I'm embarrassed about my many typos. One year I was the most published
grant writer in the nation. And I oven use spell check as a final proof
before sending and am horrified at the results. I'm afraid that valid
points get covered up.

I just can't feel most of my fingers. It makes things difficult. I
also went to school with 20/200 vision for 3 years learning to read by
seeing shapes, not letters. A bad combination.

I'm well published as a grant writer, doing technical documentation,
writing proposals, and had a weekly newspaper column. US has had a
field day with that. It has not changed the essence of what I write or
his nasty responses, particularly ignoring when I posted his Urls in
their entirety

It is a step up the moral ladder to care about animal suffering. And
American vegetarians live longer. The Bone Density documents how
vegetarian diets build stronger bones.

Clearly, comparative anatomy shows us we are not designed structurally
to eat meat. It played an adaptive role during the ice age for
survival, but heavy meat eating kills. Meat putrefies in our digestive
system. while carnivores intestines is n 3x versus 10 times the length
of the trunk. We have enzymes to digest while chewing food. Chewing
food is essential for nutrition.

I accept corrections. US ignores them or dashes for other studies.
Respond to his original URLS. He CAN'T.


Bob
I wish I would have done better. I'm lucky to be alive after my
accident. Imagine being hit by a car going 90 mph and the nerves
controlling my typing.

Beach Runner wrote:
> I'm embarrassed about my many typos.

You should be.

> It is a step up the moral ladder to care about animal suffering.

No, it isn't, at least inasmuch as veganism is offered as a solution to it.

> And American vegetarians live longer.

Wrong.

According to Dwyer, vegetarians' longevity is similar to or
greater than that of non-vegetarians, but is influenced in
Western countries by vegetarians' "adoption of many healthy
lifestyle habits in addition to diet, such as not smoking,
abstinence or moderation in the use of alcohol, being physically
active, resting adequately, seeking ongoing health surveillance,
and seeking guidance when health problems arise."
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_vegdiet.html

Those other factors are paramount.

> The Bone Density documents how
> vegetarian diets build stronger bones.

No, it hypothesizes about such things without any substantial evidence.

"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
. ..
>

snips..


> It is a step up the moral ladder to care about animal
> suffering.
==================
many people do, fool. The problem is vegan wannabes here on
usenet only give lip-service to the idea. they pretend that just
by claiming they are vegan that that somehow translates into some
kind of action. They're delusion, ignorant, and totally spaced
out, kinda like you. btw, where's your data calculations on
water usage, hypocrite? Afraid to answer the question still,
killer?

And
> American vegetarians live longer. The Bone Density documents
> how vegetarian diets build stronger bones.
>
> Clearly, comparative anatomy shows us we are not designed
> structurally to eat meat. It played an adaptive role during
> the ice age for survival, but heavy meat eating kills. Meat
> putrefies in our digestive system. while carnivores intestines
> is n 3x versus 10 times the length of the trunk. We have
> enzymes to digest while chewing food. Chewing food is
> essential for nutrition.
>
> I accept corrections.
=]==============
No, you don't...

US ignores them
=====================
Hey, what a coincidence, so do you, fool. Where's your water
calculations, hypocrite?


or dashes for other studies.
> Respond to his original URLS. He CAN'T.
>
>
> Bob
> I wish I would have done better. I'm lucky to be alive after
> my accident. Imagine being hit by a car going 90 mph and the
> nerves controlling my typing.

usual suspect wrote:

> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> I'm embarrassed about my many typos.
>
>
> You should be.

I wonder how you would type if you can't feel some fingers.
>
>> It is a step up the moral ladder to care about animal suffering.
>
>
> No, it isn't, at least inasmuch as veganism is offered as a solution to it.
>
>> And American vegetarians live longer.
>
>
> Wrong.
>
> According to Dwyer, vegetarians' longevity is similar to or
> greater than that of non-vegetarians, but is influenced in
> Western countries by vegetarians' "adoption of many healthy
> lifestyle habits in addition to diet, such as not smoking,
> abstinence or moderation in the use of alcohol, being physically
> active, resting adequately, seeking ongoing health surveillance,
> and seeking guidance when health problems arise."
> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_vegdiet.html

Yes, I will agree to the fact the vegetarians are more health oriented.
However it reduces blood chemistry and bowel cancer. And if you go
organic, pesticides residuals which are harmful.


>
> Those other factors are paramount.
>
>> The Bone Density documents how vegetarian diets build stronger bones.
>
>
> No, it hypothesizes about such things without any substantial evidence.

No, like he teachers at college the way bones are built and rebuilt
their entire lives. It's a well understood process. BTW, calcium is so
needed for other purposes, you body will take if from your bones. They
are many vegan sources of calcium. Also, excess meat or diary protein
causes to body to steal calcium.


Your making a statement without obviously having looked at his book.

"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>> I'm embarrassed about my many typos.
>>
>>
>> You should be.
>
> I wonder how you would type if you can't feel some fingers.
>>
>>> It is a step up the moral ladder to care about animal
>>> suffering.
>>
>>
>> No, it isn't, at least inasmuch as veganism is offered as a
>> solution to it.
>>
>>> And American vegetarians live longer.
>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> According to Dwyer, vegetarians' longevity is similar to
>> or
>> greater than that of non-vegetarians, but is influenced in
>> Western countries by vegetarians' "adoption of many
>> healthy
>> lifestyle habits in addition to diet, such as not smoking,
>> abstinence or moderation in the use of alcohol, being
>> physically
>> active, resting adequately, seeking ongoing health
>> surveillance,
>> and seeking guidance when health problems arise."
>> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_vegdiet.html
>
> Yes, I will agree to the fact the vegetarians are more health
> oriented.
> However it reduces blood chemistry and bowel cancer. And if you
> go organic, pesticides residuals which are harmful.
===============
....are still there fool. Again, dolt, organic does not mean
pesticide free. In fact, they may use even more pesticides more
often. That you continue to foster your lys and delusions is a
sure sign of your total ignorance and brainwashing, killer.

btw, where's you water calculation?


>
>
>>
>> Those other factors are paramount.
>>
>>> The Bone Density documents how vegetarian diets build
>>> stronger bones.
>>
>>
>> No, it hypothesizes about such things without any substantial
>> evidence.
>
> No, like he teachers at college the way bones are built and
> rebuilt their entire lives. It's a well understood process.
> BTW, calcium is so needed for other purposes, you body will
> take if from your bones. They are many vegan sources of
> calcium. Also, excess meat or diary protein causes to body to
> steal calcium.
>
>
> Your making a statement without obviously having looked at his
> book.
>

Beach Runner wrote:
>>> I'm embarrassed about my many typos.
>>
>> You should be.
>
> I wonder how you would type

I type quite well, usually.

>>> It is a step up the moral ladder to care about animal suffering.
>>
>> No, it isn't, at least inasmuch as veganism is offered as a solution
>> to it.
>>
>>> And American vegetarians live longer.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> According to Dwyer, vegetarians' longevity is similar to or
>> greater than that of non-vegetarians, but is influenced in
>> Western countries by vegetarians' "adoption of many healthy
>> lifestyle habits in addition to diet, such as not smoking,
>> abstinence or moderation in the use of alcohol, being physically
>> active, resting adequately, seeking ongoing health surveillance,
>> and seeking guidance when health problems arise."
>> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_vegdiet.html
>
> Yes, I will agree to the fact the vegetarians are more health oriented.

Then stop making an ass out of yourself when citing such studies.
Whenever researchers make an attempt to account for variables like
exercise, smoking, alcohol consumption, etc., there is no quantifiable
difference between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.

> However it reduces blood chemistry

You're a dipshit.

> and bowel cancer.

Ipse dixit. You can cite studies that find a correlation between HIGH
intake of certain meats and colorectal cancers, but none which show the
same risks from moderate or minimal consumption. Indeed, you and I have
already discussed the findings of one study which found that HIGH
consumption of poultry and fish had a protective benefit against
colorectal cancers.

> And if you go
> organic, pesticides residuals which are harmful.

Liar.

[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.

>> Those other factors are paramount.
>>
>>> The Bone Density documents how vegetarian diets build stronger bones.
>>
>> No, it hypothesizes about such things without any substantial evidence.
>
> No,

Yes, it hypothesizes about such things without any substantial evidence.

usual suspect wrote:

> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>>>> I'm embarrassed about my many typos.
>>>
>>>
>>> You should be.
>>
>>
>> I wonder how you would type
>
>
> I type quite well, usually.

How would you type if you lost control of some fingers?
>
>>>> It is a step up the moral ladder to care about animal suffering.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it isn't, at least inasmuch as veganism is offered as a solution
>>> to it.
>>>
>>>> And American vegetarians live longer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> According to Dwyer, vegetarians' longevity is similar to or
>>> greater than that of non-vegetarians, but is influenced in
>>> Western countries by vegetarians' "adoption of many healthy
>>> lifestyle habits in addition to diet, such as not smoking,
>>> abstinence or moderation in the use of alcohol, being physically
>>> active, resting adequately, seeking ongoing health surveillance,
>>> and seeking guidance when health problems arise."
>>> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_vegdiet.html
>>
>>
>> Yes, I will agree to the fact the vegetarians are more health oriented.
>
>
> Then stop making an ass out of yourself when citing such studies.
> Whenever researchers make an attempt to account for variables like
> exercise, smoking, alcohol consumption, etc., there is no quantifiable
> difference between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
>
>> However it reduces blood chemistry
>
>
> You're a dipshit.
>
>> and bowel cancer.
>
>
> Ipse dixit. You can cite studies that find a correlation between HIGH
> intake of certain meats and colorectal cancers, but none which show the
> same risks from moderate or minimal consumption. Indeed, you and I have
> already discussed the findings of one study which found that HIGH
> consumption of poultry and fish had a protective benefit against
> colorectal cancers.
>

In general, people who live a vegetarian life style have longer lives
and less cancer.
>> And if you go organic, pesticides residuals which are harmful.
>
>

There is more than one kind of organic farming. One theory is based on
less pesticides, and a wider variety of crops.

> Liar.
>
> [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.
>
>>> Those other factors are paramount.
>>>
>>>> The Bone Density documents how vegetarian diets build stronger bones.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it hypothesizes about such things without any substantial evidence.
>>
>>
>> No,
>
>
> Yes, it hypothesizes about such things without any substantial evidence.

As US attempts to have nice conversation, something I've tried many time.

Beach Runner wrote:

>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm embarrassed about my many typos.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You should be.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder how you would type
>>
>>
>>
>> I type quite well, usually.
>
>
I used to be a great typist. In my early years of grad school, I
supplemented my incoming doing professional word processing.
>

How would you type if you lost control of some fingers?
>
>>

Answer that
>>>>> It is a step up the moral ladder to care about animal suffering.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't, at least inasmuch as veganism is offered as a solution
>>>> to it.
>>>>
>>>>> And American vegetarians live longer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.

We are not in the top 20

>>>>
>>>> According to Dwyer, vegetarians' longevity is similar to or
>>>> greater than that of non-vegetarians, but is influenced in
>>>> Western countries by vegetarians' "adoption of many healthy
>>>> lifestyle habits in addition to diet, such as not smoking,
>>>> abstinence or moderation in the use of alcohol, being physically
>>>> active, resting adequately, seeking ongoing health surveillance,
>>>> and seeking guidance when health problems arise."
>>>> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_vegdiet.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I will agree to the fact the vegetarians are more health oriented.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then stop making an ass out of yourself when citing such studies.
>> Whenever researchers make an attempt to account for variables like
>> exercise, smoking, alcohol consumption, etc., there is no quantifiable
>> difference between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
>>
>>> However it reduces blood chemistry
>>
>>
Generally, it is the change a person makes. Even if it's reducing meat
75%. And adding heat healthy oils. And exercise.
>>
>> You're a dipshit.
>>

You're what the put the dip into.

>>> and bowel cancer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ipse dixit. You can cite studies that find a correlation between HIGH
>> intake of certain meats and colorectal cancers, but none which show
>> the same risks from moderate or minimal consumption. Indeed, you and I
>> have already discussed the findings of one study which found that HIGH
>> consumption of poultry and fish had a protective benefit against
>> colorectal cancers.
>>
>
In general, vegetarians live longer, are more health aware, read labels.

> In general, people who live a vegetarian life style have longer lives
> and less cancer.
>
>>> And if you go organic, pesticides residuals which are harmful.
>>
>>
>>
>
> There is more than one kind of organic farming. One theory is based on
> less pesticides, and a wider variety of crops.
>
>> Liar.
>>
Certain plants discourage other insects.
That's one example.
The use of the Japanese beetle.
Bat houses.
Marigolds.

Read Square Foot Gardening for example.

So you site one study. There are other techniques.

>> [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.

And consumer reports says organic grown food has less residual pesticide.

The article was years old and consume report charges for old material.


see
http://www.ecologic-ipm.com/cnn21899.html
which references it.


>> 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.
>>
>>>> Those other factors are paramount.
>>>>
>>>>> The Bone Density documents how vegetarian diets build stronger bones.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it hypothesizes about such things without any substantial evidence.
>>>
>>>

Is there a disagreement with the discussion in the book?
>>>
>>> No,
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, it hypothesizes about such things without any substantial evidence.

It's explained the same in every text book on how bones grow and are
constantly replenished. That's my concern about Fosamax, will it give
better tests, but weak bone?

We don't know the long term effects of Fosamax.

Beach Runner wrote:
>>>>> I'm embarrassed about my many typos.
>>>>
>>>> You should be.
>>>
>>> I wonder how you would type
>>
>> I type quite well, usually.
>
> How would you type if you lost control of some fingers?

More carefully than you apparently do.

>>>>> It is a step up the moral ladder to care about animal suffering.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't, at least inasmuch as veganism is offered as a solution
>>>> to it.
>>>>
>>>>> And American vegetarians live longer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> According to Dwyer, vegetarians' longevity is similar to or
>>>> greater than that of non-vegetarians, but is influenced in
>>>> Western countries by vegetarians' "adoption of many healthy
>>>> lifestyle habits in addition to diet, such as not smoking,
>>>> abstinence or moderation in the use of alcohol, being physically
>>>> active, resting adequately, seeking ongoing health surveillance,
>>>> and seeking guidance when health problems arise."
>>>> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_vegdiet.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I will agree to the fact the vegetarians are more health oriented.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then stop making an ass out of yourself when citing such studies.
>> Whenever researchers make an attempt to account for variables like
>> exercise, smoking, alcohol consumption, etc., there is no quantifiable
>> difference between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
>>
>>> However it reduces blood chemistry
>>
>>
>>
>> You're a dipshit.
>>
>>> and bowel cancer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ipse dixit. You can cite studies that find a correlation between HIGH
>> intake of certain meats and colorectal cancers, but none which show
>> the same risks from moderate or minimal consumption. Indeed, you and I
>> have already discussed the findings of one study which found that HIGH
>> consumption of poultry and fish had a protective benefit against
>> colorectal cancers.
>
> In general,

Bullshit. In general, people who live healthy lifestyles live healthy
lives, etc.

> people who live a vegetarian life style have longer lives
> and less cancer.

Complete bullshit. This generalization does not hold up when studies
consider other lifestyle factors like exercise, smoking, alcohol use,
stress management, hobbies, marriage, pets, etc. When adjusted so that
researchers can compare apples to apples, vegetarians fare no better
than anyone else.

>>> And if you go organic, pesticides residuals which are harmful.
>
> There is more than one kind of organic farming.

It's all a sham, you twit. Organic is no different than conventional
save for synthetic versus "natural" and for the fact that conventional
produce is subjected to safety testing. See everything which follows.

>> Liar.
>>
>> [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.

Why did you not respond to all of this?

>>>> Those other factors are paramount.
>>>>
>>>>> The Bone Density documents how vegetarian diets build stronger bones.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it hypothesizes about such things without any substantial evidence.
>>>
>>> No,
>>
>> Yes, it hypothesizes about such things without any substantial evidence.

Beach Runner wrote:
> As US attempts to have nice conversation, something I've tried many time.

Liar. You're a gutless coward who says someone should punch me in the
nose but then you admit you're not man enough to try it yourself. Pussy.

>>>>>> I'm embarrassed about my many typos.
>>>>>
>>>>> You should be.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how you would type
>>>
>>> I type quite well, usually.
>
> I used to be a great typist. In my early years of grad school, I
> supplemented my incoming doing professional word processing.

You must be proud.

>>>>>> And American vegetarians live longer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>
> We are not in the top 20

Stop moving the goal post. I said you were more concerned with the
status of a particular ranking rather than looking at the big picture.
Thanks for proving me right again, moron. We're within six years of the
leader -- a hair over 93% as long as Andorrans live, and within the top
20% of nations listed.

>>>>> According to Dwyer, vegetarians' longevity is similar to or
>>>>> greater than that of non-vegetarians, but is influenced in
>>>>> Western countries by vegetarians' "adoption of many healthy
>>>>> lifestyle habits in addition to diet, such as not smoking,
>>>>> abstinence or moderation in the use of alcohol, being physically
>>>>> active, resting adequately, seeking ongoing health surveillance,
>>>>> and seeking guidance when health problems arise."
>>>>> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_vegdiet.html
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I will agree to the fact the vegetarians are more health oriented.
>>>
>>> Then stop making an ass out of yourself when citing such studies.
>>> Whenever researchers make an attempt to account for variables like
>>> exercise, smoking, alcohol consumption, etc., there is no
>>> quantifiable difference between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
>>>
>>>> However it reduces blood chemistry
>
> Generally, it is the change a person makes. Even if it's reducing meat
> 75%. And adding heat healthy oils. And exercise.

Stop trying to bullshit everyone. People can improve their cholesterol
by changing the kinds of meat they eat, even increasing the amount of
meat they eat, even better than if they merely reduce meat consumption.
It's the same qualitative argument you're making for "heart healthy"
oils. Meats high in omega-3 fatty-acids like oily cold-water fish,
grass-fed beef, bison, wild game, etc., are superior not only to fattier
cuts but also to "vegetarian" meals low in omega-3 and high in omega-6.

Exercise, though, is paramount -- and probably more important in
long-term effect on health than diet alone. People who exercise have a
lot more leeway in terms of what they can eat without adverse consequences.

>>>> and bowel cancer.
>>>
>>> Ipse dixit. You can cite studies that find a correlation between HIGH
>>> intake of certain meats and colorectal cancers, but none which show
>>> the same risks from moderate or minimal consumption. Indeed, you and
>>> I have already discussed the findings of one study which found that
>>> HIGH consumption of poultry and fish had a protective benefit against
>>> colorectal cancers.
>
> In general,

Stop making baseless generalizations.

> vegetarians live longer,

Unproven assertion. The data contradict you.

> are more health aware,

Another unproven assertion.

> read labels.

Another unproven assertion. If you want to get into generalizations,
vegetarians aren't reading labels for health information but rather to
see if the contents include micrograms of animal parts.

>>> [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.
>
> And consumer reports says organic grown food has less residual pesticide.

One-quarter of the organic produce samples that Consumer Reports
tested had some pesticide residues on them.

The organic produce Consumer Reports purchased for its study
cost – on average – 57 percent more than the conventionally
grown produce the magazine bought.

See also:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...s/organic.html

I'm tired of you.



usual suspect wrote:

> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> As US attempts to have nice conversation, something I've tried many
>> time.
>
>
> Liar. You're a gutless coward who says someone should punch me in the
> nose but then you admit you're not man enough to try it yourself. Pussy.
I won't make a threat, it's against the law.



>
>>>>>>> I'm embarrassed about my many typos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should be.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how you would type
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I type quite well, usually.
>>
>>
>> I used to be a great typist. In my early years of grad school, I
>> supplemented my incoming doing professional word processing.
>
>
> You must be proud.
>
>>>>>>> And American vegetarians live longer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
They do as a whole.

>>
>>
>> We are not in the top 20
>
>
> Stop moving the goal post.
We should be the healthiest nation in the world. Why not.
I said you were more concerned with the
> status of a particular ranking rather than looking at the big picture.
> Thanks for proving me right again, moron. We're within six years of the
> leader -- a hair over 93% as long as Andorrans live, and within the top
> 20% of nations listed.
>

There is no reason if we can spend so much on weapon systems that we
can't even insure poor children.
>>>>>> According to Dwyer, vegetarians' longevity is similar to or
>>>>>> greater than that of non-vegetarians, but is influenced in
>>>>>> Western countries by vegetarians' "adoption of many healthy
>>>>>> lifestyle habits in addition to diet, such as not smoking,
>>>>>> abstinence or moderation in the use of alcohol, being physically
>>>>>> active, resting adequately, seeking ongoing health surveillance,
>>>>>> and seeking guidance when health problems arise."
>>>>>> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_vegdiet.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
Of course vegetarians are a group of generally healthier people.


>>>>> Yes, I will agree to the fact the vegetarians are more health
>>>>> oriented.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then stop making an ass out of yourself when citing such studies.
>>>> Whenever researchers make an attempt to account for variables like
>>>> exercise, smoking, alcohol consumption, etc., there is no
>>>> quantifiable difference between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
>>>>
>>>>> However it reduces blood chemistry
>>
>>
>> Generally, it is the change a person makes. Even if it's reducing
>> meat 75%. And adding heat healthy oils. And exercise.

Generally, people eat a typical American diet. If they became
vegetarian they would live longer.


>
>
> Stop trying to bullshit everyone. People can improve their cholesterol
> by changing the kinds of meat they eat, even increasing the amount of
> meat they eat, even better than if they merely reduce meat consumption.
> It's the same qualitative argument you're making for "heart healthy"
> oils. Meats high in omega-3 fatty-acids like oily cold-water fish,
> grass-fed beef, bison, wild game, etc., are superior not only to fattier
> cuts but also to "vegetarian" meals low in omega-3 and high in omega-6.
>
Exercise is paramount. Not to many people eat bison, ow grass fed
beef. You won't find it at McDonalds. Vegan is a life style as well.



> Exercise, though, is paramount -- and probably more important in
> long-term effect on health than diet alone. People who exercise have a
> lot more leeway in terms of what they can eat without adverse consequences.

I agree with that.
>
>>>>> and bowel cancer.
>>>>
>>>>

Than most people. Period. We are not designed to consume meat, it's a
structural design.

>>>> Ipse dixit. You can cite studies that find a correlation between
>>>> HIGH intake of certain meats and colorectal cancers, but none which
>>>> show the same risks from moderate or minimal consumption. Indeed,
>>>> you and I have already discussed the findings of one study which
>>>> found that HIGH consumption of poultry and fish had a protective
>>>> benefit against colorectal cancers.
>>
>>
>> In general,
>
>
> Stop making baseless generalizations.
>
>> vegetarians live longer,
>
>
> Unproven assertion. The data contradict you.
>
>> are more health aware,
>
>
> Another unproven assertion.
>
>> read labels.
>
>
> Another unproven assertion. If you want to get into generalizations,
> vegetarians aren't reading labels for health information but rather to
> see if the contents include micrograms of animal parts.
>
>>>> [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.
>>
>>
>> And consumer reports says organic grown food has less residual pesticide.
>
>
> One-quarter of the organic produce samples that Consumer Reports
> tested had some pesticide residues on them.
>
> The organic produce Consumer Reports purchased for its study
> cost – on average – 57 percent more than the conventionally
> grown produce the magazine bought.
>
> See also:
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...s/organic.html


So he says that. I trust Consumer Reports a lot more.

As I said organic growing doesn't have to your big description. I've
described alternative methods.

I suggested square foot gardening.

or from your quote

> The weed and pest-control methods to which this refers include crop rotation, hand cultivation, mulching, soil enrichment, and encouraging beneficial predators and microorganisms. If these methods are not sufficient, various listed chemicals can be used. (The list does not include cytotoxic chemicals that are carbon-based.) The proposal did not call for monitoring specific indicators of soil and water quality, but left the selection of monitoring activities to the producer in consultation with the certifying agent.

I'm tired of you.

> > We are not in the top 20
>
> Stop moving the goal post. I said you were more concerned with the
> status of a particular ranking rather than looking at the big picture.
> Thanks for proving me right again, moron. We're within six years of the
> leader -- a hair over 93% as long as Andorrans live, and within the top
> 20% of nations listed.

You just moved the goal post from
the top 20 to the top 20%. Hah.




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

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>We are not in the top 20
>>
>>Stop moving the goal post. I said you were more concerned with the
>>status of a particular ranking rather than looking at the big picture.
>>Thanks for proving me right again, moron. We're within six years of the
>>leader -- a hair over 93% as long as Andorrans live, and within the top
>>20% of nations listed.
>
>
> You just moved the goal post from
> the top 20 to the top 20%. Hah.
>
>

I'm tired of US, I wasn't here to debate. This nation has the resources
to be the healthiest. We spend by far the most, and can't even provide
health care for our poor.

I'm not going to chase down every freaking URL. I printed his firsts
out and they contradictory to what he is saying.

It too big a waste of time.

>
>

Beach Runner wrote:
> I'm tired of you.

Then why do you keep LYING about killfiling me?

> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>> As US attempts to have nice conversation, something I've tried many
>>> time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Liar. You're a gutless coward who says someone should punch me in the
>> nose but then you admit you're not man enough to try it yourself. Pussy.
>
> I won't make a threat,

You've already made one.

> it's against the law.

That makes you a scofflaw.

>>>>>>>> I'm embarrassed about my many typos.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder how you would type
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I type quite well, usually.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I used to be a great typist. In my early years of grad school, I
>>> supplemented my incoming doing professional word processing.
>>
>>
>>
>> You must be proud.
>>
>>>>>>>> And American vegetarians live longer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>
> They do as a whole.

No, they do not.

According to Dwyer, vegetarians' longevity is similar to or
greater than that of non-vegetarians, but is influenced in
Western countries by vegetarians' "adoption of many healthy
lifestyle habits in addition to diet, such as not smoking,
abstinence or moderation in the use of alcohol, being physically
active, resting adequately, seeking ongoing health surveillance,
and seeking guidance when health problems arise."
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_vegdiet.html

And from your own link:

Lifelong vegetarianism is linked to a reduced risk of breast
cancer, and this is MOST LIKELY BECAUSE OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF
VEGETABLES EATEN, according to a new study.

WHETHER OR NOT ABSTAINING FROM EATING MEAT HAS A ROLE IN THIS
PROCESS, HOWEVER, IS UNCLEAR....

ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IN FIGURING OUT THE EFFECTS OF VEGETARIAN
DIETS ON CANCER RISK IS THAT MOST VEGETARIANS IN WESTERN
COUNTRIES STOP EATING MEAT ONLY IN ADULT LIFE, WHEN THE RISK OF
CANCER MAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN INFLUENCED.
http://tinyurl.com/8bddt

>>> We are not in the top 20
>>
>> Stop moving the goal post.
>
> We should be the healthiest nation in the world.

We're among the healthiest in the world -- within six years of the
Andorrans, who aren't part of a large diverse nation like we in these
United States are.

> Why not.

A variety of factors.

>> I said you were more concerned with the
>> status of a particular ranking rather than looking at the big picture.
>> Thanks for proving me right again, moron. We're within six years of
>> the leader -- a hair over 93% as long as Andorrans live, and within
>> the top 20% of nations listed.
>
> There is no reason if we can spend so much on weapon systems that we
> can't even insure poor children.

"Poor children" already receive care and treatment at taxpayer expense,
and many of them receive preventive care at taxpayer expense. That's
just a canard you leftists trot out in support of socialized medicine.

>>>>>>> According to Dwyer, vegetarians' longevity is similar to or
>>>>>>> greater than that of non-vegetarians, but is influenced in
>>>>>>> Western countries by vegetarians' "adoption of many healthy
>>>>>>> lifestyle habits in addition to diet, such as not smoking,
>>>>>>> abstinence or moderation in the use of alcohol, being physically
>>>>>>> active, resting adequately, seeking ongoing health surveillance,
>>>>>>> and seeking guidance when health problems arise."
>>>>>>> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_vegdiet.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> Of course vegetarians are a group of generally healthier people.

Unproven assertion.

>>>>>> Yes, I will agree to the fact the vegetarians are more health
>>>>>> oriented.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then stop making an ass out of yourself when citing such studies.
>>>>> Whenever researchers make an attempt to account for variables like
>>>>> exercise, smoking, alcohol consumption, etc., there is no
>>>>> quantifiable difference between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
>>>>>
>>>>>> However it reduces blood chemistry
>>>
>>> Generally, it is the change a person makes. Even if it's reducing
>>> meat 75%. And adding heat healthy oils. And exercise.
>
> Generally, people eat a typical American diet.

Bullshit. There is no "typical" American diet. There are plenty of
people who don't eat wisely very often, and plenty of others who eat
healthful diets MOST of the time.

> If they became vegetarian they would live longer.

Unproven (and false) assertion.

>> Stop trying to bullshit everyone. People can improve their cholesterol
>> by changing the kinds of meat they eat, even increasing the amount of
>> meat they eat, even better than if they merely reduce meat
>> consumption. It's the same qualitative argument you're making for
>> "heart healthy" oils. Meats high in omega-3 fatty-acids like oily
>> cold-water fish, grass-fed beef, bison, wild game, etc., are superior
>> not only to fattier cuts but also to "vegetarian" meals low in omega-3
>> and high in omega-6.
>
> Exercise is paramount. Not to many people eat bison, ow grass fed
> beef.

Then encourage them to eat it more often.

> You won't find it at McDonalds.

So the **** what?

> Vegan is a life style as well.

It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form of paganism which
puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the Torah).

>> Exercise, though, is paramount -- and probably more important in
>> long-term effect on health than diet alone. People who exercise have a
>> lot more leeway in terms of what they can eat without adverse
>> consequences.
>
> I agree with that.

Then stop peddling pseudoscience about diet, nitwit.

>>>>>> and bowel cancer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
> Than most people. Period.

Liar.

> We are not designed to consume meat, it's a
> structural design.

False. We are not frugivores, we're omnivores.

Primates eat a wide range of foods, and are omnivorous, in
general.
http://www.indiana.edu/~origins/teach/P380/primate.html

>>>>> Ipse dixit. You can cite studies that find a correlation between
>>>>> HIGH intake of certain meats and colorectal cancers, but none which
>>>>> show the same risks from moderate or minimal consumption. Indeed,
>>>>> you and I have already discussed the findings of one study which
>>>>> found that HIGH consumption of poultry and fish had a protective
>>>>> benefit against colorectal cancers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In general,
>>
>>
>>
>> Stop making baseless generalizations.
>>
>>> vegetarians live longer,
>>
>>
>>
>> Unproven assertion. The data contradict you.
>>
>>> are more health aware,
>>
>>
>>
>> Another unproven assertion.
>>
>>> read labels.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another unproven assertion. If you want to get into generalizations,
>> vegetarians aren't reading labels for health information but rather to
>> see if the contents include micrograms of animal parts.
>>
>>>>> [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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And consumer reports says organic grown food has less residual
>>> pesticide.
>>
>>
>>
>> One-quarter of the organic produce samples that Consumer Reports
>> tested had some pesticide residues on them.
>>
>> The organic produce Consumer Reports purchased for its study
>> cost – on average – 57 percent more than the conventionally
>> grown produce the magazine bought.
>>
>> See also:
>> http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...s/organic.html
>
> So he says that. I trust Consumer Reports a lot more.

Consumer Reports also noted:

[O]rganic produce tastes no different than "conventionally"
grown produce, and any nutritional differences there might be
between them are likely so subtle as to evade detection.

The most notable difference, of course, is the 57% premium over the cost
of the safety-tested conventional produce.

> As I said organic growing doesn't have to your big description.

Nearly all the organic products sold in the US fit my description, not
yours.

> I'm tired of you.

Then why do you keep responding to my posts, dummy?

PS: Where are your water data calculations for Mr Etter?

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>We are not in the top 20
>>
>>Stop moving the goal post. I said you were more concerned with the
>>status of a particular ranking rather than looking at the big picture.
>>Thanks for proving me right again, moron. We're within six years of the
>>leader -- a hair over 93% as long as Andorrans live, and within the top
>>20% of nations listed.
>
> You just moved the goal post

No, I haven't. Bob is too stupid to actually search for where the US
stands in the list he originally posted, so I found it for him. He still
irrationally objects to the fact that small island nations with
comparatively monolithic populations of about 0.02% the size of the US
population rank higher in longevity than the US. All I've done is show
him a proper frame of reference.

Beach Runner wrote:
> I'm tired of US,

Yet you keep replying to my posts even after TWICE lying that you
killfiled me.

> I wasn't here to debate.

You've lost the debate anyway.

> This nation has the resources
> to be the healthiest.

Those resources are siphoned off by ambulance chasers through excessive
jury awards (see Vioxx) and through a variety of usually-irrelevant
defensive medical tests and procedures which are done only for doctors
to cover their legal asses because we have a system which punishes
defendants irrespective of the merits of malpractice cases. Let the
loser pay all court costs and cap awards and watch the cost of medical
care here fall in line with what it costs our neighbors to the north and
south to treat patients instead of feed lawyers.

> We spend by far the most,

Because we have a class of ambulance chasing parasites bleeding the
system dry. Most nations don't have a leeching class of lawyers making a
killing off the suffering -- real or imagined -- of its citizens.

> and can't even provide
> health care for our poor.

We DO provide health care for the poor. We don't need to socialize our
entire healthcare system just to provide care for a handful of people.
Yet again you prove yourself to be a leftwing authoritarian zealot with
an excessive solution for a minimal problem.

> I'm not going to chase down every freaking URL.

Who can blame you. You hate being repeatedly shown to be a fraud.

"useless cesspool" > wrote in message
. ..

> > Vegan is a life style as well.
>
> It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form of paganism which
> puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the Torah).

It is not paganism. True pagans
would laugh silly at the very idea.
Veganism boils down to diet.
That is what vegans all have in
common with each other. It in
no way contradicts any religion's
rules, unless there is one that
demands the eating of animal
products. Vegans come in
every religion including atheism.




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

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>>We are not in the top 20
> >>
> >>Stop moving the goal post. I said you were more concerned with the
> >>status of a particular ranking rather than looking at the big picture.
> >>Thanks for proving me right again, moron. We're within six years of the
> >>leader -- a hair over 93% as long as Andorrans live, and within the top
> >>20% of nations listed.
> >
> > You just moved the goal post
>
> No, I haven't. Bob is too stupid to actually search for where the US
> stands in the list he originally posted, so I found it for him. He still
> irrationally objects to the fact that small island nations with
> comparatively monolithic populations of about 0.02% the size of the US
> population rank higher in longevity than the US. All I've done is show
> him a proper frame of reference.

You moved the goal post from the top
20 out of who knows how many
countries there are these days, to
the top 20%. Those are different
amounts.


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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:24:20 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"useless cesspool" > wrote in message . ..
>
>> > Vegan is a life style as well.
>>
>> It's a religion, not a diet

That's not what you're on record as saying, liar.

>> and it's based on a form of paganism which
>> puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the Torah).
>
>It is not paganism. True pagans
>would laugh silly at the very idea.
>Veganism boils down to diet.
>That is what vegans all have in
>common with each other. It in
>no way contradicts any religion's
>rules, unless there is one that
>demands the eating of animal
>products. Vegans come in
>every religion including atheism.

Note that he's on record declaring, "Veganism is not a religion
or a spiritual issue for most people."

[start - Bart to liar suspect]
> If one was to compare Veganism to a religious/spiritual brand,
> it would come close to Buddhism and Hinduism.
[liar suspect]
Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is not a religion
or a spiritual issue for most people. Indeed, certain (and quite kind)
people on this newsgroup advertise their atheism in their signatures.
[end]
usual suspect Jun 11 2002 http://tinyurl.com/ctcc9

He'll make up his mind one day, and then maybe his sexual
orientation too. He's in a bit of a muddle at the mo.

Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:24:20 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>
>>"useless cesspool" > wrote in message . ..
>>
>>
>>>> Vegan is a life style as well.
>>>
>>>It's a religion, not a diet
>
>
> That's not what you're on record as saying, liar.
>
>
>>>and it's based on a form of paganism which
>>>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the Torah).
>>
>>It is not paganism. True pagans
>>would laugh silly at the very idea.
>>Veganism boils down to diet.
>>That is what vegans all have in
>>common with each other. It in
>>no way contradicts any religion's
>>rules, unless there is one that
>>demands the eating of animal
>>products. Vegans come in
>>every religion including atheism.
>
>
> Note that he's on record declaring, "Veganism is not a religion
> or a spiritual issue for most people."
>
> [start - Bart to liar suspect]
> > If one was to compare Veganism to a religious/spiritual brand,
> > it would come close to Buddhism and Hinduism.
> [liar suspect]
> Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is not a religion
> or a spiritual issue for most people. Indeed, certain (and quite kind)
> people on this newsgroup advertise their atheism in their signatures.
> [end]
> usual suspect Jun 11 2002 http://tinyurl.com/ctcc9
>
> He'll make up his mind one day, and then maybe his sexual
> orientation too. He's in a bit of a muddle at the mo.

There are different reasons on is a veg*n
For me it is spiritual, and I disagree, that is is in contradiction with
Torah. See: http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/ for another view. If you
agree or disagree at this point I don't care.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:15:06 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:24:20 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>>>"useless cesspool" > wrote in message . ..
>>>
>>>>> Vegan is a life style as well.
>>>>
>>>>It's a religion, not a diet
>>
>> That's not what you're on record as saying, liar.
>>
>>>>and it's based on a form of paganism which
>>>>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the Torah).
>>>
>>>It is not paganism. True pagans
>>>would laugh silly at the very idea.
>>>Veganism boils down to diet.
>>>That is what vegans all have in
>>>common with each other. It in
>>>no way contradicts any religion's
>>>rules, unless there is one that
>>>demands the eating of animal
>>>products. Vegans come in
>>>every religion including atheism.
>>
>> Note that he's on record declaring, "Veganism is not a religion
>> or a spiritual issue for most people."
>>
>> [start - Bart to liar suspect]
>> > If one was to compare Veganism to a religious/spiritual brand,
>> > it would come close to Buddhism and Hinduism.
>> [liar suspect]
>> Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is not a religion
>> or a spiritual issue for most people. Indeed, certain (and quite kind)
>> people on this newsgroup advertise their atheism in their signatures.
>> [end]
>> usual suspect Jun 11 2002 http://tinyurl.com/ctcc9
>>
>> He'll make up his mind one day, and then maybe his sexual
>> orientation too. He's in a bit of a muddle at the mo.
>
>There are different reasons on is a veg*n
>For me it is spiritual

Who gives a **** what 'it is' for you, you stupid, bumbling
arse? What I'm pointing out here in this part of the thread
to Scented Nectar is another inconsistency from 'usual suspect'.
Do you even read what you're responding to?

> and I disagree, that is is in contradiction with
>Torah.

So ****ing what?

>See: http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/ for another view. If you
>agree or disagree at this point I don't care.

Listen up, you stupid ****; I've no interest in your religious
views, and I don't give a **** about whether you're a vegan.
What I do object to is pathetic ******s like yourself who
jump into the middle of what I'm discussing only to start
discussing themselves. So **** off, because I'm not in the
least bit interested in you, your ****ed-up hand, your chronic
colitis, or anything else about you. Are we clear about that?

Derek wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:15:06 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:24:20 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"useless cesspool" > wrote in message . ..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Vegan is a life style as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a religion, not a diet
>>>
>>>That's not what you're on record as saying, liar.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>and it's based on a form of paganism which
>>>>>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the Torah).
>>>>
>>>>It is not paganism. True pagans
>>>>would laugh silly at the very idea.
>>>>Veganism boils down to diet.
>>>>That is what vegans all have in
>>>>common with each other. It in
>>>>no way contradicts any religion's
>>>>rules, unless there is one that
>>>>demands the eating of animal
>>>>products. Vegans come in
>>>>every religion including atheism.
>>>
>>>Note that he's on record declaring, "Veganism is not a religion
>>>or a spiritual issue for most people."
>>>
>>> [start - Bart to liar suspect]
>>> > If one was to compare Veganism to a religious/spiritual brand,
>>> > it would come close to Buddhism and Hinduism.
>>> [liar suspect]
>>> Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is not a religion
>>> or a spiritual issue for most people. Indeed, certain (and quite kind)
>>> people on this newsgroup advertise their atheism in their signatures.
>>> [end]
>>> usual suspect Jun 11 2002 http://tinyurl.com/ctcc9
>>>
>>>He'll make up his mind one day, and then maybe his sexual
>>>orientation too. He's in a bit of a muddle at the mo.
>>
>>There are different reasons on is a veg*n
>>For me it is spiritual
>
>
> Who gives a **** what 'it is' for you, you stupid, bumbling
> arse? What I'm pointing out here in this part of the thread
> to Scented Nectar is another inconsistency from 'usual suspect'.
> Do you even read what you're responding to?
>
>
>>and I disagree, that is is in contradiction with
>>Torah.
>
>
> So ****ing what?
>
>
>>See: http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/ for another view. If you
>>agree or disagree at this point I don't care.
>
>
> Listen up, you stupid ****; I've no interest in your religious
> views, and I don't give a **** about whether you're a vegan.
> What I do object to is pathetic ******s like yourself who
> jump into the middle of what I'm discussing only to start
> discussing themselves. So **** off, because I'm not in the
> least bit interested in you, your ****ed-up hand, your chronic
> colitis, or anything else about you. Are we clear about that?


First of all the thread was started by me. I'm alive because I was a
body building and my musculature protected me. Threads are discussions.

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>>>We are not in the top 20
>>>>
>>>>Stop moving the goal post. I said you were more concerned with the
>>>>status of a particular ranking rather than looking at the big picture.
>>>>Thanks for proving me right again, moron. We're within six years of the
>>>>leader -- a hair over 93% as long as Andorrans live, and within the top
>>>>20% of nations listed.
>>>
>>>You just moved the goal post
>>
>>No, I haven't. Bob is too stupid to actually search for where the US
>>stands in the list he originally posted, so I found it for him. He still
>>irrationally objects to the fact that small island nations with
>>comparatively monolithic populations of about 0.02% the size of the US
>>population rank higher in longevity than the US. All I've done is show
>>him a proper frame of reference.
>
> You moved the goal post from the top
> 20 out of who knows how many
> countries there are these days, to
> the top 20%. Those are different
> amounts.

I didn't move the goalpost, Bob the Twit did. I only put his complaint
in perspective.

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>> Vegan is a life style as well.
>>
>>It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form of paganism which
>>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the Torah).
>
> It is not paganism.

It's BASED on paganism.

> Veganism boils down to diet.

No, it doesn't.

There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health
reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion
for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a term such
as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
shoes.
http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan

Beach Rambler wrote:
> First of all the thread was started by me.

So the **** what?

> I'm alive because I was a
> body building and my musculature protected me.

You didn't build up your lame pinky well enough.

"useless cesspool" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>> Vegan is a life style as well.
> >>
> >>It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form of paganism which
> >>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the Torah).
> >
> > It is not paganism.
>
> It's BASED on paganism.

You're ****ed up. Are evil pagans
also trying to get you? Do people
call you paranoid when it's really
the fault of those evil pagans?
They really ARE out to get you,
aren't they?

> > Veganism boils down to diet.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health
> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion
> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
> veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a term such
> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
> shoes.
> http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan

If you look a little closer, that's under
SPECIALTY MEANING. The normal
one is of of diet alone. The above
quote you plucked only shows an
example of the difference of opinion
vegans have on the definition.


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

"useless cesspool" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>>>>We are not in the top 20
> >>>>
> >>>>Stop moving the goal post. I said you were more concerned with the
> >>>>status of a particular ranking rather than looking at the big picture.
> >>>>Thanks for proving me right again, moron. We're within six years of
the
> >>>>leader -- a hair over 93% as long as Andorrans live, and within the
top
> >>>>20% of nations listed.
> >>>
> >>>You just moved the goal post
> >>
> >>No, I haven't. Bob is too stupid to actually search for where the US
> >>stands in the list he originally posted, so I found it for him. He still
> >>irrationally objects to the fact that small island nations with
> >>comparatively monolithic populations of about 0.02% the size of the US
> >>population rank higher in longevity than the US. All I've done is show
> >>him a proper frame of reference.
> >
> > You moved the goal post from the top
> > 20 out of who knows how many
> > countries there are these days, to
> > the top 20%. Those are different
> > amounts.
>
> I didn't move the goalpost, Bob the Twit did. I only put his complaint
> in perspective.

Liar.


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "useless cesspool" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Skanky Nutball wrote:
>> >>> Vegan is a life style as well.
>> >>
>> >>It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form of
>> >>paganism which
>> >>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the
>> >>Torah).
>> >
>> > It is not paganism.
>>
>> It's BASED on paganism.
>
> You're ****ed up. Are evil pagans
> also trying to get you? Do people
> call you paranoid when it's really
> the fault of those evil pagans?
> They really ARE out to get you,
> aren't they?
>
>> > Veganism boils down to diet.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
>> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for
>> health
>> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
>> compassion
>> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne
>> Stepaniak
>> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate
>> because
>> veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a
>> term such
>> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who
>> avoid eating
>> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy
>> leather
>> shoes.
>>
>> http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
>
> If you look a little closer, that's under
> SPECIALTY MEANING.
=========================
No fool, it is NOT a specialty meaning. The specialty meaning is
that of lazy vegan waanbes like you that don't reallt want to
bother themselves with doing anything of meaning. Again, here is
the real meaning of veganism, as defined by the guy who made up
the word.

"Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
wholly or in part from animals "

Diet is no more, or less of any importance than any other portion
of a REAL vegans life. Of course, there are NO real vegans here
on usenet, eh hypocrite?



The normal
> one is of of diet alone. The above
> quote you plucked only shows an
> example of the difference of opinion
> vegans have on the definition.
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> Ignorance, stupidity, hypocrisy and delusion. Stop in for a
> laugh...
>
>

"rick" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "useless cesspool" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >> >>> Vegan is a life style as well.
> >> >>
> >> >>It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form of
> >> >>paganism which
> >> >>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the
> >> >>Torah).
> >> >
> >> > It is not paganism.
> >>
> >> It's BASED on paganism.
> >
> > You're ****ed up. Are evil pagans
> > also trying to get you? Do people
> > call you paranoid when it's really
> > the fault of those evil pagans?
> > They really ARE out to get you,
> > aren't they?
> >
> >> > Veganism boils down to diet.
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't.
> >>
> >> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
> >> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for
> >> health
> >> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
> >> compassion
> >> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne
> >> Stepaniak
> >> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate
> >> because
> >> veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a
> >> term such
> >> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who
> >> avoid eating
> >> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy
> >> leather
> >> shoes.
> >>
> >> http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
> >
> > If you look a little closer, that's under
> > SPECIALTY MEANING.
> =========================
> No fool, it is NOT a specialty meaning. The specialty meaning is
> that of lazy vegan waanbes like you that don't reallt want to
> bother themselves with doing anything of meaning. Again, here is
> the real meaning of veganism, as defined by the guy who made up
> the word.
>
> "Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
> a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
> products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
> fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
> encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
> wholly or in part from animals "
>
> Diet is no more, or less of any importance than any other portion
> of a REAL vegans life. Of course, there are NO real vegans here
> on usenet, eh hypocrite?

The above quoted dictionary has
it under specialty. This is because
language evolves. The more
modern definition includes those
who do it for animal reasons
but also includes those who eat
that way for other reasons. The
thing all (modern def.) vegans have
in common is their diet. If you
think there are no vegans on usenet
why is there this newsgroup?

> > Ignorance, stupidity, hypocrisy and delusion. Stop in for a
> > laugh...

Oh shut up Dicky.


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

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>>>Vegan is a life style as well.
>>>>
>>>>It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form of paganism which
>>>>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the Torah).
>>>
>>>It is not paganism.
>>
>>It's BASED on paganism.
>
> You're ****ed up.

No, I'm not.

> Are evil pagans
> also trying to get you?

Not to my knowledge.

>>>Veganism boils down to diet.
>>
>>No, it doesn't.
>>
>> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
>> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health
>> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion
>> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
>> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
>> veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a term such
>> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
>> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
>> shoes.
>> http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
>
> If you look a little closer,

I did. You didn't. You went for the most simplistic definition for
simpletons. Imagine that.

Skanky Nutball wrote:

nothing of substance

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>>>>>Vegan is a life style as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form of
>>>>>>paganism which
>>>>>>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the
>>>>>>Torah).
>>>>>
>>>>>It is not paganism.
>>>>
>>>>It's BASED on paganism.
>>>
>>>You're ****ed up. Are evil pagans
>>>also trying to get you? Do people
>>>call you paranoid when it's really
>>>the fault of those evil pagans?
>>>They really ARE out to get you,
>>>aren't they?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Veganism boils down to diet.
>>>>
>>>>No, it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
>>>> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for
>>>>health
>>>> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
>>>>compassion
>>>> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne
>>>>Stepaniak
>>>> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate
>>>>because
>>>> veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a
>>>>term such
>>>> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who
>>>>avoid eating
>>>> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy
>>>>leather
>>>> shoes.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
>>>
>>>If you look a little closer, that's under
>>>SPECIALTY MEANING.
>>
>>=========================
>>No fool, it is NOT a specialty meaning. The specialty meaning is
>>that of lazy vegan waanbes like you that don't reallt want to
>>bother themselves with doing anything of meaning. Again, here is
>>the real meaning of veganism, as defined by the guy who made up
>>the word.
>>
>>"Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>>exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
>>a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
>>products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
>>fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
>>encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
>>wholly or in part from animals "
>>
>>Diet is no more, or less of any importance than any other portion
>>of a REAL vegans life. Of course, there are NO real vegans here
>>on usenet, eh hypocrite?
>
> The above quoted dictionary has
> it under specialty.

So what. At least it elaborates to give the background and full meaning
rather than the simple one to which simpletons like you flock to deflect
criticism that veganism IS a fringe outgrowth from the (equally fringe)
animal rights movement.

> This is because
> language evolves.

Non sequitur.

> The more modern definition

Ipse dixit. The definition is constant as are the reasons underlying
veganism, which ALWAYS comes back to animal rights.

"useless cesspool" > wrote in message
. ..
> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>>>>>>Vegan is a life style as well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form of
> >>>>>>paganism which
> >>>>>>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the
> >>>>>>Torah).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It is not paganism.
> >>>>
> >>>>It's BASED on paganism.
> >>>
> >>>You're ****ed up. Are evil pagans
> >>>also trying to get you? Do people
> >>>call you paranoid when it's really
> >>>the fault of those evil pagans?
> >>>They really ARE out to get you,
> >>>aren't they?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Veganism boils down to diet.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it doesn't.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
> >>>> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for
> >>>>health
> >>>> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
> >>>>compassion
> >>>> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne
> >>>>Stepaniak
> >>>> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate
> >>>>because
> >>>> veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a
> >>>>term such
> >>>> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who
> >>>>avoid eating
> >>>> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy
> >>>>leather
> >>>> shoes.
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
> >>>
> >>>If you look a little closer, that's under
> >>>SPECIALTY MEANING.
> >>
> >>=========================
> >>No fool, it is NOT a specialty meaning. The specialty meaning is
> >>that of lazy vegan waanbes like you that don't reallt want to
> >>bother themselves with doing anything of meaning. Again, here is
> >>the real meaning of veganism, as defined by the guy who made up
> >>the word.
> >>
> >>"Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
> >>exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
> >>a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
> >>products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
> >>fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
> >>encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
> >>wholly or in part from animals "
> >>
> >>Diet is no more, or less of any importance than any other portion
> >>of a REAL vegans life. Of course, there are NO real vegans here
> >>on usenet, eh hypocrite?
> >
> > The above quoted dictionary has
> > it under specialty.
>
> So what. At least it elaborates to give the background and full meaning
> rather than the simple one to which simpletons like you flock to deflect
> criticism that veganism IS a fringe outgrowth from the (equally fringe)
> animal rights movement.

Nonsense. Although that may be
the case, it's not ALWAYS the case.

> > This is because
> > language evolves.
>
> Non sequitur.

It's very important. To deny that
would be rather old school anal
retentive. Language evolves and
you have to just accept that some
people around you are going to
use the new meanings.

> > The more modern definition
>
> Ipse dixit. The definition is constant as are the reasons underlying
> veganism, which ALWAYS comes back to animal rights.

When you did it (a few years ago,
remember?), it was for health and
aesthetics. You identified as vegan.


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "rick" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "useless cesspool" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Skanky Nutball wrote:
>> >> >>> Vegan is a life style as well.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form of
>> >> >>paganism which
>> >> >>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts
>> >> >>the
>> >> >>Torah).
>> >> >
>> >> > It is not paganism.
>> >>
>> >> It's BASED on paganism.
>> >
>> > You're ****ed up. Are evil pagans
>> > also trying to get you? Do people
>> > call you paranoid when it's really
>> > the fault of those evil pagans?
>> > They really ARE out to get you,
>> > aren't they?
>> >
>> >> > Veganism boils down to diet.
>> >>
>> >> No, it doesn't.
>> >>
>> >> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
>> >> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products
>> >> for
>> >> health
>> >> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
>> >> compassion
>> >> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne
>> >> Stepaniak
>> >> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate
>> >> because
>> >> veganism is by definition about helping animals, and
>> >> a
>> >> term such
>> >> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who
>> >> avoid eating
>> >> animal products for health reasons but, for example,
>> >> buy
>> >> leather
>> >> shoes.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
>> >
>> > If you look a little closer, that's under
>> > SPECIALTY MEANING.
>> =========================
>> No fool, it is NOT a specialty meaning. The specialty meaning
>> is
>> that of lazy vegan waanbes like you that don't reallt want to
>> bother themselves with doing anything of meaning. Again, here
>> is
>> the real meaning of veganism, as defined by the guy who made
>> up
>> the word.
>>
>> "Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and
>> includes
>> a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on
>> the
>> products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
>> fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
>> encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
>> wholly or in part from animals "
>>
>> Diet is no more, or less of any importance than any other
>> portion
>> of a REAL vegans life. Of course, there are NO real vegans
>> here
>> on usenet, eh hypocrite?
>
> The above quoted dictionary has
> it under specialty.
=====================
Because lazy vegan wannbes have forced the change. That still
does not change the real meaning as it was defined by the guy who
made the word up, fool.


This is because
> language evolves.
=================
Only because of lazy vegan wannbes...

The more
> modern definition includes those
> who do it for animal reasons
> but also includes those who eat
> that way for other reasons. The
> thing all (modern def.) vegans have
> in common is their diet. If you
> think there are no vegans on usenet
> why is there this newsgroup?
==================
Because the world is full of wannbes, dolt. There is no need to
post to usenet. It contributes to unnecessary animals death and
suffering. Something you are supposed to be agaisnt, eh
hypocrite?



>
>> > Ignorance, stupidity, hypocrisy and delusion. Stop in for a
>> > laugh...
>
> Oh shut up Dicky.
============
Still don't like the truth, eh killer?


>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> Ignorance, stupidity, hypocrisy and delusion. Stop in for a
> laugh...
>
>

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Vegan is a life style as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form of
>>>>>>>>paganism which
>>>>>>>>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the
>>>>>>>>Torah).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is not paganism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's BASED on paganism.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're ****ed up. Are evil pagans
>>>>>also trying to get you? Do people
>>>>>call you paranoid when it's really
>>>>>the fault of those evil pagans?
>>>>>They really ARE out to get you,
>>>>>aren't they?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Veganism boils down to diet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
>>>>>> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for
>>>>>>health
>>>>>> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
>>>>>>compassion
>>>>>> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne
>>>>>>Stepaniak
>>>>>> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate
>>>>>>because
>>>>>> veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a
>>>>>>term such
>>>>>> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who
>>>>>>avoid eating
>>>>>> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy
>>>>>>leather
>>>>>> shoes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
>>>>>
>>>>>If you look a little closer, that's under
>>>>>SPECIALTY MEANING.
>>>>
>>>>=========================
>>>>No fool, it is NOT a specialty meaning. The specialty meaning is
>>>>that of lazy vegan waanbes like you that don't reallt want to
>>>>bother themselves with doing anything of meaning. Again, here is
>>>>the real meaning of veganism, as defined by the guy who made up
>>>>the word.
>>>>
>>>>"Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>>>>exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
>>>>a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
>>>>products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
>>>>fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
>>>>encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
>>>>wholly or in part from animals "
>>>>
>>>>Diet is no more, or less of any importance than any other portion
>>>>of a REAL vegans life. Of course, there are NO real vegans here
>>>>on usenet, eh hypocrite?
>>>
>>>The above quoted dictionary has
>>>it under specialty.
>>
>>So what. At least it elaborates to give the background and full meaning
>>rather than the simple one to which simpletons like you flock to deflect
>>criticism that veganism IS a fringe outgrowth from the (equally fringe)
>>animal rights movement.
>
> Nonsense. Although that may be
> the case,

It IS the case. Veganism is the ******* offspring of the animal rights
movement, and animal rights is _sine qua non_ of veganism.

>>>This is because
>>>language evolves.
>>
>>Non sequitur.
>
> It's very important.

To the extent that the word has an historical context, it is important.
You cannot shed the REAL meaning of the word in your feeble attempt to
deflect its history. Veganism was, has been, is, and will always be
about animal rights.

> To deny that
> would be rather old school anal
> retentive.

Non sequitur.

>>>The more modern definition
>>
>>Ipse dixit. The definition is constant as are the reasons underlying
>>veganism, which ALWAYS comes back to animal rights.
>
> When you did it (a few years ago,
> remember?), it was for health and
> aesthetics. You identified as vegan.

I've admitted I operated under misinformation. Unlike you, I correct my
mistakes rather than incessantly repeat them.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>Vegan is a life style as well.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form of
> >>>>>>>>paganism which
> >>>>>>>>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the
> >>>>>>>>Torah).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>It is not paganism.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It's BASED on paganism.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You're ****ed up. Are evil pagans
> >>>>>also trying to get you? Do people
> >>>>>call you paranoid when it's really
> >>>>>the fault of those evil pagans?
> >>>>>They really ARE out to get you,
> >>>>>aren't they?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>Veganism boils down to diet.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, it doesn't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
> >>>>>> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for
> >>>>>>health
> >>>>>> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
> >>>>>>compassion
> >>>>>> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne
> >>>>>>Stepaniak
> >>>>>> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate
> >>>>>>because
> >>>>>> veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a
> >>>>>>term such
> >>>>>> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who
> >>>>>>avoid eating
> >>>>>> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy
> >>>>>>leather
> >>>>>> shoes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If you look a little closer, that's under
> >>>>>SPECIALTY MEANING.
> >>>>
> >>>>=========================
> >>>>No fool, it is NOT a specialty meaning. The specialty meaning is
> >>>>that of lazy vegan waanbes like you that don't reallt want to
> >>>>bother themselves with doing anything of meaning. Again, here is
> >>>>the real meaning of veganism, as defined by the guy who made up
> >>>>the word.
> >>>>
> >>>>"Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
> >>>>exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
> >>>>a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
> >>>>products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
> >>>>fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
> >>>>encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
> >>>>wholly or in part from animals "
> >>>>
> >>>>Diet is no more, or less of any importance than any other portion
> >>>>of a REAL vegans life. Of course, there are NO real vegans here
> >>>>on usenet, eh hypocrite?
> >>>
> >>>The above quoted dictionary has
> >>>it under specialty.
> >>
> >>So what. At least it elaborates to give the background and full meaning
> >>rather than the simple one to which simpletons like you flock to deflect
> >>criticism that veganism IS a fringe outgrowth from the (equally fringe)
> >>animal rights movement.
> >
> > Nonsense. Although that may be
> > the case,
>
> It IS the case. Veganism is the ******* offspring of the animal rights
> movement, and animal rights is _sine qua non_ of veganism.

Not always. Some do it for health
and other reasons. By the way,
would you eat that steak?

> >>>This is because
> >>>language evolves.
> >>
> >>Non sequitur.
> >
> > It's very important.
>
> To the extent that the word has an historical context, it is important.
> You cannot shed the REAL meaning of the word in your feeble attempt to
> deflect its history. Veganism was, has been, is, and will always be
> about animal rights.

You're in denial over the modern
meaning. You're not evolving with
the rest of the world.

> > To deny that
> > would be rather old school anal
> > retentive.
>
> Non sequitur.

What, you don't understand what
I typed?

> >>>The more modern definition
> >>
> >>Ipse dixit. The definition is constant as are the reasons underlying
> >>veganism, which ALWAYS comes back to animal rights.
> >
> > When you did it (a few years ago,
> > remember?), it was for health and
> > aesthetics. You identified as vegan.
>
> I've admitted I operated under misinformation. Unlike you, I correct my
> mistakes rather than incessantly repeat them.

Nonsense. When you don't eat
any animal products you are vegan.
You may not like this but it's true.


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
news
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Skanky Nutball wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>Vegan is a life style as well.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form
>> >>>>>>>>of
>> >>>>>>>>paganism which
>> >>>>>>>>puts man and beast on the same plane (which
>> >>>>>>>>contradicts the
>> >>>>>>>>Torah).
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>It is not paganism.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>It's BASED on paganism.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>You're ****ed up. Are evil pagans
>> >>>>>also trying to get you? Do people
>> >>>>>call you paranoid when it's really
>> >>>>>the fault of those evil pagans?
>> >>>>>They really ARE out to get you,
>> >>>>>aren't they?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Veganism boils down to diet.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>No, it doesn't.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A
>> >>>>>> "total
>> >>>>>> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products
>> >>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>health
>> >>>>>> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out
>> >>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>compassion
>> >>>>>> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne
>> >>>>>>Stepaniak
>> >>>>>> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is
>> >>>>>> inappropriate
>> >>>>>>because
>> >>>>>> veganism is by definition about helping animals,
>> >>>>>> and a
>> >>>>>>term such
>> >>>>>> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who
>> >>>>>>avoid eating
>> >>>>>> animal products for health reasons but, for
>> >>>>>> example, buy
>> >>>>>>leather
>> >>>>>> shoes.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>If you look a little closer, that's under
>> >>>>>SPECIALTY MEANING.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>=========================
>> >>>>No fool, it is NOT a specialty meaning. The specialty
>> >>>>meaning is
>> >>>>that of lazy vegan waanbes like you that don't reallt want
>> >>>>to
>> >>>>bother themselves with doing anything of meaning. Again,
>> >>>>here is
>> >>>>the real meaning of veganism, as defined by the guy who
>> >>>>made up
>> >>>>the word.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>> >>>>exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and
>> >>>>includes
>> >>>>a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living
>> >>>>on the
>> >>>>products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh,
>> >>>>fish,
>> >>>>fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
>> >>>>encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities
>> >>>>derived
>> >>>>wholly or in part from animals "
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Diet is no more, or less of any importance than any other
>> >>>>portion
>> >>>>of a REAL vegans life. Of course, there are NO real
>> >>>>vegans here
>> >>>>on usenet, eh hypocrite?
>> >>>
>> >>>The above quoted dictionary has
>> >>>it under specialty.
>> >>
>> >>So what. At least it elaborates to give the background and
>> >>full meaning
>> >>rather than the simple one to which simpletons like you
>> >>flock to deflect
>> >>criticism that veganism IS a fringe outgrowth from the
>> >>(equally fringe)
>> >>animal rights movement.
>> >
>> > Nonsense. Although that may be
>> > the case,
>>
>> It IS the case. Veganism is the ******* offspring of the
>> animal rights
>> movement, and animal rights is _sine qua non_ of veganism.
>
> Not always. Some do it for health
> and other reasons. By the way,
> would you eat that steak?
>
>> >>>This is because
>> >>>language evolves.
>> >>
>> >>Non sequitur.
>> >
>> > It's very important.
>>
>> To the extent that the word has an historical context, it is
>> important.
>> You cannot shed the REAL meaning of the word in your feeble
>> attempt to
>> deflect its history. Veganism was, has been, is, and will
>> always be
>> about animal rights.
>
> You're in denial over the modern
> meaning.
============
Modern meaning? ROTFLMAO The word is not 1000s of years old
you dolt. Hell, it's not even 100s of years old, fool.
It has a specific meaning. A meaning that does not change
because YOU are too lazy to be a real vegan. Try reading what
real vegans say about you ignorant wannbe fools, killer. Diet is
no more, or less important than the whole of their lives.



You're not evolving with
> the rest of the world.
===========
You've obviously devolved. You few remaining braincells are in
too deep, hypocrite...

>
>> > To deny that
>> > would be rather old school anal
>> > retentive.
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>
> What, you don't understand what
> I typed?
>
>> >>>The more modern definition
>> >>
>> >>Ipse dixit. The definition is constant as are the reasons
>> >>underlying
>> >>veganism, which ALWAYS comes back to animal rights.
>> >
>> > When you did it (a few years ago,
>> > remember?), it was for health and
>> > aesthetics. You identified as vegan.
>>
>> I've admitted I operated under misinformation. Unlike you, I
>> correct my
>> mistakes rather than incessantly repeat them.
>
> Nonsense. When you don't eat
> any animal products you are vegan.
================
No, you are not, fool.

> You may not like this but it's true.
=============
Pretending to yourself doesn't make it true, fool.

>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> Ignorance and hypocrisy.
>

"rick" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> news
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>Vegan is a life style as well.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form
> >> >>>>>>>>of
> >> >>>>>>>>paganism which
> >> >>>>>>>>puts man and beast on the same plane (which
> >> >>>>>>>>contradicts the
> >> >>>>>>>>Torah).
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>It is not paganism.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>It's BASED on paganism.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>You're ****ed up. Are evil pagans
> >> >>>>>also trying to get you? Do people
> >> >>>>>call you paranoid when it's really
> >> >>>>>the fault of those evil pagans?
> >> >>>>>They really ARE out to get you,
> >> >>>>>aren't they?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>Veganism boils down to diet.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>No, it doesn't.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A
> >> >>>>>> "total
> >> >>>>>> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products
> >> >>>>>> for
> >> >>>>>>health
> >> >>>>>> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out
> >> >>>>>> of
> >> >>>>>>compassion
> >> >>>>>> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne
> >> >>>>>>Stepaniak
> >> >>>>>> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is
> >> >>>>>> inappropriate
> >> >>>>>>because
> >> >>>>>> veganism is by definition about helping animals,
> >> >>>>>> and a
> >> >>>>>>term such
> >> >>>>>> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who
> >> >>>>>>avoid eating
> >> >>>>>> animal products for health reasons but, for
> >> >>>>>> example, buy
> >> >>>>>>leather
> >> >>>>>> shoes.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>If you look a little closer, that's under
> >> >>>>>SPECIALTY MEANING.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>=========================
> >> >>>>No fool, it is NOT a specialty meaning. The specialty
> >> >>>>meaning is
> >> >>>>that of lazy vegan waanbes like you that don't reallt want
> >> >>>>to
> >> >>>>bother themselves with doing anything of meaning. Again,
> >> >>>>here is
> >> >>>>the real meaning of veganism, as defined by the guy who
> >> >>>>made up
> >> >>>>the word.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>"Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
> >> >>>>exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and
> >> >>>>includes
> >> >>>>a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living
> >> >>>>on the
> >> >>>>products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh,
> >> >>>>fish,
> >> >>>>fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
> >> >>>>encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities
> >> >>>>derived
> >> >>>>wholly or in part from animals "
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Diet is no more, or less of any importance than any other
> >> >>>>portion
> >> >>>>of a REAL vegans life. Of course, there are NO real
> >> >>>>vegans here
> >> >>>>on usenet, eh hypocrite?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>The above quoted dictionary has
> >> >>>it under specialty.
> >> >>
> >> >>So what. At least it elaborates to give the background and
> >> >>full meaning
> >> >>rather than the simple one to which simpletons like you
> >> >>flock to deflect
> >> >>criticism that veganism IS a fringe outgrowth from the
> >> >>(equally fringe)
> >> >>animal rights movement.
> >> >
> >> > Nonsense. Although that may be
> >> > the case,
> >>
> >> It IS the case. Veganism is the ******* offspring of the
> >> animal rights
> >> movement, and animal rights is _sine qua non_ of veganism.
> >
> > Not always. Some do it for health
> > and other reasons. By the way,
> > would you eat that steak?
> >
> >> >>>This is because
> >> >>>language evolves.
> >> >>
> >> >>Non sequitur.
> >> >
> >> > It's very important.
> >>
> >> To the extent that the word has an historical context, it is
> >> important.
> >> You cannot shed the REAL meaning of the word in your feeble
> >> attempt to
> >> deflect its history. Veganism was, has been, is, and will
> >> always be
> >> about animal rights.
> >
> > You're in denial over the modern
> > meaning.
> ============
> Modern meaning? ROTFLMAO The word is not 1000s of years old
> you dolt. Hell, it's not even 100s of years old, fool.
> It has a specific meaning. A meaning that does not change
> because YOU are too lazy to be a real vegan. Try reading what
> real vegans say about you ignorant wannbe fools, killer. Diet is
> no more, or less important than the whole of their lives.

Stop being a dick, Dick. The
dictionary agrees with me. And
yes, language can evolve quickly.
Remember how quickly '***'
turned from meaning cheerful to
meaning homosexual?
Remember how 'dick' turned
from meaning a short form for
Richard to a private eye and
then as a slang for penises and
idiots? No matter how much
you want original definition
purity, there are going to be
some people who use the
modern version.

> You're not evolving with
> > the rest of the world.
> ===========
> You've obviously devolved. You few remaining braincells are in
> too deep, hypocrite...

When you have nothing to say,
insulting makes you feel better.
Says a lot about you.

> >> > To deny that
> >> > would be rather old school anal
> >> > retentive.
> >>
> >> Non sequitur.
> >
> > What, you don't understand what
> > I typed?
> >
> >> >>>The more modern definition
> >> >>
> >> >>Ipse dixit. The definition is constant as are the reasons
> >> >>underlying
> >> >>veganism, which ALWAYS comes back to animal rights.
> >> >
> >> > When you did it (a few years ago,
> >> > remember?), it was for health and
> >> > aesthetics. You identified as vegan.
> >>
> >> I've admitted I operated under misinformation. Unlike you, I
> >> correct my
> >> mistakes rather than incessantly repeat them.
> >
> > Nonsense. When you don't eat
> > any animal products you are vegan.
> ================
> No, you are not, fool.

According to the modern definition
you are indeed vegan just by doing
that. It's funny that you, a troll, is
arguing over this. I would expect
this sort of thing to be an argument
between vegans about who's really
a vegan and who's not.

> > You may not like this but it's true.
> =============
> Pretending to yourself doesn't make it true, fool.

Who's pretending? The dictionary
agrees with me.


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

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Vegan is a life style as well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form of
>>>>>>>>>>paganism which
>>>>>>>>>>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the
>>>>>>>>>>Torah).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It is not paganism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's BASED on paganism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're ****ed up. Are evil pagans
>>>>>>>also trying to get you? Do people
>>>>>>>call you paranoid when it's really
>>>>>>>the fault of those evil pagans?
>>>>>>>They really ARE out to get you,
>>>>>>>aren't they?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Veganism boils down to diet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
>>>>>>>> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for
>>>>>>>>health
>>>>>>>> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
>>>>>>>>compassion
>>>>>>>> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne
>>>>>>>>Stepaniak
>>>>>>>> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate
>>>>>>>>because
>>>>>>>> veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a
>>>>>>>>term such
>>>>>>>> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who
>>>>>>>>avoid eating
>>>>>>>> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy
>>>>>>>>leather
>>>>>>>> shoes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you look a little closer, that's under
>>>>>>>SPECIALTY MEANING.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>=========================
>>>>>>No fool, it is NOT a specialty meaning. The specialty meaning is
>>>>>>that of lazy vegan waanbes like you that don't reallt want to
>>>>>>bother themselves with doing anything of meaning. Again, here is
>>>>>>the real meaning of veganism, as defined by the guy who made up
>>>>>>the word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>>>>>>exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
>>>>>>a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
>>>>>>products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
>>>>>>fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
>>>>>>encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
>>>>>>wholly or in part from animals "
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Diet is no more, or less of any importance than any other portion
>>>>>>of a REAL vegans life. Of course, there are NO real vegans here
>>>>>>on usenet, eh hypocrite?
>>>>>
>>>>>The above quoted dictionary has
>>>>>it under specialty.
>>>>
>>>>So what. At least it elaborates to give the background and full meaning
>>>>rather than the simple one to which simpletons like you flock to deflect
>>>>criticism that veganism IS a fringe outgrowth from the (equally fringe)
>>>>animal rights movement.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. Although that may be
>>>the case,
>>
>>It IS the case. Veganism is the ******* offspring of the animal rights
>>movement, and animal rights is _sine qua non_ of veganism.
>
> Not always.

Yes, ALWAYS.

>>>>>This is because
>>>>>language evolves.
>>>>
>>>>Non sequitur.
>>>
>>>It's very important.
>>
>>To the extent that the word has an historical context, it is important.
>>You cannot shed the REAL meaning of the word in your feeble attempt to
>>deflect its history. Veganism was, has been, is, and will always be
>>about animal rights.
>
> You're in denial

No, Skanky, YOU are.

>>>To deny that
>>>would be rather old school anal
>>>retentive.
>>
>>Non sequitur.
>
> What,

"Non sequitur" means "it doesn't follow." Dummy.

>>>>>The more modern definition
>>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit. The definition is constant as are the reasons underlying
>>>>veganism, which ALWAYS comes back to animal rights.
>>>
>>>When you did it (a few years ago,
>>>remember?), it was for health and
>>>aesthetics. You identified as vegan.
>>
>>I've admitted I operated under misinformation. Unlike you, I correct my
>>mistakes rather than incessantly repeat them.
>
> Nonsense.

See what I mean, you stubborn old ass?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>Vegan is a life style as well.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>It's a religion, not a diet, and it's based on a form of
> >>>>>>>>>>paganism which
> >>>>>>>>>>puts man and beast on the same plane (which contradicts the
> >>>>>>>>>>Torah).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>It is not paganism.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It's BASED on paganism.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>You're ****ed up. Are evil pagans
> >>>>>>>also trying to get you? Do people
> >>>>>>>call you paranoid when it's really
> >>>>>>>the fault of those evil pagans?
> >>>>>>>They really ARE out to get you,
> >>>>>>>aren't they?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Veganism boils down to diet.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>No, it doesn't.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
> >>>>>>>> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for
> >>>>>>>>health
> >>>>>>>> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
> >>>>>>>>compassion
> >>>>>>>> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne
> >>>>>>>>Stepaniak
> >>>>>>>> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate
> >>>>>>>>because
> >>>>>>>> veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a
> >>>>>>>>term such
> >>>>>>>> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who
> >>>>>>>>avoid eating
> >>>>>>>> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy
> >>>>>>>>leather
> >>>>>>>> shoes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>If you look a little closer, that's under
> >>>>>>>SPECIALTY MEANING.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>=========================
> >>>>>>No fool, it is NOT a specialty meaning. The specialty meaning is
> >>>>>>that of lazy vegan waanbes like you that don't reallt want to
> >>>>>>bother themselves with doing anything of meaning. Again, here is
> >>>>>>the real meaning of veganism, as defined by the guy who made up
> >>>>>>the word.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
> >>>>>>exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
> >>>>>>a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
> >>>>>>products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
> >>>>>>fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
> >>>>>>encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
> >>>>>>wholly or in part from animals "
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Diet is no more, or less of any importance than any other portion
> >>>>>>of a REAL vegans life. Of course, there are NO real vegans here
> >>>>>>on usenet, eh hypocrite?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The above quoted dictionary has
> >>>>>it under specialty.
> >>>>
> >>>>So what. At least it elaborates to give the background and full
meaning
> >>>>rather than the simple one to which simpletons like you flock to
deflect
> >>>>criticism that veganism IS a fringe outgrowth from the (equally
fringe)
> >>>>animal rights movement.
> >>>
> >>>Nonsense. Although that may be
> >>>the case,
> >>
> >>It IS the case. Veganism is the ******* offspring of the animal rights
> >>movement, and animal rights is _sine qua non_ of veganism.
> >
> > Not always.
>
> Yes, ALWAYS.

Are you ever pigheaded. Would
you get mad if you are told that you
are ***? By your reasoning, new
definitions are not valid, so it means
cheerful. Maybe that's a bad
example since you're never cheery.

> >>>>>This is because
> >>>>>language evolves.
> >>>>
> >>>>Non sequitur.
> >>>
> >>>It's very important.
> >>
> >>To the extent that the word has an historical context, it is important.
> >>You cannot shed the REAL meaning of the word in your feeble attempt to
> >>deflect its history. Veganism was, has been, is, and will always be
> >>about animal rights.
> >
> > You're in denial
>
> No, Skanky, YOU are.
>
> >>>To deny that
> >>>would be rather old school anal
> >>>retentive.
> >>
> >>Non sequitur.
> >
> > What,
>
> "Non sequitur" means "it doesn't follow." Dummy.

What I said did indeed follow.

> >>>>>The more modern definition
> >>>>
> >>>>Ipse dixit. The definition is constant as are the reasons underlying
> >>>>veganism, which ALWAYS comes back to animal rights.
> >>>
> >>>When you did it (a few years ago,
> >>>remember?), it was for health and
> >>>aesthetics. You identified as vegan.
> >>
> >>I've admitted I operated under misinformation. Unlike you, I correct my
> >>mistakes rather than incessantly repeat them.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> See what I mean, you stubborn old ass?

Are you ever grumpy. No wonder
you had to lie about having a
girlfriend. Why do you respond
to overly snipped quotes as
though you don't know what they
really said? Pathetic.


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