Usual dinner fare
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 has claimed that people > should accept food that others > have made and not worry what's > in them. He give's GIVES, not "give's", you illiterate ****. > 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) He isn't. He's written fairly recently about eating some sashimi. You're an idiot - an inattentive idiot. |
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > Usual has claimed that people > > should accept food that others > > have made and not worry what's > > in them. He give's > > GIVES, not "give's", you illiterate ****. It doesn't take much to give you a case of the freak-outs, does it. > > 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) > > He isn't. He's written fairly recently about eating > some sashimi. He made a big production about breaking his vegan diet. I doubt he has continued to do so. He's vegan again. > You're an idiot - an inattentive idiot. I'm very attentive. And you're the idiot. Why did you snip my question away? Snip and run, snip and run. Too bad your defective personality can't be snipped. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > nk.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>Usual has claimed that people >>>should accept food that others >>>have made and not worry what's >>>in them. He give's >> >>GIVES, not "give's", you illiterate ****. > > > 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. >>>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) >> >>He isn't. He's written fairly recently about eating >>some sashimi. > > > He made a big production about > breaking his vegan diet. He did not. > I doubt he has continued to do so. You have no reason to doubt anything but your own sanity. > He's vegan again. No. >>You're an idiot - an inattentive idiot. > > > I'm very attentive. You are an inattentive idiot. You are just unbelievably, staggeringly stupid. |
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > nk.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Usual has claimed that people > >>>should accept food that others > >>>have made and not worry what's > >>>in them. He give's > >> > >>GIVES, not "give's", you illiterate ****. > > > > > > 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. Don't you ever have anything meaningful and non-insulting to say? I guess not since you admit to taking pleasure in being an asshole. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > >>>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) > >> > >>He isn't. He's written fairly recently about eating > >>some sashimi. > > > > > > He made a big production about > > breaking his vegan diet. > > He did not. > > > > I doubt he has continued to do so. > > You have no reason to doubt anything but your own sanity. > > > > He's vegan again. > > No. > > > >>You're an idiot - an inattentive idiot. > > > > > > I'm very attentive. > > You are an inattentive idiot. You are just > unbelievably, staggeringly stupid. |
Skanky wrote:
<...> >>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 over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color, the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism. It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough (whether it has been or not) which has led them to over compensate for things. http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to control your own life. Or in your case, to have a life. |
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > nk.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message hlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Usual has claimed that people >>>>>should accept food that others >>>>>have made and not worry what's >>>>>in them. He give's >>>> >>>>GIVES, not "give's", you illiterate ****. >>> >>> >>>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. > > > Don't you ever have anything > meaningful and non-insulting > to say? Everything I say is meaningful - everything. As to being insulting: you have earned it. |
Rudy Canoza wrote: > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > nk.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Usual has claimed that people > >>>>>should accept food that others > >>>>>have made and not worry what's > >>>>>in them. He give's > >>>> > >>>>GIVES, not "give's", you illiterate ****. > >>> > >>> > >>>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. > > > > > > Don't you ever have anything > > meaningful and non-insulting > > to say? > > Everything I say is meaningful - everything. As to > being insulting: you have earned it. LOL!! "Meaningful" in that it opens a window into your twisted little freaky mind. |
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. . > Skanky wrote: > <...> > >>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. That page does not describe me. You however are obsessive about anti-veganism. > over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls > what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color, > the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of > life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once > again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform > another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating > disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism. > It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to > always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough > (whether it has been or not) which has led them to over > compensate for things. > http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu > > Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to control > your own life. Or in your case, to have a life. I have more of a life than you if your thrill is in insulting others rather than discuss the topic. Speaking of the topic, you haven't answered the question I asked at the beginning post on this topic. I'm waiting... -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > .. . > >>Skanky wrote: >><...> >> >>>>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. You most certainly do. But you don't have a car. A car is what you don't have; an eating disorder is what you do have. >>over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls >>what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color, >>the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of >>life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once >>again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform >>another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating >>disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism. >>It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to >>always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough >>(whether it has been or not) which has led them to over >>compensate for things. >>http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu >> >>Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to control >>your own life. Or in your case, to have a life. > > > I have more of a life You have a scut life. And no car. |
usual suspect wrote: > Skanky wrote: > <...> > >>> 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 > over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls > what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color, > the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of > life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once > again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform > another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating > disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism. > It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to > always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough > (whether it has been or not) which has led them to over > compensate for things. > http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu > > Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to control > your own life. Or in your case, to have a life. No, many scientists (you're right not all, jut most) believe in global warming. Many scientists believe there are health benefits from eating vegan. Many people believe it is more moral. You laugh at these people. None of your statements have been proven. I point out a journal article, you attack it, instead of saying, interesting, lets repeat it. Your anti-social response is simply to insult people. You confuse eating disorders with choices. You lied when you said another article said vegan is an eating disorder. It said, it could be a symptom of other problems. Your take typos and highlight them, as if they are the most important thing in the world, while keyboards where made to slow people down because typists were too fast. So keys are placed in bad positions. Such we have found Duvarak keyboards are much more efficient. Yet he points to typos with delight and insults. The man has proven to be mean and insulting. Vegans, by and large care about health, animal rights, and environmental concerns. These are good things from good people. Vegans are not opposed to science. Einstein was a vegetarian. We want science. We want inquiry. It is pretty obvious that our digestive system is 3 times the length of the trunk, and a cluster of studies show meat eaters have higher rate of colon cancer and heart disease. Yes, exercise and moderation improve he factors, and junk food vegans are in great long term health problems. There are other disorders cluster around meat eating. They all invite scientific studies and more research. Not juvenile insults. As far as moral concerns, he calls Kosher laws sick. And are environmentalists all sick? I point out that a nuclear plant is leaking 1000 of times the radiation levels allowed. He can't see this pollution enters the food supply till till I point it out, and using Florida produce introduces the radioactive materials into the food supply. The reality is we see many signs of global warming, antibiotic ineffectiveness, growth hormones used in the meat factories, many meat growers have been found to be unaware or breaking the law on feeding their meat animals. He is intelligent, but why use it to insult people. If he wants to say the jury is out on Global warming, even though NASA, NOA, Princeton and others clearly are convinced, instead he says do nothing when we face a potential disaster with minimal efforts. He is clearly a very sick person. He misuses diagnoses, and is a racist. Anyone that calls Kosher a sickness is an anti semite. |
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
... > Speaking of the topic, you haven't > answered the question I asked at > the beginning post on this topic. > I'm waiting... I'm still waiting. -- 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? Usual, are you avoiding the above questions? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
Car-less Orthorexic Skanky wrote:
<...> >>>>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. > That page does not describe > me. It does. To a T. >>over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls >>what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color, >>the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of >>life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once >>again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform >>another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating >>disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism. >>It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to >>always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough >>(whether it has been or not) which has led them to over >>compensate for things. >>http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu >> >>Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to control >>your own life. Or in your case, to have a life. > > I have more of a life No, you don't. You're a home-bound agoraphobic pot-head. Your *existence* -- it's not a life -- a feeble attempt to escape from life. |
Bumbling Bob wrote:
>> <...> >> >>>> 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 >> over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls >> what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color, >> the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of >> life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once >> again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform >> another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating >> disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism. >> It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to >> always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough >> (whether it has been or not) which has led them to over >> compensate for things. >> http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu >> >> Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to >> control your own life. Or in your case, to have a life. > > No, many scientists (you're right not all, jut most) believe in global > warming. No, you're WRONG. What part of EVENLY do you not comprehend in EVENLY DIVIDED? Scientists have NOT reached a consensus on the relationship between human activities and global warming. |
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > "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? > > Usual, are you avoiding the above > questions? He's not going to answer the question because he's a vegan "purist" and he knows damn well that he won't eat the steak. Answering the question would only expose him as the hypocrite that he is. Just leave him alone to cower... |
See James Strut wrote:
> He's not going to answer the question because he's a vegan "purist" How the **** do you explain the sashimi -- more fish than rice -- I've eaten, girly-boy? How the **** do you explain my consumption of foods containing dairy which my girlfriend has prepared? (Speaking of girlfriends, have you found a new one or is the old one still at the end of a rope trying to figure out why you're such a dickhead?) How the **** do you explain my purchase and preparation of meat and dairy and "battery eggs" for family members during visits -- both when I've visited their homes and when they've visited mine -- and for friends at parties? You and Skanky can take her stupid-assed hypotheticals and go **** yourselves. |
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message .. . > > > usual suspect wrote: > >> Skanky wrote: >> <...> >> >>>> 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 >> over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD >> controls >> what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the >> color, >> the weight, the amount, what the person does in other >> areas of >> life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person >> once >> again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to >> perform >> another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and >> eating >> disorders - are linked through the problem of >> perfectionism. >> It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response >> to >> always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough >> (whether it has been or not) which has led them to over >> compensate for things. >> http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu >> >> Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture >> to control your own life. Or in your case, to have a life. > > No, many scientists (you're right not all, jut most) believe in > global warming. Many scientists believe there are health > benefits from eating vegan. Many people believe it is more > moral. ========== Umm, speaking of proving something, where's your proof that veganism is somehow more moral than anything else, killer? You laugh at these people. > None of your statements have been proven. I point out a > journal article, you attack it, instead of saying, interesting, > lets repeat > it. Your anti-social response is simply to insult people. > > You confuse eating disorders with choices. ================== Your choices are a disorder. > > You lied when you said another article said vegan is an eating > disorder. > It said, it could be a symptom of other problems. > > Your take typos and highlight them, as if they are the most > important thing in the world, while keyboards where made to > slow people down because typists were too fast. So keys are > placed in bad positions. > Such we have found Duvarak keyboards are much more efficient. > Yet he points to typos with delight and insults. > > The man has proven to be mean and insulting. > > Vegans, by and large care about health, animal rights, and > environmental concerns. These are good things from good > people. ============================= From delusional people, fool. They, and you do NOTHING to look at your own bloody footprints once you've decided that your are more moral than anyone else. It's far to easy to show that being vegan doesn't automatically DO anything for health, animals or the environment. > > Vegans are not opposed to science. Einstein was a vegetarian. > We want science. We want inquiry. It is pretty obvious that > our digestive system is 3 times the length of the trunk, and a > cluster of studies show > meat eaters have higher rate of colon cancer and heart disease. > Yes, exercise and moderation improve he factors, and junk food > vegans are in great long term health problems. There are other > disorders cluster around meat eating. They all invite > scientific studies and more research. Not juvenile insults. ======================== Yet the studies all seem to show that eating some meat is better than absolutly no meat. > > As far as moral concerns, he calls Kosher laws sick. And are > environmentalists all sick? I point out that a nuclear plant > is leaking 1000 of times the radiation levels allowed. He > can't see this pollution enters the food supply till till I > point it out, and using Florida produce introduces the > radioactive materials into the food supply. > > > > The reality is we see many signs of global warming, antibiotic > ineffectiveness, growth hormones used in the meat factories, > many meat growers have been found to be unaware or breaking the > law on feeding their meat animals. > > > He is intelligent, but why use it to insult people. > > If he wants to say the jury is out on Global warming, even > though NASA, > NOA, Princeton and others clearly are convinced, instead he > says do nothing when we face a potential disaster with minimal > efforts. > > He is clearly a very sick person. He misuses diagnoses, and is > a racist. > Anyone that calls Kosher a sickness is an anti semite. ================== And you are just another delusional, ignorant fool that cannot back up your own claims, killer. |
"Pussy Boy" > wrote in message .. . > See James Strut wrote: >> He's not going to answer the question because he's a vegan "purist" > > How the **** do you explain the sashimi -- more fish than rice -- I've > eaten, girly-boy? How the **** do you explain my consumption of foods > containing dairy which my girlfriend has prepared? [snip] How the **** do > you explain my purchase and preparation of meat and dairy and "battery > eggs" for family members during visits -- both when I've visited their > homes and when they've visited mine -- and for friends at parties? I explain it that you're lying hypocrite. First you're vegan, then you're not, then for some weird reason you broadcast to everybody here that you tried sushi, and now we find out that purchase and prepare meat and dairy foods. All the while you insult people, exaggerate facts to your advantage, lie through your teeth, use biased sources, evade, take things out of context, and you have the nerve to whine and cry like a pussy when people give you equal treatment. [Excerpted from above] > (Speaking of girlfriends, have you found a new one or is the old one still > at the end of a rope trying to figure out why you're such a dickhead?) What were you saying about ad homimen attacks? > You and Skanky can take her stupid-assed hypotheticals and go **** > yourselves. Just answer her question you coward... |
See James Strut wrote:
>>>He's not going to answer the question because he's a vegan "purist" >> >>How the **** do you explain the sashimi -- more fish than rice -- I've >>eaten, girly-boy? How the **** do you explain my consumption of foods >>containing dairy which my girlfriend has prepared? [snip] How the **** do >>you explain my purchase and preparation of meat and dairy and "battery >>eggs" for family members during visits -- both when I've visited their >>homes and when they've visited mine -- and for friends at parties? > > I explain it No, you don't. > First you're vegan, I called myself that under the misconception that veganism was about food rather than animal rights. I ceased such identification when I realized how wrong I was about AR and veganism (and other leftist radical beliefs) -- while people like Nikitta objected to my refusal to identify with vegans anymore. > then you're not, No matter what I called myself, I never was. I've never embraced animal rights. My politics are on the Right side of the mainstream, i.e., way out of step with the radical leftist ideology of which veganism is just a tiny, eccentric (in the worst possible meaning of the word), and marginal part. > then for some weird reason you broadcast to everybody here that you > tried sushi, Sashimi. I'd eaten sushi all along. And the reason I wrote that I'd eaten sashimi was so shit-stirring assholes like Dreck, Skanky, and you would finally stop calling me a vegan. I'd written elsewhere, in response to Lesley (aka pearl), that I would probably resume eating fish. > and now we find out that purchase and prepare meat and dairy > foods. That's hardly a new admission. I'd admitted to cooking for my family before, of course to consternation of true believers (like you even if your disapproval comes a few years later). > All the while you insult people, Only ****s like you who deserve it. > exaggerate facts to your advantage, Examples? Of course not. You never offer examples, you just cast aspersions. > [Excerpted from above] > >>(Speaking of girlfriends, have you found a new one or is the old one still >>at the end of a rope trying to figure out why you're such a dickhead?) > > What were you saying So you're between women then. |
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:38:35 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>See James Strut 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" 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 dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my environment, and the whole world. Is that first part selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other, more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.) mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and without serious health problems associated with an animal-based diet?" usual suspect Sep 9 2002 http://tinyurl.com/aohwv Those are the exact reasons most vegans give for their choice to abstain from meat, liar, so cut the crap about making the mistake in thinking you were "under the misconception that veganism was about food rather than animal rights." YOU abstained from meat so that "no animal must die for my nourishment or enjoyment." 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 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 You're a liar, usual suspect, or whatever name you hide your disgrace behind. |
Claire's morbidly obese, self-crippled Uncle Derk 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. My diet is varied. As I said, some day I may eat fish. Some day I may have some ice cream. I don't think I could eat liver or steak, but that's aesthetic. usual suspect, 10 Jun 2003 (http://tinyurl.com/a9ukd) > 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 whether they contain healthful versions of those foods or abstain from them all, and no longer make such unsupportable blanket generalizations like those two. My position now is consistent with the major dietetics organizations in the US and Canada: It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that all foods can fit into a healthful eating style. The ADA strives to communicate healthful eating messages to the public that emphasize the total diet, or overall pattern of food eaten, rather than any one food or meal. If consumed in moderation with appropriate portion size and combined with regular physical activity, all foods can fit into a healthful diet. http://www.eatright.org/Member/Polic...ndex_21027.cfm > Those are the exact reasons most vegans 1. I'm not "most vegans." I never was. 2. I moderated my point(s) of view as I learned more. That's what educated people do. As a self-crippled fat ****, you don't seem to understand that. 3. Animals died regardless of what I ate or my reasons for or against eating certain foods. The same is true of your diet: it's inconsistent with your stated (pseudo) ethics. I stopped making smug, sanctimonious claims about diet because I don't think one can be more or less ethical on the basis of diet. > 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. As well, I accept have posted repeatedly that Jesus Christ was neither a vegetarian nor an animal rights activist. Vegans and ARAs would shun him today: ---- When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch." Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets." When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken... Luke 5:4-9 (cp. John 21 for similar post-resurrection account) He fed fish to hungry followers: Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way." His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this remote place to feed such a crowd?" "How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked. "Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish." He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. -- Mathew 15:32-37 He ate fish himself: When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence. -- Luke 24:40-43 Fact: his disciples weren't ARAs, they were fishermen. Fact: he went out with them. Fact: he told them where and when to find fish. Fact: he fed fish to others. Fact: he ate fish himself. Consider the Passover seder: On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there." The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. -- Mark 14:12-16 Did he forbid the lamb? No, he and his disciples partook in the custom of killing and eating a lamb on Pesach. Even if you refuse to accept the fish and lamb, consider the following: A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If you are willing, you can make me clean." Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured. Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: "See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them." Mark 1:40-44 So Christ commanded animal sacrifice on at least one occasion. And why did Mary and Joseph offer sacrifices upon the birth of Jesus? Conclusion: Jesus was NOT vegetarian, nor did he do anything consistent with the animal rights or "vegan" position. ---- When you learn something different from what you've believed, do you continue to believe the disproven or do you align your views with the truth? Wait. You're the buck-passing over-consumer whose sham sense of ethics spreads the blame around to everyone else. Forget I asked, tosser. > 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, but I'm led to conclude he didn't because the Bible (see above) and various religious texts indicate that he didn't. The passages in Deuteronomy and Leviticus which deal with the issue of humane treatment of animals are consistent with an AW position, not with AR. > 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've most likely raised your twin's children. You aren't alone: NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Perhaps one out of every 25 dads could unknowingly be raising another man's child, a finding that has huge health and social implications, according to report released Wednesday. http://tinyurl.com/9wypf The difference, of course, is that most of these cuckolds don't have twins who shag their wives. Then again, you prefer to wank to internet porn: I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and watch it every time the wife goes shopping. Derek "Wanksalot" Nash - http://tinyurl.com/nu3s You're a pathetic yob. I know you can't resist stirring shit, but you have enough of your own to stir and smell, fatso. |
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Car-less Orthorexic Skanky wrote: > <...> > >>>>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. > > That page does not describe > > me. > > It does. To a T. > > >>over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls > >>what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color, > >>the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of > >>life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once > >>again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform > >>another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating > >>disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism. > >>It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to > >>always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough > >>(whether it has been or not) which has led them to over > >>compensate for things. > >>http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu > >> > >>Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to control > >>your own life. Or in your case, to have a life. > > > > I have more of a life > > No, you don't. You're a home-bound agoraphobic pot-head. Your > *existence* -- it's not a life -- a feeble attempt to escape from life. I love my life. I'll bet you can't say the same. You're too mean- spirited to be truly happy. -- 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? I'm waaaaaiiiiittting. If you object to the wording of the 'as a food definition vegan', then just leave it out. The question still remains. And so does the steak. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 02:03:05 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. Being the liar that you've most certainly proved to be, I reject your ad hoc exception as just another lie and back pedaling. >> 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 lied when claiming that the consumption of flesh was bad for you. And what about the claim that eating flesh was bad for the environment and the World? Was that just another lie, or have you now come to the conclusion that it isn't bad for the animals and the World after all? Also, you've failed to address the part where you claimed that no animal must die for your nourishment or enjoyment. You're full of shit. >My position now is consistent Your position is never consistent; "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 What a joke! >> 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 of other passages from the bible which mentions meat, but you still used the above passage to indicate that our dominion over animals does not include killing them. So, once again we can see your lies and back pedaling when cornered on these issues. >> 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 no grounds for your puny attacks on others who believe animals hold moral rights against us. >> 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 when cornered into reviewing your lies. I'm not in the least phased by it, but it does show your desperation to use anything to avoid being seen as a liar, and that in itself is useful to me. |
"usual suspect" > wrote in message . ..
Support your troops - http://www.troopsoutnow.org/ . <..> > It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that all > foods can fit into a healthful eating style. The ADA strives to > communicate healthful eating messages to the public that > emphasize the total diet, or overall pattern of food eaten, > rather than any one food or meal. If consumed in moderation with > appropriate portion size and combined with regular physical > activity, all foods can fit into a healthful diet. > http://www.eatright.org/Member/Polic...ndex_21027.cfm '.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.' http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html <..> > ---- > When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into > deep water, and let down the nets for a catch." > > Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't > caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the > nets." > > When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish > that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners > in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and > filled both boats so full that they began to sink. > > When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go > away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his > companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had > taken... 'Lection XIV The Calling Of Andrew And Peter The Teaching of Cruelty In Animals The Two Rich Men ... 2. And Yeshua began to preach, and to say, Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. And as he was walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway forsook their nets, and followed him. 3. And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. And they immediately left their nets, and the ship, and their father, and followed him. ...' http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_2.htm > Luke 5:4-9 (cp. John 21 for similar post-resurrection account) 'Lection LXXXIX Jesus Appeareth At The Sea Of Tiberias 1. AFTER these things Yeshua shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias, and on this wise shewed he himself. There were together Simon, Peter, and Thomas, called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and James and John and two other of his disciples. 2. And Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth and entered into a ship immediately, and that night they caught nothing. And when the morning was now come, Yeshua stood on the shore, but the disciples knew not that it was Yeshua. 3. Then Yeshua said unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, Nay, Lord, not enough for all; there is naught but a small loaf, a little oil, and a few dried fruits. And he said unto them, Let these suffice; come and dine. 4. And he blessed them, and they ate and were filled, and there was a pitcher of water also, and he blessed it likewise, and lo, it was the fruit of the vine. ...' reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_9.htm > He fed fish to hungry followers: > Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion > for these people; they have already been with me three days and > have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or > they may collapse on the way." > > His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this > remote place to feed such a crowd?" > > "How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked. > > "Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish." > > He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the > seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he > broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to > the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the > disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were > left over. > -- Mathew 15:32-37 'Lection XXIX He Feedeth Five Thousand With Six Loaves And Seven Clusters Of Grapes Healing Of The Sick Jesus Walketh On The Water ... 4. And the day was far spent, and his disciples came unto him and said, This is a desert place, and now the time is far passed. Send them away, that they may go into the country round about into the villages, and buy themselves bread, for they have nothing to eat. 5. He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat ? 6. He saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go and see. And when they knew, they said, Six loaves and seven clusters of grapes. And he commanded them to make all sit down by companies of fifty upon the grass. And they sat down in ranks by hundreds and by fifties. 7. And when he had taken the six loaves and the seven clusters of grapes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and brake the loaves, and the grapes also and gave them to his disciples to set before them and they divided them among them all. 8. And they did all eat and were filled. And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments that were left. And they that did eat of the loaves and of the fruit were about five thousand men, women and children, and he taught them many things. ...' http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_3.htm > He ate fish himself: > When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And > while they still did not believe it because of joy and > amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" > They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate > it in their presence. > -- Luke 24:40-43 'Lection LXXXVII Jesus Appeareth To The Twelve ... 3. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his Heart. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. 4. For Thomas, called Didymus, one of the disciples, had said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his heart, I will not believe. Then saith he to Thomas, Behold my hands, my heart, and my feet; reach hither thy hands, and be not faithless but believing. 5. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God! And Yeshua saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed. 6. Then saith Yeshua unto them again, Peace be unto you, as Abba Amma hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this he breathed on them and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; preach the Gospel, and anounce ye unto all nations; the resurrection of the Son of Man. 7. Teach ye the holy law of love which I have delivered unto you. And whosoever forsake their sins, they are remitted unto them, and whosoever continue in their sins they are retained unto them. 8. Baptise them who believe and repent, bless and anoint them, and offer ye the pure Oblation of the fruits of the earth, which I have appointed unto you for a Memorial of me. 9. Lo, I have given my body and my blood to be offered on the Cross, for the redemption of the world from the sin against love, and from the bloody sacrifices and feasts of the past. 10. And ye shall offer the Bread of life, and the Wine of salvation, for a pure Oblation with incense, as it is written of me, and ye shall eat and drink thereof for a memorial, that I have delivered all who believe in me from the ancient bondage of your ancestors. 11. For they, making a god of their belly, sacrificed unto their god the innocent creatures of the earth, in place of the carnal nature within themselves. 12. And eating of their flesh and drinking of their blood to their own destruction, corrupted their bodies and shortened their days, even as the Gentiles who knew not the truth, or who knowing it, have changed it into a lie. ...' http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_9.htm > Fact: his disciples weren't ARAs, they were fishermen. Fact: he went out > with them. Fact: he told them where and when to find fish. Fact: he fed > fish to others. Fact: he ate fish himself. "The early Christian Fathers did well their work of destroying the sources and records from which they gathered the information and data put by them in the Bible. But they failed to destroy it all. Some escaped, and as it is discovered here and there by patient research workers, it is astonishing to see how the world has been deceived by the Christian Fathers. "The Original Gospel is preserved in one of the Buddhist monasteries in Tibet, and is written in Aramaic. These 'correctors' (men authorized to 'correct' the text of Scripture in the interests of what was considered orthodoxy) cut out of the Gospels with minute care certain teachings of Our Lord's which they did not propose to 'follow, namely, those against flesh eating, such as accounts of our Lord's interference, on several occasions, to save animals from ill treatment, and even the interesting and important teachings ever prominent in Eastern scriptures." - Rev. G. J. Ouseley http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_intro.htm > Consider the Passover seder: > On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was > customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked > him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you > to eat the Passover?" > > So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the > city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow > him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: > Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my > disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and > ready. Make preparations for us there." > > The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as > Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. > -- Mark 14:12-16 > > Did he forbid the lamb? No, he and his disciples partook in the custom > of killing and eating a lamb on Pesach. 'Lection LXXV The Last Paschal Supper ... 4. And Yeshua said, With desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. and to institute the Memorial of my Oblation for the service and salvation of all. For behold the hour cometh when the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners. 5. And one of the twelve said unto him, Lord, is it I ? And he answered, He to whom I give the sop the same is he. 6. And Iscariot said unto him, Master, behold the unleaven bread, the mingled wine and the oil and the herbs, but where is the lamb that Moses commanded? (for Judas had bought the lamb, but Yeshua had forbidden that it should be killed). 7. And John spake in the Spirit, saying, Behold the Lamb of God, the good Shepherd which giveth his life for the sheep. And Judas was troubled at these words, for he knew that he should betray him. But again Judas said, Master, is it not written in the law that a lamb must be slain for the passover within the gates? 8. And Yeshua answered, If I am lifted up on the cross then indeed shall the lamb be slain; but woe unto him by whom it is delivered into the hands of the slayers; it were better of him had he not been born. 9. Verily I say unto you, for this end have I come into the world, that I may put away all blood offerings and the eating of the flesh of the beasts and the birds that are slain by men. 10. In the beginning, God gave to all, the fruits of the trees, and the seeds, and the herbs, for food; but those who loved themselves more than God, or their fellows, corrupted their ways, and brought diseases into their bodies, and filled the earth with lust and violence. 11. Not by shedding innocent blood, therefore, but by living a righteous life, shall ye find the peace of God. Ye call me the Christ of God and ye say well, for I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. 12. Walk ye in the Way, and ye shall find God. Seek ye the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free. Live in the Life, and ye shall see no death. All things are alive in God, and the Spirit of God filleth all things. 13. Keep ye the commandments. Love thy God with all thy heart, and love thy neighbour as thyself. On these hang all the law and the prophets. And the sum of the law is this- Do not ye unto others as ye would not that others should do unto you. Do ye unto others, as ye would that others should do unto you. 14. Blessed are they who keep this law, for God is manifested in all creatures. All creatures live in God, and God is hid in them. ...' http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_8.htm > Even if you refuse to accept the > fish and lamb, consider the following: > A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If > you are willing, you can make me clean." > > Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched > the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately the > leprosy left him and he was cured. > > Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: "See that you > don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest > and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your > cleansing, as a testimony to them." > Mark 1:40-44 'Lection XV Healing Of The Leper And The Man With Palsy The Deaf Man Who Denied That Others Could Hear 1. AND it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy, who, seeing Jesus, fell toward the earth, and besought him, saying, Lord if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, Blessed be thou who believest; I will, be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him. 2. And he charged him saying, Tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. ... ...' http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_2.htm > So Christ commanded animal sacrifice on at least one occasion. 'Jesus Enters Into The Pure Oblation With His Disciples The Last Supper ... And still another asked of Yeshua: "Why dost thou abolish the blood sacrifices of the law, and, yea, the eating of flesh as Moses commanded that we do lawfully?" And Yeshua, looking at them and perceiving their evil hearts hardened with love of riches and vain glory, and without mercy or natural affection, said unto them: "I know not that Moses commandeth such as lawful unto you, nor doth the Holy Law of God change for the desires of men, for Moses spoke not these words, ye hath made into law! " ...' http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/T...st_Part_4.html > And why > did Mary and Joseph offer sacrifices upon the birth of Jesus? 'Lection VI The Childhood And Youth Of Jesus the Christ He Delivereth A Lion from The Hunters 1. NOW, Joseph and Mary, his parents, went up to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover and they observed the feast after the manner of their brethren, who abstained from bloodshed and the eating of flesh and from strong drink. .. ...' http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_1.htm > Conclusion: Jesus was NOT vegetarian, nor did he do anything consistent > with the animal rights or "vegan" position. 'Jesus Condemns Animal Sacrifice Shows It To Be From Satan And Not God And after many other things were said and done, Jesus returned to the city, and looked upon the innocent creatures of God awaiting slaughter as daily sacrifice in the temple at Jerusalem. And he said unto his disciples and many people that had gathered around them, for everywhere Jesus went, crowds surrounded him to listen and hear his wisdom: "Behold these poor innocent beasts of thy earth, they harm not themselves, nor man, nor any other creature. Yea, they eat the green vegetation of the field, sinless and without blood guilt they have remained since their creation. Faithful and obedient they remain to their masters in hope that Humane feelings be their reward in life, but instead they receive every hurt and death at man's hand. Lo, the lust of ignorant and stubborn man brings them down in death and much blood, that men may satisfy the lusts of their own flesh. Such men have hearts, but know them not, for they have become like their idols of stone, hard and vain. "Woe to such blasphemers who reject the Holy Law of the sacredness of all life! Woe to such blind guides with hearts of stone, who use their eyes to lust after things they need not nor are lawful unto them! For they transgress the Law of Moses to maketh themselves fat on the flesh and blood of innocent victims, that God commanded them not even since the beginning! Woe be unto this very temple built by human hands, for the Temple made without hands is here in their midst, but they see or hear not! "For I come to end all sacrifice and bloodshed and tell ye, it. ye cease not offering and eating of flesh and blood, the wrath of God shall not cease from you, even as it came to your fathers in the wilderness, who under Moses lusted for flesh, which they ate to their fulness. and were filled with rottenness, and the plague consumed them according to their evil desires. .......' http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/T...st_Part_2.html <..> > The passages in Deuteronomy and > Leviticus which deal with the issue of humane treatment of animals are > consistent with an AW position, not with AR. "The Nazarean -... They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws - not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. - Epiphanius (Panarion 1:18) ' |
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > See James Strut wrote: >> then you're not, > > No matter what I called myself, I never was. I've never embraced animal > rights. My politics are on the Right side of the mainstream, i.e., WAY far to the right... >> exaggerate facts to your advantage, > > Examples? Of course not. You never offer examples, you just cast > aspersions. It hardly needs to be substantiated. Your exaggerations, convenience use of facts, and out-of-context distortions are your MO and have been for a long time. You are not credible. >> [Excerpted from above] >> >>>(Speaking of girlfriends, have you found a new one or is the old one >>>still at the end of a rope trying to figure out why you're such a >>>dickhead?) >> >> What were you saying > > So you're between women then. Why do you want to know - are you between guys now? Sorry, I'm NOT interested. |
usual suspect wrote: > Bumbling Bob wrote: > >>> <...> >>> >>>>> 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 >>> over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls >>> what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color, >>> the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of >>> life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once >>> again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform >>> another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating >>> disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism. >>> It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to >>> always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough >>> (whether it has been or not) which has led them to over >>> compensate for things. >>> http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu >>> >>> Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to >>> control your own life. Or in your case, to have a life. >> >> >> No, many scientists (you're right not all, jut most) believe in global >> warming. > > > No, you're WRONG. What part of EVENLY do you not comprehend in EVENLY > DIVIDED? Scientists have NOT reached a consensus on the relationship > between human activities and global warming. Show me a set of proclaimed independent scientific organizations which are evenly divided. Don't give me Auto company studies or the like, which you try to do. NOA may well have some scientists that disagree, but their official position, as are most organization, is that human caused global warming is quite real. Do you think pouring greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere won't effect our weather. Do you think changing much of wetlands into asphalt won't chance the climate? Eco systems are very complicated. For a while people were killing far too many alligators? Why the problem? Well, they dig holes during the dry season, and fish live in the holes. When the wet season comes, the fish reproduce, and eat the grasses. Otherwise, the wetlands turn to dry lands, and in this case, the wetlands, which help moderate the temperature, prevented frosts, which ruin the Florida citrus economy. Now Florida is being overbuilt and destroyed any ways. I'm not saying he's stupid, no illiterate. He proofs what he writes and writes well. He is a mean person though. And an anti Semite. Now for my typing. People have known me for years. I used to be a great typist. You had to be to get through grad school before word processors (then I discovered the DEC 20 and EMACS!). Last year I was in a car accident (a Mercedes hit my Camry) going 90 mph on a residential street, turning the car around. He went through 2 fences, a shed, and finally hit a tree) that according to the doctors would have killed most people. My musculature at the time (and people who knew me at the VEGAN site have pictures of it) saved me. I did lose the feeling and control in many of my fingers, and couldn't keep working out. So, typing is much harder. I often let the spell check run and it changes words as it sends mail. I should probably not do that. Most people would have died. A residual effect is poor finger control from neck injury. People that knew me know that my typing was never a problem. It gets worse if I take the medications prescribed by my doctors. So US likes to make fun of me. Well, it kept me alive. For months I couldn't even swim, much less work out, run, or lift weights. Now I'm limited to swimming. I can't feel my left pinkie. I tried to avoid pain killers so what did I rely on? Viox? That ended up being more dangerous than what the doctors were also prescribing and I was avoided. I have had epidural injection in my back and neck. Hopefully I will recover more and get in great shape. I also have a dual Masters degree and was an active musician. My musicale life was destroyed. I still can help out on the bass since the spaces are so big, but I worked professionally in a jazz trio on guitar. Now I can't play the guitar. So make fun of me US when I have a typo. It must make you a bigger or smarter person. Or does something for you. Any reasonable research on global warming shows the ocean is warmer, the glaciers are melting, the permafrost is melting, the temperature is higher in the last decade, we have more severe storms, the North Pole melts in summer. These are changes from the last decade. Ignoring the evidence is not good science. Yes, temperature variations are expected over time, but not at this speed, and not with such a vast amount of green house gasses being pumped into the atmosphere. As far as a fossil based food system. It relies on cheap oil to transport food while we waste great farm land with urban sprawl. Nuclear energy is far too risky. They have a limited life span and we have no safe way to dispose of the waste. Yucca mountain is stupid, it is not geologically stable, volcanos have gone off within 100 miles and an accounting accident, or a rise in the water table we will have a nuclear plume over the agricultural midwest. Meanwhile we must transport this waste. Those are subject to accident. Studies have shown that a tow missile doesn't even need a direct hit to open the container. Thus they are rolling Chernobyl's. Yucca Mountain will be toxic for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Not long ago it was under the ocean. Any responsible energy program will rely on solar, wind, geothermal, and wave energy. But how do you tax the sun. Of course, as McCain points out, the politicians are in industries pockets so you'll see legislature that favors big business at the cost of logic and reason. This cuts across all party lines. Giving our business to India, China and now Costa Rica means fewer well paying jobs. Even our R&D is leaving this nation. Oracle and Microsoft for example, is doing their R&D in Israel. In spite of being surrounded by 5 hostile nations and subject to both conventional and daily terrorist attacks. Generic drug company TEVA bought a major US competitor. http://www.christiansforbiblicalisra.../page1416.html Yes, HP is moving it's centers to Costa Rica because India got such bad press. The fact is, millions of jobs will leave this nation. Who will pay for all the articles made in China? China, now that we are dependent on them is getting ready to change the currency rates. Get ready for huge increases in price. Oh, who did we borrow our huge deficit from? China. Imagine we had a surplus! There was no excuse for 911. We had plenty of advance warning. When we entered WW II, we had few modern weapons, and economic chaos. But we were a manufacturing king, which is why we won. We converted car and other lines to make tanks and ships in record numbers. Yet, Germany still would have won the war if he wasn't a drug addict and listened to his generals. Opening a front against Russia was incredibly stupid and ignoring "Jewish" physics cost him his life and country. Luckily Einstein left before the US and Britain closed it's boarders, not even filling up the quotas. The embassy official that save Chapel (and others) was fired for obeying the law. Now he's called a hero over than 60 years later. Why are we not making B1 bombers? Or at least keeping the assembly line open. To send a conventional bomber in it takes 14 planes with crews. It is obvious in today's world we need a stealth plane that can take off and attack any place in the world without refueling with pin point accuracy. Maybe if it were made by Boeing? Why did we stop making the F14D which is still the most lethal fighter in our force. It can destroy enemy outside dog fighting territory. And, can land on a hook on an aircraft carrier. Why did we buy the Boeing fighter, when the Northrop Grumman was far superior? Later is was acknowledged Boeing makes huge contribution, and owns lawmakers. We have a corrupt government. Have we won a war since WW II? Could we? Maybe if we nuke all the innocent people to get at the few combatants. After entering IRAQ on lies, and victory was proclaimed, we have not won the war. The latest "democratic president" was killed and replaced with a Medieval Shiite cleric that wants death to all infidels. All we did was create hostility and ammunition for radical Islam. Eating a vegan diet, a HEALTHY one avoids the problems research continues to show. Less meat and milk is an improvement. Regardless, daily exercise is the fountain of youth. So make fun of my typing. (I can't feel most of my fingers). Make outlandish claims that disagree with NOA, Nasa, Princeton, and many other organizations. It will be hard to be a vegan, or a meat eater with global warming. It has been shown the FDA has appointed positions and is not truly protecting American people but rather businesses. Whistle blowers risk their career to do what's right. I think if you want to stay on a VEGAN group you should try and show how to improve a VEGAN diet. Obviously that's not his agenda. A Vegan diet can be very unhealthy. I'm sure US will find a typo or grammatical mistake. I'm lucky to be alive. Unless he's been pushing weights, he'd have probably died. Steve has seen pictures of me at the 10K race July 4th in Vegas. Now I have a task, how to get in shape again while damaged. Swimming clearly isn't enough. But I'll continue to protect against plaque buildup, high blood pressure and the like with swimming. We now know we need an hour of daily vigorous exercise if one wants to be 100 and healthy. Being a VEGAN is a political statement, besides being healthier, it means we care about the environmental consequences and the unnecessary meat market industry. It deserves respect. If one can't go all the way and is just interested in health, lean cuts, exercise, and organic will go a long way. But yes, VEGAN is a statement, not an illness. The prostate study was interesting. US made it seem like it was a study of 30 people, when I re-read it, it was a study of over 5,600 people. The trend was less meat improved the odds of avoiding prostate cancer. He manipulated the study. There is an issue of Omega B3 oil. But it must be balanced with the vast amounts of Mercury. We need research there. My S/O's was prescribed an Omega oil that is Mercury free. He said most supplements claim to be Mercury free but aren't. She works a 10 hour day and takes care of a dying, proud mother. I'd prefer to monitor my B12 and inject B12 as needed to keep my levels high. So, when you see a typo, I'm sorry. Now you know why I make them. It is because I am alive because I worked out. I didn't used to make them. People who know me know that to be true, and people have seen my picture. Steve can see my picture from before the accident. I'll re-send it to him. And no, I won't eat meat products. I will politely explain why. I used to be evangelistic and it was ineffective. No I show some health benefits, people saw my health, and I helped many people give up meat. Yes, some VEGANS are zealots. I oppose Peta's actions and think they make enemies of potential friends. >No, you're WRONG. What part of EVENLY do you not comprehend in EVENLY >DIVIDED? Scientists have NOT reached a consensus on the relationship >between human activities and global warming. Show us the equally divided scientists. I sure don't see it. I see every major study supports global warming. The only one who doesn't immediately see it is George Bush, who happens to be in the Oil Business and friends with Saudis. They are not evenly divided. Especially world wide scientists. And all scientists will never agree. The evidence is overwhelming. Being a vegan is healthy, (if you eat right), better environmentally, and doesn't support the meat manufacturing industry. More animals become extinct in the last 10 years, than the last 200. That is because habitat is being destroyed at an ever increasing rate, and the Earth's global warming has changed habits. In summary, I have no idea why US uses his talents to attack and insult people trying to accomplish something positive. You now know why I make typos. He has talent, and I wish he would use it for something positive. In the meantime, I will try and keep this alive as a VEGAN group, try to lead a low impact life (like telecommuting, composting, and playing for organizations that need my help pro-bono) And I'm still a father and that never ends. I hope my son, aged 23 is able to continue to communicate with me and I can share experience. That part of life is never over, just the way you do it. Beach Runner, now just a swimmer. |
Car-less Orthorexic Skanky wrote:
>><...> >> >>>>>>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. >>>That page does not describe >>>me. >> >>It does. To a T. >> >> >>>>over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls >>>>what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color, >>>>the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of >>>>life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once >>>>again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform >>>>another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating >>>>disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism. >>>>It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to >>>>always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough >>>>(whether it has been or not) which has led them to over >>>>compensate for things. >>>>http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu >>>> >>>>Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to control >>>>your own life. Or in your case, to have a life. >>> >>>I have more of a life >> >>No, you don't. You're a home-bound agoraphobic pot-head. 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. 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? |
Claire's morbidly obese Uncle Dreck, who (like about 25% of all
cuckolds) raised her, 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? >>>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. I judged the claims of vegan activists and found them to be distortions or outright lies. Shame you still stupidly parrot them. >>My position now is consistent > > Your position is based on a learning process. I tested the vegan claims and judged them to be wrong. >>>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. >>>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. You're somewhere between agnostic and doubting so I'm surprised you want me to extend you any leniency on theological grounds. Note you failed to address the issue of Jesus with respect to fishing, preparing a Passover lamb, and his own diet (which included meat). >>>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. So is your wanking which you've admitted. Do you think about David's belly slapping against Belinda's when you wank to porn while Belinda's out getting your crisps? I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and watch it every time the wife goes shopping. Derek "Wanksalot" Nash - http://tinyurl.com/nu3s 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 What is it about your ethical standards that allows you to share your wife with your twin? |
pearl wrote:
> Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . I have, and I do. As for your reliance on the Essene sect and their nutty beliefs (the Talmud is as hard on them as it is on Christians), remember the following: Most of the Essenes rejected marriage, not on account of any wrong in it but because they did not trust women and desired peace and harmony. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm And why should anyone trust you? You've even shaved your head to seduce at least one violent skinhead: That's why I'm gettin a divorce.Beware of the Chelsea THAT SHAVES only to lure a skinhead into her llair. Then she shows her true colours. It's a rainbow with cute little furry creatures you want to take a bat to. http://tinyurl.com/ldgg Regardless of your dubious "romantic pursuits," the Essenes are one of the most misrepresented groups in history. Many scholars believe that the community at Qumran that allegedly produced the Dead Sea Scrolls was an offshoot of the Essenes; however, this theory has been disputed by Norman Golb and other scholars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes <snip> |
See James Strut prated:
>>>then you're not, >> >>No matter what I called myself, I never was. I've never embraced animal >>rights. My politics are on the Right side of the mainstream, i.e., > > WAY far to the right... How so, and on what issue(s)? >>>exaggerate facts to your advantage, >> >>Examples? Of course not. You never offer examples, you just cast >>aspersions. > > It hardly needs to be substantiated. I asked for examples and suggested you would offer none. I was right. You only cast aspersions. >>>[Excerpted from above] >>> >>> >>>>(Speaking of girlfriends, have you found a new one or is the old one >>>>still at the end of a rope trying to figure out why you're such a >>>>dickhead?) >>> >>>What were you saying >> >>So you're between women then. > > Why do you want to know - So I can remind you of your posts in other newsgroups about your failed love life, and how that failure is of your doing or not doing. It's a shame she had to try to diagnose you herself. Poor girl. |
Bumbling Bob wrote:
>> >>>> <...> >>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>> over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls >>>> what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color, >>>> the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of >>>> life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once >>>> again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform >>>> another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating >>>> disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism. >>>> It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to >>>> always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough >>>> (whether it has been or not) which has led them to over >>>> compensate for things. >>>> http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu >>>> >>>> Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to >>>> control your own life. Or in your case, to have a life. >>> >>> No, many scientists (you're right not all, jut most) believe in >>> global warming. >> >> No, you're WRONG. What part of EVENLY do you not comprehend in EVENLY >> DIVIDED? Scientists have NOT reached a consensus on the relationship >> between human activities and global warming. > > Show me a set of proclaimed independent scientific organizations which > are evenly divided. Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global climate. The findings refute a widely reported study by a California “Gender and Science” professor who claimed that, based on her personal examination of 928 scientific papers on the issue, every single one reached the conclusion that global warming is real and primarily caused by humans. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Surveys have shown scientists split on the issue of whether global warming theory has been adequately proven... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change <...> > Being a vegan is healthy, (if you eat right), So is being an omnivore under that qualification, dumb ass. So is ANY diet under that qualification. > better environmentally, Ipse dixit. Monoculture cropping is hardly environmentally-friendly. It's one of the chief causes of soil erosion, dummy. > and doesn't support the meat manufacturing industry. Meat isn't manufactured. Livestock production is a valid part of agriculture. > More animals become extinct in the last 10 years, than the last 200. Ipse dixit, and entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. |
"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'. > I have, and I do. Sending them to Iraq? Try: http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a1760.htm . When are you going? > As for your reliance on the Essene sect and their nutty beliefs (the > Talmud is as hard on them as it is on Christians), remember the following: > > Most of the Essenes rejected marriage, not on account of any > wrong in it but because they did not trust women and desired > peace and harmony. > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm The Catholic Encyclopedia. ROTFL! What's that topic got to do with anything? Ahh.. predictably, leading into a slur based on HEARSAY, I see. Get lost, troll. <..> |
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. <snip> |
pearl wrote:
>>>Support your troops - http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . > > Your unethical edit is noted. It wasn't unethical. 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 > Was- http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/ . I won't allow you to get away with suggesting your communist front supports the troops. They never have. They never will. They're kooks way out on the fringe, which is why you're so attracted to them. > You have no credibility whatsoever, 'usual suspect'. Just because I don't believe in "veganism," "inner earth beings," "hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe, helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef, rain forest destruction, Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade), Stolen French flying saucers, Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery, Foot massage (as cure-all), Astrology, Numerology, Alien abduction, bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals), Leprechauns, Channeling, Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth, Sun gazing, Drinking urine as a cure-all, Chemtrails, AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory, Crop circles, sexual arousal by violent ex-convicts, participation in the skinhead subculture, the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts), crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories, Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news", or have an uncanny inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence doesn't mean I lack credibility, loony Lesley. |
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Car-less Orthorexic Skanky wrote: Still fishing. I was car-less in 2003. What does that say about this year? Or last year? Or next year? > >><...> > >> > >>>>>>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. I'm not a follower of reflexology but have heard people give me good first hand reports so I keep an open mind. It might work for real or it might be a placebo. I don't know. I do know that orthorexia, especially how described in one of those links you posted, was way too wacky and did not describe any vegan I know, either on or off the net. > >>>That page does not describe > >>>me. > >> > >>It does. To a T. > >> > >> > >>>>over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls > >>>>what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color, > >>>>the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of > >>>>life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once > >>>>again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform > >>>>another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating > >>>>disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism. > >>>>It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to > >>>>always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough > >>>>(whether it has been or not) which has led them to over > >>>>compensate for things. > >>>>http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu > >>>> > >>>>Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to control > >>>>your own life. Or in your case, to have a life. > >>> > >>>I have more of a life > >> > >>No, you don't. You're a home-bound agoraphobic pot-head. 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. The above is just you wanting to insult again. Figures. > 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? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
usual suspect wrote: > Bumbling Bob wrote: > >>> >>>>> <...> >>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> over the person's body and therefore, life. The OCD controls >>>>> what kind of food goes in, what shape the food is, the color, >>>>> the weight, the amount, what the person does in other areas of >>>>> life, and so on. By completing the compulsions, the person once >>>>> again feels "safe" or protected... until they have to perform >>>>> another task again. Often the two problems - OCD and eating >>>>> disorders - are linked through the problem of perfectionism. >>>>> It's been said that the compulsive actions are a response to >>>>> always feeling that nothing the person does is good enough >>>>> (whether it has been or not) which has led them to over >>>>> compensate for things. >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/8vkpu >>>>> >>>>> Your desire to be a vegan is a pathetic, meaningless gesture to >>>>> control your own life. Or in your case, to have a life. >>>> >>>> >>>> No, many scientists (you're right not all, jut most) believe in >>>> global warming. >>> >>> >>> No, you're WRONG. What part of EVENLY do you not comprehend in EVENLY >>> DIVIDED? Scientists have NOT reached a consensus on the relationship >>> between human activities and global warming. >> >> >> Show me a set of proclaimed independent scientific organizations which >> are evenly divided. > > > Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming > A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has > revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are > responsible for changes in global climate. The findings refute a > widely reported study by a California “Gender and Science” > professor who claimed that, based on her personal examination of > 928 scientific papers on the issue, every single one reached the > conclusion that global warming is real and primarily caused by > humans. > http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Thank you for the article. It is not research. No numbers are raised and the issues are not addressed > > Surveys have shown scientists split on the issue of whether > global warming theory has been adequately proven... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change > > <...> > A much better article. It is filled with quotes such as he American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said: and no, I will not proofread all this. It is mostly cut and pasted from YOUR sources. There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... The report by the IPCC stated that the global mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.4°C-5.8°C in the next 100 years... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders. [5] and Surveys have shown scientists split on the issue of whether global warming theory has been adequately proven, but with a majority agreeing that global warming will occur in future if human behavior does not change. or ....a response of a value of 1 indicates a strong level of agreement with the statement of certainty that global warming is already underway or will occur without modification to human behavior... the mean response for the entire sample was 3.3 indicating a slight tendency towards the position that global warming has indeed been detected and is underway.... Regarding global warming as being a possible future event, there is a higher expression of confidence as indicated by the mean of 2.6. Gallup, 1992 According to a 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, 60% thought global average temperatures had increased, 25% did not know, and 15% did not think so. 66% were of the opinion that human-induced greenhouse warming was occurring, 24% did now know, and 10% did not agree. Of this 66%, 63% (or 41% of the total) said the current evidence substantiates the phenomenon, 32% said it doesn't and 5% didn't know. The poll was conducted for the Center for Science, Technology and Media Now who funds of your next unbiased sample Citizens for a Sound Economy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) is a conservative political group operating in the United States, whose self-described mission is "to fight for less government, lower taxes, and less regulation." The group produces more than 100 policy papers each year, delivering them to many congressional offices, sending out thousands of pieces of mail, and getting coverage of its viewpoints in thousands of news articles around the nation. The group's representatives have appeared on hundreds of radio and television shows and published hundreds op-ed articles arguing that "environmental conservation requires a commonsense approach that limits the scope of government," acid rain is a "so-called threat [that] is largely nonexistent," and global warming is "a verdict in search of evidence." [edit] Funding The CSE has a related funding arm, the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation (CSEF). According to internal documents leaked to the Washington Post, 85 percent of CSE's 1998 revenues of CSE's $16.2 million came not from its 250,000 members, but from contributions of $250,000 and up from large corporations. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Between 1985 and 2001, CSE received $15,993,712 in 104 separate grants from only twelve foundations: * Castle Rock Foundation * Earhart Foundation * JM Foundation * Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation, Charles G. Koch Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Foundation) * John M. Olin Foundation * Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation * Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc. * Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage) Other CSE funders (not included in above funding total) have included: * Archer Daniels Midland * DaimlerChrysler * Enron * General Electric * Koch Industries * F.M. Kirby Foundation * Philip Morris * U.S. West Clearly not unbiased groups. Even within that group 60% thought global average temperatures had increased, Gallup, 1992 According to a 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, 60% thought global average temperatures had increased, 25% did not know, and 15% did not think so. 66% were of the opinion that human-induced greenhouse warming was occurring, 24% did now know, and 10% did not agree. Of this 66%, 63% (or 41% of the total) said the current evidence substantiates the phenomenon, 32% said it doesn't and 5% didn't know. The poll was conducted for the Center for Science, Technology and Media Survey of US state climatologists In 1997, a survey was conducted by Citizens for a Sound Economy, an organization that lobbies against the adoption of policy measures to slow global warming. It claimed that 36 of America's 48 official state climatologists participated in the survey. Unfortunately neither the original survey questions nor the complete responses are available, only a press release describing it. The survey is reported to have found that by a margin of 44% to 17%, state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The survey further found that 58% of the climatologists disagreed with then President Clinton's >>>> Here is your only positive statistic, from a heavily biased sample assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real", while only 36% agreed with the assertion. Eighty-nine percent of the climatologists agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused only by man-made factors," and 61 percent said that the historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures PCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001 The most recent IPCC report is Climate Change 2001, the Third Assessment Report (TAR). The TAR consists of four reports, three of them from the Working Groups: * Working Group I: The Scientific Basis [28] * Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [29] * Working Group III: Mitigation [30] * Synthesis Report [31] The "headlines" from the summary for policymakers[32] in The Scientific Basis we 1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased) 2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly produce negative radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century) are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels." >> Being a vegan is healthy, (if you eat right), > > > So is being an omnivore under that qualification, dumb ass. So is ANY > diet under that qualification. > >> better environmentally, > > > Ipse dixit. Monoculture cropping is hardly environmentally-friendly. > It's one of the chief causes of soil erosion, dummy. > >> and doesn't support the meat manufacturing industry. > > > Meat isn't manufactured. Livestock production is a valid part of > agriculture. > >> More animals become extinct in the last 10 years, than the last 200. > > > Ipse dixit, and entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. PCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995 Climate Change 1995, the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) was finished in 1996. It is split into four parts: * A synthesis to help interpret UNFCCC article 2. * The Science of Climate Change (WG I) * Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change (WG II) * Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change (WG III) Each of the last three parts was completed by a separate working group, and each has a Summary for Policymakers (SfP) that represents a consensus of national representatives. The SfP of the WG I report contains headings: 1. Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase 2. Anthropogenic aerosols tend to produce negative radiative forcings 3. Climate has changed over the past century (air temperature has increased by between 0.3 and 0.6 °C since the late 19th century; this estimate has not significantly changed since the 1990 report). 4. The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate (considerable progress since the 1990 report in distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic influences on climate, because of: including aerosols; coupled models; pattern-based studies) 5. Climate is expected to continue to change in the future (increasing realism of simulations increases confidence; important uncertainties remain but are taken into account in the range of model projections) 6. There are still many uncertainties (estimates of future emissions and biogeochemical cycling; models; instrume lobal warming is a term used to describe the increase over time of the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2°C since the late 19th century, and that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", most prominently the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). A small minority of qualified scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures. Uncertainties do exist regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and a hotly contested political and public debate exists over what actions, if any, should be taken in light of global warming. Over the past century or so the global (land and sea) temperature has increased by 0.6 ± 0.2°C [4]. The effects of global warming are increasingly visible. At the same time, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280 parts per million in 1800 to around 315 in 1958 and 367 in 2000. Other greenhouse gas emissions have also increased. Future CO2 levels cannot be predicted with any precision, since they depend on uncertain economic, sociological and technological developments. The IPCC SRES gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios [5], ranging from about 400 to 1000 ppmv by 2100. Climate models, driven by estimates of increasing carbon dioxide and to a lesser extent by generally decreasing sulphate aerosols, predict that temperatures will increase (with a range of 1.4°C to 5.8°C for change between 1990 and 2100 [6]). Much of this uncertainty results from not knowing future CO2 emissions, but there is also uncertainty about the accuracy of climate models. Climate commitment studies predict that even if levels of greenhouse gases and solar activity were to remain constant, the global climate is committed to 0.5°C of warming over the next one hundred years due to the lag in warming caused by the oceans. Although the scientific consensus is clear on the general conclusions - enough to persuade the governments of more than 150 countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol - there are issues about just how much greenhouse gas emissions warm the planet. Uncertainties remain and are emphasized by politicians, corporations, and others questioning the costs needed to mitigate global warming; however, businesses likely to benefit from Kyoto provisions are accepting global warming as real and that action is needed. The scientific consensus is questioned by a small minority of scientists and peer reviewed articles. Causes of global warming See main articles: attribution of recent climate change, scientific opinion on climate change The climate system varies both through natural, "internal" processes as well as in response to variations in external "forcing" from both human and non-human causes, including changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles), solar activity, and volcanic emissions as well as greenhouse gases. See Climate change for further discussion of these forcing processes. Climatologists accept that the earth has warmed recently. Somewhat more controversial is what may have caused this change. See attribution of recent climate change for further discussion. Atmospheric scientists know that adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to an atmosphere, with no other changes, will tend to make a planet's surface warmer (this is known as "climate forcing", or the Callendar effect). Indeed, greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be 30°C lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere will result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth, on average. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of CO2 will be, and whether changes in water vapor, clouds, the biosphere and various other climate factors will cancel out its warming effect. The observed warming of the Earth over the past 50 years appears to be at odds with the skeptics' theory that climate feedbacks will cancel out the warming. [edit] Greenhouse gas emissions Carbon dioxide during the last 400,000 years and the rapid rise since the Industrial Revolution Enlarge Carbon dioxide during the last 400,000 years and the rapid rise since the Industrial Revolution Coal-burning power plants, automobile exhausts, factory smokestacks, and other waste vents of the human environment contribute about 22 billion tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the earth's atmosphere each year. About half of human emissions has remained in the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased by 31% above pre-industrial levels since 1750. This is considerably higher than at any time during the last 420,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last attained 40 million years ago. About three-quarters of the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere during the past 20 years is due to fossil fuel burning. The rest is predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation [8]. The longest continuous instrumental measurement of CO2 mixing ratios began in 1958 at Mauna Loa. Since then, the annually averaged value has increased monotonically from 315 ppm (see the Keeling Curve). The concentration reached 376ppm in 2003. South Pole records show similar growth [9]. The monthly measurements display small seasonal oscillations Scientists have studied this issue with computer models of the climate (see below). These models are accepted by the scientific community as being valid only after it has been shown that they do a good job of simulating known climate variations, such as the difference between summer and winter, the North Atlantic Oscillation, or El Niño. All climate models that pass these tests also predict that the net effect of adding CO2 will be a warmer climate in the future. The amount of predicted warming varies by model, however, which probably reflects the way different models depict clouds differently. As noted above, climate models have been used by the IPCC to anticipate a warming of 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100 [16]. They have also been used to help determine the causes of recent climate change by comparing the observed changes to those that the models predict from various natural and human derived forcing factors. The most recent climate models can produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century. These models do not unambiguously attribute the warming that occurred from approximately 1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or human effects; however, they suggest that the warming since 1975 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Adding simulation of the ability of the environment to sink carbon dioxide suggested that rising fossil fuel emissions would decrease absorption from the atmosphere, amplifying climate warming beyond previous predictions, although "Globally, the amplification is small at the end of the 21st century in this model because of its low transient climate response and the near-cancellation between large regional changes in the hydrologic and ecosystem responses."[17]. Another suggested mechanism whereby a warming trend may be amplified involves the thawing of tundra, which can release the potent greenhouse gas, methane, that is trapped in large quantities in permafrost and ice clathrates [18]. Uncertainties in the representation of clouds are a dominant source of uncertainty in existing models, despite clear progress in modeling of clouds [19]. There is also an ongoing discussion as to whether climate models are neglecting important indirect and feedback effects of solar variability. Further, all such models are limited by available computational power, so that they may overlook changes related to small scale processes and weather (e.g. storm systems, hurricanes). However, despite these and other limitations, the IPCC considers climate models "to be suitable tools to provide useful projections of future climates" [20]. [edit] Issues Effects Main article: Effects of global warming The predicted effects of global warming are many and various, both for the environment and for human life. The primary effect of global warming is increasing carbon dioxide and increasing global average temperature. From this flow a variety of secondary effects, including sea level rise, impacts on agriculture, reductions in the ozone layer (see below), increased extreme weather, and the spread of disease. In some cases, the effects may already be being experienced, although it is generally difficult to attribute specific natural phenomena to long-term global warming. The extent and likelihood of these consequences is a matter of considerable controversy. A summary of possible effects and our current understanding can be found in the report of the IPCC Working Group II.[29] [edit] Effects on ecosystems Secondary evidence of global warming — lessened snow cover, rising sea levels, weather changes — provides examples of consequences of global warming that may influence not only human activities but also the ecosystems. Increasing global temperature means that ecosystems may change; some species may be forced out of their habitats (possibly to extinction) because of changing conditions, while others may flourish. Few of the terrestrial ecoregions on Earth could expect to be unaffected. Spread of disease It has been claimed that global warming will probably extend the favourable zones for vectors conveying infectious diseases such as malaria. An example of this may be the recent extension to the north Mediterranean region of bluetongue disease in domesticated ruminants associated with mite bites. Despite the disappearance of malaria in most temperate regions, the indigenous mosquitoes that transmitted it were never eliminated and remain common in some areas. Thus, although temperature is important in the transmission dynamics of malaria, many other factors are influential.[30] Main article: Mitigation of global warming "Mitigation of global warming" covers all actions aimed at reducing the extent or likelihood of global warming. The world's primary international agreement on combating climate change is the Kyoto Protocol. Various other strategies include development of new technologies, renewable energy, biodiesel, electric cars (and hybrids), and fuel cells, Energy conservation, carbon taxes and carbon sequestration schemes. Adaption stategies accept some warming as a given and focus on preventing or reducing undesirable consequences: for example defending against rising sea levels or ensuring food security. Because human activity is strongly correlated with global warming, and is asserted to be the main cause, it is interesting to develop consideration about the possible (psycho) sociological reactions independently of the political arena with the topic of sociological considerations about greenhouse gases. from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 PCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ for the rest of us to listen. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, your postings show mostly a belief in global warming caused by greenhouse gases. A few scientists dissagree, but are hardly evenly split. They suggest that greenhouse gasses from human activity must be acted upon with potential devestating consequences. Global warming is real. We certainly don't understand all the factors but all you did is prove my point. The potentials are devestating. Your West Coast of Florida may well be under water. BTW, I didn't move to Florida on my own. I was recruited and twice I said no. Finally gave in when the package was too good. Later I took a telecommuting job. I also sat in on all the Vision 2000 planning meetings. The population's number 1 point was to protect the ocean front from development. Instead, they built high density condoes up and down the beach. I argue for controlled growth, low density planned communities. Instead all you see are high density buidings going up. It is interesting that developers sit on the zoning boards. If you want to keep Florida a great place, zone it properly, not let it become on big massive urban sprawl. Buy the right of ways for public tansportation now. Even if you don't build it yet. Ever been on I95 South. There can be no arguement that trains should not run up the Eastern Corridor. The tracks are already there. And the massive use of sprinkler systems will cause salt water intrusion. The major crop grown in the US is grass. Our incredible fertile land is being wasted. Of course, the grass is not native to Florida, requires truckloads of chemicals which enter our bio system. Could we possibly agree that the future of Florida must be protected and planned? BTW. I want to congratulate you on making your own juice. And most of your writing is excellent with minor mistakes that people would ignore if you didn't take such delight in pointing out minor typos or other minor mistakes in cutting and pasting. All I can wonder is why you spend so much time fighting here, making a fool of yourself. You obviously have some real potential. Why not use it for good? |
>>Car-less Orthorexic Skanky wrote:
> > Still fishing. Not fishing. It's already established. > I was car-less in 2003. You still are. <...> >>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. |
Bumbling Bob wrote:
> BTW. I want to congratulate you on making your own juice. What I put in my body is my own business, not yours. So **** off. > And most of your writing is excellent All of it is when compared against yours. > All I can wonder is why you spend so much time fighting here, 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. 2. I enjoy discussing these issues. 3. I'm amused by goofy twits like you and Skanky. > You obviously have some real potential. It's more than potential, dummy. > Why not use it for good? I believe I am. Why do you see things only in terms of "people who agree with me are good, people who disagree with me are bad"? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter