You are not your body. The body is dead when you are not in it. It is
alive only because you inhabit it. You are a spirit soul temporarily
inhabiting a human body. You are a spark of God, a child of God and ETERNAL
in nature. When your body dies, YOU DO NOT die. You pass from one body to
the next according to your karma from this and previous lives.

This is your opportunity to realize your position to the supreme person,
God. The human form is the only form capable of doing this. Use this time
to discover truth! Animals, insects, bacteria etc are not capable of doing
this. Use your time wisely. When you discover your tru nature and
restablish your relationship to God, you will feel complete bliss, complete
comfort, no stress, no anxiety, no worries of any kind. This is your true
nature! Your happiness will not depend on getting that better job, or the
new car, or the better school, or the nicer clothes, or the month long
vacation, of the bacon cheeseburger. You will find complete and total
satisfaction and HAPPINESS within! and eternally!

In your next birth, you may inhabit the body of a cow, a pig, a lamb, a
duck, a turtle, or a mosquito. This is a position of suffering. You have
no chance of realizing your real nature. You will be completely and
hopelessly stuch in illusion and you will suffer.

We must realize that the animals that we kill and eat for food are our
brothers and sisters. They are trapped in a miserable condition. The only
difference between them and us is the body that they inhabit. Would you eat
your brother if you knew that he was suffering? Of course not. These souls
in animal forms are no different.

These are consequences of eating animals for food and a capitalist society.
If livestock and other animals were treated well until the time of slaugher,
it still would not be right.

Lee

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Why it is wrong to kill animals for food:
> http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/WhyVegan.pdf
>
> Steve
>
> Be A Healthy Vegan Or Vegetarian
> http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdo...ealthyVeg.html
>
> "The great American thought trap: It is not real
> unless it can be seen on television or bought in a
> shopping mall"

snip ignorant spew from yet another vegan hypocrite that proves
that killing animals for his entertainment means nothing to him
as long as he can demonize those he thinks are killing animals
wrongly.

Hey fool, how do you explain those bloody hands of yours?

Please explain how I am hypocritical and how you can imply that killing
animals for entertainment means nothing to me.

Thanks.

"rick" > wrote in message
. net...
>
>
>
> snip ignorant spew from yet another vegan hypocrite that proves that
> killing animals for his entertainment means nothing to him as long as he
> can demonize those he thinks are killing animals wrongly.
>
> Hey fool, how do you explain those bloody hands of yours?
>

"Anon" > wrote in message
...
> Please explain how I am hypocritical and how you can imply that
> killing animals for entertainment means nothing to me.
> =================================
Because you spew about killing animals to eat them only. It's
the typical vegan/AR ignorance of their own bloody footprints
they track all over the place. You have no 'need' to post to
usenet, you're here for entertainmnet. An entertainmnmet that
contributes to the death and suffering of millions upon millions
of animals needlessly. That you then leave them to rot does not
make their deaths any less real than the ones we kill and eat.


> Thanks.
>
> "rick" > wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>>
>>
>> snip ignorant spew from yet another vegan hypocrite that
>> proves that killing animals for his entertainment means
>> nothing to him as long as he can demonize those he thinks are
>> killing animals wrongly.
>>
>> Hey fool, how do you explain those bloody hands of yours?
>>
>
>

"ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Anon wrote:
>> Please explain how I am hypocritical and how you can imply
>> that killing
>> animals for entertainment means nothing to me.
>
>
>
> It's ricky's theory that as soon as you tap a key on your
> keyboard
> thousands (or is it millions ricky?) of animals drop dead.
>
> He has never explained exactly how this happens.
>
> He only constantly tells us that it does.
>
> In his little brain his theory has become fact...........but
> only in
> *his* brain.
> =====================================
Unlike queer-boy ronnie, I have posted cites for my information.
All queer-boy has posted is his willful ignorance and hypocrisy.
Thanks for proving it yet again, killer.



>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> "rick" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > snip ignorant spew from yet another vegan hypocrite that
>> > proves that
>> > killing animals for his entertainment means nothing to him
>> > as long as he
>> > can demonize those he thinks are killing animals wrongly.
>> >
>> > Hey fool, how do you explain those bloody hands of yours?
>> >
>

"Anon" > wrote in message
...
> You said: You have no 'need' to post to
> usenet
>
> I say: Of course I have no need to post here. Apparently, you
> do.
===================
No more than you. the difference is that I don't claim killing
animals to eat them is bad, you do.
You tell us that while contibuting to animal death and suffering.
Very cruel and brutal animal deaths.
Why is that? You just like blood on your hands or what? Just
like being a hypocrite? thanks for more proof of AR/vegan
idiocy, fool...



>
> Good day sir.
=====================
Run away now liitle one. You've been caught with your lys
exposed...


>
>
> "rick" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Please explain how I am hypocritical and how you can imply
>>> that killing animals for entertainment means nothing to me.
>>> =================================
>> Because you spew about killing animals to eat them only. It's
>> the typical vegan/AR ignorance of their own bloody footprints
>> they track all over the place. You have no 'need' to post to
>> usenet, you're here for entertainmnet. An entertainmnmet that
>> contributes to the death and suffering of millions upon
>> millions of animals needlessly. That you then leave them to
>> rot does not make their deaths any less real than the ones we
>> kill and eat.
>>
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>> . net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> snip ignorant spew from yet another vegan hypocrite that
>>>> proves that killing animals for his entertainment means
>>>> nothing to him as long as he can demonize those he thinks
>>>> are killing animals wrongly.
>>>>
>>>> Hey fool, how do you explain those bloody hands of yours?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

You said: You have no 'need' to post to
usenet

I say: Of course I have no need to post here. Apparently, you do.

Good day sir.


"rick" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Anon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Please explain how I am hypocritical and how you can imply that killing
>> animals for entertainment means nothing to me.
>> =================================
> Because you spew about killing animals to eat them only. It's the typical
> vegan/AR ignorance of their own bloody footprints they track all over the
> place. You have no 'need' to post to usenet, you're here for
> entertainmnet. An entertainmnmet that contributes to the death and
> suffering of millions upon millions of animals needlessly. That you then
> leave them to rot does not make their deaths any less real than the ones
> we kill and eat.
>
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> "rick" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> snip ignorant spew from yet another vegan hypocrite that proves that
>>> killing animals for his entertainment means nothing to him as long as he
>>> can demonize those he thinks are killing animals wrongly.
>>>
>>> Hey fool, how do you explain those bloody hands of yours?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Anon wrote:
> You are not your body. The body is dead when you are not in it. It is
> alive only because you inhabit it. You are a spirit soul temporarily
> inhabiting a human body. You are a spark of God, a child of God and ETERNAL
> in nature. When your body dies, YOU DO NOT die. You pass from one body to
> the next according to your karma from this and previous lives.
>
> This is your opportunity to realize your position to the supreme person,
> God. The human form is the only form capable of doing this. Use this time
> to discover truth! Animals, insects, bacteria etc are not capable of doing
> this. Use your time wisely. When you discover your tru nature and
> restablish your relationship to God, you will feel complete bliss, complete
> comfort, no stress, no anxiety, no worries of any kind. This is your true
> nature! Your happiness will not depend on getting that better job, or the
> new car, or the better school, or the nicer clothes, or the month long
> vacation, of the bacon cheeseburger. You will find complete and total
> satisfaction and HAPPINESS within! and eternally!
>
> In your next birth, you may inhabit the body of a cow, a pig, a lamb, a
> duck, a turtle, or a mosquito. This is a position of suffering. You have
> no chance of realizing your real nature. You will be completely and
> hopelessly stuch in illusion and you will suffer.
>
> We must realize that the animals that we kill and eat for food are our
> brothers and sisters. They are trapped in a miserable condition. The only
> difference between them and us is the body that they inhabit. Would you eat
> your brother if you knew that he was suffering? Of course not. These souls
> in animal forms are no different.

Why did this "God" create a world where one species eats another?
Would you want to worship something like that?

Thank you for the question.

God, not "this God" or "some God", but God, created this world and we as
spirit souls live in it. He gives us free will and we do what we please.
This is His gift to us because he loves us so much. We desire, above all,
to forget about Him. In this forgetfulness, we try to become the enjoyers
of our experiences. We try to become God like. We want to be independant
and in control which is impossible, but we try anyway because we aren't very
smart. God allows us to do this in order that we should come back to him
(BY OUR OWN FREE WILL) after we realize that we cannot derive happiness from
trying to do these things. Animals, are in even greater illusion because
they don't have the ability to realize their position in life. They do not
have the ability to question existence. We as people do, and we should.
Many people do not and that's to be expected. This is where we come to
forget.

Does that answer your question? If not please give me another chance.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Anon wrote:
>> You are not your body. The body is dead when you are not in it. It is
>> alive only because you inhabit it. You are a spirit soul temporarily
>> inhabiting a human body. You are a spark of God, a child of God and
>> ETERNAL
>> in nature. When your body dies, YOU DO NOT die. You pass from one body
>> to
>> the next according to your karma from this and previous lives.
>>
>> This is your opportunity to realize your position to the supreme person,
>> God. The human form is the only form capable of doing this. Use this
>> time
>> to discover truth! Animals, insects, bacteria etc are not capable of
>> doing
>> this. Use your time wisely. When you discover your tru nature and
>> restablish your relationship to God, you will feel complete bliss,
>> complete
>> comfort, no stress, no anxiety, no worries of any kind. This is your
>> true
>> nature! Your happiness will not depend on getting that better job, or
>> the
>> new car, or the better school, or the nicer clothes, or the month long
>> vacation, of the bacon cheeseburger. You will find complete and total
>> satisfaction and HAPPINESS within! and eternally!
>>
>> In your next birth, you may inhabit the body of a cow, a pig, a lamb, a
>> duck, a turtle, or a mosquito. This is a position of suffering. You
>> have
>> no chance of realizing your real nature. You will be completely and
>> hopelessly stuch in illusion and you will suffer.
>>
>> We must realize that the animals that we kill and eat for food are our
>> brothers and sisters. They are trapped in a miserable condition. The
>> only
>> difference between them and us is the body that they inhabit. Would you
>> eat
>> your brother if you knew that he was suffering? Of course not. These
>> souls
>> in animal forms are no different.
>
> Why did this "God" create a world where one species eats another?
> Would you want to worship something like that?
>

That was a good answer Anon - but why would God make a world where
animals suffer because of mankind's free will? How is that fair? Why
would an intelligent being make a world where one species eats another?
I suspect your answer will be that man is the "main player" in this
world and it's just tough luck for the others. I hope I am wrong.

Many thanks. You must be a very spiritual person with a great faith.
May I ask which one, if any? In any case you are lucky to have it. I
hope you are right in what you believe. I wish I could believe it too,
but I can hope at least.

In response to your questions.. I'll do my best to answer.

I would not say that man is the "main player".

The idea of reincarnation is as follows: We are not the body- not the human
body, and not the animal body. When my body dies, I will leave it behind
and either take on a new body (or if I succeed in resetablishing my
relationship with God I may not reincarnate). The body I take on, if I've
lived as an animal while in the human body, taht is, if I live simply to
eat, sleep, and have sex (only live to fulfil sense gratification) then I
will reincarnate into an animal body. I will not "become a duck" or a rat
or a bird or anything else. I'll just be trapped in taht body due to the
karma that I've created.

So, man (or woman or humankind) is not the "main player" in the larger
sense. We are all children of God.

The point is that we are not bodies, but spirit-souls and we are eternal.
Not only are we eternal, but in our natural state we are also blissful and
full of joy. It's only natural that we all look for happiness. It's our
original and natural conidtion. This is true even of those souls trapped in
the animal body (and those trapped in animal consciousness while in the
human body!). We are made from the same stuff and we are all equally God's
children.

We were all once loving servants of God, who realized our postion to Him.
We understood that happiness was a direct result of loving and serving Him.
Somehow, we have lost that connection and have decided that we wanted to try
to be the enjoyers and to become our own masters. We are like the
rebellious teenager and we think we know best for ourselves and so we decide
not to serve God.

We all try to become our own masters and everyone one of us has a different
idea of will make us happy (materially). If I ask you "what would you
really like to do with your life?" or "where do you want to be in 5 years?",
then you will have a different answer than the next person I ask. We all
have different ideas because we are individuals with different tastes.

Some people will live their lives as great hunters, some want only to live
by the beach, some want to use their intellect to gain materially, some love
the water. God gives us these animal bodies, I think, so that we can
completely forget about Him. In the human condition, we are constantly
reminded that there is a God, or we are constantly reminded that there isn't
a God (although there is!)- either way, we hear about God. This does not
happen to animals. No one reminds them of their true nature and even if
someone did they could not understand. They live entirely for their senses.

There is a very important point. That is that this life is suffering.
Being born (being away from God) is the cause of suffering. The further you
get, the more suffering there will be because there is less understanding.
But we must also remember that this is a CHOICE made by the individual
spirit soul to be away from God. If a child screams and yells and throws a
fit because it wants to touch the candle flame what can you do to persuade
it? If the child is persistant enoughm, there is nothing you can do except
let him figure it out for himself. So, God lets us incarnate into the body
which we think will give us the most pleasure. If all you want to do is eat
and have sex all day then why not be a pig?

So, this suffering that happens when one spirit soul decides to eat the
flesh of another is due to ignorance on both sides. These are choices that
we have made through past actions. God knows that they self, the spirit
soul is indestrucible. It cannot be killed or even effected in the
slightest by material suffering. He knows that our "death" does not harm
the real self.

I know that my thoughts are rather jumbled, but I hope that I've been able
to communicate what I intended to communicate. Please ask me to clarify
something if I haven't been clear.

Thank you.

I've tried my best not to insert my personal opinions here, but to only say
what I've been taught. If I've added anything of my own personal opinion,
it was unintentional. I intend to only give the information which has been
taught to me by my teachers.





> wrote in message
oups.com...
> That was a good answer Anon - but why would God make a world where
> animals suffer because of mankind's free will? How is that fair? Why
> would an intelligent being make a world where one species eats another?
> I suspect your answer will be that man is the "main player" in this
> world and it's just tough luck for the others. I hope I am wrong.
>

I am a neophyte. I'm only trying to act as a parrot to tell you what I've
been told. I've been on this path for 9 months now and so I am still very
much a beginner and really I'm not qualified to teach (I could get something
wrong or lead someone astray), but I don't like to leave questions
unanswered. That being said, many people would call this Gaudiya
Vaishnavism (you can type Gaudiya Vaishnava into google to get a basic idea
of what this is. In (very brief) summary, it is a Hindu tradtion dating
back to the appearance of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in the 16th century.
Lord Chaitanya is an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri
Krisha. (Krishna is the father that Jesus prayed to. He is Abba. He is
Allah. He is Jehova. He has many names.) This is not simply a faith
system, but is a constant practice. Sadhana means practice. We practice a
type of Yoga called Sadhana-Bhakti. The goal is to remeber God at all times
and perform all actions in His service.

Hearing is the first part. Chanting is the next. Experience comes from the
chanting. My life changed for the better when I started chanting. It's
profound and so simple. Please let me know if you would like more info on
chanting. I could email you privately. There is no cost and it can be done
in the privacy of your own home and it can do no harm to try

Thank you for giving me a chance to explain. I enjoy it every much.

L


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Many thanks. You must be a very spiritual person with a great faith.
> May I ask which one, if any? In any case you are lucky to have it. I
> hope you are right in what you believe. I wish I could believe it too,
> but I can hope at least.
>

Hi rick.

I wanted to ask you a few questions. Do you call me a killer because I use
plastic products or because I use soap that has animal ingredients in it?
Is this your reasoning?

Thanks.

Anon.

"rick" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Anon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You said: You have no 'need' to post to
>> usenet
>>
>> I say: Of course I have no need to post here. Apparently, you do.
> ===================
> No more than you. the difference is that I don't claim killing animals to
> eat them is bad, you do.
> You tell us that while contibuting to animal death and suffering. Very
> cruel and brutal animal deaths.
> Why is that? You just like blood on your hands or what? Just like being
> a hypocrite? thanks for more proof of AR/vegan idiocy, fool...
>
>
>
>>
>> Good day sir.
> =====================
> Run away now liitle one. You've been caught with your lys exposed...
>
>
>>
>>
>> "rick" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Please explain how I am hypocritical and how you can imply that killing
>>>> animals for entertainment means nothing to me.
>>>> =================================
>>> Because you spew about killing animals to eat them only. It's the
>>> typical vegan/AR ignorance of their own bloody footprints they track all
>>> over the place. You have no 'need' to post to usenet, you're here for
>>> entertainmnet. An entertainmnmet that contributes to the death and
>>> suffering of millions upon millions of animals needlessly. That you
>>> then leave them to rot does not make their deaths any less real than the
>>> ones we kill and eat.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>>> . net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> snip ignorant spew from yet another vegan hypocrite that proves that
>>>>> killing animals for his entertainment means nothing to him as long as
>>>>> he can demonize those he thinks are killing animals wrongly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey fool, how do you explain those bloody hands of yours?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Anon" > wrote in message
...
> Hi rick.
>
> I wanted to ask you a few questions. Do you call me a killer
> because I use plastic products or because I use soap that has
> animal ingredients in it? Is this your reasoning?
> ===========================
I use it because we all are, and, it irks the hell out of vegan
loons...
Our entire lives are based on piles of dead animals... Our diet
doesn't change that regardless of what that is.

> Thanks.
>
> Anon.
>
> "rick" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> You said: You have no 'need' to post to
>>> usenet
>>>
>>> I say: Of course I have no need to post here. Apparently,
>>> you do.
>> ===================
>> No more than you. the difference is that I don't claim
>> killing animals to eat them is bad, you do.
>> You tell us that while contibuting to animal death and
>> suffering. Very cruel and brutal animal deaths.
>> Why is that? You just like blood on your hands or what? Just
>> like being a hypocrite? thanks for more proof of AR/vegan
>> idiocy, fool...
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Good day sir.
>> =====================
>> Run away now liitle one. You've been caught with your lys
>> exposed...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Please explain how I am hypocritical and how you can imply
>>>>> that killing animals for entertainment means nothing to me.
>>>>> =================================
>>>> Because you spew about killing animals to eat them only.
>>>> It's the typical vegan/AR ignorance of their own bloody
>>>> footprints they track all over the place. You have no
>>>> 'need' to post to usenet, you're here for entertainmnet. An
>>>> entertainmnmet that contributes to the death and suffering
>>>> of millions upon millions of animals needlessly. That you
>>>> then leave them to rot does not make their deaths any less
>>>> real than the ones we kill and eat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>>>> . net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snip ignorant spew from yet another vegan hypocrite that
>>>>>> proves that killing animals for his entertainment means
>>>>>> nothing to him as long as he can demonize those he thinks
>>>>>> are killing animals wrongly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey fool, how do you explain those bloody hands of yours?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Anon" > wrote in message
...
> rick wrote:
>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Hi rick.
>>>
>>> I wanted to ask you a few questions. Do you call me a killer
>>> because I use plastic products or because I use soap that has
>>> animal ingredients in it? Is this your reasoning?
>>> ===========================
>> I use it because we all are, and, it irks the hell out of
>> vegan loons...
>> Our entire lives are based on piles of dead animals... Our
>> diet doesn't change that regardless of what that is.
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Anon.
>>>
>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>> k.net...
>>>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> You said: You have no 'need' to post to
>>>>> usenet
>>>>>
>>>>> I say: Of course I have no need to post here. Apparently,
>>>>> you do.
>>>> ===================
>>>> No more than you. the difference is that I don't claim
>>>> killing animals to eat them is bad, you do.
>>>> You tell us that while contibuting to animal death and
>>>> suffering. Very cruel and brutal animal deaths.
>>>> Why is that? You just like blood on your hands or what?
>>>> Just like being a hypocrite? thanks for more proof of
>>>> AR/vegan idiocy, fool...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Good day sir.
>>>> =====================
>>>> Run away now liitle one. You've been caught with your lys
>>>> exposed...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Please explain how I am hypocritical and how you can
>>>>>>> imply that killing animals for entertainment means
>>>>>>> nothing to me.
>>>>>>> =================================
>>>>>> Because you spew about killing animals to eat them only.
>>>>>> It's the typical vegan/AR ignorance of their own bloody
>>>>>> footprints they track all over the place. You have no
>>>>>> 'need' to post to usenet, you're here for entertainmnet.
>>>>>> An entertainmnmet that contributes to the death and
>>>>>> suffering of millions upon millions of animals needlessly.
>>>>>> That you then leave them to rot does not make their deaths
>>>>>> any less real than the ones we kill and eat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> . net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> snip ignorant spew from yet another vegan hypocrite that
>>>>>>>> proves that killing animals for his entertainment means
>>>>>>>> nothing to him as long as he can demonize those he
>>>>>>>> thinks are killing animals wrongly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey fool, how do you explain those bloody hands of
>>>>>>>> yours?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> I can agree with that for the most part Rick, but I think
> there is a differnce in what is implied by the word murder
> versus being a victim of circumstance.
===============================
Eh? Where did the term 'murder' come from? One cannot murder
animals. We can, and do, kill them. But murder is not what
takes place.


If the only things neccessary for my survial are produced
> in a way that kills animals and I use these things, then I
> think that's different than me eating a steak.
========================
Why? At least eating a steak is a survival need. Killing
animals for usenet entertainment is not.
So, you then subsitute that steak with a tofu roast. How many
animals died from the plowing, spraying, seeding, and harvesting
those beans into something you can eat? The beef I eat produces
100s of meals with just the one death.

The difference is that I'm
> doing whatever I can to cause as little harm as possilble. Can
> we agree on this?
============================
No. Abstaining from meat in no way automatically means you are
doing 'better' than eating any type of meat-included diet. Have
you even bothered to compare the foods you eat with each other?
I doubt it. No vegan here on usenet has even thought of it
because the religion has told you that all you need do is avoid
meats.

rick wrote:
> "Anon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi rick.
>>
>> I wanted to ask you a few questions. Do you call me a killer
>> because I use plastic products or because I use soap that has
>> animal ingredients in it? Is this your reasoning?
>> ===========================
> I use it because we all are, and, it irks the hell out of vegan
> loons...
> Our entire lives are based on piles of dead animals... Our diet
> doesn't change that regardless of what that is.
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Anon.
>>
>> "rick" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> You said: You have no 'need' to post to
>>>> usenet
>>>>
>>>> I say: Of course I have no need to post here. Apparently,
>>>> you do.
>>> ===================
>>> No more than you. the difference is that I don't claim
>>> killing animals to eat them is bad, you do.
>>> You tell us that while contibuting to animal death and
>>> suffering. Very cruel and brutal animal deaths.
>>> Why is that? You just like blood on your hands or what? Just
>>> like being a hypocrite? thanks for more proof of AR/vegan
>>> idiocy, fool...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Good day sir.
>>> =====================
>>> Run away now liitle one. You've been caught with your lys
>>> exposed...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net...
>>>>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Please explain how I am hypocritical and how you can imply
>>>>>> that killing animals for entertainment means nothing to me.
>>>>>> =================================
>>>>> Because you spew about killing animals to eat them only.
>>>>> It's the typical vegan/AR ignorance of their own bloody
>>>>> footprints they track all over the place. You have no
>>>>> 'need' to post to usenet, you're here for entertainmnet. An
>>>>> entertainmnmet that contributes to the death and suffering
>>>>> of millions upon millions of animals needlessly. That you
>>>>> then leave them to rot does not make their deaths any less
>>>>> real than the ones we kill and eat.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> . net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip ignorant spew from yet another vegan hypocrite that
>>>>>>> proves that killing animals for his entertainment means
>>>>>>> nothing to him as long as he can demonize those he thinks
>>>>>>> are killing animals wrongly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey fool, how do you explain those bloody hands of yours?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

I can agree with that for the most part Rick, but I think there is a
differnce in what is implied by the word murder versus being a victim of
circumstance. If the only things neccessary for my survial are produced
in a way that kills animals and I use these things, then I think
that's different than me eating a steak. The difference is that I'm
doing whatever I can to cause as little harm as possilble. Can we agree
on this?

> Eh? Where did the term 'murder' come from? One cannot murder
> animals. We can, and do, kill them. But murder is not what
> takes place.
>


I'm sorry. You did not use the word murder. I should have gone back and
read more carefully.


> Why? At least eating a steak is a survival need. Killing
> animals for usenet entertainment is not.
> So, you then subsitute that steak with a tofu roast. How many
> animals died from the plowing, spraying, seeding, and harvesting
> those beans into something you can eat? The beef I eat produces
> 100s of meals with just the one death.
>

Eating a steak is not a survival need. Eating is a survival need. Even
if one cow produced 100s of meals, the cow ate 5-7 lbs of grain per
pound of beef. The plowing, spraying, seeding, and harvesting applies
to those also.

What are you defining as animal? Certainly not insects. Mice?

> No. Abstaining from meat in no way automatically means you are
> doing 'better' than eating any type of meat-included diet. Have
> you even bothered to compare the foods you eat with each other?
> I doubt it. No vegan here on usenet has even thought of it
> because the religion has told you that all you need do is avoid
> meats.
>
>
I don't understand how comparing my diet to other vegans (I am not vegan
by the way) would affect anything. Why would it matter what they ate?

The point is, no matter how you look at it, sticking to a vegan diet
does less harm than eating beef or other farm animal. Please tell me
why this is not true.

Also, please explain what animals I am killing by posting on Usenet and
how I am contributing to their deaths by posting here.

Thank you.

"Anon" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>> Eh? Where did the term 'murder' come from? One cannot murder
>> animals. We can, and do, kill them. But murder is not what
>> takes place.
>>
>
>
> I'm sorry. You did not use the word murder. I should have gone
> back and read more carefully.
>
>
>> Why? At least eating a steak is a survival need. Killing
>> animals for usenet entertainment is not.
>> So, you then subsitute that steak with a tofu roast. How many
>> animals died from the plowing, spraying, seeding, and
>> harvesting those beans into something you can eat? The beef I
>> eat produces 100s of meals with just the one death.
>>
>
> Eating a steak is not a survival need. Eating is a survival
> need. Even if one cow produced 100s of meals, the cow ate 5-7
> lbs of grain per pound of beef. The plowing, spraying,
> seeding, and harvesting applies to those also.
===================
Try reading again. The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or
crops. Thanks for proving once again the closed-minded mantra of
usenet vegans.


>
> What are you defining as animal? Certainly not insects. Mice?
=======================
I never include bugs, but if mice are not animals, then why all
the fake concern about them when used in labs?


>
>> No. Abstaining from meat in no way automatically means you
>> are doing 'better' than eating any type of meat-included diet.
>> Have you even bothered to compare the foods you eat with each
>> other? I doubt it. No vegan here on usenet has even thought
>> of it because the religion has told you that all you need do
>> is avoid meats.
>>
> I don't understand how comparing my diet to other vegans (I am
> not vegan by the way) would affect anything. Why would it
> matter what they ate?
=========================
Again, try reading for comprhension. vegans should compare the
foods they eat. Not to other vegans, but between foods. What
crops cause more/less death and suffering? Rice? potatoes?
brocolli? bananas? vegans don't know, and more importantly,
they don't care! All they want is to spew and rant about what
they think others are doing. If they want to have an impact,
they should first start with what THEY eat.


>
> The point is, no matter how you look at it, sticking to a vegan
> diet does less harm than eating beef or other farm animal.
> Please tell me why this is not true.
==============================
Becuase all the crops you eat are causing massive deaths and
suffering to animals. tell me how much collateral death is
associated with game meats. As long as there is an exapmle, the
automatic gains vegans claims are just a delusion.


>
> Also, please explain what animals I am killing by posting on
> Usenet and how I am contributing to their deaths by posting
> here.
========================
Lookup power generation/distribution and communications. Study
the Hudson River estuary. It's estimated that the 3 power plants
there kill 3 billion fish. That's just 3 power generators out of
13000+ in the US. Estimates range from 3 to 8% of power used by
the internet. Millions upon millions of birds are kill by towers
every year. Learn some facts about your entire lifestyle. Diet
has a small impact overall.





>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:14 GMT, "rick" > wrote:

>The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.

You cannot guarantee that, because even if that beef
carried an “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the
label “grass fed”, that beef will still have been finished
on grain like any other steer in the feedlot.

[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification
program for “process claims,” including feeding methods,
would only add to the confusion. Products that passed an
inspection could carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield
next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the
feed were grass, with no limits on the other 20 percent;
“grain fed” could be used with a diet of as little as 50
percent grain. The agency has delayed implementation of
the rule after protests from farmer and consumer groups,
including Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports
magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

Also, just because the production of the beef allegedly eats
no grains at all, to then conclude that the production of it
causes no CDs, as you do in these two statements;

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

denies the antecedent, as follows;

1) If the steers I eat are fed grains, then the production of my beef causes CD.
2) The steers I eat are not fed grains.
therefore
3) "the production of my beef causes no CDs"

>Lookup power generation/distribution

Are you trying to imply that the production of grass fed
beef doesn't require power generation/distribution? What
about the slaughter, butchering, packaging, refrigeration
and distribution of it to the customers - are all those parts
of its production CD-free as well?

You really are the most stupid hypocrite EVER to foul
these animal-related news groups, Rick. You rant on
and on at vegans for the CDs they allegedly cause with
the food items they buy while flatly denying those caused
during the production of yours.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:14 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>
>>The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.
>
> You cannot guarantee that,
=========================
Yes, I can fool....

because even if that beef
> carried an “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the
> label “grass fed”, that beef will still have been finished
> on grain like any other steer in the feedlot.
===========================
Still lying, eh killer? BTW, you won't find USDA stickers on the
beef I eat. Too bad for your continued lys, eh fool?




snip endless loop of twit lys...

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:41:27 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:14 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>
>>>The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.
>>
>> You cannot guarantee that,
>=========================
>Yes, I can fool....

No, you cannot, even if that beef carries an "USDA Process
Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed."

>> because even if that beef
>> carried an “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the
>> label “grass fed”, that beef will still have been finished
>> on grain like any other steer in the feedlot.
>===========================
>Still lying, eh killer?

No, I've supplied evidence from USDA that supports my
argument PRECISELY while you continue to ignore it
and snip it away.

<restore>
[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification
program for “process claims,” including feeding methods,
would only add to the confusion. Products that passed an
inspection could carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield
next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the
feed were grass, with no limits on the other 20 percent;
“grain fed” could be used with a diet of as little as 50
percent grain. The agency has delayed implementation of
the rule after protests from farmer and consumer groups,
including Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports
magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

Also, just because the production of the beef you allegedly
eat allegedly uses no grains at all, to then conclude that the
production of it causes no CDs, as you do in these two
statements;

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

denies the antecedent, as follows;

1) If the steers I eat are fed grains, then the production of my beef causes CD.
2) The steers I eat are not fed grains.
therefore
3) "the production of my beef causes no CDs"

>Lookup power generation/distribution

Are you trying to imply that the production of grass fed
beef doesn't require power generation/distribution? What
about the slaughter, butchering, packaging, refrigeration
and distribution of it to the customers - are all those parts
of its production CD-free as well?

You really are the most stupid hypocrite EVER to foul
these animal-related news groups, Rick. You rant on
and on at vegans for the CDs they allegedly cause with
the food items they buy while flatly denying those caused
during the production of yours.
<end restore>

You need to address those points instead of snipping them
away in embarrassment, hypocrite.

Below is evidence from USDA, proving that if you buy
so-called grass fed beef which carries an "USDA Process
Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed", that beef
may in fact be finished on grains like any other steer at
the feedlot with USDA's full seal of approval.

Here below is that proposed standard from USDA.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

And below is a statement from the same page urging so-
called grass fed beef producers to use those proposed
marketing claims standards while U.S.D.A. prepares to
make them final by publishing them.

"The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in
conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary
USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA
Verified programs." [my edit]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Your claims about the beef you eat and grass fed beef in
general are debunked as lies.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:23:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:41:27 GMT, "rick" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:14 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.
>>>>>
>>>>> You cannot guarantee that,
>>>>=========================
>>>>Yes, I can fool....
>>>
>>> No, you cannot, even if that beef carries an "USDA
>>> Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed."
>>======================
>>Yes, I can fool.
>
> No, you can't.
======================
Yes, I can fool. I see you still can't read and leave posts
intact without your dishonesty, killer.

The beef I eat has no such label.


>
>>>>> because even if that beef
>>>>> carried an “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the
>>>>> label “grass fed”, that beef will still have been finished
>>>>> on grain like any other steer in the feedlot.
>>>>===========================
>>>>Still lying, eh killer?
>>>
>>> No, I've supplied evidence from USDA that supports my
>>> argument PRECISELY while you continue to ignore it
>>> and snip it away.
>>========================
>>No, you did not
>
> I did,
========================
No, you did not, killer.


but as usual when the evidence is against you, you
> snip it away in embarrassment.
======================
LOL Sure, I'm embarrassed for you, killer...




Snip ignorant spew about a non-adopted proposal...

"Anon" > wrote in message
...
> There is a karmic consequence regardless of whether or not your
> meat causes more harm than my lentils. Ignore at your own
> peril.
======================
Thanks for proving it yet again...



>
>
> "rick" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Eh? Where did the term 'murder' come from? One cannot
>>>> murder animals. We can, and do, kill them. But murder is
>>>> not what takes place.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry. You did not use the word murder. I should have
>>> gone back and read more carefully.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why? At least eating a steak is a survival need. Killing
>>>> animals for usenet entertainment is not.
>>>> So, you then subsitute that steak with a tofu roast. How
>>>> many animals died from the plowing, spraying, seeding, and
>>>> harvesting those beans into something you can eat? The beef
>>>> I eat produces 100s of meals with just the one death.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Eating a steak is not a survival need. Eating is a survival
>>> need. Even if one cow produced 100s of meals, the cow ate
>>> 5-7 lbs of grain per pound of beef. The plowing, spraying,
>>> seeding, and harvesting applies to those also.
>> ===================
>> Try reading again. The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains
>> or crops. Thanks for proving once again the closed-minded
>> mantra of usenet vegans.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What are you defining as animal? Certainly not insects.
>>> Mice?
>> =======================
>> I never include bugs, but if mice are not animals, then why
>> all the fake concern about them when used in labs?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> No. Abstaining from meat in no way automatically means you
>>>> are doing 'better' than eating any type of meat-included
>>>> diet. Have you even bothered to compare the foods you eat
>>>> with each other? I doubt it. No vegan here on usenet has
>>>> even thought of it because the religion has told you that
>>>> all you need do is avoid meats.
>>>>
>>> I don't understand how comparing my diet to other vegans (I
>>> am not vegan by the way) would affect anything. Why would it
>>> matter what they ate?
>> =========================
>> Again, try reading for comprhension. vegans should compare
>> the foods they eat. Not to other vegans, but between foods.
>> What crops cause more/less death and suffering? Rice?
>> potatoes? brocolli? bananas? vegans don't know, and more
>> importantly, they don't care! All they want is to spew and
>> rant about what they think others are doing. If they want to
>> have an impact, they should first start with what THEY eat.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The point is, no matter how you look at it, sticking to a
>>> vegan diet does less harm than eating beef or other farm
>>> animal. Please tell me why this is not true.
>> ==============================
>> Becuase all the crops you eat are causing massive deaths and
>> suffering to animals. tell me how much collateral death is
>> associated with game meats. As long as there is an exapmle,
>> the automatic gains vegans claims are just a delusion.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Also, please explain what animals I am killing by posting on
>>> Usenet and how I am contributing to their deaths by posting
>>> here.
>> ========================
>> Lookup power generation/distribution and communications.
>> Study the Hudson River estuary. It's estimated that the 3
>> power plants there kill 3 billion fish. That's just 3 power
>> generators out of 13000+ in the US. Estimates range from 3 to
>> 8% of power used by the internet. Millions upon millions of
>> birds are kill by towers every year. Learn some facts about
>> your entire lifestyle. Diet has a small impact overall.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:00:48 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:23:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:41:27 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:14 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You cannot guarantee that,
>>>>>=========================
>>>>>Yes, I can fool....
>>>>
>>>> No, you cannot, even if that beef carries an "USDA
>>>> Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed."
>>>======================
>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>
>> No, you can't.
>======================
>Yes, I can fool.

Not without lying, you can't. Evidence from USDA
proves you wrong, and logic dictates that your
argument denies the antecedent. You snipped both
the evidence and the undeniable logic away only to
leave your puny unsupported assertions in their stead.
That's not good enough, and I'm not about to take your
word when evidence from USDA and logic proves
you wrong.

>>>>>> because even if that beef
>>>>>> carried an “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the
>>>>>> label “grass fed”, that beef will still have been finished
>>>>>> on grain like any other steer in the feedlot.
>>>>>===========================
>>>>>Still lying, eh killer?
>>>>
>>>> No, I've supplied evidence from USDA that supports my
>>>> argument PRECISELY while you continue to ignore it
>>>> and snip it away.
>>>========================
>>>No, you did not
>>
>> I did,
>========================
>No, you did not, killer.

I did, but you snipped it all away again for at least the
third time now, and no doubt, being the desperate liar
you've proven yourself to be you'll snip it all away
again, only to then say that I haven't supplied that
evidence against your claim.

<re-restore>
[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification
program for “process claims,” including feeding methods,
would only add to the confusion. Products that passed an
inspection could carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield
next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the
feed were grass, with no limits on the other 20 percent;
“grain fed” could be used with a diet of as little as 50
percent grain. The agency has delayed implementation of
the rule after protests from farmer and consumer groups,
including Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports
magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

Also, just because the production of the beef you allegedly
eat allegedly uses no grains at all, to then conclude that the
production of it causes no CDs, as you do in these two
statements;

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

denies the antecedent, as follows;

1) If the steers I eat are fed grains, then the production of my beef causes CD.
2) The steers I eat are not fed grains.
therefore
3) "the production of my beef causes no CDs"

>Lookup power generation/distribution

Are you trying to imply that the production of grass fed
beef doesn't require power generation/distribution? What
about the slaughter, butchering, packaging, refrigeration
and distribution of it to the customers - are all those parts
of its production CD-free as well?

You really are the most stupid hypocrite EVER to foul
these animal-related news groups, Rick. You rant on
and on at vegans for the CDs they allegedly cause with
the food items they buy while flatly denying those caused
during the production of yours.
<end restore>

You need to address those points instead of snipping them
away in embarrassment, hypocrite.

Below is evidence from USDA, proving that if you buy
so-called grass fed beef which carries an "USDA Process
Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed", that beef
may in fact be finished on grains like any other steer at
the feedlot with USDA's full seal of approval.

Here below is that proposed standard from USDA.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

And below is a statement from the same page urging so-
called grass fed beef producers to use those proposed
marketing claims standards while U.S.D.A. prepares to
make them final by publishing them.

"The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in
conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary
USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA
Verified programs." [my edit]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Your claims about the beef you eat and grass fed beef in
general are debunked as lies.
<end re-restore>

Why would I or anyone take your word, the word from
someone who's obviously quite sick in the mind and a
pathological liar, against the evidence supplied by USDA
and logic? You're hosed, hypocrite.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:00:48 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:23:31 GMT, "rick" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:41:27 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:1lfg12hadejfblaunp1a7tf0iqun2347ud@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:14 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You cannot guarantee that,
>>>>>>=========================
>>>>>>Yes, I can fool....
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you cannot, even if that beef carries an "USDA
>>>>> Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed."
>>>>======================
>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>
>>> No, you can't.
>>======================
>>Yes, I can fool.
>
> Not without lying, you can't.
======================
Completely without lying fool. the only lys here are yours...
Over and over.

Evidence from USDA
> proves you wrong,
=====================
No, it does not. As you keep dishonestly snipping, USDA has
nothing to do with the beef I eat. Too bad for you they don't
control the whole world, eh fool?

and logic dictates that your
> argument denies the antecedent.
===========================
Logic is something you have none of, killer. Now, ignorance and
hypocrisy you have in spades, fool...

You snipped both
> the evidence and the undeniable logic away only to
> leave your puny unsupported assertions in their stead.
> That's not good enough, and I'm not about to take your
> word when evidence from USDA and logic proves
> you wrong.
================================
LOL I snipped your continued lys, and I annotated my snips.
unlike your dishonesty, fool.


>
>>>>>>> because even if that beef
>>>>>>> carried an “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the
>>>>>>> label “grass fed”, that beef will still have been
>>>>>>> finished
>>>>>>> on grain like any other steer in the feedlot.
>>>>>>===========================
>>>>>>Still lying, eh killer?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I've supplied evidence from USDA that supports my
>>>>> argument PRECISELY while you continue to ignore it
>>>>> and snip it away.
>>>>========================
>>>>No, you did not
>>>
>>> I did,
>>========================
>>No, you did not, killer.
>
> I did, but you snipped it all away again for at least the
> third time now, and no doubt, being the desperate liar
> you've proven yourself to be you'll snip it all away
> again, only to then say that I haven't supplied that
> evidence against your claim.
====================================
You haven't supplied anything fool. All you have is a
non-adopted proposal. One that doesn't apply to the beef I eat
anyway. Too bad for you that your ignorance is still in control
of your 2 remaining braincvells druggie...




snip the same old lys about a non-adopted proposal...

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:13:17 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:00:48 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:23:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:41:27 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:14 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You cannot guarantee that,
>>>>>>>=========================
>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you cannot, even if that beef carries an "USDA
>>>>>> Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed."
>>>>>======================
>>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>>
>>>> No, you can't.
>>>======================
>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>
>> Not without lying, you can't.
>======================
>Completely without lying fool.

You've lied about grass fed beef, despite evidence from
USDA that proves you've lied and continuing to lie.

>>Evidence from USDA proves you wrong,
>=====================
>No, it does not.

It shows that, contrary to what you claim, so-called
grass fed beef can be and is finished on grains at
the feedlot like any other steer.

>> and logic dictates that your argument denies the antecedent.
>===========================
>Logic is something you have none of

Wrong, dummy, and I've put it to good use to show
where you're argument denies the antecedent.


>> You snipped both
>> the evidence and the undeniable logic away only to
>> leave your puny unsupported assertions in their stead.
>> That's not good enough, and I'm not about to take your
>> word when evidence from USDA and logic proves
>> you wrong.
>================================
>LOL

Snipping away the evidence which ruins your
unsupported lies is nothing to laugh about, liar
Rick, because snipping it away only shows
that you're unwilling to accept the truth of your
sad, invalid position.

>>>>>>>> because even if that beef
>>>>>>>> carried an “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the
>>>>>>>> label “grass fed”, that beef will still have been
>>>>>>>> finished
>>>>>>>> on grain like any other steer in the feedlot.
>>>>>>>===========================
>>>>>>>Still lying, eh killer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I've supplied evidence from USDA that supports my
>>>>>> argument PRECISELY while you continue to ignore it
>>>>>> and snip it away.
>>>>>========================
>>>>>No, you did not
>>>>
>>>> I did,
>>>========================
>>>No, you did not, killer.
>>
>> I did, but you snipped it all away again for at least the
>> third time now, and no doubt, being the desperate liar
>> you've proven yourself to be you'll snip it all away
>> again, only to then say that I haven't supplied that
>> evidence against your claim.
>====================================
>You haven't supplied anything fool.

I have, and like I said, "and no doubt, being the
desperate liar you've proven yourself to be you'll
snip it all away again, only to then say that I haven't
supplied that evidence against your claim." What a
truly pitiful liar and dodger you are, Rick. This is
simply not good enough.

<re-restore>
<restore>
[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification
program for “process claims,” including feeding methods,
would only add to the confusion. Products that passed an
inspection could carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield
next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the
feed were grass, with no limits on the other 20 percent;
“grain fed” could be used with a diet of as little as 50
percent grain. The agency has delayed implementation of
the rule after protests from farmer and consumer groups,
including Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports
magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

Also, just because the production of the beef you allegedly
eat allegedly uses no grains at all, to then conclude that the
production of it causes no CDs, as you do in these two
statements;

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

denies the antecedent, as follows;

1) If the steers I eat are fed grains, then the production of my beef causes CD.
2) The steers I eat are not fed grains.
therefore
3) "the production of my beef causes no CDs"

>Lookup power generation/distribution

Are you trying to imply that the production of grass fed
beef doesn't require power generation/distribution? What
about the slaughter, butchering, packaging, refrigeration
and distribution of it to the customers - are all those parts
of its production CD-free as well?

You really are the most stupid hypocrite EVER to foul
these animal-related news groups, Rick. You rant on
and on at vegans for the CDs they allegedly cause with
the food items they buy while flatly denying those caused
during the production of yours.
<end restore>

You need to address those points instead of snipping them
away in embarrassment, hypocrite.

Below is evidence from USDA, proving that if you buy
so-called grass fed beef which carries an "USDA Process
Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed", that beef
may in fact be finished on grains like any other steer at
the feedlot with USDA's full seal of approval.

Here below is that proposed standard from USDA.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

And below is a statement from the same page urging so-
called grass fed beef producers to use those proposed
marketing claims standards while U.S.D.A. prepares to
make them final by publishing them.

"The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in
conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary
USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA
Verified programs." [my edit]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Your claims about the beef you eat and grass fed beef in
general are debunked as lies.
<end restore>

>snip ignorant spew

You've got to do better than just snip the evidence against
your claims away, only to continue lying about grass-fed
beef.
<end re-restore>

tch tch tch

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:13:17 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:00:48 GMT, "rick" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:23:31 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:41:27 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:14 GMT, "rick"
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You cannot guarantee that,
>>>>>>>>=========================
>>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you cannot, even if that beef carries an "USDA
>>>>>>> Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed."
>>>>>>======================
>>>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>======================
>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>
>>> Not without lying, you can't.
>>======================
>>Completely without lying fool.
>
> You've lied about grass fed beef, despite evidence from
> USDA that proves you've lied and continuing to lie.
=========================
Nope, the lys are yours, fool, as shown before..


>
>>>Evidence from USDA proves you wrong,
>>=====================
>>No, it does not.
>
> It shows that, contrary to what you claim, so-called
> grass fed beef can be and is finished on grains at
> the feedlot like any other steer.
================================
Nope. It shows you're grasping at straws, again, fool...


>
>>> and logic dictates that your argument denies the antecedent.
>>===========================
>>Logic is something you have none of
>
> Wrong, dummy, and I've put it to good use to show
> where you're argument denies the antecedent.
===============================
No, you didn't. Your lys are just too obvious, fool...

>
>
>>> You snipped both
>>> the evidence and the undeniable logic away only to
>>> leave your puny unsupported assertions in their stead.
>>> That's not good enough, and I'm not about to take your
>>> word when evidence from USDA and logic proves
>>> you wrong.
>>================================
>>LOL
>
> Snipping away the evidence which ruins your
> unsupported lies is nothing to laugh about, liar
> Rick, because snipping it away only shows
> that you're unwilling to accept the truth of your
> sad, invalid position.
=======================
Your dishonesty shows who is desperate here fool. Keep proving
yourself as an ignorant vegan loon. We all love you for it.

>
>>>>>>>>> because even if that beef
>>>>>>>>> carried an “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the
>>>>>>>>> label “grass fed”, that beef will still have been
>>>>>>>>> finished
>>>>>>>>> on grain like any other steer in the feedlot.
>>>>>>>>===========================
>>>>>>>>Still lying, eh killer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I've supplied evidence from USDA that supports my
>>>>>>> argument PRECISELY while you continue to ignore it
>>>>>>> and snip it away.
>>>>>>========================
>>>>>>No, you did not
>>>>>
>>>>> I did,
>>>>========================
>>>>No, you did not, killer.
>>>
>>> I did, but you snipped it all away again for at least the
>>> third time now, and no doubt, being the desperate liar
>>> you've proven yourself to be you'll snip it all away
>>> again, only to then say that I haven't supplied that
>>> evidence against your claim.
>>====================================
>>You haven't supplied anything fool.
>
> I have, and like I said, "and no doubt, being the
> desperate liar you've proven yourself to be you'll
> snip it all away again, only to then say that I haven't
> supplied that evidence against your claim." What a
> truly pitiful liar and dodger you are, Rick. This is
> simply not good enough.
>

snip usual non adopted proposal and lys... thanks for your
continued display of dishonesty, killer.

Rick, are you saying that you hunt for your meat?


"rick" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Derek" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:13:17 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:00:48 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:23:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:41:27 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:14 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You cannot guarantee that,
>>>>>>>>>=========================
>>>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you cannot, even if that beef carries an "USDA
>>>>>>>> Process Verified" shield next to the label "grass fed."
>>>>>>>======================
>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>>======================
>>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>>
>>>> Not without lying, you can't.
>>>======================
>>>Completely without lying fool.
>>
>> You've lied about grass fed beef, despite evidence from
>> USDA that proves you've lied and continuing to lie.
> =========================
> Nope, the lys are yours, fool, as shown before..
>
>
>>
>>>>Evidence from USDA proves you wrong,
>>>=====================
>>>No, it does not.
>>
>> It shows that, contrary to what you claim, so-called
>> grass fed beef can be and is finished on grains at
>> the feedlot like any other steer.
> ================================
> Nope. It shows you're grasping at straws, again, fool...
>
>
>>
>>>> and logic dictates that your argument denies the antecedent.
>>>===========================
>>>Logic is something you have none of
>>
>> Wrong, dummy, and I've put it to good use to show
>> where you're argument denies the antecedent.
> ===============================
> No, you didn't. Your lys are just too obvious, fool...
>
>>
>>
>>>> You snipped both
>>>> the evidence and the undeniable logic away only to
>>>> leave your puny unsupported assertions in their stead.
>>>> That's not good enough, and I'm not about to take your
>>>> word when evidence from USDA and logic proves
>>>> you wrong.
>>>================================
>>>LOL
>>
>> Snipping away the evidence which ruins your
>> unsupported lies is nothing to laugh about, liar
>> Rick, because snipping it away only shows
>> that you're unwilling to accept the truth of your
>> sad, invalid position.
> =======================
> Your dishonesty shows who is desperate here fool. Keep proving yourself
> as an ignorant vegan loon. We all love you for it.
>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> because even if that beef
>>>>>>>>>> carried an "USDA Process Verified" shield next to the
>>>>>>>>>> label "grass fed", that beef will still have been
>>>>>>>>>> finished
>>>>>>>>>> on grain like any other steer in the feedlot.
>>>>>>>>>===========================
>>>>>>>>>Still lying, eh killer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I've supplied evidence from USDA that supports my
>>>>>>>> argument PRECISELY while you continue to ignore it
>>>>>>>> and snip it away.
>>>>>>>========================
>>>>>>>No, you did not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did,
>>>>>========================
>>>>>No, you did not, killer.
>>>>
>>>> I did, but you snipped it all away again for at least the
>>>> third time now, and no doubt, being the desperate liar
>>>> you've proven yourself to be you'll snip it all away
>>>> again, only to then say that I haven't supplied that
>>>> evidence against your claim.
>>>====================================
>>>You haven't supplied anything fool.
>>
>> I have, and like I said, "and no doubt, being the
>> desperate liar you've proven yourself to be you'll
>> snip it all away again, only to then say that I haven't
>> supplied that evidence against your claim." What a
>> truly pitiful liar and dodger you are, Rick. This is
>> simply not good enough.
>>
>
> snip usual non adopted proposal and lys... thanks for your continued
> display of dishonesty, killer.
>

Rick,

I still think I'm right, even if karma were not an issue. It takes more
grain to feed cattle in order to eat cattle that it would take if we just
ate the grain. If a given amount of suffering is caused by producing grain,
then that amount would increase if we look at the amount of grain it takes
to produce one pound of beef. I don't understand how you can argue with
that.

And, if you are hunting your food and beleive that your meat is not causing
the excess harm because it does not eat grain produced by typical commerical
methods, then you need to use a comparable analogy.
If you're just taking meat from nature, then compare that to jsut taking
plants and grains from nature. We live in a world where for most people
this just isn't possible. Do youunderstnd tyhe concept of doing what you
can?

"rick" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Anon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> There is a karmic consequence regardless of whether or not your meat
>> causes more harm than my lentils. Ignore at your own peril.
> ======================
> Thanks for proving it yet again...
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> "rick" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Eh? Where did the term 'murder' come from? One cannot murder
>>>>> animals. We can, and do, kill them. But murder is not what takes
>>>>> place.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry. You did not use the word murder. I should have gone back
>>>> and read more carefully.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Why? At least eating a steak is a survival need. Killing animals for
>>>>> usenet entertainment is not.
>>>>> So, you then subsitute that steak with a tofu roast. How many animals
>>>>> died from the plowing, spraying, seeding, and harvesting those beans
>>>>> into something you can eat? The beef I eat produces 100s of meals
>>>>> with just the one death.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eating a steak is not a survival need. Eating is a survival need.
>>>> Even if one cow produced 100s of meals, the cow ate 5-7 lbs of grain
>>>> per pound of beef. The plowing, spraying, seeding, and harvesting
>>>> applies to those also.
>>> ===================
>>> Try reading again. The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.
>>> Thanks for proving once again the closed-minded mantra of usenet vegans.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What are you defining as animal? Certainly not insects. Mice?
>>> =======================
>>> I never include bugs, but if mice are not animals, then why all the fake
>>> concern about them when used in labs?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No. Abstaining from meat in no way automatically means you are doing
>>>>> 'better' than eating any type of meat-included diet. Have you even
>>>>> bothered to compare the foods you eat with each other? I doubt it. No
>>>>> vegan here on usenet has even thought of it because the religion has
>>>>> told you that all you need do is avoid meats.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't understand how comparing my diet to other vegans (I am not
>>>> vegan by the way) would affect anything. Why would it matter what they
>>>> ate?
>>> =========================
>>> Again, try reading for comprhension. vegans should compare the foods
>>> they eat. Not to other vegans, but between foods. What crops cause
>>> more/less death and suffering? Rice? potatoes? brocolli? bananas?
>>> vegans don't know, and more importantly, they don't care! All they want
>>> is to spew and rant about what they think others are doing. If they
>>> want to have an impact, they should first start with what THEY eat.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The point is, no matter how you look at it, sticking to a vegan diet
>>>> does less harm than eating beef or other farm animal. Please tell me
>>>> why this is not true.
>>> ==============================
>>> Becuase all the crops you eat are causing massive deaths and suffering
>>> to animals. tell me how much collateral death is associated with game
>>> meats. As long as there is an exapmle, the automatic gains vegans claims
>>> are just a delusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, please explain what animals I am killing by posting on Usenet and
>>>> how I am contributing to their deaths by posting here.
>>> ========================
>>> Lookup power generation/distribution and communications. Study the
>>> Hudson River estuary. It's estimated that the 3 power plants there kill
>>> 3 billion fish. That's just 3 power generators out of 13000+ in the US.
>>> Estimates range from 3 to 8% of power used by the internet. Millions
>>> upon millions of birds are kill by towers every year. Learn some facts
>>> about your entire lifestyle. Diet has a small impact overall.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:54:27 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:13:17 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:00:48 GMT, "rick" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:23:31 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:41:27 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:14 GMT, "rick"
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You cannot guarantee that,
>>>>>>>>>=========================
>>>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you cannot, even if that beef carries an "USDA
>>>>>>>> Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed."
>>>>>>>======================
>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>>======================
>>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>>
>>>> Not without lying, you can't.
>>>======================
>>>Completely without lying fool.
>>
>> You've lied about grass fed beef, despite evidence from
>> USDA that proves you've lied and continuing to lie.
>=========================
>Nope

Evidence from USDA shows that you have, which is
why you keep snipping it away at EVERY turn.

>>>>Evidence from USDA proves you wrong,
>>>=====================
>>>No, it does not.
>>
>> It shows that, contrary to what you claim, so-called
>> grass fed beef can be and is finished on grains at
>> the feedlot like any other steer.
>================================
>Nope

Yep. Here's that evidence you daren't face again;

<re-re-re-re-restore>
[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification
program for “process claims,” including feeding methods,
would only add to the confusion. Products that passed an
inspection could carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield
next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the
feed were grass, with no limits on the other 20 percent;
“grain fed” could be used with a diet of as little as 50
percent grain. The agency has delayed implementation of
the rule after protests from farmer and consumer groups,
including Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports
magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

Also, just because the production of the beef you allegedly
eat allegedly uses no grains at all, to then conclude that the
production of it causes no CDs, as you do in these two
statements;

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

denies the antecedent, as follows;

1) If the steers I eat are fed grains, then the production of my beef causes CD.
2) The steers I eat are not fed grains.
therefore
3) "the production of my beef causes no CDs"

>Lookup power generation/distribution

Are you trying to imply that the production of grass fed
beef doesn't require power generation/distribution? What
about the slaughter, butchering, packaging, refrigeration
and distribution of it to the customers - are all those parts
of its production CD-free as well?

You really are the most stupid hypocrite EVER to foul
these animal-related news groups, Rick. You rant on
and on at vegans for the CDs they allegedly cause with
the food items they buy while flatly denying those caused
during the production of yours.
<end restore>

You need to address those points instead of snipping them
away in embarrassment, hypocrite.

Below is evidence from USDA, proving that if you buy
so-called grass fed beef which carries an "USDA Process
Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed", that beef
may in fact be finished on grains like any other steer at
the feedlot with USDA's full seal of approval.

Here below is that proposed standard from USDA.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

And below is a statement from the same page urging so-
called grass fed beef producers to use those proposed
marketing claims standards while U.S.D.A. prepares to
make them final by publishing them.

"The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in
conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary
USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA
Verified programs." [my edit]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Your claims about the beef you eat and grass fed beef in
general are debunked as lies.
<end restore>

>>>> You snipped both
>>>> the evidence and the undeniable logic away only to
>>>> leave your puny unsupported assertions in their stead.
>>>> That's not good enough, and I'm not about to take your
>>>> word when evidence from USDA and logic proves
>>>> you wrong.
>>>================================
>>>LOL
>>
>> Snipping away the evidence which ruins your
>> unsupported lies is nothing to laugh about, liar
>> Rick, because snipping it away only shows
>> that you're unwilling to accept the truth of your
>> sad, invalid position.
>=======================
>Your dishonesty

No, yours, you stupid imbecile.

>>>>>>>>>> because even if that beef
>>>>>>>>>> carried an “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the
>>>>>>>>>> label “grass fed”, that beef will still have been finished
>>>>>>>>>> on grain like any other steer in the feedlot.
>>>>>>>>>===========================
>>>>>>>>>Still lying, eh killer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I've supplied evidence from USDA that supports my
>>>>>>>> argument PRECISELY while you continue to ignore it
>>>>>>>> and snip it away.
>>>>>>>========================
>>>>>>>No, you did not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did,
>>>>>========================
>>>>>No, you did not, killer.
>>>>
>>>> I did, but you snipped it all away again for at least the
>>>> third time now, and no doubt, being the desperate liar
>>>> you've proven yourself to be you'll snip it all away
>>>> again, only to then say that I haven't supplied that
>>>> evidence against your claim.
>>>====================================
>>>You haven't supplied anything fool.
>>
>> I have, and like I said, "and no doubt, being the
>> desperate liar you've proven yourself to be you'll
>> snip it all away again, only to then say that I haven't
>> supplied that evidence against your claim." What a
>> truly pitiful liar and dodger you are, Rick. This is
>> simply not good enough.
>
>snip

Yep, just like I said you would. Your position as a pro-meat
propagandist can't face up to the hard evidence from USDA
that trashes your lies, and you daren't face the logic that ruins
your claims concerning the collateral deaths surrounding the
production of the beef you claim to eat, so you snip it all away
in embarrassment. You're just a sad joke, desperate to keep
your lies alive instead of accepting the truth.

"Anon" > wrote in message
...
> Rick, are you saying that you hunt for your meat?
> ===========================
No. I do have quite a few pounds of venison in the freezer
though. What the idiot dereck doesn't want to tlk about is that
the beef I eat is raised right down the road. No grains, no
antobiotics, no hormones. When slaughter time comes, the
processor is just a few miles away, and then right to my house.
The whole process takes place right within my area. Not like the
vegans imported fruits, veggies, spices. Also, unlike twits'
food, I know exactly what I'm getting, and from where.

He remains the most ignorant, drug-addled spokesman that vegans
could have. He's really helping the cause! I thank him every
chance I get..

>
> "rick" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Derek" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:13:17 GMT, "rick" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:00:48 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:23:31 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:41:27 GMT, "rick"
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:14 GMT, "rick"
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot guarantee that,
>>>>>>>>>>=========================
>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you cannot, even if that beef carries an "USDA
>>>>>>>>> Process Verified" shield next to the label "grass fed."
>>>>>>>>======================
>>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>>>======================
>>>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not without lying, you can't.
>>>>======================
>>>>Completely without lying fool.
>>>
>>> You've lied about grass fed beef, despite evidence from
>>> USDA that proves you've lied and continuing to lie.
>> =========================
>> Nope, the lys are yours, fool, as shown before..
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>Evidence from USDA proves you wrong,
>>>>=====================
>>>>No, it does not.
>>>
>>> It shows that, contrary to what you claim, so-called
>>> grass fed beef can be and is finished on grains at
>>> the feedlot like any other steer.
>> ================================
>> Nope. It shows you're grasping at straws, again, fool...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> and logic dictates that your argument denies the
>>>>> antecedent.
>>>>===========================
>>>>Logic is something you have none of
>>>
>>> Wrong, dummy, and I've put it to good use to show
>>> where you're argument denies the antecedent.
>> ===============================
>> No, you didn't. Your lys are just too obvious, fool...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> You snipped both
>>>>> the evidence and the undeniable logic away only to
>>>>> leave your puny unsupported assertions in their stead.
>>>>> That's not good enough, and I'm not about to take your
>>>>> word when evidence from USDA and logic proves
>>>>> you wrong.
>>>>================================
>>>>LOL
>>>
>>> Snipping away the evidence which ruins your
>>> unsupported lies is nothing to laugh about, liar
>>> Rick, because snipping it away only shows
>>> that you're unwilling to accept the truth of your
>>> sad, invalid position.
>> =======================
>> Your dishonesty shows who is desperate here fool. Keep
>> proving yourself as an ignorant vegan loon. We all love you
>> for it.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> because even if that beef
>>>>>>>>>>> carried an "USDA Process Verified" shield next to the
>>>>>>>>>>> label "grass fed", that beef will still have been
>>>>>>>>>>> finished
>>>>>>>>>>> on grain like any other steer in the feedlot.
>>>>>>>>>>===========================
>>>>>>>>>>Still lying, eh killer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I've supplied evidence from USDA that supports my
>>>>>>>>> argument PRECISELY while you continue to ignore it
>>>>>>>>> and snip it away.
>>>>>>>>========================
>>>>>>>>No, you did not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did,
>>>>>>========================
>>>>>>No, you did not, killer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did, but you snipped it all away again for at least the
>>>>> third time now, and no doubt, being the desperate liar
>>>>> you've proven yourself to be you'll snip it all away
>>>>> again, only to then say that I haven't supplied that
>>>>> evidence against your claim.
>>>>====================================
>>>>You haven't supplied anything fool.
>>>
>>> I have, and like I said, "and no doubt, being the
>>> desperate liar you've proven yourself to be you'll
>>> snip it all away again, only to then say that I haven't
>>> supplied that evidence against your claim." What a
>>> truly pitiful liar and dodger you are, Rick. This is
>>> simply not good enough.
>>>
>>
>> snip usual non adopted proposal and lys... thanks for your
>> continued display of dishonesty, killer.
>>
>
>

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:54:27 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:13:17 GMT, "rick" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:00:48 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:23:31 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:41:27 GMT, "rick"
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:14 GMT, "rick"
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot guarantee that,
>>>>>>>>>>=========================
>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you cannot, even if that beef carries an "USDA
>>>>>>>>> Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed."
>>>>>>>>======================
>>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>>>======================
>>>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not without lying, you can't.
>>>>======================
>>>>Completely without lying fool.
>>>
>>> You've lied about grass fed beef, despite evidence from
>>> USDA that proves you've lied and continuing to lie.
>>=========================
>>Nope
>
> Evidence from USDA shows that you have, which is
> why you keep snipping it away at EVERY turn.
==========================
Fool, YOU have no evidence from the USDA about where my beef
comes from. You truely are this ignorant, aren't you? thanks
agian for proving the ignorance of vegans everywhere, killer.


>

snip rest of blathering idiocy from the king of idiots...

"Anon" > wrote in message
...
> Rick,
>
> I still think I'm right, even if karma were not an issue. It
> takes more grain to feed cattle in order to eat cattle that it
> would take if we just ate the grain.
============================
There is NO requiremnt to feed cattle ANY grains. Why do vegans
always ignore that little fact?


If a given amount of suffering is caused by producing grain,
> then that amount would increase if we look at the amount of
> grain it takes to produce one pound of beef. I don't
> understand how you can argue with that.
================================
Easy, there is no such requirement to feed cattle any grain.


>
> And, if you are hunting your food and beleive that your meat is
> not causing the excess harm because it does not eat grain
> produced by typical commerical methods, then you need to use a
> comparable analogy.
==============================
No, All I need is to compare it to the vegan that claims that by
following na simple rule for their simple mind, 'eat no meat,'
that they are somehow doing something.


> If you're just taking meat from nature, then compare that to
> jsut taking plants and grains from nature. We live in a world
> where for most people this just isn't possible. Do
> youunderstnd tyhe concept of doing what you can?
==============================
Yes, I do. Apparenetly you don't understand anything past vegan
brainwashing. Grass-fed beef is a viable option. Completely
available to anyone that wants it. You do realize don't you that
ALL beef cattle are grazed for most of their lives? And then
only 3/4 of those go to feed lots. One needs not adopt an odd or
unusual diet to do 'better.'
Grass-fed beef is a better option that what vegans do now in
eating all their exotic, imported foods and spices. Of course,
vegans here have proven, over and over, their love for the
petro-chemical industy. Why is that?


>
> "rick" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> There is a karmic consequence regardless of whether or not
>>> your meat causes more harm than my lentils. Ignore at your
>>> own peril.
>> ======================
>> Thanks for proving it yet again...
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eh? Where did the term 'murder' come from? One cannot
>>>>>> murder animals. We can, and do, kill them. But murder is
>>>>>> not what takes place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry. You did not use the word murder. I should have
>>>>> gone back and read more carefully.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? At least eating a steak is a survival need. Killing
>>>>>> animals for usenet entertainment is not.
>>>>>> So, you then subsitute that steak with a tofu roast. How
>>>>>> many animals died from the plowing, spraying, seeding, and
>>>>>> harvesting those beans into something you can eat? The
>>>>>> beef I eat produces 100s of meals with just the one death.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Eating a steak is not a survival need. Eating is a
>>>>> survival need. Even if one cow produced 100s of meals, the
>>>>> cow ate 5-7 lbs of grain per pound of beef. The plowing,
>>>>> spraying, seeding, and harvesting applies to those also.
>>>> ===================
>>>> Try reading again. The beef I eat does is not fed ANY
>>>> grains or crops. Thanks for proving once again the
>>>> closed-minded mantra of usenet vegans.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What are you defining as animal? Certainly not insects.
>>>>> Mice?
>>>> =======================
>>>> I never include bugs, but if mice are not animals, then why
>>>> all the fake concern about them when used in labs?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Abstaining from meat in no way automatically means
>>>>>> you are doing 'better' than eating any type of
>>>>>> meat-included diet. Have you even bothered to compare the
>>>>>> foods you eat with each other? I doubt it. No vegan here
>>>>>> on usenet has even thought of it because the religion has
>>>>>> told you that all you need do is avoid meats.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand how comparing my diet to other vegans (I
>>>>> am not vegan by the way) would affect anything. Why would
>>>>> it matter what they ate?
>>>> =========================
>>>> Again, try reading for comprhension. vegans should compare
>>>> the foods they eat. Not to other vegans, but between foods.
>>>> What crops cause more/less death and suffering? Rice?
>>>> potatoes? brocolli? bananas? vegans don't know, and more
>>>> importantly, they don't care! All they want is to spew and
>>>> rant about what they think others are doing. If they want
>>>> to have an impact, they should first start with what THEY
>>>> eat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is, no matter how you look at it, sticking to a
>>>>> vegan diet does less harm than eating beef or other farm
>>>>> animal. Please tell me why this is not true.
>>>> ==============================
>>>> Becuase all the crops you eat are causing massive deaths and
>>>> suffering to animals. tell me how much collateral death is
>>>> associated with game meats. As long as there is an exapmle,
>>>> the automatic gains vegans claims are just a delusion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, please explain what animals I am killing by posting
>>>>> on Usenet and how I am contributing to their deaths by
>>>>> posting here.
>>>> ========================
>>>> Lookup power generation/distribution and communications.
>>>> Study the Hudson River estuary. It's estimated that the 3
>>>> power plants there kill 3 billion fish. That's just 3 power
>>>> generators out of 13000+ in the US. Estimates range from 3
>>>> to 8% of power used by the internet. Millions upon millions
>>>> of birds are kill by towers every year. Learn some facts
>>>> about your entire lifestyle. Diet has a small impact
>>>> overall.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:11:05 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Anon" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> Rick, are you saying that you hunt for your meat?
>> ===========================
>No. I do have quite a few pounds of venison in the freezer
>though. What the idiot dereck doesn't want to tlk about is that
>the beef I eat is raised right down the road.

That's a lie; I've been trying to get you to address
the logical error in your argument concerning the
beef you claim to eat for nearly three years since
you declared;

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

Explain why vegans cannot make the same claim,
that the production of their cabbages they see
growing in fields on their way to work each morning
doesn't cause or promote CDs, hypocrite?

>No grains, no
>antobiotics, no hormones. When slaughter time comes, the
>processor is just a few miles away, and then right to my house.
>The whole process takes place right within my area.

That's no reason to insist that the production of beef
you eat doesn't cause CDs, because doing so denies
the antecedent as in;

1) If the steers I eat are fed grains and given drugs, then
the production of my beef causes CD.
2) The steers I eat are not fed grains or given drugs
therefore
3) "the production of my beef causes no CDs"

You don't follow that cattle around all day, and
there's no reason to believe that beef doesn't
cause any CDs while every other food item,
according to you, causes millions.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:12:33 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:54:27 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:13:17 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:00:48 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:23:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:41:27 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:14 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot guarantee that,
>>>>>>>>>>>=========================
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, you cannot, even if that beef carries an "USDA
>>>>>>>>>> Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed."
>>>>>>>>>======================
>>>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>>>>======================
>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not without lying, you can't.
>>>>>======================
>>>>>Completely without lying fool.
>>>>
>>>> You've lied about grass fed beef, despite evidence from
>>>> USDA that proves you've lied and continuing to lie.
>>>=========================
>>>Nope
>>
>> Evidence from USDA shows that you have, which is
>> why you keep snipping it away at EVERY turn.
>==========================
>Fool, YOU have no evidence from the USDA about where my beef
>comes from.

The evidence from USDA shows us that so-called
grass fed beef can be and is fed grains. I didn't say
USDA has evidence of where your alleged beef
comes from.

>snip rest

Yes, of course you will, because you're a lying pro-meat
propagandist who will always cover up and snip away
the facts concerning meat.

<re-re-re-re-restore>
[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification
program for “process claims,” including feeding methods,
would only add to the confusion. Products that passed an
inspection could carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield
next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the
feed were grass, with no limits on the other 20 percent;
“grain fed” could be used with a diet of as little as 50
percent grain. The agency has delayed implementation of
the rule after protests from farmer and consumer groups,
including Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports
magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

Also, just because the production of the beef you allegedly
eat allegedly uses no grains at all, to then conclude that the
production of it causes no CDs, as you do in these two
statements;

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

denies the antecedent, as follows;

1) If the steers I eat are fed grains, then the production of my beef causes CD.
2) The steers I eat are not fed grains.
therefore
3) "the production of my beef causes no CDs"

>Lookup power generation/distribution

Are you trying to imply that the production of grass fed
beef doesn't require power generation/distribution? What
about the slaughter, butchering, packaging, refrigeration
and distribution of it to the customers - are all those parts
of its production CD-free as well?

You really are the most stupid hypocrite EVER to foul
these animal-related news groups, Rick. You rant on
and on at vegans for the CDs they allegedly cause with
the food items they buy while flatly denying those caused
during the production of yours.
<end restore>

You need to address those points instead of snipping them
away in embarrassment, hypocrite.

Below is evidence from USDA, proving that if you buy
so-called grass fed beef which carries an "USDA Process
Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed", that beef
may in fact be finished on grains like any other steer at
the feedlot with USDA's full seal of approval.

Here below is that proposed standard from USDA.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

And below is a statement from the same page urging so-
called grass fed beef producers to use those proposed
marketing claims standards while U.S.D.A. prepares to
make them final by publishing them.

"The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in
conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary
USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA
Verified programs." [my edit]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Your claims about the beef you eat and grass fed beef in
general are debunked as lies.
<end restore>

>>>> You snipped both
>>>> the evidence and the undeniable logic away only to
>>>> leave your puny unsupported assertions in their stead.
>>>> That's not good enough, and I'm not about to take your
>>>> word when evidence from USDA and logic proves
>>>> you wrong.
>>>================================
>>>LOL
>>
>> Snipping away the evidence which ruins your
>> unsupported lies is nothing to laugh about, liar
>> Rick, because snipping it away only shows
>> that you're unwilling to accept the truth of your
>> sad, invalid position.
>=======================
>Your dishonesty

No, yours, you stupid imbecile.

>>>>>>>>>> because even if that beef
>>>>>>>>>> carried an “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the
>>>>>>>>>> label “grass fed”, that beef will still have been finished
>>>>>>>>>> on grain like any other steer in the feedlot.
>>>>>>>>>===========================
>>>>>>>>>Still lying, eh killer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I've supplied evidence from USDA that supports my
>>>>>>>> argument PRECISELY while you continue to ignore it
>>>>>>>> and snip it away.
>>>>>>>========================
>>>>>>>No, you did not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did,
>>>>>========================
>>>>>No, you did not, killer.
>>>>
>>>> I did, but you snipped it all away again for at least the
>>>> third time now, and no doubt, being the desperate liar
>>>> you've proven yourself to be you'll snip it all away
>>>> again, only to then say that I haven't supplied that
>>>> evidence against your claim.
>>>====================================
>>>You haven't supplied anything fool.
>>
>> I have, and like I said, "and no doubt, being the
>> desperate liar you've proven yourself to be you'll
>> snip it all away again, only to then say that I haven't
>> supplied that evidence against your claim." What a
>> truly pitiful liar and dodger you are, Rick. This is
>> simply not good enough.
>
>snip

Yep, just like I said you would. Your position as a pro-meat
propagandist can't face up to the hard evidence from USDA
that trashes your lies, and you daren't face the logic that ruins
your claims concerning the collateral deaths surrounding the
production of the beef you claim to eat, so you snip it all away
in embarrassment. You're just a sad joke, desperate to keep
your lies alive instead of accepting the truth.
<end re-re-restore>

This is quite pathetic on your part. You simply can't face the
truth, even when it's shoved down your lying throat.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:12:33 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:54:27 GMT, "rick" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:13:17 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:99sj12lj7987nae9fdjnn6h6phke22dfo8@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:00:48 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:23:31 GMT, "rick"
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:41:27 GMT, "rick"
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Derek" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:14 GMT, "rick"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The beef I eat does is not fed ANY grains or crops.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot guarantee that,
>>>>>>>>>>>>=========================
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, you cannot, even if that beef carries an "USDA
>>>>>>>>>>> Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass
>>>>>>>>>>> fed."
>>>>>>>>>>======================
>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>>>>>======================
>>>>>>>>Yes, I can fool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not without lying, you can't.
>>>>>>======================
>>>>>>Completely without lying fool.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've lied about grass fed beef, despite evidence from
>>>>> USDA that proves you've lied and continuing to lie.
>>>>=========================
>>>>Nope
>>>
>>> Evidence from USDA shows that you have, which is
>>> why you keep snipping it away at EVERY turn.
>>==========================
>>Fool, YOU have no evidence from the USDA about where my beef
>>comes from.
>
> The evidence from USDA shows us that so-called
> grass fed beef can be and is fed grains. I didn't say
> USDA has evidence of where your alleged beef
> comes from.
========================
Thanks for admitting that you have been lying about the beef I
eat, fool. Your continued dishonesty is noted, killer.


>
>>snip rest
>
> Yes, of course you will, because you're a lying pro-meat
> propagandist who will always cover up and snip away
> the facts concerning meat.


snip usual nonadopted PROPOSAl that doesn't effect the beef I eat
anyway, as you have now admitted...

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:11:05 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>"Anon" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Rick, are you saying that you hunt for your meat?
>>> ===========================
>>No. I do have quite a few pounds of venison in the freezer
>>though. What the idiot dereck doesn't want to tlk about is
>>that
>>the beef I eat is raised right down the road.
>
> That's a lie; I've been trying to get you to address
> the logical error in your argument concerning the
> beef you claim to eat for nearly three years since
> you declared;
==============================
Nope, you just admitted in the next post that you have lying
about the beef I eat. Thanks for admitting your dishonesty,
fool...





>
> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
>
> and
>
> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7
>
> Explain why vegans cannot make the same claim,
> that the production of their cabbages they see
> growing in fields on their way to work each morning
> doesn't cause or promote CDs, hypocrite?
>
>>No grains, no
>>antobiotics, no hormones. When slaughter time comes, the
>>processor is just a few miles away, and then right to my house.
>>The whole process takes place right within my area.
>
> That's no reason to insist that the production of beef
> you eat doesn't cause CDs, because doing so denies
> the antecedent as in;
>
> 1) If the steers I eat are fed grains and given drugs, then
> the production of my beef causes CD.
> 2) The steers I eat are not fed grains or given drugs
> therefore
> 3) "the production of my beef causes no CDs"
>
> You don't follow that cattle around all day, and
> there's no reason to believe that beef doesn't
> cause any CDs while every other food item,
> according to you, causes millions.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:46:28 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:11:05 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>"Anon" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>> Rick, are you saying that you hunt for your meat?
>>>> ===========================
>>>No. I do have quite a few pounds of venison in the freezer
>>>though. What the idiot dereck doesn't want to tlk about is
>>>that the beef I eat is raised right down the road.
>>
>> That's a lie; I've been trying to get you to address
>> the logical error in your argument concerning the
>> beef you claim to eat for nearly three years since
>> you declared;
>==============================
>Nope, you just admitted in the next post that you have lying
>about the beef I eat.

That's another obvious lie. Nowhere have I ever admitted
that I've lied about the beef you eat.

>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
>>
>> and
>>
>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7
>>
>> Explain why vegans cannot make the same claim,
>> that the production of their cabbages they see
>> growing in fields on their way to work each morning
>> doesn't cause or promote CDs, hypocrite?

You've failed to address this question, and it's obvious
why.

>>>No grains, no
>>>antobiotics, no hormones. When slaughter time comes, the
>>>processor is just a few miles away, and then right to my house.
>>>The whole process takes place right within my area.
>>
>> That's no reason to insist that the production of beef
>> you eat doesn't cause CDs, because doing so denies
>> the antecedent as in;
>>
>> 1) If the steers I eat are fed grains and given drugs, then
>> the production of my beef causes CD.
>> 2) The steers I eat are not fed grains or given drugs
>> therefore
>> 3) "the production of my beef causes no CDs"
>>
>> You don't follow that cattle around all day, and
>> there's no reason to believe that beef doesn't
>> cause any CDs while every other food item,
>> according to you, causes millions.

And this.