnip> "I am vegan" usual suspect 2002-05-09 "First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan." usual suspect 2003-06-10 "No thanks, I'm a vegan." usual suspect 2003-08-14 "You'll find my views have been consistent." usual suspect 2003-09-05 When you've finally made up your mind where your own position is regarding veganism, you might have some say here, but while you continue to attack vegans that aren't as confused as you are regarding their position, your feeble attacks can only be seen as a swipe against those who've bettered you by abiding by their stated principles. Your utter hatred toward those you've tried but failed to aspire to is ugly and so transparent. <end restore> >>>>>It's a theological question, Derk, and in the above I refused to presume >>>>>the answer. I don't *know* if God endowed them with any rights >>>> >>>>Then you have >>> >>>The Bible is incongruent with AR, but consistent with AW. >> >> The bible can be interpreted to mean whatever > >It's incongruent with AR. <unsnip> The bible can be interpreted to mean whatever the liar using it wishes it to mean, as you've proved quite effectively in this one thread alone. Take another pet subject I have, for example: personal responsibility. When considering the expression "children carry the sins of their fathers" Deut. 5:9 says, "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me...", but Deut. 24:16 completely contradicts that message (God's word) with, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." The bible is a lie and used by liars like yourself to get them out of tight corners or into people's pockets. <end restore> >>>Why did you lie about black olives, you fat orthorexic ex-greasemonkey? >>> >>> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but >>> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or >>> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to >>> maintain my ethical standard. >>> -- Derek "Squid Ink" Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 >> >> There's no lie in there. Since learning how black olives >> are sold in a medium containing squid ink I've stopped >> eating them to maintain my ethical standard; something >> you've proven incapable of doing, back-slider. > >They're not sold in anything containing squid ink, dumb ass. I'm reliably told that they are immersed in squid ink to colour them black, and I've no reason to believe a word you write that suggests otherwise, liar suspect. |
|
|||
|
|||
pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . >>>>> >>>>>Your unethical edit is noted. >>>> >>>>It wasn't unethical. >>> >>>You altered > > And again. Why do you push the following? "veganism" "inner earth beings" "hollow earth" that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef rain forest destruction Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) Stolen French flying saucer Zapper Foot massage (as cure-all) Astrology Numerology Alien abduction bestiality Leprechauns Channeling Polar fountains Sun gazing Chemtrails AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory Crop circles sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts participation in skinhead subculture the validity of online IQ tests crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories Jeff Rense for "news" |
|
|||
|
|||
Claire's fat and orthorexic Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>>>Why did you lie about black olives, you fat orthorexic ex-greasemonkey? >>>> >>>> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but >>>> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or >>>> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to >>>> maintain my ethical standard. >>>> -- Derek "Squid Ink" Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 >>> >>>There's no lie in there. Since learning how black olives >>>are sold in a medium containing squid ink I've stopped >>>eating them to maintain my ethical standard; something >>>you've proven incapable of doing, back-slider. >> >>They're not sold in anything containing squid ink, dumb ass. > > I'm reliably told that they are immersed in squid ink > to colour them black, You're UNreliably told that. I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to maintain my ethical standard. -- Derek Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 You stopped eating them because of misinformation, not because of superior ethics. These olives are processed in a lye curing solution that leaches the bitterness out. California Ripe Olives have a firm texture and smooth, mellow taste. Once curing is complete, a series of cold water rinses removes every trace of curing solution. During the curing process, which takes several days, a flow of air bubbling through the olives produces the natural, rich dark color. A trace of organic iron salt (ferrous gluconate) is added to act as a color fixer so the olives will have less tendency to fade after the cans are stored. Canning is the final step. Ripe olives are canned in a mild salt brine solution and, because they are a low-acid product, are heat sterilized under strict California State health rules. http://www.calolive.org/homecooks/facts.html They're processed in LYE to change their color, fatso, yet you delibverately LIE and say they "swim around in squid ink or something close to it." Why do you continue to lie, you orthorexic sod? |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message . ..
> pearl wrote: > >>>>>>>Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . > >>>>> > >>>>>Your unethical edit is noted. > >>>> > >>>>It wasn't unethical. > >>> > >>>You altered > > > > And again. > > Why do you push the following? I don't. You wrote a hotch-potch of truth, distortion, lies and invention. And that's your dirty, sleazy, cowardly, modus operandi, neoscum boy. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:53:23 GMT, queer suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> >>>>>Why did you lie about black olives, you fat orthorexic ex-greasemonkey? >>>>> >>>>> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but >>>>> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or >>>>> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to >>>>> maintain my ethical standard. >>>>> -- Derek "Squid Ink" Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 >>>> >>>>There's no lie in there. Since learning how black olives >>>>are sold in a medium containing squid ink I've stopped >>>>eating them to maintain my ethical standard; something >>>>you've proven incapable of doing, back-slider. >>> >>>They're not sold in anything containing squid ink, dumb ass. >> >> I'm reliably told that they are immersed in squid ink >> to colour them black, and I've no reason to believe a >> word you write that suggests otherwise, liar suspect > >You're UNreliably told that. > > I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but > stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or > something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to > maintain my ethical standard. > -- Derek Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 > >You stopped eating them because of misinformation Like I said but which you snipped away, "I'm reliably told that they are immersed in squid ink to colour them black, and I've no reason to believe a word you write that suggests otherwise, liar suspect." Now for the rest of the post you've snipped away in utter embarrassment; address it if you can, queer. <unsnip> >>>>>>>>First you're vegan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I called myself that under the misconception that veganism was about >>>>>>>food rather than animal rights. >>>>>> >>>>>>You declared yourself vegan because you claimed >>>>>> >>>>>>1) to "dislike flesh" >>>>> >>>>>That's correct, with the exception of fish. >>>> >>>>You didn't mention that exception when making >>>>your statement about your dislike for flesh. >>> >>>Was I supposed to enumerate every single like or dislike in every single >>>post I ever made, tosser? >> >> Yes, you were, > >Talk about a high standard. You have no standard to begin with, so you attack those who you've tried but failed to aspire to instead. >> Let's take your quotes concerning >> hunting, for yet another example of many; >> >> "*I* don't hunt." >> usual suspect Jul 1 2003 http://tinyurl.com/e45k7 >> >> But then, just 4 days later you inadvertently confess >> that you DO hunt after all; >> >> "I know from my own hunting as well as from that >> of family members and friends that nobody wants >> to put a deer or rabbit or any other creature in pain." >> usual suspect Jul 5 2003 http://tinyurl.com/c4h4d >> >> You're an habitual liar. > >That's not a lie. It's one of many, usual liar. You just can't stop yourself from lying and snipping away the evidence of your lies. And you call yourself a Christian? Pah! You're a joke. >>>>>>2) that "the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is >>>>>> bad for me, animals, my environment, and the >>>>>> whole world" >>>>>>3) that "no animal must die for my nourishment or >>>>>> enjoyment" >>>>> >>>>>I now distinguish between healthful and unhealthful diets >>>> >>>>Then you >>> >>>The past is irrelevant. >> >> Only according to those > >Resto <unsnip> Only according to those with a past they would wish to go away and forget about: you, for example. Your past quotes reveal that you've lied about your dislike for flesh. They also show that you have no grounds to launch your pathetic tirades against vegans here who abstain from meat, because like you, the majority of them abstain from meat for the very same reasons you gave, hypocrite. <end restore> >Why do you continue to believe vegan lies and distortions, Nash? I don't, queer. >>>>>My position now is consistent >>>> >>>>Your position is >>> >>>based on a learning process. >> >> Confusion, more like. > >No Your quotes reveal your confusion, so there's no use in trying to deny it, snippy. <unsnip> "I am vegan" usual suspect 2002-05-09 "First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan." usual suspect 2003-06-10 "No thanks, I'm a vegan." usual suspect 2003-08-14 "You'll find my views have been consistent." usual suspect 2003-09-05 When you've finally made up your mind where your own position is regarding veganism, you might have some say here, but while you continue to attack vegans that aren't as confused as you are regarding their position, your feeble attacks can only be seen as a swipe against those who've bettered you by abiding by their stated principles. Your utter hatred toward those you've tried but failed to aspire to is ugly and so transparent. <end restore> >>>>>It's a theological question, Derk, and in the above I refused to presume >>>>>the answer. I don't *know* if God endowed them with any rights >>>> >>>>Then you have >>> >>>The Bible is incongruent with AR, but consistent with AW. >> >> The bible can be interpreted to mean whatever > >It's incongruent with AR. <unsnip> The bible can be interpreted to mean whatever the liar using it wishes it to mean, as you've proved quite effectively in this one thread alone. Take another pet subject I have, for example: personal responsibility. When considering the expression "children carry the sins of their fathers" Deut. 5:9 says, "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me...", but Deut. 24:16 completely contradicts that message (God's word) with, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." The bible is a lie and used by liars like yourself to get them out of tight corners or into people's pockets. <end restore> Keep snipping and altering posts if that's your only option, but rest assured that your dodging and lies are all held in Google archives to laugh at. |
|
|||
|
|||
pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Your unethical edit is noted. >>>>>> >>>>>>It wasn't unethical. >>>>> >>>>>You altered >>> >>>And again. >> >>Why do you push the following? resto "veganism" "inner earth beings" "hollow earth" that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef rain forest destruction Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) Stolen French flying saucer Zapper Foot massage (as cure-all) Astrology Numerology Alien abduction bestiality Leprechauns Channeling Polar fountains Sun gazing Chemtrails AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory Crop circles sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts participation in skinhead subculture the validity of online IQ tests crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories Jeff Rense for "news" end restore. > I don't. http://tinyurl.com/h0br http://tinyurl.com/h0bl http://tinyurl.com/v5p8 http://tinyurl.com/v5pf http://tinyurl.com/mh5w http://tinyurl.com/mh6h http://tinyurl.com/mh6r http://tinyurl.com/mh71 http://tinyurl.com/mh7a http://tinyurl.com/mh7j http://tinyurl.com/mh7p http://tinyurl.com/v5jj http://tinyurl.com/v5kd http://tinyurl.com/v5l6 http://tinyurl.com/v5ft http://tinyurl.com/v5fj http://tinyurl.com/v5fp http://tinyurl.com/v5ft http://tinyurl.com/v5ga http://tinyurl.com/v5gc http://tinyurl.com/v5i2 http://tinyurl.com/v5gk http://tinyurl.com/v5h1 http://tinyurl.com/v5h9 WTF do you call all that, dummy? |
|
|||
|
|||
Claire's thick orthorexic Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>>>>>Why did you lie about black olives, you fat orthorexic ex-greasemonkey? >>>>>> >>>>>> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but >>>>>> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or >>>>>> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to >>>>>> maintain my ethical standard. >>>>>> -- Derek "Squid Ink" Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 >>>>> >>>>>There's no lie in there. Since learning how black olives >>>>>are sold in a medium containing squid ink I've stopped >>>>>eating them to maintain my ethical standard; something >>>>>you've proven incapable of doing, back-slider. >>>> >>>>They're not sold in anything containing squid ink, dumb ass. >>> >>>I'm reliably told that they are immersed in squid ink >>>to colour them black, and I've no reason to believe a >>>word you write that suggests otherwise, liar suspect >> >>You're UNreliably told that. >> >> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but >> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or >> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to >> maintain my ethical standard. >> -- Derek Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 >> >>You stopped eating them because of misinformation > > Like I said You only persist in believing and spreading deceit, lard ass. You stopped eating olives because of misinformation, not because of "superior ethics." These olives are processed in a lye curing solution that leaches the bitterness out. California Ripe Olives have a firm texture and smooth, mellow taste. Once curing is complete, a series of cold water rinses removes every trace of curing solution. During the curing process, which takes several days, a flow of air bubbling through the olives produces the natural, rich dark color. A trace of organic iron salt (ferrous gluconate) is added to act as a color fixer so the olives will have less tendency to fade after the cans are stored. Canning is the final step. Ripe olives are canned in a mild salt brine solution and, because they are a low-acid product, are heat sterilized under strict California State health rules. http://www.calolive.org/homecooks/facts.html They're processed in LYE to change their color, fatso, yet you deliberately LIE and say they "swim around in squid ink or something close to it." Why do you continue to lie, you orthorexic sod? |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:47:13 GMT, queer suspect > wrote:
>Why do you push the following? That's a bit rich, coming from a meat pusher on vegetarian and vegan-associated forums, especially when we consider your failed efforts to aspire to the high standards of those you push that meat onto. |
|
|||
|
|||
Claire's orthorexic windbag Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>Why do you push the following? > > That's a bit rich, It's not rich, it's established. http://tinyurl.com/h0br http://tinyurl.com/h0bl http://tinyurl.com/v5p8 http://tinyurl.com/v5pf http://tinyurl.com/mh5w http://tinyurl.com/mh6h http://tinyurl.com/mh6r http://tinyurl.com/mh71 http://tinyurl.com/mh7a http://tinyurl.com/mh7j http://tinyurl.com/mh7p http://tinyurl.com/v5jj http://tinyurl.com/v5kd http://tinyurl.com/v5l6 http://tinyurl.com/v5ft http://tinyurl.com/v5fj http://tinyurl.com/v5fp http://tinyurl.com/v5ft http://tinyurl.com/v5ga http://tinyurl.com/v5gc http://tinyurl.com/v5i2 http://tinyurl.com/v5gk http://tinyurl.com/v5h1 http://tinyurl.com/v5h9 But no wonder you're defending her given your own eating disorder: I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to maintain my ethical standard. -- Derek Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 You stopped eating them because of misinformation, not because of superior ethics. These olives are processed in a lye curing solution that leaches the bitterness out. California Ripe Olives have a firm texture and smooth, mellow taste. Once curing is complete, a series of cold water rinses removes every trace of curing solution. During the curing process, which takes several days, a flow of air bubbling through the olives produces the natural, rich dark color. A trace of organic iron salt (ferrous gluconate) is added to act as a color fixer so the olives will have less tendency to fade after the cans are stored. Canning is the final step. Ripe olives are canned in a mild salt brine solution and, because they are a low-acid product, are heat sterilized under strict California State health rules. http://www.calolive.org/homecooks/facts.html They're processed in LYE to change their color, fatso, yet you deliberately LIE and say they "swim around in squid ink or something close to it." Why do you continue to lie, you orthorexic sod? |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:08:44 GMT, queer suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> >>>>>>>Why did you lie about black olives, you fat orthorexic ex-greasemonkey? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but >>>>>>> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or >>>>>>> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to >>>>>>> maintain my ethical standard. >>>>>>> -- Derek "Squid Ink" Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 >>>>>> >>>>>>There's no lie in there. Since learning how black olives >>>>>>are sold in a medium containing squid ink I've stopped >>>>>>eating them to maintain my ethical standard; something >>>>>>you've proven incapable of doing, back-slider. >>>>> >>>>>They're not sold in anything containing squid ink, dumb ass. >>>> >>>>I'm reliably told that they are immersed in squid ink >>>>to colour them black, and I've no reason to believe a >>>>word you write that suggests otherwise, liar suspect >>> >>>You're UNreliably told that. >>> >>> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but >>> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or >>> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to >>> maintain my ethical standard. >>> -- Derek Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 >>> >>>You stopped eating them because of misinformation Like I said but which you snipped away, "I'm reliably told that they are immersed in squid ink to colour them black, and I've no reason to believe a word you write that suggests otherwise, liar suspect." Now for the rest of the post you've snipped away in utter embarrassment; address it if you can, queer. <unsnip> >>>>>>>>First you're vegan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I called myself that under the misconception that veganism was about >>>>>>>food rather than animal rights. >>>>>> >>>>>>You declared yourself vegan because you claimed >>>>>> >>>>>>1) to "dislike flesh" >>>>> >>>>>That's correct, with the exception of fish. >>>> >>>>You didn't mention that exception when making >>>>your statement about your dislike for flesh. >>> >>>Was I supposed to enumerate every single like or dislike in every single >>>post I ever made, tosser? >> >> Yes, you were, > >Talk about a high standard. You have no standard to begin with, so you attack those who you've tried but failed to aspire to instead. >> Let's take your quotes concerning >> hunting, for yet another example of many; >> >> "*I* don't hunt." >> usual suspect Jul 1 2003 http://tinyurl.com/e45k7 >> >> But then, just 4 days later you inadvertently confess >> that you DO hunt after all; >> >> "I know from my own hunting as well as from that >> of family members and friends that nobody wants >> to put a deer or rabbit or any other creature in pain." >> usual suspect Jul 5 2003 http://tinyurl.com/c4h4d >> >> You're an habitual liar. > >That's not a lie. It's one of many, usual liar. You just can't stop yourself from lying and snipping away the evidence of your lies. And you call yourself a Christian? Pah! You're a joke. >>>>>>2) that "the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is >>>>>> bad for me, animals, my environment, and the >>>>>> whole world" >>>>>>3) that "no animal must die for my nourishment or >>>>>> enjoyment" >>>>> >>>>>I now distinguish between healthful and unhealthful diets >>>> >>>>Then you >>> >>>The past is irrelevant. >> >> Only according to those > >Resto <unsnip> Only according to those with a past they would wish to go away and forget about: you, for example. Your past quotes reveal that you've lied about your dislike for flesh. They also show that you have no grounds to launch your pathetic tirades against vegans here who abstain from meat, because like you, the majority of them abstain from meat for the very same reasons you gave, hypocrite. <end restore> >Why do you continue to believe vegan lies and distortions, Nash? I don't, queer. >>>>>My position now is consistent >>>> >>>>Your position is >>> >>>based on a learning process. >> >> Confusion, more like. > >No Your quotes reveal your confusion, so there's no use in trying to deny it, snippy. <unsnip> "I am vegan" usual suspect 2002-05-09 "First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan." usual suspect 2003-06-10 "No thanks, I'm a vegan." usual suspect 2003-08-14 "You'll find my views have been consistent." usual suspect 2003-09-05 When you've finally made up your mind where your own position is regarding veganism, you might have some say here, but while you continue to attack vegans that aren't as confused as you are regarding their position, your feeble attacks can only be seen as a swipe against those who've bettered you by abiding by their stated principles. Your utter hatred toward those you've tried but failed to aspire to is ugly and so transparent. <end restore> >>>>>It's a theological question, Derk, and in the above I refused to presume >>>>>the answer. I don't *know* if God endowed them with any rights >>>> >>>>Then you have >>> >>>The Bible is incongruent with AR, but consistent with AW. >> >> The bible can be interpreted to mean whatever > >It's incongruent with AR. <unsnip> The bible can be interpreted to mean whatever the liar using it wishes it to mean, as you've proved quite effectively in this one thread alone. Take another pet subject I have, for example: personal responsibility. When considering the expression "children carry the sins of their fathers" Deut. 5:9 says, "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me...", but Deut. 24:16 completely contradicts that message (God's word) with, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." The bible is a lie and used by liars like yourself to get them out of tight corners or into people's pockets. <end restore> Keep snipping and altering posts if that's your only option, but rest assured that your dodging and lies are all held in Google archives to laugh at. |
|
|||
|
|||
Claire's fat windbag Uncle Dreck lied:
>>>>>>>>Why did you lie about black olives, you fat orthorexic ex-greasemonkey? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but >>>>>>>> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or >>>>>>>> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to >>>>>>>> maintain my ethical standard. >>>>>>>> -- Derek "Squid Ink" Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There's no lie in there. Since learning how black olives >>>>>>>are sold in a medium containing squid ink I've stopped >>>>>>>eating them to maintain my ethical standard; something >>>>>>>you've proven incapable of doing, back-slider. >>>>>> >>>>>>They're not sold in anything containing squid ink, dumb ass. >>>>> >>>>>I'm reliably told that they are immersed in squid ink >>>>>to colour them black, and I've no reason to believe a >>>>>word you write that suggests otherwise, liar suspect >>>> >>>>You're UNreliably told that. >>>> >>>> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but >>>> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or >>>> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to >>>> maintain my ethical standard. >>>> -- Derek Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 >>>> >>>>You stopped eating them because of misinformation > > Like I said but which you snipped away, "I'm reliably told No, Lying Nash, you're UNreliably told. These olives are processed in a lye curing solution that leaches the bitterness out. California Ripe Olives have a firm texture and smooth, mellow taste. Once curing is complete, a series of cold water rinses removes every trace of curing solution. During the curing process, which takes several days, a flow of air bubbling through the olives produces the natural, rich dark color. A trace of organic iron salt (ferrous gluconate) is added to act as a color fixer so the olives will have less tendency to fade after the cans are stored. Canning is the final step. Ripe olives are canned in a mild salt brine solution and, because they are a low-acid product, are heat sterilized under strict California State health rules. http://www.calolive.org/homecooks/facts.html They're processed in LYE to change their color, fatso, yet you deliberately LIE and say they "swim around in squid ink or something close to it." Why do you continue to lie, you orthorexic sod? |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message .. .
> pearl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Your unethical edit is noted. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>It wasn't unethical. > >>>>> > >>>>>You altered > >>> > >>>And again. > >> > >>Why do you push the following? <..> > > I don't. > <..> > > WTF do you call all that, dummy? Proof that you're desperate as hell. I know what I believe, and I know that your 'list' mostly ain't it. So when are you off to support your troops, killer, or is it that you only shoot at defenceless creatures who can't fight back? Scum. |
|
|||
|
|||
pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Your unethical edit is noted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It wasn't unethical. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You altered >>>>> >>>>>And again. >>>> >>>>Why do you push the following? "veganism" "inner earth beings" "hollow earth" that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef rain forest destruction Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) Stolen French flying saucer Zapper Foot massage (as cure-all) Astrology Numerology Alien abduction bestiality Leprechauns Channeling Polar fountains Sun gazing Chemtrails AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory Crop circles sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts participation in skinhead subculture the validity of online IQ tests crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories Jeff Rense for "news" >>>I don't. http://tinyurl.com/h0br http://tinyurl.com/h0bl http://tinyurl.com/v5p8 http://tinyurl.com/v5pf http://tinyurl.com/mh5w http://tinyurl.com/mh6h http://tinyurl.com/mh6r http://tinyurl.com/mh71 http://tinyurl.com/mh7a http://tinyurl.com/mh7j http://tinyurl.com/mh7p http://tinyurl.com/v5jj http://tinyurl.com/v5kd http://tinyurl.com/v5l6 http://tinyurl.com/v5ft http://tinyurl.com/v5fj http://tinyurl.com/v5fp http://tinyurl.com/v5ft http://tinyurl.com/v5ga http://tinyurl.com/v5gc http://tinyurl.com/v5i2 http://tinyurl.com/v5gk http://tinyurl.com/v5h1 http://tinyurl.com/v5h9 >>WTF do you call all that, dummy? > > Proof Precisely. > I know what I believe, So do I. > and I know that your 'list' mostly ain't it. *MOSTLY*?! HAHAH! You must be taking spin cues from Skanky. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message .. .
> pearl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Your unethical edit is noted. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>It wasn't unethical. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>You altered > >>>>> > >>>>>And again. > >>>> > >>>>Why do you push the following? <..> > >>WTF do you call all that, dummy? > > > > Proof that you're desperate as hell. > > Precisely. > > > I know what I believe, > > So do I. Obviously not. Your caricatures expose your own twisted mind. > > and I know that your 'list' mostly ain't it. > > *MOSTLY*?! HAHAH! You must be taking spin cues from Skanky. Who? So when are you off to support your troops, killer, or is it that you only shoot at defenceless creatures who can't fight back? Scum! |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:12:18 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>Why did you lie about black olives, you fat orthorexic ex-greasemonkey? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but >>>>>>>>> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or >>>>>>>>> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to >>>>>>>>> maintain my ethical standard. >>>>>>>>> -- Derek "Squid Ink" Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>There's no lie in there. Since learning how black olives >>>>>>>>are sold in a medium containing squid ink I've stopped >>>>>>>>eating them to maintain my ethical standard; something >>>>>>>>you've proven incapable of doing, back-slider. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>They're not sold in anything containing squid ink, dumb ass. >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm reliably told that they are immersed in squid ink >>>>>>to colour them black, and I've no reason to believe a >>>>>>word you write that suggests otherwise, liar suspect >>>>> >>>>>You're UNreliably told that. >>>>> >>>>> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but >>>>> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or >>>>> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to >>>>> maintain my ethical standard. >>>>> -- Derek Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 >>>>> >>>>>You stopped eating them because of misinformation >> >> Like I said but which you snipped away, "I'm reliably told > >No Like I said but which you snipped away, "I'm reliably told that they are immersed in squid ink to colour them black, and I've no reason to believe a word you write that suggests otherwise, liar suspect." Now for the rest of the post you've snipped away in utter embarrassment; address it if you can, queer. <unsnip> >>>>>>>>First you're vegan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I called myself that under the misconception that veganism was about >>>>>>>food rather than animal rights. >>>>>> >>>>>>You declared yourself vegan because you claimed >>>>>> >>>>>>1) to "dislike flesh" >>>>> >>>>>That's correct, with the exception of fish. >>>> >>>>You didn't mention that exception when making >>>>your statement about your dislike for flesh. >>> >>>Was I supposed to enumerate every single like or dislike in every single >>>post I ever made, tosser? >> >> Yes, you were, > >Talk about a high standard. You have no standard to begin with, so you attack those who you've tried but failed to aspire to instead. >> Let's take your quotes concerning >> hunting, for yet another example of many; >> >> "*I* don't hunt." >> usual suspect Jul 1 2003 http://tinyurl.com/e45k7 >> >> But then, just 4 days later you inadvertently confess >> that you DO hunt after all; >> >> "I know from my own hunting as well as from that >> of family members and friends that nobody wants >> to put a deer or rabbit or any other creature in pain." >> usual suspect Jul 5 2003 http://tinyurl.com/c4h4d >> >> You're an habitual liar. > >That's not a lie. It's one of many, usual liar. You just can't stop yourself from lying and snipping away the evidence of your lies. And you call yourself a Christian? Pah! You're a joke. >>>>>>2) that "the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is >>>>>> bad for me, animals, my environment, and the >>>>>> whole world" >>>>>>3) that "no animal must die for my nourishment or >>>>>> enjoyment" >>>>> >>>>>I now distinguish between healthful and unhealthful diets >>>> >>>>Then you >>> >>>The past is irrelevant. >> >> Only according to those > >Resto <unsnip> Only according to those with a past they would wish to go away and forget about: you, for example. Your past quotes reveal that you've lied about your dislike for flesh. They also show that you have no grounds to launch your pathetic tirades against vegans here who abstain from meat, because like you, the majority of them abstain from meat for the very same reasons you gave, hypocrite. <end restore> >Why do you continue to believe vegan lies and distortions, Nash? I don't, queer. >>>>>My position now is consistent >>>> >>>>Your position is >>> >>>based on a learning process. >> >> Confusion, more like. > >No Your quotes reveal your confusion, so there's no use in trying to deny it, snippy. <unsnip> "I am vegan" usual suspect 2002-05-09 "First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan." usual suspect 2003-06-10 "No thanks, I'm a vegan." usual suspect 2003-08-14 "You'll find my views have been consistent." usual suspect 2003-09-05 When you've finally made up your mind where your own position is regarding veganism, you might have some say here, but while you continue to attack vegans that aren't as confused as you are regarding their position, your feeble attacks can only be seen as a swipe against those who've bettered you by abiding by their stated principles. Your utter hatred toward those you've tried but failed to aspire to is ugly and so transparent. <end restore> >>>>>It's a theological question, Derk, and in the above I refused to presume >>>>>the answer. I don't *know* if God endowed them with any rights >>>> >>>>Then you have >>> >>>The Bible is incongruent with AR, but consistent with AW. >> >> The bible can be interpreted to mean whatever > >It's incongruent with AR. <unsnip> The bible can be interpreted to mean whatever the liar using it wishes it to mean, as you've proved quite effectively in this one thread alone. Take another pet subject I have, for example: personal responsibility. When considering the expression "children carry the sins of their fathers" Deut. 5:9 says, "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me...", but Deut. 24:16 completely contradicts that message (God's word) with, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." The bible is a lie and used by liars like yourself to get them out of tight corners or into people's pockets. <end restore> Keep snipping and altering posts if that's your only option, but rest assured that your dodging and lies are all held in Google archives to laugh at. |
|
|||
|
|||
One would assume that if you were invited to a friends for dinner, they
would know that you were a vegan and wouldn't insult you by serving up a humk of cow in the first place! Mostly when I go to dinner parties these days, the meal is, at least, vegetarian. That way anyone who's kosher, halal, veggie etc. can all eat it, much easier. Although I wouldn't want to offend anyone, I still wouldn't eat meat! "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > Usual has claimed that people > should accept food that others > have made and not worry what's > in them. He give's away his > neighbour's gift cake behind her > back, and says that people > should not turn down food that > was made for them out of love > and stuff. So, this got me to > wondering. > > Usual, what do you (as a food > definition vegan) do when the > following occurs. You are > invited over to someone's > place for dinner. You are > served a big steak and a > small side of potatoes. What > do you do? Eat the meat? > Not eat the meat? If not, how > do you explain it to them? > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
... > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > >> > >> > >> It doesn't take much to give you > >> a case of the freak-outs, does it. > > > > > > No "freak-outs". I like pointing out how goddamned stupid you are. > > It's fun. > > > if his joy is hurting other people, than he is sick. Rudy and Usual enjoy doing it the most, although Rick pipes in now and then. Dutch is a little better, although even he has called me a **** once. Sometimes I wonder whether they like to try and hurt, or if they want to be disliked because they hate themselves. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. . > >>Car-less Orthorexic Skanky wrote: > > > > Still fishing. > > Not fishing. It's already established. Where? > > I was car-less in 2003. > > You still are. How can you be sure? You can't. That's why you're fishing. > >>I'm surprised that at 42 or 43 you still haven't. Do you live with your > >>parents and are they still a bit overprotective of their fragile 42 or > >>43 year-old baby? > > > > Still fishing, huh? > > I'm not fishing. I have a very strong hunch, though. You're fishing. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. . > Dutch wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote > > > > > >>1. I want to make sure people aren't deluded by the lies people like you > >>spread about diet, health, nutrition, the conditions in which animals are > >>raised, etc., so I'm here to add some balance. > > > > > > Quite so, "veganism" is one of the most insidious ideas in modern culture. > > Due to it's benign reputation, people find themselves ensconced in it's > > dogma before they know what hit them. The same people who would never fall > > victim to one of the more obvious cults are easy prey for extreme ARAs who > > use veganism to promote their agenda. > > I think it's apropos and fair to compare veganism to cults. While > veganism may not be as systematic as, say, Scientology, it similarly > defrauds its adherents, fosters an "us versus them" attitude, and gets > them to aggressively proselytize others. It all starts when the evil stranger offers you a free cup of carrot juice. Next thing you know, they take all your money through the health food store which is really just a front for their evil minded meals. I've got a couple of friends who are Scientologists. May I pass along your post's headers for their alleged lists of enemies? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
|
|||
|
|||
"pearl" > wrote in message
... > "usual suspect" > wrote in message . .. > > pearl wrote: > > >>>Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . > > > > > > Your unethical edit is noted. > > > > It wasn't unethical. > > You altered my post. You've no credibility. > > Go 'support your troops', murderous troll. > > <snip usual defamatory BS> I want to know why Usual hasn't enlisted. Usual, why aren't you over there fighting for your country? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
|
|||
|
|||
"Masha" > wrote in message
... > One would assume that if you were invited to a friends for dinner, they > would know that you were a vegan and wouldn't insult you by serving up a > humk of cow in the first place! Mostly when I go to dinner parties these > days, the meal is, at least, vegetarian. That way anyone who's kosher, > halal, veggie etc. can all eat it, much easier. Although I wouldn't want to > offend anyone, I still wouldn't eat meat! Me too, but Usual has berated people for turning down non-veg food. Meanwhile, he himself eats vegan except for a brief exception once for a meal with fish. He hates vegans and refuses to identify as one. My question to him is to see if he practices what he preaches. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... > > Usual has claimed that people > > should accept food that others > > have made and not worry what's > > in them. He give's away his > > neighbour's gift cake behind her > > back, and says that people > > should not turn down food that > > was made for them out of love > > and stuff. So, this got me to > > wondering. > > > > Usual, what do you (as a food > > definition vegan) do when the > > following occurs. You are > > invited over to someone's > > place for dinner. You are > > served a big steak and a > > small side of potatoes. What > > do you do? Eat the meat? > > Not eat the meat? If not, how > > do you explain it to them? > > > > -- > > SN > > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > > > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>Car-less Orthorexic Skanky wrote: > > > Still fishing. No. We reeled you in months ago. You don't have a car. Period. >>>>>>>>You're an idiot - an inattentive idiot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'm very attentive. >>>>>> >>>>>>You're confusing "attentive" for "obsessive." >>>>>> >>>>>>For someone that has an eating disorder, OCD is a way of control >>>>> >>>>>I don't have an eating disorder. >>>> >>>>Yes, you do. >>> >>>You follow quackery. >> >>I avoid you. You, otoh, have yet to come down firmly against >>reflexology. You want to sit on the fence because of one person's >>anecdotes despite the studies which show it to be quackery. > > > You follow quackery. No. > I'm not afollower of reflexology Yet. You are gullible, so eventually you will, or some other form of quackery. You have lots of other unscientific medical beliefs. >>>>>I have more of a life >>>> >>>>No, you don't. You're a home-bound agoraphobic pot-head. Ha ha ha ha ha! That's an outstanding description. >>>>Your *existence* -- it's not a life -- a feeble attempt to escape from life. >>> >>>I love my life. >> >>You love avoiding reality. Someday you'll have to face up to reality. > > > It's my reality I love It isn't reality. Contrary to the pot-head belief system you espouse, one does not create one's own reality. One can not, for example, believe it's "mostly" wrong to kill animals, because "wrong" doesn't have degrees. >>I'm surprised that at 42 or 43 you still haven't. Do you live with your >>parents and are they still a bit overprotective of their fragile 42 or >>43 year-old baby? > > > Still fishing, huh? No. We know, with absolute certainty, that there's something seriously deficient in terms of your adult independence. |
|
|||
|
|||
pearl wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message . .. > >>pearl wrote: >> >>>>>Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . >>> >>>Your unethical edit is noted. >> >>It wasn't unethical. > > > You altered my post. You've no credibility. > > Go 'support your troops', murderous troll. **** yourself with a broken bottle, you filthy slag. Haven't heard from your solly yet <chortle>. I won't, either - you don't have one. No case, no solly. It's that simple. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Masha" > wrote > One would assume that if you were invited to a friends for dinner, they > would know that you were a vegan and wouldn't insult you by serving up a > humk of cow in the first place! Mostly when I go to dinner parties these > days, the meal is, at least, vegetarian. That way anyone who's kosher, > halal, veggie etc. can all eat it, much easier. Although I wouldn't want > to > offend anyone, I still wouldn't eat meat! Thereby maintaining the illusion that your dinner was not associated with animal death and suffering... |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > .. . > >>>>Car-less Orthorexic Skanky wrote: >>> >>>Still fishing. >> >>Not fishing. It's already established. > > > Where? Right he If you're getting together somewhere accessable [sic] by bus or subway, I would sure like to go. I have no car though, so Markham's out for me, but I could get to anywhere in Toronto itself. http://tinyurl.com/d36ok >>>I was car-less in 2003. >> >>You still are. > > > How can you be sure? We're sure. >>>>I'm surprised that at 42 or 43 you still haven't. Do you live with your >>>>parents and are they still a bit overprotective of their fragile 42 or >>>>43 year-old baby? >>> >>>Still fishing, huh? >> >>I'm not fishing. I have a very strong hunch, though. > > > You're fishing. Not fishing. We reeled you in long back. |
|
|||
|
|||
pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Your unethical edit is noted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It wasn't unethical. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You altered >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And again. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why do you push the following? "veganism" "inner earth beings" "hollow earth" that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef rain forest destruction Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) Stolen French flying saucer Zapper Foot massage (as cure-all) Astrology Numerology Alien abduction bestiality Leprechauns Channeling Polar fountains Sun gazing Chemtrails AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory Crop circles sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts participation in skinhead subculture the validity of online IQ tests crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories Jeff Rense for "news" ..... http://tinyurl.com/h0br http://tinyurl.com/h0bl http://tinyurl.com/v5p8 http://tinyurl.com/v5pf http://tinyurl.com/mh5w http://tinyurl.com/mh6h http://tinyurl.com/mh6r http://tinyurl.com/mh71 http://tinyurl.com/mh7a http://tinyurl.com/mh7j http://tinyurl.com/mh7p http://tinyurl.com/v5jj http://tinyurl.com/v5kd http://tinyurl.com/v5l6 http://tinyurl.com/v5ft http://tinyurl.com/v5fj http://tinyurl.com/v5fp http://tinyurl.com/v5ft http://tinyurl.com/v5ga http://tinyurl.com/v5gc http://tinyurl.com/v5i2 http://tinyurl.com/v5gk http://tinyurl.com/v5h1 http://tinyurl.com/v5h9 >>>>WTF do you call all that, dummy? >>> >>>Proof >> >>Precisely. >> >>>I know what I believe, >> >>So do I. > > Obviously Then why do you have to act so disagreeable about it, Lesley? >>>and I know that your 'list' mostly ain't it. >> >>*MOSTLY*?! HAHAH! You must be taking spin cues from Skanky. > > Who? Skanky. The 42 year-old home-bound agoraphobic pot-head from Toronto who posts under "Scented Nectar." > So Why do you post links to International Action Center and World Workers Party (same organization, same office, same phone numbers, etc.), which is an "orthodox Stalinist" organization -- a group hostile to the troops and all things American? With [Ramsey] Clark's name-recognition and homespun, avuncular image, WWP had the opportunity to form a new front group to win over naive liberals. This was the International Action Center (IAC), which remains the top vehicle for Clark's ego and WWP's play for hegemony over the fragmented remnants of the left. http://shadow.autono.net/sin001/clark.htm See also: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=3181 |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > "usual suspect" > wrote >> Dutch wrote: >> > "usual suspect" > wrote >> > >> > >> >>1. I want to make sure people aren't deluded by the lies people like >> >>you >> >>spread about diet, health, nutrition, the conditions in which animals > are >> >>raised, etc., so I'm here to add some balance. >> > >> > >> > Quite so, "veganism" is one of the most insidious ideas in modern > culture. >> > Due to it's benign reputation, people find themselves ensconced in it's >> > dogma before they know what hit them. The same people who would never > fall >> > victim to one of the more obvious cults are easy prey for extreme ARAs > who >> > use veganism to promote their agenda. >> >> I think it's apropos and fair to compare veganism to cults. While >> veganism may not be as systematic as, say, Scientology, it similarly >> defrauds its adherents, fosters an "us versus them" attitude, and gets >> them to aggressively proselytize others. > > It all starts when ....when you become addicted to the warm, fuzzy feeling that accompanies the illusion that you are living a killing-free lifestyle. No other cult offers it's rewards so cheaply. |
|
|||
|
|||
Claire's fat shitbag of an Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Why did you lie about black olives, you fat orthorexic ex-greasemonkey? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but >>>>>>>>>>stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or >>>>>>>>>>something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to >>>>>>>>>>maintain my ethical standard. >>>>>>>>>>-- Derek "Squid Ink" Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>There's no lie in there. Since learning how black olives >>>>>>>>>are sold in a medium containing squid ink I've stopped >>>>>>>>>eating them to maintain my ethical standard; something >>>>>>>>>you've proven incapable of doing, back-slider. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>They're not sold in anything containing squid ink, dumb ass. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'm reliably told that they are immersed in squid ink >>>>>>>to colour them black, and I've no reason to believe a >>>>>>>word you write that suggests otherwise, liar suspect >>>>>> >>>>>>You're UNreliably told that. >>>>>> >>>>>> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but >>>>>> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or >>>>>> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to >>>>>> maintain my ethical standard. >>>>>> -- Derek Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 >>>>>> >>>>>>You stopped eating them because of misinformation >>> >>>Like I said but which you snipped away, "I'm reliably told >> >>No > > Like I You keep lying, fatso. You wrote over two years ago: I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to maintain my ethical standard. -- Dreck Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 Today, you writes: I'm reliably told that they are immersed in squid ink to colour them black. Note how you initially wrote you "realised" black olives do something they don't. You now lie and write it wasn't a "realization," _per se_, but rather that you've been "reliably told" olives do something they don't. "Reliably told" by whom, shitbag? These olives are processed in a lye curing solution that leaches the bitterness out. California Ripe Olives have a firm texture and smooth, mellow taste. Once curing is complete, a series of cold water rinses removes every trace of curing solution. During the curing process, which takes several days, a flow of air bubbling through the olives produces the natural, rich dark color. A trace of organic iron salt (ferrous gluconate) is added to act as a color fixer so the olives will have less tendency to fade after the cans are stored. Canning is the final step. Ripe olives are canned in a mild salt brine solution and, because they are a low-acid product, are heat sterilized under strict California State health rules. http://www.calolive.org/homecooks/facts.html Regardless, as you're wont to do, you avoid a food you previously enjoyed without guilt on the flimsiest of grounds AND YOU DO SO BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU FEEL VIRTUOUS AND MORE ETHICAL. Such belief and action is consistent with orthorexia. Your sham "virtue" is as hollow as the bullshit about "squid ink" you base it upon. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message news
<the usual BS> So when are you off to support your troops, killer, or is it that you only shoot at defenceless creatures who can't fight back? Well, cowardly neoscum? |
|
|||
|
|||
Notice when I showed the massive support of global warming in US URLs he
ignored the reply. I proved he was liar. Dutch wrote: > "usual suspect" > wrote > > >>1. I want to make sure people aren't deluded by the lies people like you >>spread about diet, health, nutrition, the conditions in which animals are >>raised, etc., so I'm here to add some balance. But your lies are ok > > > Quite so, "veganism" is one of the most insidious ideas in modern culture. > Due to it's benign reputation, people find themselves ensconced in it's > dogma before they know what hit them. The same people who would never fall > victim to one of the more obvious cults are easy prey for extreme ARAs who > use veganism to promote their agenda. > > |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tonight's Dinner Fare & Christmas Meals | General Cooking | |||
Fair Fare | Preserving | |||
Dinner Party Fare | General Cooking |