Obviously, a rabbit is not a chicken. The the USDA doesn't seem to
recognize the fact. They do what is good for business.
If anyone wants to argue that a rabbit is a chicken be my guest.

Also, read the site and learn about modern egg production.

Yes, there still are some small farmers. In 1900 most of Americans were
farmers. During the depression, most of the land was bought up by a
few monopolies. They do not work in your interest. They only
understand your pocketbook and it's potential actions.

My brother raised tabbits for food for a while, it was a healthier form
of meat, but could not bring himself to kill them.



United Poultry Concerns PO Box 150 Machipongo, VA 23405

Phone: 757-678-7875 Fax: 757-678-5070 www.upc-online.org

August 11, 2005

Rabbits Renamed "Poultry" by the USDA: Your Help is Urgently Needed

Like birds, rabbits will be slaughtered fully conscious

A full-page ad in the July 28th edition of The New York Times (sponsored
by The Humane Farming Association, Animal Rights International, and the
Animal Welfare Institute) notes that the US Department of Agriculture
has classified rabbits as "poultry" to avoid including them under the
1958 Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, from which "poultry" are excluded.

For more information, see the ad as a PDF (60k) at

http://www.hfa.org/about/rabbits.pdf

What Can I Do?

Please contact the USDA today and voice your dismay at this new
classification of rabbits. While expressing your concern about rabbits,
please urge the USDA that ALL farmed animals including chickens,
turkeys, and ducks should be included under the Humane Methods of
Slaughter Act. Write to:

Mike Johanns, Secretary of Agriculture

US Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Ave SW

Room 200-A

Washington, DC 20250

Phone: 202-720-3631

Fax: 202-720-2166

Email:

Beach Runner wrote:
> Obviously, a rabbit is not a chicken.

It's okay, rabbits taste like chicken.

usual suspect wrote:

> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> Obviously, a rabbit is not a chicken.
>
>
> It's okay, rabbits taste like chicken.

The reason is so they don't have to follow any human laws.
You're in a vegan group, with people who care about the pain
and suffering of animals. Your insensitivity is obvious.

usual suspect wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> Obviously, a rabbit is not a chicken.
>
>
> It's okay, rabbits taste like chicken.


It not ok if you care about the suffering of rabbits. The reason for
this was so they don't have to follow any laws regarding humane treatment.

This is a vegan group, and generally we care about suffering of animals.

It's too bad you've lost any caring you might once have had. You don't
belong here, since your purpose is to cause pain and hurt and oppose the
purpose of the group.

Beach Runner wrote:
>>> Obviously, a rabbit is not a chicken.
>>
>> It's okay, rabbits taste like chicken.
>
> It not ok

Yes, it is.

> if you care about the suffering of rabbits.

You don't give half a shit about rabbits, Bob. If you did, you would
avoid ALL commercially grown grains, legumes, and vegetables because
rabbits are among the animals killed in producing those foods. Rabbits
die during the planting, irrigation, harvesting, transporting, and
storage of all those foods. They die both intentionally and collaterally.

> This is a vegan group, and generally we care about suffering of animals.

No. You don't. You only care that people eat certain animals, but you
don't care that animals die in the course of producing your own diet.

usual suspect wrote:

> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>>>> Obviously, a rabbit is not a chicken.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's okay, rabbits taste like chicken.
>>
>>
>> It not ok
>
>
> Yes, it is.
>
>> if you care about the suffering of rabbits.
>
>
> You don't give half a shit about rabbits, Bob. If you did, you would
> avoid ALL commercially grown grains, legumes, and vegetables because
> rabbits are among the animals killed in producing those foods. Rabbits
> die during the planting, irrigation, harvesting, transporting, and
> storage of all those foods. They die both intentionally and collaterally.
>
>> This is a vegan group, and generally we care about suffering of animals.
>
>
> No. You don't. You only care that people eat certain animals, but you
> don't care that animals die in the course of producing your own diet.


I generally pay the difference for organic produce. Yes, I care about
animals losing habitat and collateral damage.

usual suspect wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>>>> Obviously, a rabbit is not a chicken.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's okay, rabbits taste like chicken.
>>
>>
>> It not ok
>
>
> Yes, it is.
>
>> if you care about the suffering of rabbits.+


FWIW, we need to destroy less habitat for a vegetarian diet.

Vegan is also a set or principles. On is caring about animals.

MY news reader only let your posts be marked seen.
>
>
> You don't give half a shit about rabbits, Bob. If you did, you would
> avoid ALL commercially grown grains, legumes, and vegetables because
> rabbits are among the animals killed in producing those foods. Rabbits
> die during the planting, irrigation, harvesting, transporting, and
> storage of all those foods. They die both intentionally and collaterally.

I avoid commercial products. I wish to support natural farmers, and I
don't want the extra pesticides.

>
>> This is a vegan group, and generally we care about suffering of animals.
>
>
> No. You don't. You only care that people eat certain animals, but you
> don't care that animals die in the course of producing your own diet.



Yes, actually, we need strong action. We have a population bomb. We
need to protect what little pristine habitat there is.

"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>>>> Obviously, a rabbit is not a chicken.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's okay, rabbits taste like chicken.
>>>
>>>
>>> It not ok
>>
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>>> if you care about the suffering of rabbits.
>>
>>
>> You don't give half a shit about rabbits, Bob. If you did, you
>> would avoid ALL commercially grown grains, legumes, and
>> vegetables because rabbits are among the animals killed in
>> producing those foods. Rabbits die during the planting,
>> irrigation, harvesting, transporting, and storage of all those
>> foods. They die both intentionally and collaterally.
>>
>>> This is a vegan group, and generally we care about suffering
>>> of animals.
>>
>>
>> No. You don't. You only care that people eat certain animals,
>> but you don't care that animals die in the course of producing
>> your own diet.
>
>
> I generally pay the difference for organic produce. Yes, I
> care about animals losing habitat and collateral damage.
===============================
LOL Again, you really are this stupid, aren't you, hypocrite?
Organic does not mean pesticide-free, cruelty-free, or
death-free. This is just another of your ignorant claims like
your water useage ones, killer. Do try to post some truth once
in awhile, killer. What "organic" producer do you get your
internet service from, hypocrite?

"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>>>> Obviously, a rabbit is not a chicken.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's okay, rabbits taste like chicken.
>>>
>>>
>>> It not ok
>>
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>>> if you care about the suffering of rabbits.+
>
>
> FWIW, we need to destroy less habitat for a vegetarian diet.
=============================
Prove it fool. ALL crop production is habitat and envirnomental
destruction, killer. There are meats you can eat that require no
such impact on habitat or the envirnment. So, again you have
lied. Why the complete absence of truth in anything you say?


>
> Vegan is also a set or principles. On is caring about animals.
====================
And each of your inane posts prove that YOU care nothing about
the unnecessary death and suffering of animals for YOUR
entertainment. Why is that hypocrite?

btw, where are your water calculations, killer?

>
> MY news reader only let your posts be marked seen.
>>
>>
>> You don't give half a shit about rabbits, Bob. If you did, you
>> would avoid ALL commercially grown grains, legumes, and
>> vegetables because rabbits are among the animals killed in
>> producing those foods. Rabbits die during the planting,
>> irrigation, harvesting, transporting, and storage of all those
>> foods. They die both intentionally and collaterally.
>
> I avoid commercial products. I wish to support natural
> farmers, and I don't want the extra pesticides.
===========================
Organic uses peasticides you ignorant fool. Some even more toxic
than synthetic ones, and they use far more of them. You really
should try to post the truth once in a while, killer.

>
>>
>>> This is a vegan group, and generally we care about suffering
>>> of animals.
>>
>>
>> No. You don't. You only care that people eat certain animals,
>> but you don't care that animals die in the course of producing
>> your own diet.
>
>
>
> Yes, actually, we need strong action. We have a population
> bomb. We need to protect what little pristine habitat there
> is.
================
And your mono-culture crops are destroying it, fool.

btw, where are your water calculations, killer?

Beach Runner wrote:
>>>>> Obviously, a rabbit is not a chicken.
>>>>
>>>> It's okay, rabbits taste like chicken.
>>>
>>> It not ok
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>>> if you care about the suffering of rabbits.+
>
> FWIW, we need to destroy less habitat for a vegetarian diet.

What kind of habitat was this before it became a wheat field?
http://www.phototour.minneapolis.mn.us/pics/3532.jpg

> Vegan is also a set or principles.

Sham principles.

> On is caring about animals.

Bullshit. It's primarily anti-human, and the "pro-animal" part of it is
a veneer which never seems to hide veganism's prevalent misanthropy.

> MY news reader only let your posts be marked seen.

So you lied that you're not reading my posts anymore.

>> You don't give half a shit about rabbits, Bob. If you did, you would
>> avoid ALL commercially grown grains, legumes, and vegetables because
>> rabbits are among the animals killed in producing those foods. Rabbits
>> die during the planting, irrigation, harvesting, transporting, and
>> storage of all those foods. They die both intentionally and collaterally.
>
> I avoid commercial products.

I don't believe you.

> I wish to support natural farmers, and I
> don't want the extra pesticides.

By "natural" do you mean "organic"? This is another of your delusions
(and there appear to be many).

Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and
many of them are banned under the Rotterdam Convention:
The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries –
including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect
once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list
included 22 organic pesticides considered to be *highly toxic*...
http://www.nex.org.br/english/ denucias_envenenamento.htm

[Highly toxic meaning those organic pesticides affect non-target
species, including humans.]

An organic pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane is banned
because of its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its
initials: DDT.
http://www.epa.gov/history/pub lications/formative6.htm

[DDT was linked to the death of bald eagles, a non-target species.]

Organic pesticides kill fish:
While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only
slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other
animals. For instance, *the organic pesticide ryania is very
toxic to fish*.
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsh eets/HGIC2756.htm

[Fish are a non-target species.]

Organic pesticides kill a variety of *non-target species*, and foods
grown organically are not labeled "pesticide free":
Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone
*kills fish*. Copper sulphate *kills many creatures*. In California,
an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all
pesticide use. For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call
their produce "pesticide free."
http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocp mag/pestruth.html
See also:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cf m?fuseaction=publication_detai ls&id=1677

Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its
conventional counterpart:
Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but
"natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide
sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic
agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the
*eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful
and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*."

Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper
sulphate used by organic farmers is *toxic to humans, very toxic
to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to
small mammals*.
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/ articles/2000/sep_8_00.htm

Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a
variety of species including humans:
There have been reports of *human suicide* resulting from the
ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate
is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is *toxic to aquatic
invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters*. Based on data
on the potential hazards posed by this material to the
*slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass*, and in
an effort to *minimize exposure of endangered species* to this
material, applicators in some counties are required to consult
EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate.
http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm

Organic pesticides ARE toxins:
Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic
farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills
pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even
though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has
questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of
various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that
paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper
compounds that can be *tough on other organisms and the
environment*. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the
pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on
a wide range of insects. *Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to
mammals* and *highly toxic to fish*. It is *illegal to apply them
around ponds or waterways*. So even though it says "organic", it
can still *pack a nasty punch*.
http://www.springledgefarm.com /glossary.htm

.....
Leake candidly criticized *organic farmers* for using nasty but
"natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide
sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic
agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the
*eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful
and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*."

Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper
sulphate *used by organic farmers* is *toxic to humans, very toxic
to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to
small mammals*.

-------------

>>> This is a vegan group, and generally we care about suffering of animals.
>>
>> No. You don't. You only care that people eat certain animals, but you
>> don't care that animals die in the course of producing your own diet.
>
> Yes, actually, we need strong action.

No, we don't, you political radical.

> We have a population bomb. We
> need to protect what little pristine habitat there is.

Nature never has been "pristine," except to disinformed, emotive,
girlish wide-eyed leftists (like you!) with Utopian delusions.

Beach Runner wrote:

Why do you reply to the same ****ing messages over and over and over?

>>>>> Obviously, a rabbit is not a chicken.
>>>>
>>>> It's okay, rabbits taste like chicken.
>>>
>>> It not ok
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>>> if you care about the suffering of rabbits.
>>
>> You don't give half a shit about rabbits, Bob. If you did, you would
>> avoid ALL commercially grown grains, legumes, and vegetables because
>> rabbits are among the animals killed in producing those foods. Rabbits
>> die during the planting, irrigation, harvesting, transporting, and
>> storage of all those foods. They die both intentionally and collaterally.
>>
>>> This is a vegan group, and generally we care about suffering of animals.
>>
>> No. You don't. You only care that people eat certain animals, but you
>> don't care that animals die in the course of producing your own diet.
>
> I generally pay the difference for organic produce.

You're the reason the organic industry is taking off. The organic
industry feeds off naive, gullible dolts like you.

[O]rganic pesticides have very real drawbacks. Most of them are
broad spectrum, meaning they kill beneficial insects (just like
those dangerous synthetic chemicals). They are not as thoroughly
tested as synthetics. Batch strength can vary. And, perhaps most
dangerous of all, they are perceived by the gardening public as
safe. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
http://www.headlice.org/news/2005/pesticidemyth.htm


Even if a product is considered to be organic, it is still a
pesticide. It is important to be careful when using any
pesticide, even organic or natural pesticides. Just because a
product is thought to be organic, or natural, does not mean that
it is not toxic. Some organic pesticides are as toxic, or even
more toxic, than many synthetic chemical pesticides. Organic
pesticides have specific modes of action, just as do synthetic
pesticides.
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm


As new organic labeling laws take effect this week, the USDA has
pointed out that it "makes no claim that organically produced
food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced
food." However, this has not stopped organic marketers from
making such claims.
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../oct_22_02.htm


The claim that organic food slows global warming is rendered
even more foolish by the fact that all those extra cattle
[required for manure to fertilize organic crops] would
emit lots of methane, a greenhouse gas that's 20 times as potent
as CO2. More cattle to produce manure for organic farming would
not only mean cutting all our trees, but additional clouds of
methane trapping heat in the atmosphere. Ms. Hammond even warns
us about methane from cattle when she tells us not to eat meat.

Great. A billion extra cattle will eat our vegetation down to
dust, and we won't even eat the meat.
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../dec_31_04.htm


The latest research from the University of Minnesota renews
concerns that organic produce has higher bacterial risks than
conventional fruits and vegetables. The Minnesota researchers
found significantly more E. coli and more Salmonella bacteria on
organic produce than conventional.

But the researchers themselves say, "Don't worry." They say that
finding more E. coli bacteria on organic foods fertilized with
manure doesn't mean the organic stuff is more dangerous.
Instead, it merely "supports the idea that organic produce is
more susceptible to fecal contamination."
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../may_26_04.htm


"It doesn't matter what's true, it only matters what consumers
believe." Sadly, these are the words of Horizon Organic Dairy
CEO Chuck Marcy commenting this year to dairy marketing
professionals on consumer misperceptions regarding non-existent
health and safety benefits of milk marketed as organic.
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...june_18_03.htm

See also:
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...3/feb_6_03.htm
Etc.

> Yes, I care about animals losing habitat

No, you don't. You moved from an urban area in or near NYC to the Tampa
area. The Tampa-St Pete area's growth rate has caused extensive loss of
habitat, and the effects of that area's growth are felt along the rest
of the Gulf Coast.

> and collateral damage.

Liar.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
> Beach Runner wrote:

snips...


>>
>> I generally pay the difference for organic produce.
================
He'll ignore this information the way he ignored the lys he made
about water useage per pound of beef.
It doesn't fit within his brainwashing, so to him it must not
exist.


>
> You're the reason the organic industry is taking off. The
> organic industry feeds off naive, gullible dolts like you.
>
> [O]rganic pesticides have very real drawbacks. Most of them are
> broad spectrum, meaning they kill beneficial insects (just like
> those dangerous synthetic chemicals). They are not as
> thoroughly
> tested as synthetics. Batch strength can vary. And, perhaps
> most
> dangerous of all, they are perceived by the gardening public as
> safe. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
> http://www.headlice.org/news/2005/pesticidemyth.htm
>
>
> Even if a product is considered to be organic, it is still a
> pesticide. It is important to be careful when using any
> pesticide, even organic or natural pesticides. Just because a
> product is thought to be organic, or natural, does not mean
> that
> it is not toxic. Some organic pesticides are as toxic, or even
> more toxic, than many synthetic chemical pesticides. Organic
> pesticides have specific modes of action, just as do synthetic
> pesticides.
> http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
>
>
> As new organic labeling laws take effect this week, the USDA
> has
> pointed out that it "makes no claim that organically produced
> food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced
> food." However, this has not stopped organic marketers from
> making such claims.
> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../oct_22_02.htm
>
>
> The claim that organic food slows global warming is rendered
> even more foolish by the fact that all those extra cattle
> [required for manure to fertilize organic crops] would
> emit lots of methane, a greenhouse gas that's 20 times as
> potent
> as CO2. More cattle to produce manure for organic farming would
> not only mean cutting all our trees, but additional clouds of
> methane trapping heat in the atmosphere. Ms. Hammond even warns
> us about methane from cattle when she tells us not to eat meat.
>
> Great. A billion extra cattle will eat our vegetation down to
> dust, and we won't even eat the meat.
> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../dec_31_04.htm
>
>
> The latest research from the University of Minnesota renews
> concerns that organic produce has higher bacterial risks than
> conventional fruits and vegetables. The Minnesota researchers
> found significantly more E. coli and more Salmonella bacteria
> on
> organic produce than conventional.
>
> But the researchers themselves say, "Don't worry." They say
> that
> finding more E. coli bacteria on organic foods fertilized with
> manure doesn't mean the organic stuff is more dangerous.
> Instead, it merely "supports the idea that organic produce is
> more susceptible to fecal contamination."
> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../may_26_04.htm
>
>
> "It doesn't matter what's true, it only matters what consumers
> believe." Sadly, these are the words of Horizon Organic Dairy
> CEO Chuck Marcy commenting this year to dairy marketing
> professionals on consumer misperceptions regarding non-existent
> health and safety benefits of milk marketed as organic.
> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...june_18_03.htm
>
> See also:
> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...3/feb_6_03.htm
> Etc.
>
>> Yes, I care about animals losing habitat
>
> No, you don't. You moved from an urban area in or near NYC to
> the Tampa area. The Tampa-St Pete area's growth rate has caused
> extensive loss of habitat, and the effects of that area's
> growth are felt along the rest of the Gulf Coast.
>
>> and collateral damage.
>
> Liar.

usual suspect wrote:

> Beach Runner wrote:
>
> Why do you reply to the same ****ing messages over and over and over?
>
>>>>>> Obviously, a rabbit is not a chicken.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's okay, rabbits taste like chicken.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It not ok
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it is.
>>>
>>>> if you care about the suffering of rabbits.
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't give half a shit about rabbits, Bob. If you did, you would
>>> avoid ALL commercially grown grains, legumes, and vegetables because
>>> rabbits are among the animals killed in producing those foods.
>>> Rabbits die during the planting, irrigation, harvesting,
>>> transporting, and storage of all those foods. They die both
>>> intentionally and collaterally.
>>>
>>>> This is a vegan group, and generally we care about suffering of
>>>> animals.
>>>
>>>
>>> No. You don't. You only care that people eat certain animals, but you
>>> don't care that animals die in the course of producing your own diet.
>>
>>
>> I generally pay the difference for organic produce.
>
>
> You're the reason the organic industry is taking off. The organic
> industry feeds off naive, gullible dolts like you.
>
> [O]rganic pesticides have very real drawbacks. Most of them are
> broad spectrum, meaning they kill beneficial insects (just like
> those dangerous synthetic chemicals). They are not as thoroughly
> tested as synthetics. Batch strength can vary. And, perhaps most
> dangerous of all, they are perceived by the gardening public as
> safe. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
> http://www.headlice.org/news/2005/pesticidemyth.htm
>
>
> Even if a product is considered to be organic, it is still a
> pesticide. It is important to be careful when using any
> pesticide, even organic or natural pesticides. Just because a
> product is thought to be organic, or natural, does not mean that
> it is not toxic. Some organic pesticides are as toxic, or even
> more toxic, than many synthetic chemical pesticides. Organic
> pesticides have specific modes of action, just as do synthetic
> pesticides.
> http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
>
>
> As new organic labeling laws take effect this week, the USDA has
> pointed out that it "makes no claim that organically produced
> food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced
> food." However, this has not stopped organic marketers from
> making such claims.
> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../oct_22_02.htm
>
>
> The claim that organic food slows global warming is rendered
> even more foolish by the fact that all those extra cattle
> [required for manure to fertilize organic crops] would
> emit lots of methane, a greenhouse gas that's 20 times as potent
> as CO2. More cattle to produce manure for organic farming would
> not only mean cutting all our trees, but additional clouds of
> methane trapping heat in the atmosphere. Ms. Hammond even warns
> us about methane from cattle when she tells us not to eat meat.
>
> Great. A billion extra cattle will eat our vegetation down to
> dust, and we won't even eat the meat.
> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../dec_31_04.htm
>
>
> The latest research from the University of Minnesota renews
> concerns that organic produce has higher bacterial risks than
> conventional fruits and vegetables. The Minnesota researchers
> found significantly more E. coli and more Salmonella bacteria on
> organic produce than conventional.
>
> But the researchers themselves say, "Don't worry." They say that
> finding more E. coli bacteria on organic foods fertilized with
> manure doesn't mean the organic stuff is more dangerous.
> Instead, it merely "supports the idea that organic produce is
> more susceptible to fecal contamination."
> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../may_26_04.htm
>
>
> "It doesn't matter what's true, it only matters what consumers
> believe." Sadly, these are the words of Horizon Organic Dairy
> CEO Chuck Marcy commenting this year to dairy marketing
> professionals on consumer misperceptions regarding non-existent
> health and safety benefits of milk marketed as organic.
> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...june_18_03.htm
>
> See also:
> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...3/feb_6_03.htm
> Etc.
>
>> Yes, I care about animals losing habitat
>
>
> No, you don't. You moved from an urban area in or near NYC to the Tampa
> area. The Tampa-St Pete area's growth rate has caused extensive loss of
> habitat, and the effects of that area's growth are felt along the rest
> of the Gulf Coast.
>
>> and collateral damage.
>
>
> Liar.

I already told you I live on the Space Coast. Obviously it appears my
provider (which it does not support) I to post from the Space Coast.
make it appear from Tampa.

Where I go to the zoning board in fact the Vision 2000 said not to
build on the ocean front. Instead they built and destroyed the ocean
front. Obviously they ignored their committees. There were fast bucks
to be made, regardless of the environmental consequences.

Damn, my typing it horribly effect and I hit one a and get many.

Beach Runner wrote:

> Damn, my typing it horribly effect and I hit one a and get many.

Your Master's from Columbia *was* in Chinglish. That's the only thing in
which you seem to excel.

usual suspect wrote:

> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> Damn, my typing it horribly effect and I hit one a and get many.
>
>
> Your Master's from Columbia *was* in Chinglish. That's the only thing in
> which you seem to excel.

No, I had a car accident and can't feel my pinkie.

Beach Runner wrote:
>>> Damn, my typing it horribly effect and I hit one a and get many.
>>
>> Your Master's from Columbia *was* in Chinglish. That's the only thing
>> in which you seem to excel.
>
> No, I had a car accident and can't feel my pinkie.

That leaves nine other fingers. What are their excuses?

"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
> > Beach Runner wrote:
> >
> >> Damn, my typing it horribly effect and I hit one a and get many.
> >
> >
> > Your Master's from Columbia *was* in Chinglish. That's the only thing in
> > which you seem to excel.
>
> No, I had a car accident and can't feel my pinkie.

You're going to have to tell Useless
that about 500 more times before
he'll actually understand it. He's not
exactly Mensa material.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

My concern is that he enters a vegan group and expresses to feelings for
animals. He's mean and nasty to people as well.
I wasted time bothering with him.



Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>usual suspect wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Damn, my typing it horribly effect and I hit one a and get many.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your Master's from Columbia *was* in Chinglish. That's the only thing in
>>>which you seem to excel.
>>
>>No, I had a car accident and can't feel my pinkie.
>
>
> You're going to have to tell Useless
> that about 500 more times before
> he'll actually understand it. He's not
> exactly Mensa material.
>
>