Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 00:43:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"Kevan Smith" > wrote
>> In article >, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 Jun 2006 21:14:06 GMT, Kevan > wrote:
>>>
>>> >dh@. wrote in :
>>> >
>>> >> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>>> >> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>>> >> as animals do in other habitats.
>>> >
>>> >The factory farm meat industry provides a living hell for the animals it
>>> >tortures before inhumane slaughter.

>
>I think both of you are missing the truth


LOL!!! For pointing out facts that you detest, you absurdly lie and accuse
me of "missing the truth". Hilarious!!!

>from opposite ends. People don't
>deserve moral brownie points for raising livestock,


How do you claim superior moral browny points for NEGLECTING to
consider the animals' lives?

  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:05:54 -0500, Kevan Smith > wrote:

>Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
>slaughterhouses available on the internet. Since seeing is believing,
>you should try to view some.


All I've seen are the worst of the worst. Where can we see
what it's like under normal conditions, when things don't go wrong?
  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

Kevan Smith wrote:
> In article et>,
> Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>Kevan Smith wrote:
>>
>>>In article et>,
>>> Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>...that also contributes to global warming and other
>>>>forms of pollution. You smug prick.
>>>
>>>
>>>Good thing I use very few kilowatts per month and ride a bike most
>>>places.

>>
>>You smug prick.
>>
>>You're deluding yourself with a vile fantasy that
>>you're "better than" people who don't subscribe to your
>>phony ethics.

>
>
> As long as you address me in this manner, I'll be ignoring you. If you
> want to have a discussion, be polite. If you want to be foul-mouthed and
> insulting, count me out.


You *are* deluded into believing that you're "better
than" those who don't subscribe to your phony ethics.
You are entirely predictable. I've long commented on
the fact that a stated belief in "animal rights" is a
highly reliable marker or predictor for overall extreme
leftwing barmy politics, and you don't disappoint us.
Not all far-left kooks are "aras", but all "aras" are
far-left kooks, and by telling us that you're "ara",
you've revealed your entire agenda; no need to guess at
any part of it. What separates "aras" from others on
the leftwing fringe is the extreme sanctimony. You
exhibit that perfectly.
  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:44:36 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>
>
>>Kevan Smith > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think both of you are missing the truth from opposite ends. People don't
>>>>deserve moral brownie points for raising livestock, that's absurd, but
>>>>calling their lives a living hell is just hyperbole designed to inflame.
>>>>Animals in such a state would not thrive and unhealthy animals is not good
>>>>business. Also, saying categorically that slaughter is inhumane is just
>>>>untrue. Check out this site
>>>>http://www.grandin.com/survey/2005.r...nt.audits.html These audits
>>>>reveal when there are problems. These issues have been decreasing steadily
>>>>over the years, and when sound practises are employed, few problems are
>>>>reported.
>>>
>>>I am specifically singling out large factory farms. Life for animals on
>>>those farms is indeed a living hell. They definitely do not thrive, and
>>>they are often unhealthy.

>>
>>Utter bullshit. In the aggregate, large-scale producers spend more per unit on preventive care to ensure healthier herds, flocks, etc., because their tighter margins are affected by the price they get for quality. While you may be able to find occasional instances of shoddy producers, they're exceptions to the rule. You're far more likely to find unhealthy animals on smaller farms, where there's less financial risk from one animal making the rest unwell because (a) there are fewer animals and (b) the profit margin per animal is (usually) greater.
>>
>>
>>>Sick and diseased animals do make it into the
>>>human food chain that way.

>>
>>Bullshit, and you should use the phrase "human food supply" instead of referring to the food chain in this context.
>>
>>
>>>Mass mechanized slaughter as practiced in today's slaughterhouses is
>>>inhumane to many of the animals rendered, as even your link shows.
>>>Further, the study you cite doesn't mention methodology. How was the
>>>data collected? Was a non-biased observer collecting the data, or did it
>>>come from factory-supplied paperwork?

>>
>>It's not inhumane. The links you were provided showed isolated instances, while the general rule is that animals are well-treated.
>>
>>
>>>Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
>>>slaughterhouses available on the internet.

>>
>>Yes, from extremists with a no-meat agenda.
>>
>>
>>>Since seeing is believing,

>>
>>Gullible ****. Those are isolated instances, and many of those videos were used to prosecute bad operators.

>
>
> It's another of those amusing though sad and contemptible things,
> that "aras" can't really afford to boast about that end of it...because
> decent AW works AGAINST the gross misnomer "ar".


No, ****wit. It has nothing to do with it.


> Even when
> they get the results they pretend to be after it still works against them,
> and anyone in favor of decent AW for livestock must necessarily be
> opposed to "ar".


No, ****wit, you ignorant ****. You'll get no
agreement from Mr. Chupacabra on that point.

NO ONE who is in favor of "decent AW" (one of your more
vomit-worthy spews) must be opposed to "ar" at all,
****wit. One favors humane treatment for animals *IF*
the animals exist. One does not favor the existence of
the animals in order to "get the privilege" of
practicing "decent AW".

You have been shown to be illogical and wrong, ****wit.
Stop.
  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 00:43:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Kevan Smith" > wrote
>>
>>>In article >, ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 7 Jun 2006 21:14:06 GMT, Kevan > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>>>>>>slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>>>>>>as animals do in other habitats.
>>>>>
>>>>>The factory farm meat industry provides a living hell for the animals it
>>>>>tortures before inhumane slaughter.

>>
>>I think both of you are missing the truth

>
>
> LOL!!! For pointing out facts that you detest, you absurdly lie and accuse
> me of "missing the truth".


No, ****wit. You don't point any meaningful "facts" at
all. You *completely* miss the truth. The truth,
****wit is: causing animals to exist is NOT conferring
a "benefit" on them.


  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:05:54 -0500, Kevan Smith > wrote:
>
>
>>Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
>>slaughterhouses available on the internet. Since seeing is believing,
>>you should try to view some.

>
>
> All I've seen are the worst of the worst. Where can we see
> what it's like under normal conditions,


How do you know that isn't normal, ****wit? It
figures, ****wit, that you'd be defending factory
farms, proving once again that you don't give a shit
about animal welfare; you only care that the animals exist.
  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...

> U-238, which is both the depleted AND natural uranium isotope, isn't very fissile and is weakly radioactive. But here's the big

ugly fly in your ointment: because U-238 isn't fissile

'What happens when DU round hits a target?

Apart from purely mechanical, DU ammunition has extremely
dangerous radiological effect on human as well as on environment
in all. To learn this, it is necessary to know what happens with the
sting (penetrator) once it hits solid target, such as tank or concrete
structure is. The penetrator disrupts into:

Large shrapnel ( tenths of grams )

Small parts ( grams)

Large particles ( over 10 micrometers ) and

Aerosolized particles ( uranium dust ) produced by burning

First three types of particles are solid depleted uranium itself
and, being relatively heavy, drop in the close area ( 10 meters )
around impact spot. These particles, apart being radioactive
are also very toxic and may intensively react with fluids around
them - primarily water - contaminating such surface and
underground waters as well as soil itself.

In case of direct hit, the high temperatures, of about 1200 oC,
are developed on the impact spot. Since uranium burns on
700 oC, most of the penetrator (50-70%) combusts into uranium
dioxide and uranium trioxide. One hundred grams of uranium
burns out into about 1,000 grams of fine, black uranium dust.
Inhaling just 0.002 grams might be fatal to human health.

Because of immediate cooling, fine uranium mist is formed.
Particles do not exceed 2.5 micrometers in diameter and
essentially have ceramic form, in other words, they are not
soluble and stay unchanged for good. Most of the particles
fall on the ground in the closest surrounding of the impact
spot. In the distances that exceed 200 m, their number is
smaller although they may be detected even tenths of
kilometers from the impact spot because, in respect to their
very small size, they can be easily moved by wind. This only
underlines high danger of contamination which can be spread
in very wide areas.

Is toxic impact of DU on human helath more dangerous than
radiological one?

Dangerous effect of exposure to depleted uranium could be
inducted by outside or inside radiation. Outside radiation is
significant when the whole sting or its parts are close to
humans. If such parts are in direct contact to skin, because
of the alpha and beta radiation, it could be burned. ..

Inside radiation is, however, difficult to avoid and is much
more dangerous. Basic threat appears when inhaling or
congesting DU particles. Once in taken, uranium endangers
all tissues it encounters, primarily lungs, liver, kidneys but
also other organs, such as spinal content tissue, etc. Inhaled
uranium dust has soluble and insoluble particles. Soluble
particles are toxic and they poison the organism while the
insoluble parts are more dangerous because of their
radioactivity. Increased risk to cancer is about 5% per sievert
what means that someone that has been exposed to DU close
to impact spot might have increased risk to cancer from 20%
upwards.

Tiny uranium parts penetrate soil into underground water
contaminating, such, the whole food chain on a long-term
basis. DU half decay time is 4.5 billion years what practically
means that, once spread, it stays in our environment forever.
The most endangered are soldiers and individuals that were
close to impact spots at very attack. It is not excluded that
such persons might have inhaled hundreds of grams of DU.
It is quite possible that people working on mending damages
after bombing, inhale additional quantities of DU particles.
This because dust is disturbed by people, vehicles or wind.
Equivalent doses are, in such cases, less (tenths of micro
sieverts ) but not less dangerous.

If the target is missed, just a little percent of DU will become
insoluble dust. Solid uranium will be on the surface or under
it where it will react with water. Depending on geological
situation, there is high risk on contamination of underground
water. Detailed examinations must be exercised for every
particular case.
...'
http://www.montenet.org/2001/green.htm

'Depleted uranium is a highly toxic and radioactive byproduct of
the uranium enrichment process needed in nuclear reactors and
the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Natural uranium, with a
half-life of 4.5 billion years, is comprised of three isotopes: 99.27%
U238, 0.72% U235, and .0057% U234. DU is uranium with the
U235 isotope-the fissionable material-reduced from 0.7% to
0.2%-thus, "depleted." (3) The Pentagon says DU is relatively
harmless, emitting "only" 60% the radiation of nondepleted
uranium. But Dr. Ernest Sternglass, Jay Gould, and Benjamin
Goldman have shown that even low-level radiation emitted
during the "normal" functioning of nuclear power plants creates
havoc with people's immune system as well as the surrounding
environment. (4) And, according to independent scientists,
"a DU antitank round outside its metal casing can emit as much
radiation in one hour as 50 chest X-rays." (5) A tank driver
receives a radiation dose of 0.13 rem/hr to his or her head from
overhead DU armor (6) which may seem like a very low dose.
However, after 32 continuous days, or 64 12-hour days, the
amount of radiation a tank driver receives to his head will
exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's annual standard
for public whole-body exposure to man-made sources of radiation.
(7) Unfortunately, US tank crews were not monitored for radiation
exposure during the Gulf War. (8)

When properly encased, DU gives off very little radiation, the
Pentagon says. But DU becomes much more radioactive when
it burns. And when it is fired, it combusts on impact. "As much
as 70% of the material is released as a radioactive and highly
toxic dust that can be inhaled or ingested and then trapped in
the lungs or kidneys." (9)

Leaving more than 600,000 pounds of depleted uranium
scattered throughout the region, by (the first Gulf) war's end
the US had turned the Gulf area into a deadly radioactive grid,
affecting not only US soldiers but hundreds of thousands,
perhaps millions, of people who live and work in the Gulf.
A single molecular particle of depleted uranium will subject
an individual to radiation at a level 800 times what is permitted
by federal regulations for external exposure. (10) As DU-artillery
shells heat up, the uranium becomes aerosolized, releasing high
amounts of radioactivity, not the low amounts the military claims
for "normal" depleted uranium. Clouds of deadly uranium
dioxide swept over large areas of Iraq and Kuwait, devastating
agriculture, soil, and water. (11)

Radioactivity inflicts severe damage on the total environment
while weakening immune systems, destroying the kidneys, lungs,
bones, and liver, and rendering the human body susceptible to
all sorts of diseases that a healthy individual might have been
able to ward off. Iraqi children continue to find uranium-coated
shells; they have been coming down with all sorts of deadly
illnesses associated with radiation poisoning. Is it any wonder
that many symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome are so similar to
radiation sickness?
....'
http://www.greens.org/s-r/15/15-20.html




  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

"chico chupacabra" ? bwahahahahah!! >wrote in message ...
> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> > "pearl" wrote:
> >
> > > 'On another front, In These Times

> >
> > Which is quite the science journal... NOT!!

>
> From their "about us" page:
>
> In These Times is dedicated to informing and analyzing popular movements for social, environmental and economic justice; to

providing a forum for discussing the politics that shape our lives; and to producing a magazine that is read by the broadest and
most diverse audience possible.
>
> IOW, they're far-out leftists with all their nasty little axes to grind and not unbiased researchers.


Only to a far-out neo-con with all your nasty little axes to grind.

Just for you:

May 20 2003
'...

J.S.: I understand you are a Colonel in the U.S. military, is that
right?

U.S.C.: You are correct; I work for the U.S. Special
Operations Command attached to Central Command. My job
is to plot coordinates for targets and decide what is the best
way to destroy the target.

I have a large network of analysts at my disposal to analyze
each target and figure out what weapons would best destroy it.

J.S.: Do you know how much D.U. was just used in Iraq, and
what types of munitions were used?

U.S.C.: Yes I am aware of at least 500 tons of D.U. munitions
that were used by combined coalition forces. I also know that
many cities were heavily bombarded with D.U. munitions.

J.S.: 500 tons? Are you absolutely sure?

U.S.C.: Oh, most sure on that matter. I know it was a little over
500 tons, but you can round off your figures to the nearest
hundred tons (chuckles).

J.S.: What about the cities? Did you deliberately use D.U. on
them?

U.S.C.: Let's just say that we didn't do anything to avoid
using D.U. in cities or heavily populated areas.

....

J.S.: Back to the 500 tons of D.U., did the D.O.D. / Pentagon
deliberately target civilian areas? And if they did, why?

U.S.C.: I answered that already, but I will tell you that there
were a lot of Iraqi armored vehicles in and around most major
cities. Our own tanks and vehicles use D.U. penetrator rounds
to destroy those enemy vehicles. We are aware that over 100 tons
of D.U. munitions were used in and around Baghdad, but a lot
more fighting went on around the Northern cities and Basra.
We knocked out over 20,000 different types of vehicles in Iraq,
and even shelled buildings in downtown Baghdad with D.U.

J.S.: The Pentagon knew this was happening? Did they try to stop
it? You know, because of the health risks of D.U. and the fact
that we were supposed to be liberating Iraq?

U.S.C.: They wanted complete destruction of any military vehicle
in Iraq. That was why you saw our vehicles shooting even the
disabled and already shelled vehicles. I have seen pictures of
many vehicles with over 20 holes in them. The objective was to
make sure that there is no way that any fighting force could ever
use those vehicles in any way. We wanted to decimate the Iraqi
army and make sure they were never able to fight again. I think
we achieved that objective quite well, more so than we had
hoped in such a short amount of time.

This took an enormous amount of ammunition, mostly D.U.
tipped 25mm, 30mm, and 125mm penetrator rounds.

J.S.: What about the health risks that are associated with D.U.?
Or do you deny there are any?

U.S.C.: You are determined to get me to make a statement
about the health risks aren't you?

J.S.: If you will, I want to see what the behind the scenes
view of D.U. is in the Pentagon.

U.S.C.: Well..... (long pause, followed by heavy
profanity).. Okay, I'll give you some dirt if that's what you're
looking for. The Pentagon knows there are huge health risks
associated with D.U. They know from years of monitoring
our own test ranges and manufacturing facilities.

There were parts of Iraq designated as high contamination
areas before we ever placed any troops on the ground. The
areas around Basra, Jalibah, Talil, most of the southern desert,
and various other hot spots were all identified as contaminated
before the war. Some of the areas in the southern desert region
along the Kuwaiti border are especially radioactive on scans
and tests.

One of our test ranges in Saudi Arabia shows over 1000 times
the normal background level for radiation. We have test ranges
in the U.S. that are extremely contaminated, hell they have been
since the 80's and nothing is ever said publicly. Don't ask don't
tell is not only applied to gays, it is applied to this matter very
heavily.

I know at one time the theory was developed that any soldier
exposed to D.U. shells should have to wear full MOP gear
(the chemical protective suit). But they realized that just
wouldn't be practical and it was never openly discussed again.

J.S.: So the stories that they know D.U. is harmful are true?

U.S.C.: Yes, there is no doubt that most high level commanders
who were around during the 80's know about it.

J.S.: So how do you feel about the fact that you exposed your
own men to D.U.?

U.S.C.: F.k you!! What do you know about my job? I did
what I had to do to take out the targets I was given. If it was
necessary to use D.U., then I put it in my target analysis reports.
I didn't actually fire the rounds myself; I work in a remote office.

J.S.: So you'll never have to worry about being exposed to D.U.
huh? Very brave.

U.S.C.: (lot's of profanity) this interview is over with (more
profanity, followed by the phone slamming down)

I never did get to finish the third interview, but I think what I
got out of the colonel is very telling.

By his own admission, even knowing the dangers of D.U., it
was used on major Iraqi cities. Our own troops are being
exposed to the areas that have been highly contaminated, with
no warning or attempt to protect them.

There were hundreds of tons of D.U. used in major population
centers, by troops following orders to completely destroy all
Iraqi military vehicles and buildings. This is the first time that
D.U. has been used in heavily populated areas.

A whole country was just contaminated again with no regards
to the future generations that will live there. The Tigris River
irrigates all the crops grown in that area of the world, and most
livestock is raised with water and crops irrigated from that river.

How many more babies will be born with birth defects? How
many more children will get cancer and die before they can
ever live a productive life?

Thousands have been affected by D.U. used in the first Gulf
War. Some figures on the rate of cancer in Iraq showed a
300-500% increase in cancer and related illnesses since then.
Now the major population areas have been highly contaminated,
with no regard to any Iraqi's future health.

We will have to wait and see what the cost of this action will
be. It is sure to be extremely high, and result in a huge amount
of further suffering and death.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0305/S00050.htm




  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Yo, "Rick"

"rick" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article t>,
>> "rick" > wrote:
>>
>>> LOL I'm not giving MY defintion, fool. I'm giving the
>>> definition from the original guy who made up the word and
>>> religion. Anything else is a watered down version designed to
>>> make YOU feel better about doing nothing of substance.
>>> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
>>> a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
>>> products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
>>> fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
>>> encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
>>> wholly or in part from animals..."
>>> Donald Watson, 1944

>>
>> That's one definition he accepted.

> =======================
> LOL NO, fool, that's the definition of the word he made up. He made-up
> the word, he get's to define it.


Well.. yes and no. Language evolves. Words change over time. Yes, Watson
made the word up, but that was over 60 years ago, and it has changed by
usage. "***" used to mean just "happy", but anyone who thinks that it means
exactly the same thing today that it meant in 1920 is either leading an
amazingly sheltered life or is being foolish. It's the same with "vegan".
We sticklers like to think that words are static, but they aren't. Watson
made that word up, but then he released it into the big, wide world of
language users. The only way to keep your made-up word from changing is to
never let anyone else know about it! Nowadays, when people want to harken
back to old definitions, they use terms like "classic" and "old school", so
maybe we could avoid confusion by saying "classic veganism" when referring
to Donald Watson's veganism. Just a thought.



  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 Goo amusingly promoted "ar" shock theater:

>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
>goober cracker, lied:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:05:54 -0500, Kevan Smith > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
>>>slaughterhouses available on the internet. Since seeing is believing,
>>>you should try to view some.

>>
>>
>> All I've seen are the worst of the worst. Where can we see
>> what it's like under normal conditions,

>
>How do you know that isn't normal


I've only seen the worst from your "ar" heros, Goo.


  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Yo, "Rick"


"ThreadKiller" > wrote in message
. net...
> "rick" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article
>>> t>,
>>> "rick" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> LOL I'm not giving MY defintion, fool. I'm giving the
>>>> definition from the original guy who made up the word and
>>>> religion. Anything else is a watered down version designed
>>>> to
>>>> make YOU feel better about doing nothing of substance.
>>>> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>>>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and
>>>> includes
>>>> a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living
>>>> on the
>>>> products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh,
>>>> fish,
>>>> fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
>>>> encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities
>>>> derived
>>>> wholly or in part from animals..."
>>>> Donald Watson, 1944
>>>
>>> That's one definition he accepted.

>> =======================
>> LOL NO, fool, that's the definition of the word he made up.
>> He made-up the word, he get's to define it.

>
> Well.. yes and no. Language evolves. Words change over time.
> Yes, Watson made the word up, but that was over 60 years ago,
> and it has changed by usage. "***" used to mean just "happy",
> but anyone who thinks that it means exactly the same thing
> today that it meant in 1920 is either leading an amazingly
> sheltered life or is being foolish. It's the same with
> "vegan". We sticklers like to think that words are static, but
> they aren't. Watson made that word up, but then he released it
> into the big, wide world of language users. The only way to
> keep your made-up word from changing is to never let anyone
> else know about it! Nowadays, when people want to harken back
> to old definitions, they use terms like "classic" and "old
> school", so maybe we could avoid confusion by saying "classic
> veganism" when referring to Donald Watson's veganism. Just a
> thought.

=============================
No, the change in the word is by lazy waanbes that can't be
bothered to actually live up to the ideals created for veganism.
They are smug, self-rightous, people-hating hypocrites...

>
>
>



  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Yo, "Rick"

"rick" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "ThreadKiller" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> "rick" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>>
>>> "Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article t>,
>>>> "rick" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> LOL I'm not giving MY defintion, fool. I'm giving the
>>>>> definition from the original guy who made up the word and
>>>>> religion. Anything else is a watered down version designed to
>>>>> make YOU feel better about doing nothing of substance.
>>>>> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>>>>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
>>>>> a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
>>>>> products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
>>>>> fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
>>>>> encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
>>>>> wholly or in part from animals..."
>>>>> Donald Watson, 1944
>>>>
>>>> That's one definition he accepted.
>>> =======================
>>> LOL NO, fool, that's the definition of the word he made up. He made-up
>>> the word, he get's to define it.

>>
>> Well.. yes and no. Language evolves. Words change over time. Yes,
>> Watson made the word up, but that was over 60 years ago, and it has
>> changed by usage. "***" used to mean just "happy", but anyone who thinks
>> that it means exactly the same thing today that it meant in 1920 is
>> either leading an amazingly sheltered life or is being foolish. It's the
>> same with "vegan". We sticklers like to think that words are static, but
>> they aren't. Watson made that word up, but then he released it into the
>> big, wide world of language users. The only way to keep your made-up
>> word from changing is to never let anyone else know about it! Nowadays,
>> when people want to harken back to old definitions, they use terms like
>> "classic" and "old school", so maybe we could avoid confusion by saying
>> "classic veganism" when referring to Donald Watson's veganism. Just a
>> thought.

> =============================
> No, the change in the word is by lazy waanbes that can't be bothered to
> actually live up to the ideals created for veganism. They are smug,
> self-rightous, people-hating hypocrites...


In 60+ years, there have been tons of those, but there have also been plenty
of folks who just asked innocently "What's a vegan?" and were told some
watered down version of the above definition. From there, it went like that
old children's party game, Telephone, and now you have plenty of people who
are not lazy or smug or wannabes but who just ended up, through no fault of
their own, with the altered definition in their heads (whether they apply it
to themselves or not). That's the real world, Rick. You have some very
good arguments here, but if you think that every single person who is
uninformed about the original definition of "vegan" is automatically a lazy,
smug, self-righteous, people-hating, hypocritical wannabe, you're just not
being rational. If that isn't what you believe, my apologies.


  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Yo, "Rick"


"ThreadKiller" > wrote in message
. com...
> "rick" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "ThreadKiller" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>> k.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article
>>>>> t>,
>>>>> "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL I'm not giving MY defintion, fool. I'm giving the
>>>>>> definition from the original guy who made up the word and
>>>>>> religion. Anything else is a watered down version
>>>>>> designed to
>>>>>> make YOU feel better about doing nothing of substance.
>>>>>> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and
>>>>>> includes
>>>>>> a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living
>>>>>> on the
>>>>>> products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh,
>>>>>> fish,
>>>>>> fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
>>>>>> encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities
>>>>>> derived
>>>>>> wholly or in part from animals..."
>>>>>> Donald Watson, 1944
>>>>>
>>>>> That's one definition he accepted.
>>>> =======================
>>>> LOL NO, fool, that's the definition of the word he made up.
>>>> He made-up the word, he get's to define it.
>>>
>>> Well.. yes and no. Language evolves. Words change over
>>> time. Yes, Watson made the word up, but that was over 60
>>> years ago, and it has changed by usage. "***" used to mean
>>> just "happy", but anyone who thinks that it means exactly the
>>> same thing today that it meant in 1920 is either leading an
>>> amazingly sheltered life or is being foolish. It's the same
>>> with "vegan". We sticklers like to think that words are
>>> static, but they aren't. Watson made that word up, but then
>>> he released it into the big, wide world of language users.
>>> The only way to keep your made-up word from changing is to
>>> never let anyone else know about it! Nowadays, when people
>>> want to harken back to old definitions, they use terms like
>>> "classic" and "old school", so maybe we could avoid confusion
>>> by saying "classic veganism" when referring to Donald
>>> Watson's veganism. Just a thought.

>> =============================
>> No, the change in the word is by lazy waanbes that can't be
>> bothered to actually live up to the ideals created for
>> veganism. They are smug, self-rightous, people-hating
>> hypocrites...

>
> In 60+ years, there have been tons of those, but there have
> also been plenty of folks who just asked innocently "What's a
> vegan?" and were told some watered down version of the above
> definition. From there, it went like that old children's party
> game, Telephone, and now you have plenty of people who are not
> lazy or smug or wannabes but who just ended up, through no
> fault of their own, with the altered definition in their heads
> (whether they apply it to themselves or not). That's the real
> world, Rick. You have some very good arguments here, but if
> you think that every single person who is uninformed about the
> original definition of "vegan" is automatically a lazy, smug,
> self-righteous, people-hating, hypocritical wannabe, you're
> just not being rational.

=======================
Only those here on usenet. There prabably are some real vegans
out there somewhere.

If that isn't what you believe, my apologies.
> ============================

Exactly what i believe of those on usenet that try to claim their
vegan...


>



  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Yo, "Rick"


"rick" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "ThreadKiller" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> "rick" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>>
>>> "ThreadKiller" > wrote in message
>>> . net...
>>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>>> k.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> In article t>,
>>>>>> "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL I'm not giving MY defintion, fool. I'm giving the
>>>>>>> definition from the original guy who made up the word and
>>>>>>> religion. Anything else is a watered down version designed to
>>>>>>> make YOU feel better about doing nothing of substance.
>>>>>>> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>>>>>>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
>>>>>>> a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
>>>>>>> products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
>>>>>>> fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
>>>>>>> encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
>>>>>>> wholly or in part from animals..."
>>>>>>> Donald Watson, 1944
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's one definition he accepted.
>>>>> =======================
>>>>> LOL NO, fool, that's the definition of the word he made up. He
>>>>> made-up the word, he get's to define it.
>>>>
>>>> Well.. yes and no. Language evolves. Words change over time. Yes,
>>>> Watson made the word up, but that was over 60 years ago, and it has
>>>> changed by usage. "***" used to mean just "happy", but anyone who
>>>> thinks that it means exactly the same thing today that it meant in 1920
>>>> is either leading an amazingly sheltered life or is being foolish.
>>>> It's the same with "vegan". We sticklers like to think that words are
>>>> static, but they aren't. Watson made that word up, but then he
>>>> released it into the big, wide world of language users. The only way to
>>>> keep your made-up word from changing is to never let anyone else know
>>>> about it! Nowadays, when people want to harken back to old
>>>> definitions, they use terms like "classic" and "old school", so maybe
>>>> we could avoid confusion by saying "classic veganism" when referring to
>>>> Donald Watson's veganism. Just a thought.
>>> =============================
>>> No, the change in the word is by lazy waanbes that can't be bothered to
>>> actually live up to the ideals created for veganism. They are smug,
>>> self-rightous, people-hating hypocrites...

>>
>> In 60+ years, there have been tons of those, but there have also been
>> plenty of folks who just asked innocently "What's a vegan?" and were told
>> some watered down version of the above definition. From there, it went
>> like that old children's party game, Telephone, and now you have plenty
>> of people who are not lazy or smug or wannabes but who just ended up,
>> through no fault of their own, with the altered definition in their heads
>> (whether they apply it to themselves or not). That's the real world,
>> Rick. You have some very good arguments here, but if you think that
>> every single person who is uninformed about the original definition of
>> "vegan" is automatically a lazy, smug, self-righteous, people-hating,
>> hypocritical wannabe, you're just not being rational.

> =======================
> Only those here on usenet. There prabably are some real vegans out there
> somewhere.


And do you agree that there are people out there who do not claim to be
vegans but who still hold a less-than-accurate belief as to what a "vegan"
is?

> If that isn't what you believe, my apologies.
>> ============================

> Exactly what i believe of those on usenet that try to claim their vegan...


Gotcha. :-)


  #95 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Yo, "Rick"


"ThreadKiller" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "rick" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "ThreadKiller" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>> k.net...
>>>>
>>>> "ThreadKiller" > wrote in message
>>>> . net...
>>>>> "rick" > wrote in message
>>>>> k.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> t>,
>>>>>>> "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL I'm not giving MY defintion, fool. I'm giving the
>>>>>>>> definition from the original guy who made up the word
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> religion. Anything else is a watered down version
>>>>>>>> designed to
>>>>>>>> make YOU feel better about doing nothing of substance.
>>>>>>>> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and
>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>> a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of
>>>>>>>> living on the
>>>>>>>> products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh,
>>>>>>>> fish,
>>>>>>>> fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
>>>>>>>> encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities
>>>>>>>> derived
>>>>>>>> wholly or in part from animals..."
>>>>>>>> Donald Watson, 1944
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's one definition he accepted.
>>>>>> =======================
>>>>>> LOL NO, fool, that's the definition of the word he made
>>>>>> up. He made-up the word, he get's to define it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well.. yes and no. Language evolves. Words change over
>>>>> time. Yes, Watson made the word up, but that was over 60
>>>>> years ago, and it has changed by usage. "***" used to mean
>>>>> just "happy", but anyone who thinks that it means exactly
>>>>> the same thing today that it meant in 1920 is either
>>>>> leading an amazingly sheltered life or is being foolish.
>>>>> It's the same with "vegan". We sticklers like to think that
>>>>> words are static, but they aren't. Watson made that word
>>>>> up, but then he released it into the big, wide world of
>>>>> language users. The only way to keep your made-up word from
>>>>> changing is to never let anyone else know about it!
>>>>> Nowadays, when people want to harken back to old
>>>>> definitions, they use terms like "classic" and "old
>>>>> school", so maybe we could avoid confusion by saying
>>>>> "classic veganism" when referring to Donald Watson's
>>>>> veganism. Just a thought.
>>>> =============================
>>>> No, the change in the word is by lazy waanbes that can't be
>>>> bothered to actually live up to the ideals created for
>>>> veganism. They are smug, self-rightous, people-hating
>>>> hypocrites...
>>>
>>> In 60+ years, there have been tons of those, but there have
>>> also been plenty of folks who just asked innocently "What's a
>>> vegan?" and were told some watered down version of the above
>>> definition. From there, it went like that old children's
>>> party game, Telephone, and now you have plenty of people who
>>> are not lazy or smug or wannabes but who just ended up,
>>> through no fault of their own, with the altered definition in
>>> their heads (whether they apply it to themselves or not).
>>> That's the real world, Rick. You have some very good
>>> arguments here, but if you think that every single person who
>>> is uninformed about the original definition of "vegan" is
>>> automatically a lazy, smug, self-righteous, people-hating,
>>> hypocritical wannabe, you're just not being rational.

>> =======================
>> Only those here on usenet. There prabably are some real
>> vegans out there somewhere.

>
> And do you agree that there are people out there who do not
> claim to be vegans but who still hold a less-than-accurate
> belief as to what a "vegan" is?

=========================
LOL I claim there are vegan wannbes that don't know the meaning.
Normal people really don't care what some loon wants to call
themselves. Why would I care waht people who don't don't claim
to be vegan, don't care about the religion of veganism, and don't
live the lifestyle, believe? I'm addressing the ignornt loons
that like to pretend that by just not eating animals that they
somehow are not killing any.


>
>> If that isn't what you believe, my apologies.
>>> ============================

>> Exactly what i believe of those on usenet that try to claim
>> their vegan...

>
> Gotcha. :-)

=======================
No 'gotcha' at all, it's exactly what I have been saying.


>
>





  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Yo, "Rick"

[much-needed snip]

>> And do you agree that there are people out there who do not claim to be
>> vegans but who still hold a less-than-accurate belief as to what a
>> "vegan" is?

> =========================
> LOL I claim there are vegan wannbes that don't know the meaning. Normal
> people really don't care what some loon wants to call themselves. Why
> would I care waht people who don't don't claim to be vegan, don't care
> about the religion of veganism, and don't live the lifestyle, believe?
> I'm addressing the ignornt loons that like to pretend that by just not
> eating animals that they somehow are not killing any.


You and I are talking about how the definitions of words change, remember?
In that context, it makes perfect sense to talk about what non-vegans think
"vegan" means. I'm not saying that "normal people" care deeply about what
the proper definition of "vegan" is, but most everyone has heard the word
"vegan" and we all have some sort of idea of what it means, whether we've
heard of Mr. Watson or not. Those who decide to call themselves vegans have
to start somewhere, with some definition, and most of them probably got
their first idea of what a vegan is from non-vegans. So what those "normal
people" (i.e. non-vegans) think a vegan is clearly has an effect on the
evolution of the term. It makes no difference whether the non-vegans *care*
or not.

>>> If that isn't what you believe, my apologies.
>>>> ============================
>>> Exactly what i believe of those on usenet that try to claim their
>>> vegan...

>>
>> Gotcha. :-)

> =======================
> No 'gotcha' at all, it's exactly what I have been saying.


Perhaps you don't know that "gotcha" can have multiple meanings. I didn't
mean "I got you! Ha ha!". Wasn't that obvious from the context? I meant "I
understand". Sheesh...



  #97 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

****wit wrote:

STFU, ****wit.

<snip ****witted blabber>
  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

"pearl" > wrote:

> > U-238, which is both the depleted AND natural uranium isotope, isn't very fissile and is weakly radioactive. But here's the big

> ugly fly in your ointment: because U-238 isn't fissile
>
> 'What happens when DU round hits a target?
>
> Apart from purely mechanical, DU ammunition has extremely
> dangerous radiological effect on human as well as on environment
> in all.


Bullshit.

> Is toxic impact of DU on human helath more dangerous than
> radiological one?


Yes. The radiological impact is nil -- same as you face on a daily basis from uranium in soil. IT REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT INGESTION OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND, EVEN THEN (AND UNLIKE OTHER HEAVY METALS), AFFECTS ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THOSE EXPOSED.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1867138.stm
  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

"pearl" > wrote:
> > > > 'On another front, In These Times
> > >
> > > Which is quite the science journal... NOT!!

> >
> > From their "about us" page:
> >
> > In These Times is dedicated to informing and analyzing popular movements for social, environmental and economic justice; to

> providing a forum for discussing the politics that shape our lives; and to producing a magazine that is read by the broadest and
> most diverse audience possible.
> >
> > IOW, they're far-out leftists with all their nasty little axes to grind and not unbiased researchers.

>
> Only to a far-out neo-con


(a) I am not far-out.
(b) I am not a "neo-con."
(c) You don't even know what the **** "neo-con" means. You throw out the term ad nauseum because your fellow travelers mindlessly misuse it.

> Just for you:


Wanna make a bet that this is another of the phony soldiers trotted out by the left? That's a safe bet on my part since this "interview" seems to appear only on the most extreme anti-war sites.

The record of the left in the current war isn't very good, Lesley. Lies, lies, lies. For every soldier or Marine against the war whose bona fides have been verified, there have been at least five fakes with outrageous stories that crumbled under investigation. One of the most recent -- and most egregious -- was Jessie Macbeth, who has yet to take on his detractors other than post a "big FU to the haters" on his myspace page. Why can't you leftists let the truth speak for itself without having to rely on phony soldiers to make outrageous claims about war crimes? I know why. You do, too, you despicable lying whore.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...24/198572.html
  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> "pearl" wrote:
>
> > > U-238, which is both the depleted AND natural uranium isotope, isn't very fissile and is weakly radioactive. But here's the

big
> > ugly fly in your ointment: because U-238 isn't fissile
> >
> > 'What happens when DU round hits a target?
> >
> > Apart from purely mechanical, DU ammunition has extremely
> > dangerous radiological effect on human as well as on environment
> > in all.

>
> Bullshit.
>
> > Is toxic impact of DU on human helath more dangerous than
> > radiological one?

>
> Yes. The radiological impact is nil -- same as you face on a daily basis from uranium in soil. IT REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT INGESTION

OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND, EVEN THEN (AND UNLIKE OTHER HEAVY METALS), AFFECTS ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THOSE EXPOSED.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1867138.stm


SUCH CRIMINAL DENIAL.

'But there are hardly any published studies, none has ever been conducted
(in the public domain anyway: Some exist but they're classified) on returning
veterans, and none has ever been done on civilians.

Only one British Gulf War veteran has ever been tested by the Ministry of
Defence over the past decade.

What research has been done on the ground?

In Iraq it is almost impossible to do any research that will satisfy Nato
governments.

Sanctions mean the equipment needed cannot be imported, and although
Iraqi and foreign doctors report serious health problems in which they
think DU may be implicated (much higher rates of some forms of cancer,
birth defects, etc.), Nato says pre-war record keeping was not good
enough to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn.
....
What do veterans themselves report ?

One UK Gulf veteran is Ray Bristow, a former marathon runner.

In 1999 he told the BBC: "I gradually noticed that every time I went
out for a run my distance got shorter and shorter, my recovery time
longer and longer. Now, on my good days, I get around quite
adequately with a walking stick, so long as it's short distances.
Any further, and I need to be pushed in a wheelchair."

Ray Bristow was tested - in Canada - for DU. He is open-minded
about the role of DU in his condition. But he says: "I remained in
Saudi Arabia throughout the war. I never once went into Iraq or
Kuwait, where these munitions were used. But the tests showed,
in layman's terms, that I have been exposed to over 100 times an
individual's safe annual exposure to depleted uranium."

Doug Rokke, a former US army colonel who served in Vietnam,
was sent to the Gulf in 1991 to advise on cleaning up radioactive
debris.

He says almost every member of the team of 30 experts he took
with him is now seriously ill, and three have died of lung cancer.

Others say they have children born with defects.

What do doctors sympathetic to the veterans' fears say ?

They say they have found levels of DU in the urine of the few
Gulf veterans who have been tested which are surprisingly high
as so much time has passed since they were exposed.

Another former US army colonel, Dr Asaf Durakovic, says he
has found a "significant presence" of DU in two-thirds of the
17 veterans he has tested.

"Some of those particles were inhaled, and if they were too big
to be absorbed they stayed in the lungs, and there they can
present a risk of cancer," he said.
...
Several years ago a report by the US Army Environmental
Policy Institute said: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential
to generate significant medical consequences. The risks
associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological.
Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could
receive significant internal exposures."

It is not clear whether this warning reached all the troops serving
in Kosovo, during and after the war, or whether it was intended to
reach them.

It certainly did not reach civilians there or in Iraq. Yet they are as
exposed to any harmful effects of DU as the troops themselves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1101447.stm




  #101 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

"Fu-Ming Wang" > wrote in message news:20060614062305.1da9c7df.fumingwang@fumingwang .pud...
**** "neo-con" means. >
the current war isn't very good, Lies, lies, lies. For every soldier or Marine against the war whose bona fides have been verified,
outrageous stories that crumbled under investigation. a "big FU to the haters" about war crimes despicable lying



  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

Lesley the crazy foot masseuse > wrote:

> > > > U-238, which is both the depleted AND natural uranium isotope, isn't very fissile and is weakly radioactive. But here's the

> big
> > > ugly fly in your ointment: because U-238 isn't fissile
> > >
> > > 'What happens when DU round hits a target?
> > >
> > > Apart from purely mechanical, DU ammunition has extremely
> > > dangerous radiological effect on human as well as on environment
> > > in all.

> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > > Is toxic impact of DU on human helath more dangerous than
> > > radiological one?

> >
> > Yes. The radiological impact is nil -- same as you face on a daily basis from uranium in soil. IT REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT INGESTION

> OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND, EVEN THEN (AND UNLIKE OTHER HEAVY METALS), AFFECTS ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THOSE EXPOSED.
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1867138.stm

>
> SUCH CRIMINAL DENIAL.
>
> 'But there are hardly any published studies,


I showed you that there is scant evidence to support your claim.

> none has ever been conducted


Then how do you come off with your half-baked Chicken Little analysis, asshole?

> (in the public domain anyway: Some exist but they're classified)


If there are classified studies, you're not privy to their details. The data we do have in the public domain is at odds with the claims of fanatics like you. Instead of knee-jerk hysteria at the mere mention of the word "uranium," why don't you investigate the facts and get beyond the agenda of your fellow malcontents?

http://www.uraniumsa.org/uses/uses.htm
http://www.uic.com.au/
Etc.
  #103 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

"Lesley" > wrote:

> You don't even know what the **** "neo-con" means.


Established.

> Your side's record in the current war isn't very good. Lies, lies, lies.


Established.
  #104 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...

> I showed you that there is scant evidence to support your claim.


Depleted Uranium - An American War Crime That Has No End
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m23973&l=i&size=1&hd=0


  #105 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, chico chupacabra desperately cried:

>dh pointed out that:


>> It's another of those amusing though sad and contemptible things,
>>that "aras" can't really afford to boast about that end of it...because
>>decent AW works AGAINST the gross misnomer "ar". Even when
>>they get the results they pretend to be after it still works against them,
>>and anyone in favor of decent AW for livestock must necessarily be
>>opposed to "ar".


>STFU


LOL! The truth is a horrible thing for you "aras", but only because
it works against the absurdities that YOU have for some insane
reason persuaded yourself to cling to. But why? And which particular
absurd belief(s) are you trying to cling to, only to be destroyed by the
facts I presented above?


  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker,
lied:

> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, chico chupacabra buried a sand wedge in ****wit's skull:
>
> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:

>
> >> It's another of those amusing though sad and contemptible things,
> >>that "aras" can't really afford to boast about that end of it...because
> >>decent AW works AGAINST the gross misnomer "ar". Even when
> >>they get the results they pretend to be after it still works against them,
> >>and anyone in favor of decent AW for livestock must necessarily be
> >>opposed to "ar".

>
> >STFU

>
> LOL!


Shut the **** up, ****wit, you ignorant pig-sodomizing liar.

  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

pearl wrote:

>> I showed you that there is scant evidence to support your claim.

>
> Opposition to Depleted Uranium - Mass Ignorance Perpetuated by
> Pseudoscience-Peddling Leftist Zealots


You're a raving lunatic who flunked out of engineering school and eventually
learned to rub feet for fun and profit from new age hippies.

  #108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

****wit wrote:

>>> It's another of those amusing though sad and contemptible things,
>>>that "aras" can't really afford to boast about that end of it...because
>>>decent AW works AGAINST the gross misnomer "ar". Even when
>>>they get the results they pretend to be after it still works against
>>>them, and anyone in favor of decent AW for livestock must necessarily be
>>>opposed to "ar".

>
>>STFU

>
> The truth is a horrible thing


I know the truth always demolishes your ****witted little worldview, Davey,
but the rest of us find it refreshing and liberating.



  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> >> I showed you that there is scant evidence to support your claim.

> >
> > Opposition to Depleted Uranium - Mass Ignorance Perpetuated by
> > Pseudoscience-Peddling Leftist Zealots


Depleted Uranium - An American War Crime That Has No End
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m23973&l=i&size=1&hd=0

Shame on you, stupid lying chickenhawk '.

> You're a raving lunatic who flunked out of engineering school and eventually
> learned to rub feet for fun and profit from new age hippies.


I have studied Architecture and Reflexology.

Shall we discuss the collapse of the WTC?










  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, bra wrote:

>dh pointed out:
>
>>>> It's another of those amusing though sad and contemptible things,
>>>>that "aras" can't really afford to boast about that end of it...because
>>>>decent AW works AGAINST the gross misnomer "ar". Even when
>>>>they get the results they pretend to be after it still works against
>>>>them, and anyone in favor of decent AW for livestock must necessarily be
>>>>opposed to "ar".

>>
>>>STFU

>>
>> The truth is a horrible thing

>
>I know the truth always demolishes your ****witted little worldview,


In what way(s)? Provide some example(s) if you're able.

>Davey, but the rest of us find it refreshing and liberating.


Then why do you hate the fact that decent AW works AGAINST the
gross misnomer "ar"? Why don't you want everyone to be aware of it
and keep it in mind? Do you also want people to foolishly believe the
extremely dishonest and absurd notion that being vegetarian in some
way(s) helps livestock, even though the truth is that only being
conscientious consumers of animal products can do anything to provide
decent lives for such animals? If so, try to explain why, if you can.


  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>>
>>
>>>>> It's another of those amusing though sad and contemptible things,
>>>>>that "aras" can't really afford to boast about that end of it...because
>>>>>decent AW works AGAINST the gross misnomer "ar". Even when
>>>>>they get the results they pretend to be after it still works against
>>>>>them, and anyone in favor of decent AW for livestock must necessarily be
>>>>>opposed to "ar".
>>>
>>>>STFU
>>>
>>> The truth is a horrible thing

>>
>>I know the truth always demolishes your ****witted little worldview,

>
>
> In what way(s)?


Numerous. Go back and browse in Google Groups.


>>Davey, but the rest of us find it refreshing and liberating.

>
>
> Then why do you hate the fact that decent AW works AGAINST the
> gross misnomer "ar"?


It doesn't, so he doesn't.

I hope that helps.
  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
nyx nyx is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

rick wrote:
> "Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article
k.net>,
>>"rick" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Glad you finally figured out the factory-farmed veggies are so
>>>brutal, cruel, and inhumne, hypocrite.
>>>getting your veggies to you at maximum prophit costs millions
>>>upon millions of animals their lives if far more cruel
>>>inhumane
>>>ways than at slaughterhouses.

>>
>>Frankly, I think you are completely exaggerating.
>>
>>There are accurate numbers for the number of animals
>>slaughtered each
>>year by the U.S meat industry. You have only a fantasyland
>>number for
>>the number of animals killed by horticulture.

>
> =========================
> Yeah, keep telling yourself that, killer. makes you sleep better
> at night lying to yourself, right fool?
>
> Here, I'll keep you awake with your usenet usage now, killer.
>
> Here's billions of animals killed by just 3 power generators, out
> of over 13000 in the US, killer.


I guess since you also are here, on the usenet, that makes you a killer
also?

Yes, billions!
> Now, sleep on the fact that your selfishness, conveninece and
> entertainment all demand that animal die, in untold billions and
> billions, hypocrite.
>
> http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm
>
>
>
>>--
>>fneep

>
>
>

  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
nyx nyx is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

Kevan Smith wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I think both of you are missing the truth from opposite ends. People don't
>>deserve moral brownie points for raising livestock, that's absurd, but
>>calling their lives a living hell is just hyperbole designed to inflame.
>>Animals in such a state would not thrive and unhealthy animals is not good
>>business. Also, saying categorically that slaughter is inhumane is just
>>untrue. Check out this site
>>http://www.grandin.com/survey/2005.r...nt.audits.html These audits
>>reveal when there are problems. These issues have been decreasing steadily
>>over the years, and when sound practises are employed, few problems are
>>reported.

>
>
> I am specifically singling out large factory farms. Life for animals on
> those farms is indeed a living hell. They definitely do not thrive, and
> they are often unhealthy. Sick and diseased animals do make it into the
> human food chain that way.


Even if you are a meat eater, I think you should be concerned about
this. Since vegans don't consume meat, they have their concerns over the
welfare of the animals, valid and they should be allowed that reason.
One of the MAIN reasons I won't consume meat/poultry/pork is BECAUSE of
this filth! It is just plain unsanitary, and gross! These large factory
farms care so much about the bottom line ($$$$), the consumer's health
is very much secondary.

This is just an example of our econimic society in general, where the
bottom line is more important than the health of people. This is not
JUST an animal right issue, but a PEOPLE issue. (and remember, people
are animals too!!!)

The Kraft, General Mills, Pepsi, Coke etc are just as bad, feeding a
nation of poison chemicals. These large companies don't care about the
health of their consumers, only the dollars. 150 years ago, our
ancestors didn't have these worries. The food supply was not so tainted.
>
> Mass mechanized slaughter as practiced in today's slaughterhouses is
> inhumane to many of the animals rendered, as even your link shows.
> Further, the study you cite doesn't mention methodology. How was the
> data collected? Was a non-biased observer collecting the data, or did it
> come from factory-supplied paperwork?
>
> Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
> slaughterhouses available on the internet. Since seeing is believing,
> you should try to view some.
>

  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
nyx nyx is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

Leif Erikson wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing cracker shitbag,
> blabbered:
>
>> On 30 May 2006 12:52:48 -0700, "Judy" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm considering being a vegetarian. I'm not entirely conserned with
>>> animals as much as I am with the health benifits. I love whole grains,
>>> fruit, and (of course) veggies and could care less about red meat,
>>> pork, and chicken. A few things I cannot live without, however, are
>>> dairy products (I'm not fond of soy) and fish?

>>
>>
>>
>> · Vegans contribute to

>
>
> Shut your ****ing cracker mouth, ****wit.

NICE. contribute with vulgarity. I really don't think it is neccessry,
but does show a hint of immaturity.

This thread has unfortunately gotton so completely off topic, it is no
wonder that the original poster has not bothered to reply to anything.
I really don't blame her if she NEVER comes back.

And before you attack me, I AM NOT A VEGAN, so don't launch into that
stuff with me!
  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 206
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...


"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> pearl wrote:
>
> >> I showed you that there is scant evidence to support your claim.

> >
> > Opposition to Depleted Uranium - Mass Ignorance Perpetuated by
> > Pseudoscience-Peddling Leftist Zealots

>
> You're a raving lunatic who flunked out of engineering school and

eventually
> learned to rub feet for fun and profit from new age hippies.
>


Try Repeated Geraniums. They look nicer!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm considering being a vegetarian... pearl Vegan 0 12-06-2006 01:27 PM
Vegetarian low fat Tabbi Recipes 0 05-07-2005 07:07 PM
Near Vegetarian to Vegetarian to Vegan Steve Vegan 14 07-10-2004 08:47 AM
FA: Four Vegetarian Books for children, mothers, etc. VEGAN VEGETARIAN Mark General Cooking 0 05-08-2004 09:11 PM
Want to be a vegetarian WD West Vegan 269 20-11-2003 11:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"