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
  #211 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2006, 08:05 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 60
Default Where's everybody gone?

lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:

[email protected] wrote in message ...

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:45:36 +0100, lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:


"chico chupacabra" wrote in message ...


Chelsea foot-rubbing harlot wrote:

Lies # 1, 2 and 3.


Are you saying that:

1. you're not from Chelsea?



lol! No, I'm not.


You're not *from* Chelsea; you were *a* Chelsea. For
****wit's benefit, that's a British slang term for the
very short hair style favored by female skinheads.


2. you've never engage in foot rubbing?



No, I don't 'rub feet'.


Yes, you do. That's *all* "reflexology" is. It's just
foot massage; nothing more. There is no science, no
theory behind it. It's just a pleasant-feeling foot
massage.


3. you're not a harlot?



Absolutely not.


Absolutely you *are*.


You don't know what we've studied.

Uh huh. You failed out of engineering school and ended up learning
"reflexology" from new age hippie conmen:

Lie #4. - and 5.


I am a qualified Reflexologist and received my training in
London.
http://tinyurl.com/mh7a


Are you saying that:

1. Leif lied and you never made that quote?



No.


2. you made the quote but were lying when you made it?



No.

Try again.


You were condoning bestiality.


Reflexology is pseudoscience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexo...cientific_view


BULLSHIT


Are you saying Leif is correct in claiming that you believe
in reflexology, regardless of whether you've been trained in
it or not?



It's not a matter of belief. It is a scientifically-validated therapy.


It is a scientifically WORTHLESS bit of quackery.
There is ZERO scientific validation for foot massage,
aka "reflexology". It's bullshit.

  #212 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2006, 08:07 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 60
Default Where's everybody gone?

lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:

"Leif Erikson" wrote:

lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:


I think it is a perversion. I think it is morally wrong. I condemn it.

So you *don't* think it's okay for people to do it in
the privacy of their own homes. Why was it so hard to
get you to say that?


I told you that I think it is a perversion, i.e wrong, over two years ago.

Then you spent the next two years saying it was the
private business of people.


No,


Yes.



Cite?


It has been given several times in the last few days.


you spent the next two years telling people I "believe in" it.


Because, by your condoning it, you *do* believe in it.



And you're STILL


....correctly pointing out that you believe in it, based
on your condoning it.


You're inconsistent.


It's your business if you want to sit in front of your computer all day,


Right. Don't forget it.


It looks as if you may have forgotten it for a bit.
I'm happy to remind you: it's my business if I spend a
few minutes identifying you as a born liar.
  #213 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2006, 08:07 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 60
Default Where's everybody gone?

lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message ink.net...

lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:


http://www.reflexology-research.com/abstracts.htm


There are no legitimate clinical studies



All of the abstracts on that page are


Bullshit. They are *not* from any legitimate clinical
studies.
  #214 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2006, 08:08 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 60
Default Where's everybody gone?

lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message k.net...


[snip



http://www.reflexology-research.com/abstracts.htm


There are no legitimate clinical studies



All of the abstracts on that page are


Bullshit. They're bullshit. NO legitimate clinical
studies have been done that show any verifiable
therapeutic result from foot massage.
  #215 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2006, 08:09 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 60
Default Where's everybody gone?

lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message ink.net...

lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message ink.net...


Misterina wrote:



Not as authorities, per se, but their show BULLSHIT exposes frauds and
pseudoscience and other irrational nonsense. "Alternative medicine" is
bullshit.

What happens if and when it works?

It doesn't.


It most certainly does.


It most certainly does *NOT*.



Liar.


No, it just doesn't work.



http://www.reflexology-research.com/abstracts.htm


A bullshit lobbying organization for quacks.


  #216 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2006, 08:50 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 21
Default Where's everybody gone?


The thing is that few, or no, AR supporters *categorically* condemn
meat *eating*. Most would agree that it is morally permissible
to eat an animal that died naturally of old age or in an accident
(e.g. -- roadkill you did not cause). What AR supporters categorically
condem is the processes involved in producing meat, especially
commercially sold meat. It is the abuse, suffering, hampering of
normal behavior, killing, that AR supporters condemn. It is exactly
the same with the issue of sexual abuse of animals by humans.


I just categorically don't eat anything that had a mother. Or eyes. Or
brains. Like EUGH!! So here we go, how about this:

Hi. My name is Misterina. I *categorically* condemn meat *eating*.

*grin*

Having been a vegetarian for over 20 years, I would gag at the
thought of eating any meat, even roadkill. But I would not want
to pass a law forbidding people to eat roadkill or use it to feed
carnivores who are being rehabilitated in a wildlife facility.
Similarly, Pearl is revolted by the thought of sexual activity with
a non-human under any circumstances.


Is THAT what is happening? I was confused for a moment there. I thought
those other ones *points* were saying she DOES support this kind of
activity. Pearl I ALMOST lost faith in you there I figured that was a bit
of an odd thing to condone...

But undoubtedly this concept is too difficult for you to understand --
or you will pretend it is.


Either way, quite a shame that, isn't it just! Wasting away one's god given
blessings in such a manner *tsk.tsk* )


  #217 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2006, 10:25 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 35
Default Where's everybody gone?


Leif Erikson wrote:
lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:

"Leif Erikson" lied in message ink.net...

lesley the lying slut of Cork lied:

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message ink.net...


Misterina wrote: [..]


No. Foot massage does *not* work to cure any real
medical ailment.



http://www.reflexology-research.com/abstracts.htm


This is the site of a lobbying organization for foot
massagers. They have no credibility.

There are no legitimate clinical studies that show
*any* directly therapeutic effect of foot rubbing for
any medical ailment. At best, foot massage has a
palliative effect on the fraud victim's mental state.


Those last two sentences are contradictory.

If a placebo can show direct therapeutic effect, and they often do, I'm
sure a foot massage would be that much better.

  #218 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2006, 01:44 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

foot-rubbing pro-bestiality pervert in Eire wrote:

snip

And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality:

*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7

From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of

their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not
harming or causing distress to another - that's their business.

So you endorse it. You don't condemn it. Saying it's
"their business" is endorsement of it.

Saying it is sick as hell is condemnation.

No.

Of course it is condemnation.

No.

Of course it is condemnation.


You wrote yesterday, "Whether I think there should be a law against
it is another question." That CONDONES it, it doesn't condemn it.


So the state of Texas condones bestiality as there's no law against it?


That isn't quite true. The Supreme Court tossed out our deviant sex
statute a few years ago in the Lawrence decision. Our legislature has
revisited the issue, but legislation here tends to move slowly since the
legislature meets only biannually (and in special sessions when called
by the Governor).

With respect to the Lawrence decision, Justice Scalia wrote in his
dissent, "This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest,
prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and
obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation
of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called
in to question by today's decision."

Still, we do have laws which address bestiality. See 43.21.1.B.i and
43.25.2:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu....000043.00.htm

Better get writing to your representatives to tell them to condemn it.


They do. Why don't you?

I wrote over two years ago that I think it is a perversion, and I do.


All that time to reach a conclusion and you're up in the air about it
still, and feel ambiguous enough about it to let people do it in the
privacy of their homes.

condemnation
1. an expression of strong disapproval; pronouncing
as wrong or morally culpable


Yet you still find it in your heart to condone it: "Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question."


So the state of Texas condones bestiality as there's no law against it?


See above, dummy.

We're not talking about any states. We're talking about YOU. You
endorse bestiality.

No I don't.


I. You offer qualified objections to it:
*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
lesley ("liesley") - http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7

II. You've condoned it as a matter of privacy:
"What people do in the privacy of their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not harming or causing distress to
another - that's their business."


So the state of Texas condones bestiality as there's no law against it?


See above.

Better get writing to your representatives to tell them to condemn it.


Our legislature won't meet again until next year. As our state
constitution requires, they meet once every two years for a period of
about a couple months and only in special sessions as the Governor calls
them.

III. You've further stated that you'd even oppose laws against it:
"Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question."


So the state of Texas condones bestiality as there's no law against it?


See above. We have laws which outlaw depictions of bestiality and the US
Supreme Court struck down our deviant sex statute in the Lawrence decision.

Better get writing to your representatives to tell them to condemn it.


They do. Why don't you, Ms ARA Freak?

Whose side are you on, Lesley? The animal ****ers' side.


On the side of responsible freedom of choice.


What do you find particularly "responsible" about humans ****ing animals?

And, like many, I don't believe that I've
the right to interfere with others' choices


Unless they want to EAT an animal instead of **** it. You have a perverted sense of right and wrong, pervert.


Unless it causes harm and distress


Then you better not give your genital warts and Herpes to your rooster.
  #219 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2006, 01:46 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default Where's everybody gone?

Misterina wrote:

The thing is that few, or no, AR supporters *categorically* condemn
meat *eating*. Most would agree that it is morally permissible
to eat an animal that died naturally of old age or in an accident
(e.g. -- roadkill you did not cause). What AR supporters categorically
condem is the processes involved in producing meat, especially
commercially sold meat. It is the abuse, suffering, hampering of
normal behavior, killing, that AR supporters condemn. It is exactly
the same with the issue of sexual abuse of animals by humans.


I just categorically don't eat anything that had a mother. Or eyes. Or
brains. Like EUGH!! So here we go, how about this:


Hi. My name is Misterina. I *categorically* condemn meat *eating*.


O.K. In the case of virtually all meat available to us today, this
is reasonable. Could you explain why? Do you condemn it as morally
wrong? Or do you just find it disgusting and
revolting? Is it the eating of meat you condemn, or the way the
living animal was treated before he/she became meat?

snip

Pearl is revolted by the thought of sexual activity with
a non-human under any circumstances.


Is THAT what is happening? I was confused for a moment there. I thought
those other ones *points* were saying she DOES support this kind of
activity.


Yes, that is what he is trying to get you to think. It's a
sleazy and dishonest tactic he tries on all his opponents.

snip
  #220 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2006, 01:55 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

Misterina wrote:
It *doesn't* "work" as its scammers suggest. Reflexology's benefits don't


extend beyond palliative results, like reducing stress or in the treatment
of psychosomatic issues for which there's no underlying health problem to
treat. While stress reduction *is* important, that's a much lower hurdle to
clear than the "cure-all" nonsense its advocates claim for it. Reflexology
has failed to live up to its hype in every double-blind study to which it's
been subjected. Every single one.


Again, I am not arguing with you about its merits.


Yes, you are.

You did not answer my question:


Yes, I did.

what happens IF and WHEN it works?


It doesn't.

What would you say to someone like me,


I would say, "You're very gullible and prone to accepting (and
providing) anecdotes rather than science."

who had severe whiplash (and I mean SEVERE) and one half an hour of
reflexology cured what conventional doctors could not?


As I stated, it's benefits are palliative and tend to "work" for people
with psychosomatic complaints. Thirty-****ing-minutes of foot massage
isn't going to cause systemic changes to your body aside from maybe
helping you relax. While you're providing anecdotes, give it credit for
"curing" your diabetes, gout, dyspepsia, poor eyesight, and every other
malady.

I can give you the case history should you require that.


It's still *anecdotal*, dummy. When put to double blind study,
reflexology and other "alternative medicine" (oxymoronic) do not deliver
on their promises. I provided you with links. Did you read them to see
if there's any science behind your anecote or are you so closed-minded
that you refuse to look?

In al curiosity, what if and when?


It doesn't. The only benefits are palliative; reflexology does nothing
systemically beyond helping people relax. So, too, do other non-touch
therapies:

LAUGHTER
http://tinyurl.com/e2mn
http://tinyurl.com/e2mv

MUSIC
http://tinyurl.com/e2nb
http://tinyurl.com/e2nf

ANIMALS/PETS
http://tinyurl.com/e2nn
http://tinyurl.com/e2ns

How do YOU explain that laughing hysterically, listening to soothing
music, and contact with small animals produces the same, or BETTER,
results as foot massage?


  #221 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2006, 02:03 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

lesLIE continued her defense of bestiality:

I'm not so sure animals get off, so to speak, on being sexually assaulted by humans or even by being conditioned to be receptive
to sexual assault.


You don't know that, and neither do I. You excuse it when it serves your needs.


No, I don't. Why do you continue to defend those who engage in
bestiality in the same breath you call it a perversion? Answer: because
you're disingenuous about calling it a perversion; otherwise, you would
categorically say it's wrong rather than engaging in ambiguities about
whether it should be legal, how "wrong" it is, and whether or not it's
beneficial.

Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question.

You keep confirming the fact that you're pro-bestiality.

No.


Yes.


No.


Yes.

I. You offer only qualified objections to it:


I have stated that it is a perversion. That is condemnation.


No, and you continue to condone it as if you're some kind of libertarian
(you're not: you're reflexively authoritarian) and you're ambiguous
about just how "wrong" it might be (suggesting others don't know if it's
good or bad for animals).

*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
lesley ("liesley") - http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7

II. You've condoned it as a matter of privacy:


I have stated that it is a perversion. That is condemnation.


No, you condone it:

"What people do in the privacy of their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not harming or causing distress to
another - that's their business."


So the state of Texas condones bestiality as there's no law against it?


The Supreme Court struck it down.

Better get writing to your representatives to tell them to condemn it.


We have other laws that address the issue, and perhaps we'll find a way
to get around the Lawrence decision.

III. You've further stated that you'd even oppose laws against it:
"Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question."


So the state of Texas condones bestiality as there's no law against it?


No, but apparently a majority of the US Supreme Court does.

Whose side are you on, Lesley? The animal ****ers' side.


On the side of responsible freedom of choice.


What's responsible about sexually assaulting animals, LesLIE? Do your
clients know you support their right to **** sheep?
  #222 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2006, 03:47 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Where's everybody gone?

Misterina wrote:
What happens if and when it works?


It doesn't.



Dude, seriously - that does so not answer the question now, does it?


Yes, it does. "reflexology" doesn't work, as far as
therapeutic results for legitimate medical ailments.
It may make the fraud victim feel a little more relaxed
- foot massage feels nice - but it cannot "cure" anything.
  #223 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2006, 03:52 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Where's everybody gone?

Misterina wrote:

No. Foot massage does *not* work to cure any real
medical ailment.




Hang on hang on... isn't stress a real medical ailment by the way?


The charlatans/fraudsters who promote "reflexology" as
a medical therapy claim it can provide a major
therapeutic effect against all kinds of serious
illnesses. It's bullshit.



Because I
can tell you one thing for freaking sure man - someone massaging and rubbing
my tootsies, gets me more than just destressed! *grin*


  #224 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2006, 03:53 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Where's everybody gone?

Misterina wrote:

The thing is that few, or no, AR supporters *categorically* condemn
meat *eating*. Most would agree that it is morally permissible
to eat an animal that died naturally of old age or in an accident
(e.g. -- roadkill you did not cause). What AR supporters categorically
condem is the processes involved in producing meat, especially
commercially sold meat. It is the abuse, suffering, hampering of
normal behavior, killing, that AR supporters condemn. It is exactly
the same with the issue of sexual abuse of animals by humans.



I just categorically don't eat anything that had a mother. Or eyes. Or
brains. Like EUGH!! So here we go, how about this:

Hi. My name is Misterina. I *categorically* condemn meat *eating*.

*grin*


Why is it that, having seen you embrace and promote
foot massage as a therapeutic cure-all, I'm not
surprised to see you emerge as a crackpot air-head "vegan"?
  #225 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2006, 04:51 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 353
Default Where's everybody gone?

gullible, befuddled Misterina wrote:

What happens if and when it works?


It doesn't.


Dude, seriously - that does so not answer the question now, does it?


Yes, it does.

Can you read?


Apparently well enough to answer your question. As I stated the first
time through, reflexology *doesn't* "work" as its scammers suggest.
Reflexology's benefits don't extend beyond palliative results, like
reducing stress or in the treatment of psychosomatic issues for which
there's no underlying health problem to treat. While stress reduction
*is* important, that's a much lower hurdle to clear than the "cure-all"
nonsense its advocates claim for it. Reflexology has failed to live up
to its hype in every double-blind study to which it's been subjected.
Every single one.

http://skepdic.com/reflex.html
http://mtrsn.burtcom.homeip.net/sfaq_004.htm
http://skepdic.com/comments/reflexcom.html
http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/reflexology.html

Etc.

The best you can offer is anecdotal evidence. When put to a double blind
study, reflexology will fail every time because it's based on
superstition and pseudoscience. Alas, I realize that doesn't stop
uninformed and gullible people from believing in its powers. There will
always be some idiots among us. Thanks for standing up to be counted
among them.


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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017