On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:51:45 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On 21 Aug 2006 20:32:07 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:
>> [..]
>> >------------------Good guy ratings:
>> >1. Derek
>>
>> Only occasionally, Ron. ;-)
>>
>> >2.Leif Erickson
>>
>> True - once you get to know him, and that can take
>> several frustrating years.
>
>I really don't know how you can say that, Derek.

I can't really answer that because I just don't know.

>You've seen his extreme, severe misconduct here
>- the foul treatment of those who he disagrees with.

Ditto wrt me, too, but that's besides the point. Look
at the years of abuse I and my family have suffered
from "his extreme, severe misconduct here", yet all
of us agree that, somewhere beneath his exterior he's
a very decent person.

>He supports the killing of animals, for heck's sake!

So do three out four of my children, Pearl. Only my
eldest daughter has remained a vegan after leaving
home. My youngest, who moves in and out of the
family home eats meat every day, and at this very
moment is preparing herself a chicken dinner for
this afternoon.

>I'm thinking that you've admired the brutal display
>of 'force' (- no - 'might' does *not* make right ), feel
>privileged that he has thrown -you- a few dry crumbs,
>being deceived by the faux 'charm'.

HIM - throw ME dry crumbs? Hell no. And as for
admiring his "brutal display of 'force'", I've been on
the receiving end of that for over 5 years, and on a
daily basis, so no, I don't admire that. What I do
admire about him is his intelligence, the knowledge
he holds, and yes, believe it or not, his patience
with me while I learn all I can from him as his
adversarial student. It must be said that, despite his
constant personal attacks on me I've learned more
from him on the issues raised here than from anyone
else, and for that I owe him a great deal because
before arriving here all I knew was that animals hold
a right against my trespass against them, and now,
after butting heads with him for all these years I
can understand WHY because he's forced me to
LEARN why.

>It is textbook...
>
>'The serial bully:
>- is a convincing, practised liar and when called to account,
>will make up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at
>that moment
>- has a Jekyll and Hyde nature - is vile, vicious and vindictive
>in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses;

Well, that's not him because he's always "vile, vicious
and vindictive" towards me and mine in front of the
whole of Usenet.

>no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive
>nature - only the current target of the serial bully's aggression
>sees both sides; whilst the Jekyll side is described as
>"charming" and convincing enough to deceive personnel,
>management and a tribunal, the Hyde side is frequently
>described as "evil"; Hyde is the real person, Jekyll is an act
>- excels at deception and should never be underestimated in
>their capacity to deceive
>- uses excessive charm and is always plausible and convincing
>when peers, superiors or others are present (charm can be used
>to deceive as well as to cover for lack of empathy)
>- is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine words
>and lots of form - but there's no substance
>- is possessed of an exceptional verbal facility and will
>outmanoeuvre most people in verbal interaction, especially
>at times of conflict
>- is often described as smooth, slippery, slimy, ingratiating,
>fawning, toadying, obsequious, sycophantic
>- relies on mimicry, repetition and regurgitation to convince
>others that he or she is both a "normal" human being and a
>tough dynamic manager, as in extolling the virtues of the latest
>management fads and pouring forth the accompanying jargon
>- is unusually skilled in being able to anticipate what people
>want to hear and then saying it plausibly
>-cannot be trusted or relied upon
>.....'
>http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
>
>The bully in you (it's good to acknowledge our 'dark' side -
>well done!)

I'm not afraid to acknowledge my moral failings.
I believe we all have some.

>wants to be one of his 'gang',

No, that's not true. I've never wanted to be a part
in anyone's gang. I always manage independently
and work alone as a loose canon, firing at those
on both sides of the fence if I disagree with them.

>and the result is
>you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
>causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.

Yes, that's very true, but consequences and regrets
be damned, Pearl; I act according to the principles
I hold, and if my actions make me unpopular, then
so be it. I'm not here to win anyone's favour; I'm just
being myself - warts-n-all.

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:51:45 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> On 21 Aug 2006 20:32:07 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:
> >> [..]
> >> >------------------Good guy ratings:
> >> >1. Derek
> >>
> >> Only occasionally, Ron. ;-)
> >>
> >> >2.Leif Erickson
> >>
> >> True - once you get to know him, and that can take
> >> several frustrating years.
> >
> >I really don't know how you can say that, Derek.
>
> I can't really answer that because I just don't know.
>
> >You've seen his extreme, severe misconduct here
> >- the foul treatment of those who he disagrees with.
>
> Ditto wrt me, too, but that's besides the point. Look
> at the years of abuse I and my family have suffered
> from "his extreme, severe misconduct here", yet all
> of us agree that, somewhere beneath his exterior he's
> a very decent person.

No. Decent people don't spend their time abusing others.

> >He supports the killing of animals, for heck's sake!
>
> So do three out four of my children, Pearl. Only my
> eldest daughter has remained a vegan after leaving
> home. My youngest, who moves in and out of the
> family home eats meat every day, and at this very
> moment is preparing herself a chicken dinner for
> this afternoon.

My mother still eats some to. She ignores the suffering
involved, because it suits her. I think it is selfish, but
she and your kids aren't hanging out here trying to trash
AR and veganism as ball has been for some years now.

> >I'm thinking that you've admired the brutal display
> >of 'force' (- no - 'might' does *not* make right ), feel
> >privileged that he has thrown -you- a few dry crumbs,
> >being deceived by the faux 'charm'.
>
> HIM - throw ME dry crumbs? Hell no.

Hell yes.

> And as for
> admiring his "brutal display of 'force'", I've been on
> the receiving end of that for over 5 years, and on a
> daily basis, so no, I don't admire that.

You haven't challenged him for *ages*. Serves him!

> What I do admire about him is his intelligence,

Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.

> the knowledge he holds,

About WHAT??????

> and yes, believe it or not, his patience
> with me while I learn all I can from him as his
> adversarial student.

Oh .. my .. gosh. The only thing you learn from it is
NASTY.

> It must be said that, despite his
> constant personal attacks on me I've learned more
> from him on the issues raised here than from anyone
> else,

Eh? Give us an example, please.

> and for that I owe him a great deal because
> before arriving here all I knew was that animals hold
> a right against my trespass against them, and now,
> after butting heads with him for all these years I
> can understand WHY because he's forced me to
> LEARN why.

It's not nice to be abused? You didn't know that?

> >It is textbook...
> >
> >'The serial bully:
> >- is a convincing, practised liar and when called to account,
> >will make up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at
> >that moment
> >- has a Jekyll and Hyde nature - is vile, vicious and vindictive
> >in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses;
>
> Well, that's not him because he's always "vile, vicious
> and vindictive" towards me and mine in front of the
> whole of Usenet.

Not in latter times.. You avoid him, or agree with him.

> >no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive
> >nature - only the current target of the serial bully's aggression
> >sees both sides; whilst the Jekyll side is described as
> >"charming" and convincing enough to deceive personnel,
> >management and a tribunal, the Hyde side is frequently
> >described as "evil"; Hyde is the real person, Jekyll is an act
> >- excels at deception and should never be underestimated in
> >their capacity to deceive
> >- uses excessive charm and is always plausible and convincing
> >when peers, superiors or others are present (charm can be used
> >to deceive as well as to cover for lack of empathy)
> >- is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine words
> >and lots of form - but there's no substance
> >- is possessed of an exceptional verbal facility and will
> >outmanoeuvre most people in verbal interaction, especially
> >at times of conflict
> >- is often described as smooth, slippery, slimy, ingratiating,
> >fawning, toadying, obsequious, sycophantic
> >- relies on mimicry, repetition and regurgitation to convince
> >others that he or she is both a "normal" human being and a
> >tough dynamic manager, as in extolling the virtues of the latest
> >management fads and pouring forth the accompanying jargon
> >- is unusually skilled in being able to anticipate what people
> >want to hear and then saying it plausibly
> >-cannot be trusted or relied upon
> >.....'
> >http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
> >
> >The bully in you (it's good to acknowledge our 'dark' side -
> >well done!)
>
> I'm not afraid to acknowledge my moral failings.
> I believe we all have some.

Seems to be the case, but I do know some real angels.

> >wants to be one of his 'gang',
>
> No, that's not true. I've never wanted to be a part
> in anyone's gang. I always manage independently
> and work alone as a loose canon, firing at those
> on both sides of the fence if I disagree with them.

You recently allied yourself with ball and suspect..
the 'obesity and diet' thread. You argued with me.

> >and the result is
> >you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
> >causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.
>
> Yes, that's very true, but consequences and regrets
> be damned, Pearl; I act according to the principles
> I hold, and if my actions make me unpopular, then
> so be it. I'm not here to win anyone's favour; I'm just
> being myself - warts-n-all.

Warts may become malignant. You could be brilliant.

"Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, dh@.
> wrote:
>
>> By your own complaint you should understand that eating
>> either nothing but meat, or nothing but veggies, would be
>> unlikely to be the best approach simply because they are
>> both extemes dependant on their own perfection in order
>> to *be* the best approach.
>
> Avoiding meat and/or veganism != eating only vegetables. Your
> argument
> fails because of that.
>
> A vegan diet is healthy, nutritionally sound, and definitely
> healthier
> than the Standard American Diet. There's no controversy about
> that.
=======================
More lys, eh kevin?






>
> --
> Vegan Reich!
> http://www.meetyourmeat.com/

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:45:47 -0500, Kevan Smith > wrote:

>In article >, dh@. wrote:
>
>> By your own complaint you should understand that eating
>> either nothing but meat, or nothing but veggies, would be
>> unlikely to be the best approach simply because they are
>> both extemes dependant on their own perfection in order
>> to *be* the best approach.
>
>Avoiding meat and/or veganism != eating only vegetables. Your argument
>fails because of that.
>
>A vegan diet is healthy, nutritionally sound, and definitely healthier
>than the Standard American Diet. There's no controversy about that.

There's also no controversy that some vegan diets are worse
than some omnivorous diets. It all depends on how you do it,
like the cruelty aspect, but you vegans will never allow yourselves
the freedom to consider such facts.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:28:14 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>
>> >>> Claim and Standard:
>> >>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>> >>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>> >>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
>
>> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label, but
>> if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
>> fed, that is GREAT! I already felt good about eating beef,
>> and if you're right we can all feel even better about it :-)
>
>'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
>five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
>American population.

The American population would consume a lot more
grain if we didn't eat meat.

>..
>More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
>producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
>272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
>for cultivated feed grains.

Good enough.
>..
>Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
>the soil erosion in the United States
__________________________________________________ _______
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 06:24:14 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:14:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:11:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:21:58 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>. . .
>>>>
>>>>> Claim and Standard:
>>>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>>>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>>>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
>>>>. . .
>>>>
>>>>>Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what its name implies, and
>>>>>has just as much an association with the collateral deaths
>>>>>found in crop production as from any other steer found in the
>>>>>feedlot.
>>>>
>>>> You're saying that forage shall be 80% or more of the
>>>>primary energy source throughout the life cycle of any
>>>>steer found in the feedlot.
>>>
>>>The evidence you snipped away confirms it. So-called
>>>grass-fed beef carries a “USDA Process Verified”
>>>shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 %
>>>of the feed were grass, with no limits on the remaining
>>>20 %, just like any other GRAIN-fed beef fed at the
>>>feedlot.
>>
>> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label,
>
>You cannot doubt it while evidence shows it to be true.

I can, but I said I don't this time...yet.

>>but
>>if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
>>fed, that is GREAT!
>
>No, I was referring to the so-called grass-fed beef which
>are in fact fed grains and finished at the feedlot like any
>other steer. You knew that, of course.

No. I believe you're still trying to make it appear that
grass raised beef is no better than regular beef, and
that has been your intent the whole time.

>>>>I don't believe you
>>>
>>>You reject the evidence from USDA and consumer
>>>magazines because your agenda is to try pushing meat
>>>onto vegans. You don't want them to believe that their
>>>solution to the deaths they abhor in general human food
>>>production is a valid one because deaths will still occur
>>>after their solution is implemented, but to reject veganism
>>>on that basis is as specious as rejecting seat belt laws and
>>>anti-terrorism efforts. Your argument to reject veganism
>>>invokes the perfect solution fallacy
>>
>> No
>
>Yes, Harrison, and there's no escaping it. Every time
>you try to reject veganism as a solution to the deaths
>found in general human food production on the basis
>that some deaths (collateral deaths) still occur after its
>implementation

I don't. I reject it on the basis that some types of
meat cause fewer cds than some types of vegetables,
AND because many livestock have lives of positive
value which is an aspect you could apparently never
appreciate. Those are two huge aspects of the situation
which are very significant, but you can't appreciate while
I can and do.

>you invoke the perfect solution fallacy.

If so, then you do the same thing every time you
reject an omnivorous diet.

.. . .
>As we can see, your argument against veganism is nothing
>more than a dirty little false dilemma.

I point out that some types of meat involve fewer
cds than some types of vegetable products, and you
dishonestly and shamefully try to deny it. Either you have
always been very comfortable with such dishonesty as
all the other "aras" appear to be, or Goo has had too much
influence on you...possibly your whole life. You should
check with someone you respect and trust and ask them
if you appear to be using more dishonest trickery than you
used to.

IF! you really cared about human influence on animals,
YOU would be pointing out that some types of animal
products are better in their own particular ways because
you would not be biased only toward veganism, but
instead would be considering all the aspects. You don't,
and almost certainly never will. Omnivores can and do.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:51:45 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On 21 Aug 2006 20:32:07 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:
>> [..]
>> >------------------Good guy ratings:
>> >1. Derek
>>
>> Only occasionally, Ron. ;-)
>>
>> >2.Leif Erickson
>>
>> True - once you get to know him, and that can take
>> several frustrating years.
>
>I really don't know how you can say that, Derek.
>You've seen his extreme, severe misconduct here
>- the foul treatment of those who he disagrees with.
>He supports the killing of animals, for heck's sake!
>
>I'm thinking that you've admired the brutal display
>of 'force' (- no - 'might' does *not* make right ), feel
>privileged that he has thrown -you- a few dry crumbs,
>being deceived by the faux 'charm'. It is textbook...

Don't forget that Goo almost certainly sent him
ass kissing emails to lure him in.

>'The serial bully:
>- is a convincing, practised liar and when called to account,
>will make up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at
>that moment
>- has a Jekyll and Hyde nature - is vile, vicious and vindictive
>in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses;
>no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive
>nature - only the current target of the serial bully's aggression
>sees both sides; whilst the Jekyll side is described as
>"charming" and convincing enough to deceive personnel,
>management and a tribunal, the Hyde side is frequently
>described as "evil"; Hyde is the real person, Jekyll is an act
>- excels at deception and should never be underestimated in
>their capacity to deceive

Goo sent me an email when I first got involved with this
shit and still accepted emails from ng participants. It was the
last one I ever accepted too, and I didn't read all of it. It
started out just the way you could expect though, and almost
certainly the way he hooked Derek: 'I only kick your ass in
the news groups because....', then he tried sliming me into
accepting whatever he wanted me to accept. I still remember
the feeling of seeing through his trick immediately, and it was
then I decided he must be a dishonest "ara" pretending to
be an "ar" opponent. Not wanting such slimey people trying
their tricks of pretending to be my friend behind everyone
else's back, I quit fooling with emails from dishonest people
in news groups.

>- uses excessive charm and is always plausible and convincing
>when peers, superiors or others are present (charm can be used
>to deceive as well as to cover for lack of empathy)
>- is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine words
>and lots of form - but there's no substance
>- is possessed of an exceptional verbal facility and will
>outmanoeuvre most people in verbal interaction, especially
>at times of conflict
>- is often described as smooth, slippery, slimy, ingratiating,
>fawning, toadying, obsequious, sycophantic
>- relies on mimicry, repetition and regurgitation to convince
>others that he or she is both a "normal" human being and a
>tough dynamic manager, as in extolling the virtues of the latest
>management fads and pouring forth the accompanying jargon
>- is unusually skilled in being able to anticipate what people
>want to hear and then saying it plausibly
>-cannot be trusted or relied upon
>.....'
>http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
>
>The bully in you (it's good to acknowledge our 'dark' side -
>well done!) wants to be one of his 'gang',

Hmmm. What kind of treat to be part of such dishonesty?

>and the result is
>you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
>causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.
>
>
>> >-----------------------
>> >bad guys
>> >Dutch and finally the lunatic, dh.
>>
>> You'll get no opposition from me on that.
>

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:51:45 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On 21 Aug 2006 20:32:07 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:
>> >> [..]
>> >> >------------------Good guy ratings:
>> >> >1. Derek
>> >>
>> >> Only occasionally, Ron. ;-)
>> >>
>> >> >2.Leif Erickson
>> >>
>> >> True - once you get to know him, and that can take
>> >> several frustrating years.
>> >
>> >I really don't know how you can say that, Derek.
>>
>> I can't really answer that because I just don't know.
>>
>> >You've seen his extreme, severe misconduct here
>> >- the foul treatment of those who he disagrees with.
>>
>> Ditto wrt me, too, but that's besides the point. Look
>> at the years of abuse I and my family have suffered
>> from "his extreme, severe misconduct here", yet all
>> of us agree that, somewhere beneath his exterior he's
>> a very decent person.
>
>No. Decent people don't spend their time abusing others.

Goo is beyond inconsiderate, and the most dishonest
person I've ever enountered. I consider most of you to
be dishonest, and maybe you truly believe I am too, but
Goo is a nasty, childish, dishonest freak of a much more
deliberate type than anything most people would consider
"decent"...at least I certainly *hope* most people wouldn't!

>> >He supports the killing of animals, for heck's sake!
>>
>> So do three out four of my children, Pearl. Only my
>> eldest daughter has remained a vegan after leaving
>> home. My youngest, who moves in and out of the
>> family home eats meat every day, and at this very
>> moment is preparing herself a chicken dinner for
>> this afternoon.
>
>My mother still eats some to. She ignores the suffering
>involved, because it suits her. I think it is selfish,

You do it too. We all do.

>but
>she and your kids aren't hanging out here trying to trash
>AR and veganism as ball has been for some years now.

Goo supports what you want to believe, and so far
none of you have been able to provide any decent
example(s) of Goo opposing "ar". Goo himself, and even
his boy Dutch can provide none.

>> >I'm thinking that you've admired the brutal display
>> >of 'force' (- no - 'might' does *not* make right ), feel
>> >privileged that he has thrown -you- a few dry crumbs,
>> >being deceived by the faux 'charm'.
>>
>> HIM - throw ME dry crumbs? Hell no.
>
>Hell yes.
>
>> And as for
>> admiring his "brutal display of 'force'", I've been on
>> the receiving end of that for over 5 years, and on a
>> daily basis, so no, I don't admire that.
>
>You haven't challenged him for *ages*. Serves him!
>
>> What I do admire about him is his intelligence,
>
>Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.
>
>> the knowledge he holds,
>
>About WHAT??????

About how to kiss ass the way he likes it apparently.
Derek, I once pointed out that you were Goo's boy
like Dutch, and you didn't appreciate it a damn bit.
That's because the truth hurts sometimes, and this is
such a case. Goo has tricked you, and you should
try to shake it off. Really you should expose him, but
we can't expect all that.

>> and yes, believe it or not, his patience
>> with me while I learn all I can from him as his
>> adversarial student.
>
>Oh .. my .. gosh. The only thing you learn from it is
>NASTY.

No, that's what he SHOULD be learning but
instead the Goober has duped him somehow. So,
now he should learn that Goo can manipulate him
into saying positive things about him even though
he IS a nasty, dishonest, contemptible ass. I'm
surprised to see him so open about it though, and
wonder if Goo will reprimand him privatly for it at
some point.

>> It must be said that, despite his
>> constant personal attacks on me I've learned more
>> from him on the issues raised here than from anyone
>> else,
>
>Eh? Give us an example, please.

Ooh...ooh...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!!!!!!
I have some...if you want to say a person could
"learn" something from this idiocy:

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - Goo

"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

"Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is
going to be used entirely for human consumption,
entirely for animal consumption, or for some
combination; nor do they care." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
pet food. " - Goo
.. . .
>Warts may become malignant. You could be brilliant.

Maybe. But IF so it would require more thought
and acceptance of facts he hates than he's ever
likely to bother with. I feel pretty much the same way
about you too of course.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
[..]
>
>You haven't challenged him for *ages*.

Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
allow them the valuable experience of challenging
him themselves unaided by me?

>Serves him!

On the contrary. Left unchallenged by me serves them!

>> What I do admire about him is his intelligence,
>
>Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.

I agree that he IS devious, but I'm also aware that he's
the most intelligent tutor available to me here on Usenet,
and I chose to take full advantage of that tutelage in the
manner he gave it rather than waste it.

>> the knowledge he holds,
>
>About WHAT??????

Rights.

>> and yes, believe it or not, his patience
>> with me while I learn all I can from him as his
>> adversarial student.
>
>Oh .. my .. gosh. The only thing you learn from it is
>NASTY.

NO, he taught me to *learn* and think about my position
clearly so I could then benefit from it. Learning how to
think clearly is a discipline unlike any other. Memorising
mathematical equations and using them to solve problems
in physics and electronics is mundane by comparison.

>> It must be said that, despite his
>> constant personal attacks on me I've learned more
>> from him on the issues raised here than from anyone
>> else,
>
>Eh? Give us an example, please.

No.

>> and for that I owe him a great deal because
>> before arriving here all I knew was that animals hold
>> a right against my trespass against them, and now,
>> after butting heads with him for all these years I
>> can understand WHY because he's forced me to
>> LEARN why.
>
>It's not nice to be abused? You didn't know that?

Go around it and grab what you can.

[..]
>> >wants to be one of his 'gang',
>>
>> No, that's not true. I've never wanted to be a part
>> in anyone's gang. I always manage independently
>> and work alone as a loose canon, firing at those
>> on both sides of the fence if I disagree with them.
>
>You recently allied yourself with ball and suspect..
>the 'obesity and diet' thread.

No, I gave my own anecdotal evidence to support the
proposition that weight loss follows a simple mathematical
rule rather than prescriptions and taboos on diet.

>You argued with me.

Of course, and why not?

>> >and the result is
>> >you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
>> >causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.
>>
>> Yes, that's very true, but consequences and regrets
>> be damned, Pearl; I act according to the principles
>> I hold, and if my actions make me unpopular, then
>> so be it. I'm not here to win anyone's favour; I'm just
>> being myself - warts-n-all.
>
>Warts may become malignant. You could be brilliant.

I don't want to be if I can't be myself.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:45:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 06:24:14 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:14:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:11:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:21:58 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>. . .
>>>>>
>>>>>> Claim and Standard:
>>>>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>>>>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>>>>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
>>>>>. . .
>>>>>
>>>>>>Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what its name implies, and
>>>>>>has just as much an association with the collateral deaths
>>>>>>found in crop production as from any other steer found in the
>>>>>>feedlot.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're saying that forage shall be 80% or more of the
>>>>>primary energy source throughout the life cycle of any
>>>>>steer found in the feedlot.
>>>>
>>>>The evidence you snipped away confirms it. So-called
>>>>grass-fed beef carries a “USDA Process Verified”
>>>>shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 %
>>>>of the feed were grass, with no limits on the remaining
>>>>20 %, just like any other GRAIN-fed beef fed at the
>>>>feedlot.
>>>
>>> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label,
>>
>>You cannot doubt it while evidence shows it to be true.
>
> I can, but I said I don't this time...yet.

You never will, Harrison, because the evidence I've
supplied here from USDA and the complaints from
consumer magazines shows that grass-fed beef can
be and is finished on grains at the feedlot.

>>>but
>>>if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
>>>fed, that is GREAT!
>>
>>No, I was referring to the so-called grass-fed beef which
>>are in fact fed grains and finished at the feedlot like any
>>other steer. You knew that, of course.
>
> No.

Yes, Harrison. I was referring to so-called grass-fed beef.
You tried to imply that I was referring to "ALL cattle," and
that they are fed 80% grass as well when in fact they are
fed much less than that and finished on grains much earlier.

>I believe you're still trying to make it appear that
>grass raised beef is no better than regular beef, and
>that has been your intent the whole time.

That is my intent, but not my only one. My issue with you
here is that you cannot reject veganism on the basis that
it is an imperfect solution to the deaths surrounding
general food production.

>>>>>I don't believe you
>>>>
>>>>You reject the evidence from USDA and consumer
>>>>magazines because your agenda is to try pushing meat
>>>>onto vegans. You don't want them to believe that their
>>>>solution to the deaths they abhor in general human food
>>>>production is a valid one because deaths will still occur
>>>>after their solution is implemented, but to reject veganism
>>>>on that basis is as specious as rejecting seat belt laws and
>>>>anti-terrorism efforts. Your argument to reject veganism
>>>>invokes the perfect solution fallacy
>>>
>>> No
>>
>>Yes, Harrison, and there's no escaping it. Every time
>>you try to reject veganism as a solution to the deaths
>>found in general human food production on the basis
>>that some deaths (collateral deaths) still occur after its
>>implementation
>
> I don't. I reject it on the basis that some types of
>meat cause fewer cds than some types of vegetables

If you're relying on the counting game to reject veganism
you'll always lose. Like for like the vegan always wins,
and if you want to make your case by comparing best
and worse cases the vegan can do the same and always
win by 1.

>AND because many livestock have lives of positive
>value which is an aspect you could apparently never
>appreciate.

Your logic of the larder is absurd and will always be
rejected.

>>you invoke the perfect solution fallacy.
>
> If so, then you do the same thing every time you
>reject an omnivorous diet.

Unlike veganism, an omnivorous diet isn't put forward
as a solution to the deaths surrounding general human
food production, you stupid imbecile.

>>As we can see, your argument against veganism is nothing
>>more than a dirty little false dilemma.
>
> I point out that some types of meat involve fewer
>cds than some types of vegetable products, and you
>dishonestly and shamefully try to deny it.

Not at all, so stop lying. No one doubts that hunting
a deer might accrue fewer collateral deaths than
buying rice, for example, but if you want to build
your case against veganism by making unlike
comparisons I will beat it by comparing factory-
farmed hogs to foraging for wild fruits and vegetables.

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> [..]
> >
> >You haven't challenged him for *ages*.
>
> Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
> show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
> allow them the valuable experience of challenging
> him themselves unaided by me?

There is no value in talking with a raving mad halfwit. If
you hadn't noticed, he's the laughing-stock of Usenet. No
one takes him seriously. His stubborn idiocy is obvious to
virtually everyone .. you're a shocking exception to the rule.

> >Serves him!
>
> On the contrary. Left unchallenged by me serves them!

Nobody wants to talk to him. He has nothing of value.

> >> What I do admire about him is his intelligence,
> >
> >Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.
>
> I agree that he IS devious, but I'm also aware that he's
> the most intelligent tutor available to me here on Usenet,
> and I chose to take full advantage of that tutelage in the
> manner he gave it rather than waste it.

Nope - you've lost me.

> >> the knowledge he holds,
> >
> >About WHAT??????
>
> Rights.

He doesn't believe in rights. He worships mammon.

> >> and yes, believe it or not, his patience
> >> with me while I learn all I can from him as his
> >> adversarial student.
> >
> >Oh .. my .. gosh. The only thing you learn from it is
> >NASTY.
>
> NO, he taught me to *learn* and think about my position
> clearly so I could then benefit from it. Learning how to
> think clearly is a discipline unlike any other. Memorising
> mathematical equations and using them to solve problems
> in physics and electronics is mundane by comparison.

Too bad you've alienated the real AR experts here, from
whom you/we could have learned - frlpwr, Rupert, Karen..

> >> It must be said that, despite his
> >> constant personal attacks on me I've learned more
> >> from him on the issues raised here than from anyone
> >> else,
> >
> >Eh? Give us an example, please.
>
> No.

Why not?

> >> and for that I owe him a great deal because
> >> before arriving here all I knew was that animals hold
> >> a right against my trespass against them, and now,
> >> after butting heads with him for all these years I
> >> can understand WHY because he's forced me to
> >> LEARN why.
> >
> >It's not nice to be abused? You didn't know that?
>
> Go around it and grab what you can.

?

> [..]
> >> >wants to be one of his 'gang',
> >>
> >> No, that's not true. I've never wanted to be a part
> >> in anyone's gang. I always manage independently
> >> and work alone as a loose canon, firing at those
> >> on both sides of the fence if I disagree with them.
> >
> >You recently allied yourself with ball and suspect..
> >the 'obesity and diet' thread.
>
> No, I gave my own anecdotal evidence to support the
> proposition that weight loss follows a simple mathematical
> rule rather than prescriptions and taboos on diet.

You once thanked me here for advice that helped you lose weight..

> >You argued with me.
>
> Of course, and why not?

You resorted to snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.

> >> >and the result is
> >> >you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
> >> >causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.
> >>
> >> Yes, that's very true, but consequences and regrets
> >> be damned, Pearl; I act according to the principles
> >> I hold, and if my actions make me unpopular, then
> >> so be it. I'm not here to win anyone's favour; I'm just
> >> being myself - warts-n-all.
> >
> >Warts may become malignant. You could be brilliant.
>
> I don't want to be if I can't be myself.

Sleep with dogs and get up stinking. It's your choice.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:28:14 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:
> >
> >> >>> Claim and Standard:
> >> >>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
> >> >>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
> >> >>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
> >
> >> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label, but
> >> if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
> >> fed, that is GREAT! I already felt good about eating beef,
> >> and if you're right we can all feel even better about it :-)
> >
> >'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
> >five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
> >American population.
>
> The American population would consume a lot more
> grain if we didn't eat meat.

Americans are already consuming too much grain in their diet.

15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.

> >..
> >More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
> >producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
> >272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
> >for cultivated feed grains.
>
> Good enough.

No.. very bad indeed.

'The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is capable
of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read: 'livestock']."
By this definition more than 80% of the West qualifies as range,
including a complex array of more than 40 major ecosystem types,
all of which have been significantly degraded by ranching. ..
...
Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental changes
in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions throughout most
of the West. These reports progressively establish livestock grazing as
the biggest single perpetrator of these changes, particularly considering
that it was the only significant land use over most of the West.

One of the most useful and informative descriptions of the early West
was that of Meriweather Lewis and William Clark on their famous
expedition across the northern Midwest, Rockies, and Pacific
Northwest from 1804 to 1806 (Thwaites 1959). Their descriptions of
the unconquered West are of a world we can scarcely imagine:
landscapes filled with wildlife; great diversities of lush vegetation; highly
productive, free-flowing rivers, creeks, and springs; abundant, dark,
fertile soil; unaltered, unimpeded fire and other natural processes. Of
the Montana plains, one excerpt from Clark reads, "we observe in
every direction Buffalow, Elk Antelopes & Mule Deer inumerable and
so jintle that we could approach them near with great ease." Another
states, We saw a great number of buffaloe, Elk, common and Black
tailed deer, goats [pronghorn] beaver and wolves. ..

In the West today only ungrazed Yellowstone National Park supports
nearly this variety and density of large wild animals. ..

Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo, elk,
deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses, grizzly
and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver, muskrats,
river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other "game" birds,
waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents, most insects, and
the vast majority of wild animals were all many times more abundant
then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe a
great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous vegetation,
willows and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild grapes,
chokecherries, currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries,
"red" and "yellow" berries, service berries, flax, dock, wild garlic and
onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy, honeysuckle, mints, and more,
a large number being edible. Most of these plants have been depleted
through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years and are
today comparatively scarce.
...
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html

> >Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
> >the soil erosion in the United States
> __________________________________________________ _______
> Environmental Benefits
>
> Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
> advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
> erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
> and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Reality:

Area used for food cultivation- 13 million hectares.

'More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
for cultivated feed grains.
...'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

Those 30 million hectares used to produce feed grains are tilled.

'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
American population.
...'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

Is constant tilling necessary to grow plant produce? No, it isn't..

'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
Farming in harmony with nature

By Lauren Cahoon
Special to The Journal
August 4, 2006

VAN ETTEN - What if every farmer decided to turn off his machinery and
go without fossil fuels once and for all? And along with that, what if they
all stopped putting pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers on
their fields?

What if every gardener stopped pulling out their weeds and tilling their
soil? Chaos, you say? Mass shortages in crops and foods, gardens choked
with weeds? Perhaps so. But Rob Young, a Ph.D. student and lecturer at
Cornell University, has done all of the above with his small farm - and
the business, like the crops, is growing.

"We just got a new client who's running a restaurant in one of the local
towns - we brought them some of our lettuce and they went crazy over it
..... our lettuce just knocked them over, it's so good."

Young's Bison Ridge farm, located in Van Etten, runs almost completely
without the use of fossil fuels, fossil fuel-derived fertilizers, or pesticides.

The land has been farmed since the 1850s. Young and his wife, Katharine,
purchased the farm in 1989. Before that, Young worked as the Sustainable
Business Director for New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. When
he discovered Bison Ridge, Young started working the land even while he
was still living in New Jersey. Eventually, Young and his wife moved to the
Ithaca area so they could start their graduate program at Cornell.

"We started doing a little gardening... then added more and more fields
..... at first, we just wanted it to be an organic farm" Rob explained.
Running an organic farm is admirable enough, but at some point, Young
took it a step farther.

"I had an epiphany," he said. "I was transplanting beets after a spring
rain, and I noticed how the land felt all hot and sticky - almost like
when you wipe out on your bike and you get a brush burn. I know it sounds
cheesy, but I could feel how that (farmed) land had gotten a 'brush burn'
when it was cleared and plowed.

"That's when I decided, I want to work with this land rather than against it."

After that, Young started throwing common farming practices out the
window. He reduced weeding, adding copious amounts of composted
mulch instead and, because of the life teeming in the healthy soils and fields
around the farm, Young lets natural predators get rid of any insect pests.

No mechanized machinery is used except for the primary plowing of new
fields. In fact, except for driving to and from the farm (in a hybrid car,
no less), no fossil fuels are used in any part of production. Irrigation
of crops is either gravity-fed from an old stone well dug in the 1800s or
through pumps driven by solar energy. Super-rich compost is used on all
of the crops along with clover, which fixes nitrogen and adds organic matter
to the soil. Crops are grown in multi-species patches, to mimic natural
communities (insect pests wreak less havoc when they're faced with diverse
types of vegetation).

In addition, the farm has a large greenhouse where most of the crops are
grown as seedlings during the late winter/early spring to get a head
start. The entire structure is heated by a huge bank of compost, whose
microbial activity keeps the growing beds at a toasty 70 degrees. During
the spring and summer, most of the plants are grown in outdoor raised
beds - which yield about three times as much per square meter as a regular
field.

"When people visit the farm, they comment on how we're not using a lot
of the land - they don't realize we're producing triple the amount of crops
from less land," Young said. "It is labor intensive, but you can target
your fertility management, and the produce is so good."

Young's passion for earth-friendly farming has proved to be infectious.
As a student, teaching assistant and teacher at Cornell, Young has had the
chance to tell many people in the community about Bison Ridge, which
is how Marion Dixon, a graduate student in developmental sociology, got
involved with the whole endeavor.

"I had wanted to farm forever - and was always telling myself, 'I'll do it
when I'm not in school,'" she said. But when she heard Young give a
speech about recycling and sustainable living at her dining hall, she knew
she had found her chance to actually get involved.

Dixon and Young now work the farm cooperatively, each contributing
their time and effort into the land.

"I've had a lot of ideas," Young said, "but the work has been done by a
lot of people - it's a community of people who have made his happen."

He said that because of Dixon's input, they now have a new way of
planting lettuce that has doubled production.

Although Young and Dixon are the only ones currently running the farm,
during the summer there are always several people who contribute, from
undergrads to graduate students to local people in the community - all
united by a common desire to work with the land.

"There's personal satisfaction in working the soil, being on the land and
outdoors," Dixon said. "You get to work out, and get that sense of
community - plus there's the quality, healthy food. ... It's about believing
in a localized economy, believing in production that's ecologically and
community-based."

The combination of working with the earth's natural systems and community
involvement has paid off. Over the course of several seasons, Bison Ridge
has grown a variety of vegetables, maple syrup, wheat as well as eggs from
free-range chickens. They have a range of clients, including a supermarket
and several restaurants, and have delivered produce to many families in
CSA (Community Sponsored Agriculture) programs.

Although small, Bison Ridge Farm has prospered due to its independence
from increasingly expensive fossil fuel. Young said that, since little if any
of their revenue is spent on gas, advertising or transportation, it makes
the food affordable to low-income people, another goal that Young and
Dixon are shooting for with their farming.

Although Young and Dixon are happy about the monetary gains the farm is
producing, they have the most passion and enthusiasm for the less tangible
goods the farm provides.

"It's such a delight to work with," Dixon said. "You feel alive when
you're there."

http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps...608040306/1002

> Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
> average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
> Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
> was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
> pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
> pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre.

In reality:

'Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages
13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a
slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But
erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures,
and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed.
...'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

> It also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
> whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
> limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
> the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
> crop production. It will also protect our water quality.
>
> High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
> can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
> several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
> pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
> waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
> wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
> phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
> low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Those 30 million hectares of feed grains are sprayed and fertilized -
as is much of the 272 million hectares of pasture and forage crops.

Add excessive use of groundwater, and its pollution by slurry,
plus:

'Livestock grazing has damaged approximately 80% of stream
and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Although
these areas compose only 0.5-1.0% of the overall landscape, a
disproportionately large percentage (70-80%) of all desert,
shrub, and grassland plants and animals depend on them. The
introduction of livestock into these areas 100-200 years ago
caused a disturbance with many ripple effects. Livestock seek
out water, succulent forage, and shade in riparian areas, leading
to trampling and overgrazing of streambanks, soil erosion, loss
of streambank stability, declining water quality, and drier, hotter
conditions. These changes have reduced habitat for riparian plant
species, cold-water fish, and wildlife, thereby causing many native
species to decline in number or go locally extinct. Such
modifications can lead to large-scale changes in adjacent and
downstream ecosystems.

... recent studies clearly document that livestock continue to
degrade western streams and rivers, and that riparian recovery
is contingent upon total rest from grazing.
...'
http://www.onda.org/library/papers/BelskyGrazing.pdf

> Wildlife Advantages
>
> Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
> meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
> the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
> thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
> 1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
> frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
> populations are now at risk.
>
> Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
> because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
> (However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
> rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
> detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
> until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
> as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
> bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
> benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
> cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
> provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Ranchers slaughter many native species. A vegan population would
leave 299.25 million hectares free to revert back to *natural habitat*.

> Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
> the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
> (including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
> wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
> future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
> invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
> also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
> may serve as wildlife habitat.
>
> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html

'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust for
Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic farming
on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides used in
intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects and other
larger species. They also kill plants considered to be weeds.
That means fewer food sources available for other animals, birds
and beneficial insects and it also destroys many of their habitats.
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/s.../benefits.html

'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:
- Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.
- Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.
- Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.
- Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.
- Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.
- Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
...'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:34:44 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> [..]
>> >
>> >You haven't challenged him for *ages*.
>>
>> Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
>> show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
>> allow them the valuable experience of challenging
>> him themselves unaided by me?
>
>There is no value in talking with a raving mad halfwit. If
>you hadn't noticed, he's the laughing-stock of Usenet. No
>one takes him seriously.

If you believe that why are you whining about my
leaving him unchallenged?

>> >Serves him!
>>
>> On the contrary. Left unchallenged by me serves them!
>
>Nobody wants to talk to him. He has nothing of value.

Again, if you believe that why are you whining about
my leaving him unchallenged?

>> >> What I do admire about him is his intelligence,
>> >
>> >Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.
>>
>> I agree that he IS devious, but I'm also aware that he's
>> the most intelligent tutor available to me here on Usenet,
>> and I chose to take full advantage of that tutelage in the
>> manner he gave it rather than waste it.
>
>Nope - you've lost me.

No, you know exactly what I mean.

>> >> the knowledge he holds,
>> >
>> >About WHAT??????
>>
>> Rights.
>
>He doesn't believe in rights.

Though he rejects the proposition of animal rights he is
no less a very knowledgeable tutor on the subject.

[Karen to Jon]
"You know what the ethical arguments for AR are,
and you quote them when it suits you to use them
against a poster you disagree with. Then you pretend
to have convenient amnesia when it suits you to attack
pro-AR supporters in turn. You could write a book
defending AR if you wanted to do it .."
Karen as Glorfindel Aug 10 2006 http://tinyurl.com/j89zl

Satisfied yet? There's no doubt that he knows more
about rights than ANYONE on this forum, and only
a fool would waste the opportunity to take full
advantage of any tutelage from him and in whatever
manner he was prepared to give it, so get off my
back!

>> >> and yes, believe it or not, his patience
>> >> with me while I learn all I can from him as his
>> >> adversarial student.
>> >
>> >Oh .. my .. gosh. The only thing you learn from it is
>> >NASTY.
>>
>> NO, he taught me to *learn* and think about my position
>> clearly so I could then benefit from it. Learning how to
>> think clearly is a discipline unlike any other. Memorising
>> mathematical equations and using them to solve problems
>> in physics and electronics is mundane by comparison.
>
>Too bad you've alienated the real AR experts here, from
>whom you/we could have learned - frlpwr, Rupert, Karen..

Karen openly promotes zoophilia and regularly participated
in "zoophile sexual activity" with her pet;

"I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on
my hand."
Karen as Glorfindel Aug 8 2006 http://tinyurl.com/rwxc4

It might just as easily have been a dog and something
more than just a wank on her hand if she deluded herself
into thinking a dog wanted to be sucked off, and she
readily acknowledges that her aberrant activity would
NOT take place in an AR-based society.

"Yes, zoophile sexual interaction with animals is an
aberrant activity which is a result of humans' basic
wrong in keeping domestic animals, especially as
pets and property. I highly, HIGHLY doubt zoophilia
would take place between free, wild animals and
humans, or in an AR-based society. You are right
there."
Karen as Glorfindel Aug 7 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jacmc

That's and acknowledgment from her that her beliefs
and aberrant activities put her well outside the AR
tent, and frlpwr condones it, which puts her in the
same position as Karen.

Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he
claims to be. He wrongly believes he is morally justified
in causing the deaths of SOME animals in commercial
agriculture to prevent LARGER amounts of serious
suffering.

"Since boycotting commercial agriculture would involve
imposing very serious costs on myself, as well as
abandoning opportunities to prevent large amounts of
serious suffering, I am morally justified in not doing it."
Rupert Jun 1 2006 http://tinyurl.com/s2cq7

There are your 3 so-called "real AR experts", Pearl; 2
zoophile apologists and a utilitarian who thinks he's a
deontological rightist. Pah!

[..]
>> >You argued with me.
>>
>> Of course, and why not?
>
>You resorted to snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.

You're lying now. I made it clear to you from the start
that I would never promote meat.

"Though I would never promote meat there's no doubt that
everyone can eat it and still maintain excellent health as
well as lose excess weight. As per the subject title of this
thread, a "vegetarian diet is good for obese people", but
then so is a meat-centric diet. Leif is correct when saying,
"Weight gain or loss follows a very simple arithmetic rule",
and that rule can be paraphrased using Kirchoff's first
law; the sum of currents (calories in this case) entering a
node (body) plus the sum of currents leaving a node sum
to zero."
Me Aug 12 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ln8f8

You lied about me by trying to imply that I support meat-
eating when I made it very clear to you from the start
that I would never promote meat.

>> >> >and the result is
>> >> >you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
>> >> >causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that's very true, but consequences and regrets
>> >> be damned, Pearl; I act according to the principles
>> >> I hold, and if my actions make me unpopular, then
>> >> so be it. I'm not here to win anyone's favour; I'm just
>> >> being myself - warts-n-all.
>> >
>> >Warts may become malignant. You could be brilliant.
>>
>> I don't want to be if I can't be myself.
>
>Sleep with dogs and get up stinking. It's your choice.

I was just about to say the same to you, Pearl, but I
wasn't going to start being rude. Why don't YOU
challenge him if you can? And if you do, try doing
it with your own words rather than your usual copy
and paste jobs. That'll make a nice change.

"Derek" > wrote in message news
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:34:44 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> [..]
> >> >
> >> >You haven't challenged him for *ages*.
> >>
> >> Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
> >> show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
> >> allow them the valuable experience of challenging
> >> him themselves unaided by me?
> >
> >There is no value in talking with a raving mad halfwit. If
> >you hadn't noticed, he's the laughing-stock of Usenet. No
> >one takes him seriously.
>
> If you believe that why are you whining about my
> leaving him unchallenged?

"whining"? I don't whine, Derek, and I don't "believe"
that - it's a fact of record. I wrote that in response to
your ?"whine":

"And as for admiring his "brutal display of 'force'",
I've been on the receiving end of that for over 5 years,
and on a daily basis, so no, I don't admire that."

You haven't been on the "receiving end" of anything
for quite a while, because you have been ingratiating
yourself to him - staying out of his way, or agreeing.

> >> >Serves him!
> >>
> >> On the contrary. Left unchallenged by me serves them!
> >
> >Nobody wants to talk to him. He has nothing of value.
>
> Again, if you believe that why are you whining about
> my leaving him unchallenged?

See above.

> >> >> What I do admire about him is his intelligence,
> >> >
> >> >Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.
> >>
> >> I agree that he IS devious, but I'm also aware that he's
> >> the most intelligent tutor available to me here on Usenet,
> >> and I chose to take full advantage of that tutelage in the
> >> manner he gave it rather than waste it.
> >
> >Nope - you've lost me.
>
> No, you know exactly what I mean.

No, I really really REALLY don't.

> >> >> the knowledge he holds,
> >> >
> >> >About WHAT??????
> >>
> >> Rights.
> >
> >He doesn't believe in rights.
>
> Though he rejects the proposition of animal rights he is
> no less a very knowledgeable tutor on the subject.

<bucket please>

> [Karen to Jon]
> "You know what the ethical arguments for AR are,
> and you quote them when it suits you to use them
> against a poster you disagree with. Then you pretend
> to have convenient amnesia when it suits you to attack
> pro-AR supporters in turn. You could write a book
> defending AR if you wanted to do it .."
> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 10 2006 http://tinyurl.com/j89zl
>
> Satisfied yet? There's no doubt that he knows more
> about rights than ANYONE on this forum, and only
> a fool would waste the opportunity to take full
> advantage of any tutelage from him and in whatever
> manner he was prepared to give it, so get off my
> back!

He knows the words, but not the song. If he *understood*
what he was parroting, he'd be a vegan and AR supporter.
Everything he *knows*, he 'learned' from the REAL thing.

> >> >> and yes, believe it or not, his patience
> >> >> with me while I learn all I can from him as his
> >> >> adversarial student.
> >> >
> >> >Oh .. my .. gosh. The only thing you learn from it is
> >> >NASTY.
> >>
> >> NO, he taught me to *learn* and think about my position
> >> clearly so I could then benefit from it. Learning how to
> >> think clearly is a discipline unlike any other. Memorising
> >> mathematical equations and using them to solve problems
> >> in physics and electronics is mundane by comparison.
> >
> >Too bad you've alienated the real AR experts here, from
> >whom you/we could have learned - frlpwr, Rupert, Karen..
>
> Karen openly promotes zoophilia and regularly participated
> in "zoophile sexual activity" with her pet;

Karen opposes all conditioning, which rules out zoophilia.

> "I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on
> my hand."
> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 8 2006 http://tinyurl.com/rwxc4

She believed she was doing the right thing by the bird,
- rightly or wrongly. You would disregard his needs.

> It might just as easily have been a dog and something
> more than just a wank on her hand if she deluded herself
> into thinking a dog wanted to be sucked off, and she
> readily acknowledges that her aberrant activity would
> NOT take place in an AR-based society.

I think she may subscribe to the view that dogs who aren't
allowed to mate with their own species should be altered.

The bird was clearly an exceptional case.

> "Yes, zoophile sexual interaction with animals is an
> aberrant activity which is a result of humans' basic
> wrong in keeping domestic animals, especially as
> pets and property. I highly, HIGHLY doubt zoophilia
> would take place between free, wild animals and
> humans, or in an AR-based society. You are right
> there."
> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 7 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jacmc
>
> That's and acknowledgment from her that her beliefs
> and aberrant activities put her well outside the AR
> tent, and frlpwr condones it, which puts her in the
> same position as Karen.

You are doing the same thing you've been doing since
you got here -- misinterpreting the positions of various
AR supporters and clinging to your misinterpretations
in order to harrass your targets. Are you really an anti?

> Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he
> claims to be. He wrongly believes he is morally justified
> in causing the deaths of SOME animals in commercial
> agriculture to prevent LARGER amounts of serious
> suffering.
>
> "Since boycotting commercial agriculture would involve
> imposing very serious costs on myself, as well as
> abandoning opportunities to prevent large amounts of
> serious suffering, I am morally justified in not doing it."
> Rupert Jun 1 2006 http://tinyurl.com/s2cq7

He is balancing the relative harms/benefits in the options
available to him, and doing what he believes is the best.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

> There are your 3 so-called "real AR experts", Pearl; 2
> zoophile apologists and a utilitarian who thinks he's a
> deontological rightist. Pah!

Those three people are well-educated serious AR supporters.

Your mates chico and ball support the masturbation and rape
of animals. If your objection was genuine you'd have argued
with those two and dutch, but t'was nary a peep to be heard..

> [..]
> >> >You argued with me.
> >>
> >> Of course, and why not?
> >
> >You resorted to snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.
>
> You're lying now.

I don't lie.

> I made it clear to you from the start
> that I would never promote meat.
>
> "Though I would never promote meat there's no doubt that
> everyone can eat it and still maintain excellent health

-restore-
Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):
1153S-1161S.
A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality
characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are
substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with
diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean
intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the
United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and
dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods
of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at
approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary
life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper
is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate
effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly
supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of
evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-
biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted.
There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates.

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives...in-health.html
-end restore-

> as well as lose excess weight.

-restore-
'New Scientific Review Shows Vegetarian Diets Cause
Major Weight Loss Without Exercise or Calorie Counting
31-03-2006 05:01
WASHINGTON, March 31 /PRNewswire/ --

- Controlled Research Trials Prove Diet's Efficacy

A scientific review in April's Nutrition Reviews shows that a
vegetarian diet is highly effective for weight loss. Vegetarian
populations tend to be slimmer than meat-eaters, and they
experience lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, high blood
pressure, and other life-threatening conditions linked to
overweight and obesity. The new review, compiling data from
87 previous studies, shows the weight-loss effect does not
depend on exercise or calorie-counting, and it occurs at a
rate of approximately 1 pound per week.

Rates of obesity in the general population are skyrocketing,
while in vegetarians, obesity prevalence ranges from 0 percent
to 6 percent, note study authors Susan E. Berkow, Ph.D.,
C.N.S., and Neal D. Barnard, M.D., of the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).

The authors found that the body weight of both male and
female vegetarians is, on average, 3 percent to 20 percent
lower than that of meat-eaters. Vegetarian and vegan diets
have also been put to the test in clinical studies, as the
review notes. The best of these clinical studies isolated the
effects of diet by keeping exercise constant. The researchers
found that a low-fat vegan diet leads to weight loss of about
1 pound per week, even without additional exercise or limits
on portion sizes, calories, or carbohydrates.

"Our research reveals that people can enjoy unlimited
portions of high-fiber foods such as fruits, vegetables, and
whole grains to achieve or maintain a healthy body weight
without feeling hungry," says Dr. Berkow, the lead author.

"There is evidence that a vegan diet causes an increased
calorie burn after meals, meaning plant-based foods are
being used more efficiently as fuel for the body, as
opposed to being stored as fat," says Dr. Barnard. Insulin
sensitivity is increased by a vegan diet, allowing nutrients
to more rapidly enter the cells of the body to be converted
to heat rather than to fat.

Earlier this month, a team of researchers led by Tim Key
of Oxford University found that meat-eaters who switched
to a plant-based diet gained less weight over a period of
five years. Papers reviewed by Drs. Berkow and Barnard
include several published by Dr. Key and his colleagues,
as well as a recent study of more than 55,000 Swedish
women showing that meat-eaters are more likely to be
overweight than vegetarians and vegans.
...
http://media.netpr.pl/notatka_54444.html
-end restore-

You ignored and snipped both of those abstracts. Why?

When did you decide that "everyone can eat it [meat] and
still maintain excellent health"???

> As per the subject title of this
> thread, a "vegetarian diet is good for obese people", but
> then so is a meat-centric diet.

If that's not promoting meat, I don't know what is.

> Leif is correct when saying,
> "Weight gain or loss follows a very simple arithmetic rule",
> and that rule can be paraphrased using Kirchoff's first
> law; the sum of currents (calories in this case) entering a
> node (body) plus the sum of currents leaving a node sum
> to zero."
> Me Aug 12 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ln8f8

You ignored and snipped my response to that as well:
p
> >Campbell TC
D
> ... cannot dispute the laws of physics, and neither can you.
p
Who is? Calories can be stored as fat, or burned as energy.

> You lied about me by trying to imply that I support meat-
> eating when I made it very clear to you from the start
> that I would never promote meat.

No. You simply contradicted yourself. Liars tend to do that.

"everyone can eat it [meat] and still maintain excellent health "

woohoo... according to you, everything I've posted is a lie!

> >> >> >and the result is
> >> >> >you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
> >> >> >causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, that's very true, but consequences and regrets
> >> >> be damned, Pearl; I act according to the principles
> >> >> I hold, and if my actions make me unpopular, then
> >> >> so be it. I'm not here to win anyone's favour; I'm just
> >> >> being myself - warts-n-all.
> >> >
> >> >Warts may become malignant. You could be brilliant.
> >>
> >> I don't want to be if I can't be myself.
> >
> >Sleep with dogs and get up stinking. It's your choice.
>
> I was just about to say the same to you, Pearl, but I
> wasn't going to start being rude. Why don't YOU
> challenge him if you can? And if you do, try doing
> it with your own words rather than your usual copy
> and paste jobs. That'll make a nice change.

NASTY. Yep... you sure munched up those droppings.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:30:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message news
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:34:44 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> [..]
>> >> >
>> >> >You haven't challenged him for *ages*.
>> >>
>> >> Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
>> >> show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
>> >> allow them the valuable experience of challenging
>> >> him themselves unaided by me?
>> >
>> >There is no value in talking with a raving mad halfwit. If
>> >you hadn't noticed, he's the laughing-stock of Usenet. No
>> >one takes him seriously.
>>
>> If you believe that why are you whining about my
>> leaving him unchallenged?
>
>"whining"? I don't whine, Derek, and I don't "believe"
>that - it's a fact of record. I wrote that in response to
>your ?"whine":

No, you whined in response to my comment on
Ron's, that Leif was a good guy, so stop lying.
You complained that I don't challenge him, and
that's whining.

>> >> >Serves him!
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary. Left unchallenged by me serves them!
>> >
>> >Nobody wants to talk to him. He has nothing of value.
>>
>> Again, if you believe that why are you whining about
>> my leaving him unchallenged?
>
>See above.

You always write that when you have nothing
to offer in retaliation.

>> >> >> What I do admire about him is his intelligence,
>> >> >
>> >> >Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.
>> >>
>> >> I agree that he IS devious, but I'm also aware that he's
>> >> the most intelligent tutor available to me here on Usenet,
>> >> and I chose to take full advantage of that tutelage in the
>> >> manner he gave it rather than waste it.
>> >
>> >Nope - you've lost me.
>>
>> No, you know exactly what I mean.
>
>No, I really really REALLY don't.

Good.

>> >> >> the knowledge he holds,
>> >> >
>> >> >About WHAT??????
>> >>
>> >> Rights.
>> >
>> >He doesn't believe in rights.
>>
>> Though he rejects the proposition of animal rights he is
>> no less a very knowledgeable tutor on the subject.
>
><bucket please>

You may not like the fact, but it cannot be denied.

>> [Karen to Jon]
>> "You know what the ethical arguments for AR are,
>> and you quote them when it suits you to use them
>> against a poster you disagree with. Then you pretend
>> to have convenient amnesia when it suits you to attack
>> pro-AR supporters in turn. You could write a book
>> defending AR if you wanted to do it .."
>> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 10 2006 http://tinyurl.com/j89zl
>>
>> Satisfied yet? There's no doubt that he knows more
>> about rights than ANYONE on this forum, and only
>> a fool would waste the opportunity to take full
>> advantage of any tutelage from him and in whatever
>> manner he was prepared to give it, so get off my
>> back!
>
>He knows the words, but not the song.

No, he knows it all, exactly as Karen correctly wrote.
You, on the other hand, know nothing and rely solely
on copying and pasting other people's material instead
of writing your own thoughts and views.

>> >> >> and yes, believe it or not, his patience
>> >> >> with me while I learn all I can from him as his
>> >> >> adversarial student.
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh .. my .. gosh. The only thing you learn from it is
>> >> >NASTY.
>> >>
>> >> NO, he taught me to *learn* and think about my position
>> >> clearly so I could then benefit from it. Learning how to
>> >> think clearly is a discipline unlike any other. Memorising
>> >> mathematical equations and using them to solve problems
>> >> in physics and electronics is mundane by comparison.
>> >
>> >Too bad you've alienated the real AR experts here, from
>> >whom you/we could have learned - frlpwr, Rupert, Karen..
>>
>> Karen openly promotes zoophilia and regularly participated
>> in "zoophile sexual activity" with her pet;
>
>Karen opposes all conditioning, which rules out zoophilia.

No, she promotes and participates in sexual activities
with animals, and you haven't the guts to challenge
her about it.

>> "I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on
>> my hand."
>> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 8 2006 http://tinyurl.com/rwxc4
>
>She believed she was doing the right thing by the bird,
>- rightly or wrongly.

Her beliefs and participation regarding zoophilia are well
documented, so stop trying to defend the animal abuser.

>> It might just as easily have been a dog and something
>> more than just a wank on her hand if she deluded herself
>> into thinking a dog wanted to be sucked off, and she
>> readily acknowledges that her aberrant activity would
>> NOT take place in an AR-based society.
>
>I think she may subscribe to the view that dogs who aren't
>allowed to mate with their own species should be altered.

No, you have no reason for assuming that. She actively
promotes zoophilia and avails herself as a sexual partner
to her pets.

>> "Yes, zoophile sexual interaction with animals is an
>> aberrant activity which is a result of humans' basic
>> wrong in keeping domestic animals, especially as
>> pets and property. I highly, HIGHLY doubt zoophilia
>> would take place between free, wild animals and
>> humans, or in an AR-based society. You are right
>> there."
>> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 7 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jacmc
>>
>> That's and acknowledgment from her that her beliefs
>> and aberrant activities put her well outside the AR
>> tent, and frlpwr condones it, which puts her in the
>> same position as Karen.
>
>You are doing the same thing you've been doing since
>you got here -- misinterpreting the positions of various
>AR supporters

No. Her quotes are there for all to read, and they show
that she actively promotes zoophilia and avails herself
as a sexual partner for her pets. You enable that
zoophilia by trying to defend her, and that puts you in
the same boat as frlpwr.

>> Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he
>> claims to be. He wrongly believes he is morally justified
>> in causing the deaths of SOME animals in commercial
>> agriculture to prevent LARGER amounts of serious
>> suffering.
>>
>> "Since boycotting commercial agriculture would involve
>> imposing very serious costs on myself, as well as
>> abandoning opportunities to prevent large amounts of
>> serious suffering, I am morally justified in not doing it."
>> Rupert Jun 1 2006 http://tinyurl.com/s2cq7
>
>He is balancing the relative harms/benefits in the options
>available to him, and doing what he believes is the best.

That's utilitarianism, not deontology. He believes that it
is morally permissible to kill SOME animals in the hope
that it will prevent the suffering of a LARGER group
of animals.

>That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Then I take it you're a utilitarian as well and will morally
justify the killing of a few animals to prevent the suffering
of a greater number of them. Priceless!

>> There are your 3 so-called "real AR experts", Pearl; 2
>> zoophile apologists and a utilitarian who thinks he's a
>> deontological rightist. Pah!
>
>Those three people are well-educated serious AR supporters.

No, they are not. They are zoophiles, apologists for and
enablers of zoophilia, and a utilitarian who really doesn't
have the slightest idea about rights.

>> [..]
>> >> >You argued with me.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, and why not?
>> >
>> >You resorted to snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.
>>
>> You're lying now.
>
>I don't lie.

Yes, you did by asserting I support meat-eating after I
made it perfectly clear to you that I don't in my first
sentence, liar.

>> I made it clear to you from the start
>> that I would never promote meat.
>>
>> "Though I would never promote meat there's no doubt that
>> everyone can eat it and still maintain excellent health as
>> well as lose excess weight. As per the subject title of this
>> thread, a "vegetarian diet is good for obese people", but
>> then so is a meat-centric diet. Leif is correct when saying,
>> "Weight gain or loss follows a very simple arithmetic rule",
>> and that rule can be paraphrased using Kirchoff's first
>> law; the sum of currents (calories in this case) entering a
>> node (body) plus the sum of currents leaving a node sum
>> to zero."
>> Me Aug 12 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ln8f8
>>
>> You lied about me by trying to imply that I support meat-
>> eating when I made it very clear to you from the start
>> that I would never promote meat.
>
>You ignored and snipped my response to that as well:

I snipped your copy and past away and told you that
even Campbell can't reject the laws of physics to
make his point, so stop lying.

>> You lied about me by trying to imply that I support meat-
>> eating when I made it very clear to you from the start
>> that I would never promote meat.
>
>No.

Look just above where you wrote, "You resorted to
snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.", even
though I made it perfectly clear to you in my opening
sentence that I would never promote meat, you inept
liar.

>> >> >> >and the result is
>> >> >> >you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
>> >> >> >causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, that's very true, but consequences and regrets
>> >> >> be damned, Pearl; I act according to the principles
>> >> >> I hold, and if my actions make me unpopular, then
>> >> >> so be it. I'm not here to win anyone's favour; I'm just
>> >> >> being myself - warts-n-all.
>> >> >
>> >> >Warts may become malignant. You could be brilliant.
>> >>
>> >> I don't want to be if I can't be myself.
>> >
>> >Sleep with dogs and get up stinking. It's your choice.
>>
>> I was just about to say the same to you, Pearl, but I
>> wasn't going to start being rude. Why don't YOU
>> challenge him if you can? And if you do, try doing
>> it with your own words rather than your usual copy
>> and paste jobs. That'll make a nice change.
>
>NASTY. Yep... you sure munched up those droppings.

You're an incompetent liar and defender of zoophiles.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:09:16 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>[..]
>>
>>You haven't challenged him for *ages*.
>
>Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
>show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
>allow them the valuable experience of challenging
>him themselves unaided by me?

LOL! Goo must be very proud of you, or what he
has caused you to become. If the latter, he no doubt
laughs at you too...LOL!

>>Serves him!
>
>On the contrary. Left unchallenged by me serves them!
>
>>> What I do admire about him is his intelligence,
>>
>>Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.
>
>I agree that he IS devious, but I'm also aware that he's
>the most intelligent tutor available to me here on Usenet,
>and I chose to take full advantage of that tutelage in the
>manner he gave it rather than waste it.
>
>>> the knowledge he holds,
>>
>>About WHAT??????
>
>Rights.

What has he taught you about them? I'm sure it
would be amusing if you could try to explain, but it's
most likely you can't.

>>> and yes, believe it or not, his patience
>>> with me while I learn all I can from him as his
>>> adversarial student.
>>
>>Oh .. my .. gosh. The only thing you learn from it is
>>NASTY.
>
>NO, he taught me to *learn* and think about my position
>clearly so I could then benefit from it.

LOL! He taught you to lie 2goo, and to kiss his ass
in front of anyone who wants to see you bend over
and do it.

>Learning how to think clearly is a discipline unlike any other.
__________________________________________________ _______
Ron asked:
>So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance
>and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in
>the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of
>supplying the pet food industry?

Goo replied:
Yes.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>Memorising mathematical equations and using them to solve
>problems in physics and electronics is mundane by comparison.
>
>>> It must be said that, despite his
>>> constant personal attacks on me I've learned more
>>> from him on the issues raised here than from anyone
>>> else,
>>
>>Eh? Give us an example, please.
>
>No.

LOL!!!

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

"my name and reputation are sterling" - Goo
"Why are you laughing at mental illness" - Goo
"I'm not stupid." - Goo
"I know exactly what I think" - Goo
"I educated the public" - Goo
"I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:36:02 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:28:14 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>> Claim and Standard:
>> >> >>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>> >> >>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>> >> >>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
>> >
>> >> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label, but
>> >> if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
>> >> fed, that is GREAT! I already felt good about eating beef,
>> >> and if you're right we can all feel even better about it :-)
>> >
>> >'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
>> >five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
>> >American population.
>>
>> The American population would consume a lot more
>> grain if we didn't eat meat.
>
>Americans are already consuming too much grain in their diet.
>
>15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.
>
>> >..
>> >More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
>> >producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
>> >272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
>> >for cultivated feed grains.
>>
>> Good enough.
>
>No.. very bad indeed.
>
>'The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is capable
>of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read: 'livestock']."
>By this definition more than 80% of the West qualifies as range,
>including a complex array of more than 40 major ecosystem types,
>all of which have been significantly degraded by ranching. ..
>..
>Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental changes
>in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions throughout most
>of the West. These reports progressively establish livestock grazing as
>the biggest single perpetrator of these changes, particularly considering
>that it was the only significant land use over most of the West.

How would it be better if they were growing corn and soy beans
instead....if they could?

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:30:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

>"Derek" > wrote in message news
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:34:44 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> [..]
>> >> >
>> >> >You haven't challenged him for *ages*.
>> >>
>> >> Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
>> >> show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
>> >> allow them the valuable experience of challenging
>> >> him themselves unaided by me?
>> >
>> >There is no value in talking with a raving mad halfwit. If
>> >you hadn't noticed, he's the laughing-stock of Usenet. No
>> >one takes him seriously.
>>
>> If you believe that why are you whining about my
>> leaving him unchallenged?
>
>"whining"? I don't whine, Derek, and I don't "believe"
>that - it's a fact of record. I wrote that in response to
>your ?"whine":
>
>"And as for admiring his "brutal display of 'force'",
>I've been on the receiving end of that for over 5 years,
>and on a daily basis, so no, I don't admire that."
>
>You haven't been on the "receiving end" of anything
>for quite a while, because you have been ingratiating
>yourself to him - staying out of his way, or agreeing.

It goes beyond that. Goo hasn't posted in a little
while, but his boy Derek is singing the absurd song
of Goobal praise in his absence. It's not new. In fact
looking back I now recall that he gave me reason
to refer to him as Goochild, later shortened to 2goo,
about a year ago.
.. . .

>NASTY. Yep... you sure munched up those droppings.

Yep. He's learned to like the taste of shit...another
coprophagist like his "tutor" Goo. I'm really suprised
to see him so open about it, unless you're all in the
shit together playing good vegan/bad vegan...or
whatever you people might be trying to do.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:15:26 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:45:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 06:24:14 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:14:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:11:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:21:58 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Claim and Standard:
>>>>>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>>>>>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>>>>>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what its name implies, and
>>>>>>>has just as much an association with the collateral deaths
>>>>>>>found in crop production as from any other steer found in the
>>>>>>>feedlot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're saying that forage shall be 80% or more of the
>>>>>>primary energy source throughout the life cycle of any
>>>>>>steer found in the feedlot.
>>>>>
>>>>>The evidence you snipped away confirms it. So-called
>>>>>grass-fed beef carries a “USDA Process Verified”
>>>>>shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 %
>>>>>of the feed were grass, with no limits on the remaining
>>>>>20 %, just like any other GRAIN-fed beef fed at the
>>>>>feedlot.
>>>>
>>>> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label,
>>>
>>>You cannot doubt it while evidence shows it to be true.
>>
>> I can, but I said I don't this time...yet.
>
>You never will,

LOL!!!
__________________________________________________ _______
Grass (Forage) Fed Claim Comments and Responses

By the close of the comment period for the December 30, 2002
notice, AMS received 369 comments concerning the grass (forage) fed
claim from consumers, academia, trade and professional associations,
national organic associations, consumer advocacy associations, meat
product industries, and livestock producers. Only three comments
received were in general support of the standard as originally
proposed. Summaries of issues raised by commenters and AMS's responses
follow.

Grass (Forage) Definition and Percentage

Comment: AMS received numerous comments suggesting the percentage
of grass and forage in the standard be greater than the 80 percent
originally proposed. Most comments suggested the standard be 100
percent grass or forage. Other comments recommended various levels of
90, 95, 98 and 99 percent grass and forage as the primary energy
source.
.. . .
AMS determined the most appropriate way to integrate the
grass (forage) fed claim into practical management systems and still
maximize or keep the purest intent of grass and/or forage based diets
was by changing the standard requirements to read that grass and/or
forage shall be 99 percent or higher of the energy source for the
lifetime of the animal.
.. . .
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0509.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>Harrison, because the evidence I've
>supplied here from USDA and the complaints from
>consumer magazines shows that grass-fed beef can
>be and is finished on grains at the feedlot.

Your pathetic desperation doesn't have anything to do with what I'm
referring to anyway, because I'm ONLY referring to cattle who are raised
AND FINISHED on grass.
__________________________________________________ _______
Back to Pasture. Since 2000, several thousand ranchers and farmers across
the United States and Canada have stopped sending their animals to the
feedlots.

http://www.eatwild.com/basics.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
It's YOU "aras" who must desperately and contemptibly--though somewhat
amusingly--focus only on those who are not. The reason it's amusing is also
contemptible, and that reason is because you "aras" who are dishonestly
pretending to care about human influence on animals, are showing that you
do not by pretending that there aren't thousands of farmers who do NOT
send their cattle to the feed lot...what's amusing is that you display your own
lack of caring by doing so. Not only DO you not care, but you are incapable
of caring.

>>>>but
>>>>if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
>>>>fed, that is GREAT!
>>>
>>>No, I was referring to the so-called grass-fed beef which
>>>are in fact fed grains and finished at the feedlot like any
>>>other steer. You knew that, of course.
>>
>> No.
>
>Yes, Harrison. I was referring to so-called grass-fed beef.
>You tried to imply that I was referring to "ALL cattle," and
>that they are fed 80% grass as well when in fact they are
>fed much less than that and finished on grains much earlier.

I can't believe you're not being deliberately dishonest
for the same reason as your "tutor" Goo, because if you
weren't it would mean you're more stupid than I believe
you are. The same is true of your brother Dutch.

YOU said: "Grass fed beef . . . has just as much an
association with the collateral deaths found in crop
production as from any other steer found in the feedlot."

By saying "just as much", a person could get the
impression that by saying it you mean "just as much".

>>I believe you're still trying to make it appear that
>>grass raised beef is no better than regular beef, and
>>that has been your intent the whole time.
>
>That is my intent,

Then you're being deliberately dishonest, which is
what I expected the whole time, and have learned to
always expect from you. It does seem that you were
more honest in the beginning, but you're certainly not
now so who gives a shit? You SHOULD, but your tutor
has "taught" you not to.

>but not my only one. My issue with you
>here is that you cannot reject veganism on the basis that
>it is an imperfect solution to the deaths surrounding
>general food production.

I don't. I have better reasons.

>>>>>>I don't believe you
>>>>>
>>>>>You reject the evidence from USDA and consumer
>>>>>magazines because your agenda is to try pushing meat
>>>>>onto vegans. You don't want them to believe that their
>>>>>solution to the deaths they abhor in general human food
>>>>>production is a valid one because deaths will still occur
>>>>>after their solution is implemented, but to reject veganism
>>>>>on that basis is as specious as rejecting seat belt laws and
>>>>>anti-terrorism efforts. Your argument to reject veganism
>>>>>invokes the perfect solution fallacy
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>>Yes, Harrison, and there's no escaping it. Every time
>>>you try to reject veganism as a solution to the deaths
>>>found in general human food production on the basis
>>>that some deaths (collateral deaths) still occur after its
>>>implementation
>>
>> I don't. I reject it on the basis that some types of
>>meat cause fewer cds than some types of vegetables
>
>If you're relying on the counting game to reject veganism
>you'll always lose. Like for like the vegan always wins,
>and if you want to make your case by comparing best
>and worse cases the vegan can do the same and always
>win by 1.

LOL. Explain how rice milk is better than grass raised
cow milk.

>>AND because many livestock have lives of positive
>>value which is an aspect you could apparently never
>>appreciate.
>
>Your logic of the larder is absurd

It's an aspect of human influence on animals.

>and will always be rejected.

Maybe, but if so only by fools.

>>>you invoke the perfect solution fallacy.
>>
>> If so, then you do the same thing every time you
>>reject an omnivorous diet.
>
>Unlike veganism, an omnivorous diet isn't put forward
>as a solution to the deaths surrounding general human
>food production, you stupid imbecile.

I imagine it is but you've just never seen it, you moron.

>>>As we can see, your argument against veganism is nothing
>>>more than a dirty little false dilemma.
>>
>> I point out that some types of meat involve fewer
>>cds than some types of vegetable products, and you
>>dishonestly and shamefully try to deny it.
>
>Not at all, so stop lying. No one doubts that hunting
>a deer might accrue fewer collateral deaths than
>buying rice, for example,

Then why "might" not raising a steer who kills as
little as a deer do the same?

>but if you want to build
>your case against veganism by making unlike
>comparisons I will beat it by comparing factory-
>farmed hogs to foraging for wild fruits and vegetables.

We'd have to take into consideration how many
people could survive your suggestions then, and it's
not enough to even consider as an option.

pearl wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" >
> > wrote:
> > >"Derek" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > [..]
> > >
> > >You haven't challenged him for *ages*.
> >
> > Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
> > show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
> > allow them the valuable experience of challenging
> > him themselves unaided by me?
>
> There is no value in talking with a raving mad halfwit.

Says she who claims she cured her sister's brain trauma by rubbing her
feet, who believes the earth is hollow and "enlightened" beings live
beneath Mount Shasta, who believes in UFOs and conspiracy theories, who
embraces those who advocate and defend molestation of animals and
children, etc.


> > >Serves him!
> >
> > On the contrary. Left unchallenged by me serves them!
>
> Nobody wants to talk to him. He has nothing of value.

Says she who claims she cured her sister's brain trauma by rubbing her
feet, who believes the earth is hollow and "enlightened" beings live
beneath Mount Shasta, who believes in UFOs and conspiracy theories, who
embraces those who advocate and defend molestation of animals and
children, etc.


> > >> What I do admire about him is his intelligence,
> > >
> > >Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.
> >
> > I agree that he IS devious, but I'm also aware that he's
> > the most intelligent tutor available to me here on Usenet,
> > and I chose to take full advantage of that tutelage in the
> > manner he gave it rather than waste it.
>
> Nope - you've lost me.

Not surprising given you claim you cured your sister's brain
trauma by rubbing her feet, believe the earth is hollow and
"enlightened" beings live beneath Mount Shasta, believe in UFOs and
conspiracy theories, embrace those who advocate and defend
molestation of animals and children, etc.

You're totally lost.

> > >> the knowledge he holds,
> > >
> > >About WHAT??????
> >
> > Rights.
>
> He doesn't believe in rights. He worships mammon.

So do you.

> > >> and yes, believe it or not, his patience
> > >> with me while I learn all I can from him as his
> > >> adversarial student.
> > >
> > >Oh .. my .. gosh. The only thing you learn from it is
> > >NASTY.
> >
> > NO, he taught me to *learn* and think about my position
> > clearly so I could then benefit from it. Learning how to
> > think clearly is a discipline unlike any other. Memorising
> > mathematical equations and using them to solve problems
> > in physics and electronics is mundane by comparison.
>
> Too bad you've alienated the real AR experts here, from
> whom you/we could have learned - frlpwr, Rupert, Karen..

Hahaha, they're PERVerts not EXPerts. Karen and Mary openly defend
bestiality. Rupert doesn't think it's anyone else's business what
perverts do to animals so long as they don't eat them.

> > >You recently allied yourself with ball and suspect..
> > >the 'obesity and diet' thread.

You're so ****ed up with your "us versus them" bullshit that you can't
accept that people CAN see eye to eye on many issues even if they
disagree vehemently about others.

> > No, I gave my own anecdotal evidence to support the
> > proposition that weight loss follows a simple mathematical
> > rule rather than prescriptions and taboos on diet.
>
> You once thanked me here for advice that helped you lose weight..

And wtf does that have to do with anything?

> > >You argued with me.
> >
> > Of course, and why not?
>
> You resorted to snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.

You can't see the forest for the trees because you're blinded by an
agenda. Derek never supported meat-eating; he was honest in appraising
the facts that he could've as easily lost weight eating meat as he did
without it. Meat was, and is, irrelevant to weightloss. Ask those who've
enjoyed short-term (and even longer-term) success with low-carb diets.
They're just as goofy as your orthorexic vegetarianism. It comes down to
calories in and calories out. When Derek adjusted that ratio, he lost
weight.

> > >> >and the result is
> > >> >you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
> > >> >causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, that's very true, but consequences and regrets
> > >> be damned, Pearl; I act according to the principles
> > >> I hold, and if my actions make me unpopular, then
> > >> so be it. I'm not here to win anyone's favour; I'm just
> > >> being myself - warts-n-all.
> > >
> > >Warts may become malignant. You could be brilliant.
> >
> > I don't want to be if I can't be myself.
>
> Sleep with dogs

Not exactly what one would expect a barking mad ARA like you to
promote, but you've demonstrated yourself to be pro-bestiality.

If you're going to tell lies about me, Derek, you might have
the courtesy to do so in a newsgroup where I will read
them, not behind my back.

I don't know what Leif/Jon has on you, but it must be
serious. You are afraid to do anything except lick
his ass any more. Not that you ever were very good at
opposing any anti-AR writers, but you used to try at
least. Now you just attack AR posters and kiss Leif's
feet. Exactly what is he using to hold over your head?
What has he threatened to do if you say anything?

Derek wrote:

<snip>

>>>>>>>What I do admire about him is his intelligence,

>>>>>>Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.

Correct. He has never actually presented a good
argument against AR. He does nothing but invent crude
sexual slurs and baseless attacks. You two make a
perfect pair.

<snip>

>>> [Glorfindel to Jon]
>>> "You know what the ethical arguments for AR are,
>>> and you quote them when it suits you to use them
>>> against a poster you disagree with. Then you pretend
>>> to have convenient amnesia when it suits you to attack
>>> pro-AR supporters in turn. You could write a book
>>> defending AR if you wanted to do it .."
>>> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 10 2006 http://tinyurl.com/j89zl

>>>Satisfied yet? There's no doubt that he knows more
>>>about rights than ANYONE on this forum,

No, Derek Dimwit. He knows nothing about rights.
He's been here long enough to read what real
pro-AR writers have written about rights, and,
like you, he has learned to parrot authorities
second-hand. He *knows* nothing, because he does
not understand what the arguments he quotes
*mean* either as they were written, or as they
apply to situations in the real world.

>>> and only
>>>a fool would waste the opportunity to take full
>>>advantage of any tutelage from him and in whatever
>>>manner he was prepared to give it, so get off my
>>>back!

Why not learn from real AR supporters, not someone who
twists every argument?


>>He knows the words, but not the song.

Very true.

<snip>

>>>>Too bad you've alienated the real AR experts here, from
>>>>whom you/we could have learned - frlpwr, Rupert, Glorfindel..

>>>Glorfindel openly promotes zoophilia and regularly participated
>>>in "zoophile sexual activity" with her pet;

That is a lie, and you know it, because Feralpower, Pearl,
and I have told you so. Zoophilia, or bestiality, as all
of us informed you, requires a human who gets sexual
pleasure from interactions with non-human animals. That
is the *definition* of zoophilia, you idiot. The antis
at least understand that getting bull ejaculate to sell
is not zoophilia because it is done for profit ( and is
utterly opposed to AR ethics). Feral explained all this
to you, as did I, as did SN and Pearl. You are too
pig-headed and malicious to understand it. I have
*NEVER* promoted zoophilia as a positive good in itself,
and I have *NEVER* participated in "zoophile sexual
activity" with any animal. I have no sexual interest in
non-humans.

>>Glorfindel opposes all conditioning, which rules out zoophilia.

Of course. I oppose conditioning in ALL areas of human
interaction with animals, which is a basic AR position.

<snip>

>>> "I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on
>>> my hand."
>>> Glorfindel Aug 8 2006 http://tinyurl.com/rwxc4

>>She believed she was doing the right thing by the bird,
>>- rightly or wrongly.

As Feral noted, when an animal is not neutered, and is
imprinted on humans ( which was a basic wrong done
to the bird by OTHERS ) some form of sexual release
(not involving self-mutilation on hard objects, or
unsafe soft toys ) is necessary for the *ANIMAL'S*
welfare. It has nothing to do with zoophilis. It
has to do with a real AR person's concern for the
welfare of an old animal crippled in both mind and
body by what humans had done to him. You suggested
things which would either have hurt him physically or
hurt him even worse mentally. That's because you don't
know about real animals, and you don't really care
about real animals. And you evidently are too stupid
to learn from those who do.

<snip>

>>>It might just as easily have been a dog and something
>>>more than just a wank on her hand if she deluded herself
>>>into thinking a dog wanted to be sucked off, and she
>>>readily acknowledges that her aberrant activity would
>>>NOT take place in an AR-based society.

>>I think she may subscribe to the view that dogs who aren't
>>allowed to mate with their own species should be altered.

As things exist now, yes. Mammals can be made sexually
neuter, which is itself a violation of their basic
nature, but that can be defended on utilitarian grounds in our
current society. BIRDS CAN'T as Feral and I told you.
Surgery on birds, especially small ones, is very serious,
potentially lethal. Medicine for companion birds is now
where medicine for companion mammals was in the early 20th
century. Until non-specialist vets are better trained,
neutering companion birds is too dangerous. We have to live
with intact birds, and deal with the issues of bonding,
aggression, and sexual needs this creates. READ, Derek, you
incompetent idiot. Learn about real animals before trying
to spout off about things you know nothing about.

<snip>

>>> "Yes, zoophile sexual interaction with animals is an
>>> aberrant activity which is a result of humans' basic
>>> wrong in keeping domestic animals, especially as
>>> pets and property. I highly, HIGHLY doubt zoophilia
>>> would take place between free, wild animals and
>>> humans, or in an AR-based society. You are right
>>> there."
>>> Glorfindel Aug 7 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jacmc

How that can be seen as "promoting zoophilia" is beyond
any rational person.

<snip>

>>You are doing the same thing you've been doing since
>>you got here -- misinterpreting the positions of various
>>AR supporters

That's true. He does not understand what he parrots,
any more that Leif does. So he basically misinterprets
what AR supporters who really know AR and really care
about real animals -- the real animals AR is ABOUT --
say.

Derek has a sick, cruel mind and an evil, malicious
heart, which makes him both incompetent and dangerous.

<snip>


>>>Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he
>>>claims to be.

We must make some use of utilitarian calculation in the
real world in order to help real animals. If you would
actually READ some real AR writers such as Regan and
Francione, Sapontzis and Rollin, you might ( if you
could understand as well as read them ) see what Rupert
is getting at. Francione in _Rain Without Thunder_ and
_Introduction to Animal Rights_ gives examples of how
real AR people can promotive *incremental* changes
which improve the welfare of animals in the real world
AND fit with AR theory at the same time. "Deontological"
is not the same as "absolutist" as you seem to think.
The idea is to make small changes which agree with AR
theory by not replacing one evil with another, but which
can be presented to the public as welfare issues, as well
as AR issues, and will have a good chance of being passed
as law on welfare grounds. Where Francione objects is that
he believes some "AR" groups have turned this around by
supporting welfare measures as AR, even when they make no
fundamental change.

<snip>


>>>Why don't YOU
>>>challenge him if you can?

She has, and so have I, and both of us have driven
him to a standstill at times. I recently did so
on TPA. You have never done any real good in
trying to oppose Leif, and now you are a part of
his fan-club. You are clearly not an AR supporter,
if you ever were.

<snip>

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:40:47 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>Why don't YOU challenge him if you can?

I challenge you, Goo, or anyone else to provide
any decent argument(s) Goo has presented
opposing "AR".

While we wait (and wait, and wait, and wait...),
let's look at some of his "arguments" attempting
to promote acceptance of it:
_________________________________________________
"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo

"We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"Fact: IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for food, then
having deliberately caused them to live in the first place does
not mitigate the wrong in any way." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"It is ONLY about the invalidity and logical absurdity of the
belief that causing animals to "get to experience life" somehow
offsets any moral harm that is done in killing them." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:55:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>No, to the normal person your obsession with "what the animals get out of
>>it" comes across as very creepy and suspiciously self-serving. If we are
>>providing the best possible conditions that we are capable of for the
>>animals, what more can possibly benefit them?
>
> As I continue to point out and you continue to prove, you are
> incapable of considering that life can have positive value for THEM.

No I'm not, watch... Life can have a positive value for them.

>>>>>>By doggedly insisting that we get to consider the lives of livestock
>>>>>>animals as moral bonus points
>>>>>
>>>>> You pathetically can't think of anything but yourself.
>>>>
>>>>False, I can think of the animals also.
>>>
>>> There is absolutely no evidence of that, and there probably
>>> never will be.
>>
>>There is plenty of evidence of it.
>
> There is none

Yes there is, 6 years of Google archives.

> which is why no one can present any.

We have presented countless arguments that Just as you
> don't have the dozens of arguments you claim to have, you have
> no evidence that you can think of the animals. None. I don't either,
> so there won't be any. I was able to help you out with your last
> complete failing and at least got you up to 3 out of your dishonest
> claim of dozens, but this time there's just no evidence at all. Now
> if you want evidence that you can NOT, that's easier. In fact you
> just got through saying doing so "comes across as very creepy" to
> you, and now your amusingly trying to boast that there's plenty of
> evidence of you doing it. You're such a confused fool I often end
> up feeling sorry for you, even though your bewilderment appears
> to be entirely caused by the purity of your own selfishness.

All bullshit. You get no credit for livestock getting to experience life
****wit.

> Since we're on this, let's test your honesty...unfortunately only
> to see you fail of course. Even though you'll fail though, try to
> explain why it is that you want to create the impression that there
> "is plenty of evidence of" you considering the animals, when you
> also claim to feel that doing so "comes across as very creepy".

I consider the treatment of the animals to be important, I consider it to be
important that they not be made to suffer. The Logic of Larder points to the
animals as if to say "Look what I am doing by consuming animal products, all
those animal getting to enjoy eating and shitting."

>>From you otoh the evidence is that you
>>are mainly interested in how their very existence reflects on how YOU are
>>judged.
>
> No,

Yes! It is the essence of your position.

> again you're so completely unable get over your selfishness

Wrong, I won't let you pretend and hide your selfishness.

> that you can't even think about it. Here's an example that will be
> wasted of course, but here is one anyway:

It'll be wasted because it's bound to be bullshit, no other reason.

> Even though I haven't bought any lamb in the past 10 years I
> can still consider the fact that some sheep have lives of positive
> value only because they are raised for food, without any thought
> of imaginary moral browny points in regards to myself. You--in
> complete contrast--could never do that.

I could think it, but what would be the point?

> That same type of thinking also applies to the billions of other
> animals who live because they're raised for food but I never
> contribute to the lives of, because they are part of different
> farming and marketing systems than what I make my insignificant
> contributions to. You are necessarily completely lost now due to
> your selfish obesession with imaginary browny points which don't
> apply in these examples, but you can consider nothing else.

You're a liar or a fool, probably both. When you refer to "animals who live
because they're raised for food" you are implying that is a justification
for raising them. You are trying to extract moral brownie points where none
are due.


>> >>>>for humans it raises the notion that perhaps the raising of livestock
>>>>>>really
>>>>>>is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> The purity of your selfishness--insanely obsessed with some
>>>>> imaginary moral reward system--obviously prevents you from thinking
>>>>> about the animals to such a degree that you're not even able to
>>>>> understand the concept, much less attempt doing it. It's disgusting.
>>>>
>>>>The problem is I "understand the concept" perfectly.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence that you understand it at all.
>>
>>I understand it perfectly.
>>
>>>There is only
>>> evidence that you're worried about some imaginary moral reward
>>> system that you feel could somehow benefit you,
>>
>>Exactly wrong, I feel the lives of livestock do NOT benefit me,
>
> I hope no one is stupid enough to believe you're not lying
> about that.

Speak English you dolt.

>>and that no
>>moral rewards are applicable, contrary to what the LoL says.
>>
>>> while remaining
>>> incapable of considering any benefit to the animals.
>>
>>Considering *what* about benefit to the animals?
>
> Everything.

Not good enough. Bullshitter, Equivocator.

> But as we can see you are capable of nothing, and
> you admittedly find it "creepy" to consider the animals.

It's not creepy at to consider the welfare of those animals, it's creepy as
hell to think about how great it is that they get to experience life just
because we consume them. YOU are creepy as hell.

>
>>>>You are looking at the lives of livestock animals and making that
>>>>into a justification for raising them. It's a flawed, circular
>>>>sophistry.
>>>
>>> It's an aspect of human influence on animals that you "aras" don't
>>> want taken into consideration,
>>
>>It has no business being taking into consideration the way The LoL
>>suggests.
>>
>>> because it suggests that providing
>>> decent lives and humane deaths for livestock--ie decent AW--could
>>> be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination--ie "ar".
>>
>>Wrong again, as usual. That is NOT the reason I oppose the LoL,
>
> Yes it is. It is the ONLY reason you support the LoTP over the LoL.

I'll go farther than that. I hereby state categorically that I AGREE "that
providing decent lives and humane deaths for livestock--ie decent AW-- *IS*
ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination--ie "ar".

Can it get any clearer than that? I personally, in my own life, support
providing decent lives and humane deaths for livestock.

Now, how can you say that this is the reason I oppose the LoL?

>>and it does NOT suggest anything of the sort anyway.
>
> LOL. It suggests that and nothing else.

From your point of view maybe, but your point of view is all messed up.

>>>You're
>>> OBVIOUSLY afraid of "ar" losing moral browny points, gold stars,
>>
>>No moral gold stars are available for causing livestock to exist. The LoL
>>is
>>failed sophistry.
>>
>>> or whatever, to decent AW in your imaginary moral reward system.
>>> Duh!
>>
>>Duh! YOUR imaginary moral reward system. "Considering what the animals get
>>out of it"
>
> Is beyond your ability to appreciate, even though you amusingly,
> dishonestly and by now very contemptibly have boasted that "there
> is plenty of evidence" of you being able to do it.

I regret that you are this confused, but it's not my fault.

>>when deciding if it's right to raise and kill animals for food *IS*
proposing a
>>moral reward system, i.e. *if* the animals get something out of it that
>>implies that
>>it's a good thing to do. The fact that animals get "life" out of our use
>>of them as
>>products is not a factor when deciding if it's right or wrong.
>
> It is for anyone who's willing to consider the animals,

No it's not. Ethical "consideration" of the animals involves caring about
the quality of their lives, for their sake, not thinking about "what they
get out of it" in some kind of implied deal with consumers. THAT is creepy,
and pointless.

> which you
> are not. If you were, you would have to factor it in and would not
> find it creepy to do so.

It's creepy as hell, YOU are creepy as hell.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:13:38 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:

>If you're going to tell lies about me, Derek, you might have
>the courtesy to do so in a newsgroup where I will read
>them, not behind my back.

I've not lied about you, and the newsgroup[s] I've
been posting to are frequented by both of us, so
stop lying.

>I don't know what Leif/Jon has on you

If he had anything on me you can be sure he'd
use it, so no, try something else.

[..]
>Why not learn from real AR supporters

Since Bob Farrell and Michael Cerkowski left years
ago there are no genuine AR types here apart from
myself. All that's left here are the antis, zoophiles,
zoophile apologists, a mixed-up utilitarian who thinks
he's a deontologist, and liars like Lesley who trades
horses and promotes herself as a vegan while at the
same time following a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.

Let's take you, for example. Do you REALLY think
I can learn anything worthwhile from a zoophile who
also promotes sex between children and "responsible
paedophiles", who got thrown out of her parish for
being a threat to the children there, and who now can't
go back to her new parish for those same reasons?
No, the only AR tutors left here are those against the
proposition who reveal the flaws in those who think
they're genuine proponents. Like you say, Jon "knows
what the ethical arguments for AR" are and "could
write a book defending AR if [he] wanted to do it."

[..]
>>Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he
>>claims to be.
>
>We must make some use of utilitarian calculation in the
>real world in order to help real animals.

Then you have no argument against Mercer who uses
that same utilitarian thinking while vivisecting animals
to help "real animals" (whatever they are) and people.
You see, you're not a deontological rightist like you
claim to be; you're a mixed-up utilitarian who believes
that it is morally permissible to kill rights-holding beings
in the hope that it will prevent large-scale harms to
others. You're completely lost, and so you hop from
one philosophy to the other without even realising it.
Stop kidding yourself, Karen; you aren't the clear-
thinking rightist you want to be - you're a utilitarian,
a pervert who debases animals by availing yourself as
their sexual partner, and a liar.

"chico chupacabra" > lied in message ...

[snip]

Got a valid explanation for how the WTC collapsed yet, traitor chico?

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html


'What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
A Dem Bruce Lee Styles Film
1 hr 26 min 30 sec - Jul 1, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...191665&q=truth

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:36:02 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:28:14 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >>> Claim and Standard:
> >> >> >>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
> >> >> >>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
> >> >> >>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
> >> >
> >> >> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label, but
> >> >> if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
> >> >> fed, that is GREAT! I already felt good about eating beef,
> >> >> and if you're right we can all feel even better about it :-)
> >> >
> >> >'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
> >> >five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
> >> >American population.
> >>
> >> The American population would consume a lot more
> >> grain if we didn't eat meat.
> >
> >Americans are already consuming too much grain in their diet.
> >
> >15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.
> >
> >> >..
> >> >More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
> >> >producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
> >> >272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
> >> >for cultivated feed grains.
> >>
> >> Good enough.
> >
> >No.. very bad indeed.
> >
> >'The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is capable
> >of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read: 'livestock']."
> >By this definition more than 80% of the West qualifies as range,
> >including a complex array of more than 40 major ecosystem types,
> >all of which have been significantly degraded by ranching. ..
> >..
> >Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental changes
> >in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions throughout most
> >of the West. These reports progressively establish livestock grazing as
> >the biggest single perpetrator of these changes, particularly considering
> >that it was the only significant land use over most of the West.
>
> How would it be better if they were growing corn and soy beans
> instead....if they could?

15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.

30 million hectares are at present used just to produce feed grains.

In addition, 272 million hectares are grazed - over 50% overgrazed,
and/or forage crops like hay (which is fertilized, sprayed, harvested..)

Over 302 million hectares land is used for the U.S. livestock industry.

15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.

That would leave 299 million hectares of US land to revert to Natural
habitat, allowing N. American native species / ecosystems to recover.


Read that a few times before replying dh. Try to understand it..

"Derek" > wrote in message news
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:30:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message news
> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:34:44 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> >> [..]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You haven't challenged him for *ages*.
> >> >>
> >> >> Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
> >> >> show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
> >> >> allow them the valuable experience of challenging
> >> >> him themselves unaided by me?
> >> >
> >> >There is no value in talking with a raving mad halfwit. If
> >> >you hadn't noticed, he's the laughing-stock of Usenet. No
> >> >one takes him seriously.
> >>
> >> If you believe that why are you whining about my
> >> leaving him unchallenged?
> >
> >"whining"? I don't whine, Derek, and I don't "believe"
> >that - it's a fact of record. I wrote that in response to
> >your ?"whine":

Is this something you learned from your "tutor"? Snip away
your opponent's rebuttal and just pretend it doesn't exist?

--restore--
"And as for admiring his "brutal display of 'force'",
I've been on the receiving end of that for over 5 years,
and on a daily basis, so no, I don't admire that."

You haven't been on the "receiving end" of anything
for quite a while, because you have been ingratiating
yourself to him - staying out of his way, or agreeing.
--end--

>
> No, you whined in response to my comment on
> Ron's, that Leif was a good guy, so stop lying.
> You complained that I don't challenge him, and
> that's whining.

No. You are lying, and therefore I'm done with you.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 14:29:30 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:15:26 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:45:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 06:24:14 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:14:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:11:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:21:58 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claim and Standard:
>>>>>>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>>>>>>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>>>>>>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
>>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what its name implies, and
>>>>>>>>has just as much an association with the collateral deaths
>>>>>>>>found in crop production as from any other steer found in the
>>>>>>>>feedlot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're saying that forage shall be 80% or more of the
>>>>>>>primary energy source throughout the life cycle of any
>>>>>>>steer found in the feedlot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The evidence you snipped away confirms it. So-called
>>>>>>grass-fed beef carries a “USDA Process Verified”
>>>>>>shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 %
>>>>>>of the feed were grass, with no limits on the remaining
>>>>>>20 %, just like any other GRAIN-fed beef fed at the
>>>>>>feedlot.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label,
>>>>
>>>>You cannot doubt it while evidence shows it to be true.
>>>
>>> I can, but I said I don't this time...yet.
>>
>>You never will,
>
> LOL!!!
>_________________________________________________ ________
>Grass (Forage) Fed Claim Comments and Responses
>
> By the close of the comment period for the December 30, 2002
>notice, AMS received 369 comments concerning the grass (forage) fed
>claim from consumers, academia, trade and professional associations,
>national organic associations, consumer advocacy associations, meat
>product industries, and livestock producers. Only three comments
>received were in general support of the standard as originally
>proposed. Summaries of issues raised by commenters and AMS's responses
>follow.
>
>Grass (Forage) Definition and Percentage
>
> Comment: AMS received numerous comments suggesting the percentage
>of grass and forage in the standard be greater than the 80 percent
>originally proposed. Most comments suggested the standard be 100
>percent grass or forage. Other comments recommended various levels of
>90, 95, 98 and 99 percent grass and forage as the primary energy
>source.
>. . .
>AMS determined the most appropriate way to integrate the
>grass (forage) fed claim into practical management systems and still
>maximize or keep the purest intent of grass and/or forage based diets
>was by changing the standard requirements to read that grass and/or
>forage shall be 99 percent or higher of the energy source for the
>lifetime of the animal.
>. . .
>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0509.txt
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Those are the comments and criticisms put forward, but,
as we can see by your material above, those suggestions
aren't being implemented. So-called grass-fed beef carries
a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass
fed” if as little as 80 % of the feed were grass, and those
grain-fed animals accrue collateral deaths. So-called grass-
fed beef isn't a viable alternative, so stop pretending it is
while trying to push meat onto vegans. Apart from the
grains they are fed while being finished at the feedlot, so-
called grass-fed beef accrues collateral deaths when
slaughtered in mechanised abattoirs, while being stored in
refrigerated buildings, when being transported to customers.
To keep insisting that so-called grass-fed beef has no
association with collateral deaths is a desperate lie which
no one believes, so give it up.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:47:05 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

>"Derek" > wrote in message news
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:30:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message news >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:34:44 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> >> [..]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You haven't challenged him for *ages*.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
>> >> >> show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
>> >> >> allow them the valuable experience of challenging
>> >> >> him themselves unaided by me?
>> >> >
>> >> >There is no value in talking with a raving mad halfwit. If
>> >> >you hadn't noticed, he's the laughing-stock of Usenet. No
>> >> >one takes him seriously.
>> >>
>> >> If you believe that why are you whining about my
>> >> leaving him unchallenged?
>> >
>> >"whining"? I don't whine, Derek, and I don't "believe"
>> >that - it's a fact of record. I wrote that in response to
>> >your ?"whine":

<restore>
No, you whined in response to my comment on
Ron's, that Leif was a good guy, so stop lying.
You complained that I don't challenge him, and
that's whining.

>> >> >Serves him!
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary. Left unchallenged by me serves them!
>> >
>> >Nobody wants to talk to him. He has nothing of value.
>>
>> Again, if you believe that why are you whining about
>> my leaving him unchallenged?
>
>See above.

You always write that when you have nothing
to offer in retaliation.

>> >> >> What I do admire about him is his intelligence,
>> >> >
>> >> >Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.
>> >>
>> >> I agree that he IS devious, but I'm also aware that he's
>> >> the most intelligent tutor available to me here on Usenet,
>> >> and I chose to take full advantage of that tutelage in the
>> >> manner he gave it rather than waste it.
>> >
>> >Nope - you've lost me.
>>
>> No, you know exactly what I mean.
>
>No, I really really REALLY don't.

Good.

>> >> >> the knowledge he holds,
>> >> >
>> >> >About WHAT??????
>> >>
>> >> Rights.
>> >
>> >He doesn't believe in rights.
>>
>> Though he rejects the proposition of animal rights he is
>> no less a very knowledgeable tutor on the subject.
>
><bucket please>

You may not like the fact, but it cannot be denied.

>> [Karen to Jon]
>> "You know what the ethical arguments for AR are,
>> and you quote them when it suits you to use them
>> against a poster you disagree with. Then you pretend
>> to have convenient amnesia when it suits you to attack
>> pro-AR supporters in turn. You could write a book
>> defending AR if you wanted to do it .."
>> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 10 2006 http://tinyurl.com/j89zl
>>
>> Satisfied yet? There's no doubt that he knows more
>> about rights than ANYONE on this forum, and only
>> a fool would waste the opportunity to take full
>> advantage of any tutelage from him and in whatever
>> manner he was prepared to give it, so get off my
>> back!
>
>He knows the words, but not the song.

No, he knows it all, exactly as Karen correctly wrote.
You, on the other hand, know nothing and rely solely
on copying and pasting other people's material instead
of writing your own thoughts and views.

>> >> >> and yes, believe it or not, his patience
>> >> >> with me while I learn all I can from him as his
>> >> >> adversarial student.
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh .. my .. gosh. The only thing you learn from it is
>> >> >NASTY.
>> >>
>> >> NO, he taught me to *learn* and think about my position
>> >> clearly so I could then benefit from it. Learning how to
>> >> think clearly is a discipline unlike any other. Memorising
>> >> mathematical equations and using them to solve problems
>> >> in physics and electronics is mundane by comparison.
>> >
>> >Too bad you've alienated the real AR experts here, from
>> >whom you/we could have learned - frlpwr, Rupert, Karen..
>>
>> Karen openly promotes zoophilia and regularly participated
>> in "zoophile sexual activity" with her pet;
>
>Karen opposes all conditioning, which rules out zoophilia.

No, she promotes and participates in sexual activities
with animals, and you haven't the guts to challenge
her about it.

>> "I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on
>> my hand."
>> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 8 2006 http://tinyurl.com/rwxc4
>
>She believed she was doing the right thing by the bird,
>- rightly or wrongly.

Her beliefs and participation regarding zoophilia are well
documented, so stop trying to defend the animal abuser.

>> It might just as easily have been a dog and something
>> more than just a wank on her hand if she deluded herself
>> into thinking a dog wanted to be sucked off, and she
>> readily acknowledges that her aberrant activity would
>> NOT take place in an AR-based society.
>
>I think she may subscribe to the view that dogs who aren't
>allowed to mate with their own species should be altered.

No, you have no reason for assuming that. She actively
promotes zoophilia and avails herself as a sexual partner
to her pets.

>> "Yes, zoophile sexual interaction with animals is an
>> aberrant activity which is a result of humans' basic
>> wrong in keeping domestic animals, especially as
>> pets and property. I highly, HIGHLY doubt zoophilia
>> would take place between free, wild animals and
>> humans, or in an AR-based society. You are right
>> there."
>> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 7 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jacmc
>>
>> That's and acknowledgment from her that her beliefs
>> and aberrant activities put her well outside the AR
>> tent, and frlpwr condones it, which puts her in the
>> same position as Karen.
>
>You are doing the same thing you've been doing since
>you got here -- misinterpreting the positions of various
>AR supporters

No. Her quotes are there for all to read, and they show
that she actively promotes zoophilia and avails herself
as a sexual partner for her pets. You enable that
zoophilia by trying to defend her, and that puts you in
the same boat as frlpwr.

>> Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he
>> claims to be. He wrongly believes he is morally justified
>> in causing the deaths of SOME animals in commercial
>> agriculture to prevent LARGER amounts of serious
>> suffering.
>>
>> "Since boycotting commercial agriculture would involve
>> imposing very serious costs on myself, as well as
>> abandoning opportunities to prevent large amounts of
>> serious suffering, I am morally justified in not doing it."
>> Rupert Jun 1 2006 http://tinyurl.com/s2cq7
>
>He is balancing the relative harms/benefits in the options
>available to him, and doing what he believes is the best.

That's utilitarianism, not deontology. He believes that it
is morally permissible to kill SOME animals in the hope
that it will prevent the suffering of a LARGER group
of animals.

>That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Then I take it you're a utilitarian as well and will morally
justify the killing of a few animals to prevent the suffering
of a greater number of them. Priceless!

>> There are your 3 so-called "real AR experts", Pearl; 2
>> zoophile apologists and a utilitarian who thinks he's a
>> deontological rightist. Pah!
>
>Those three people are well-educated serious AR supporters.

No, they are not. They are zoophiles, apologists for and
enablers of zoophilia, and a utilitarian who really doesn't
have the slightest idea about rights.

>> [..]
>> >> >You argued with me.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, and why not?
>> >
>> >You resorted to snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.
>>
>> You're lying now.
>
>I don't lie.

Yes, you did by asserting I support meat-eating after I
made it perfectly clear to you that I don't in my first
sentence, liar.

>> I made it clear to you from the start
>> that I would never promote meat.
>>
>> "Though I would never promote meat there's no doubt that
>> everyone can eat it and still maintain excellent health as
>> well as lose excess weight. As per the subject title of this
>> thread, a "vegetarian diet is good for obese people", but
>> then so is a meat-centric diet. Leif is correct when saying,
>> "Weight gain or loss follows a very simple arithmetic rule",
>> and that rule can be paraphrased using Kirchoff's first
>> law; the sum of currents (calories in this case) entering a
>> node (body) plus the sum of currents leaving a node sum
>> to zero."
>> Me Aug 12 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ln8f8
>>
>> You lied about me by trying to imply that I support meat-
>> eating when I made it very clear to you from the start
>> that I would never promote meat.
>
>You ignored and snipped my response to that as well:

I snipped your copy and past away and told you that
even Campbell can't reject the laws of physics to
make his point, so stop lying.

>> You lied about me by trying to imply that I support meat-
>> eating when I made it very clear to you from the start
>> that I would never promote meat.
>
>No.

Look just above where you wrote, "You resorted to
snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.", even
though I made it perfectly clear to you in my opening
sentence that I would never promote meat, you inept
liar.

>> >> >> >and the result is
>> >> >> >you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
>> >> >> >causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, that's very true, but consequences and regrets
>> >> >> be damned, Pearl; I act according to the principles
>> >> >> I hold, and if my actions make me unpopular, then
>> >> >> so be it. I'm not here to win anyone's favour; I'm just
>> >> >> being myself - warts-n-all.
>> >> >
>> >> >Warts may become malignant. You could be brilliant.
>> >>
>> >> I don't want to be if I can't be myself.
>> >
>> >Sleep with dogs and get up stinking. It's your choice.
>>
>> I was just about to say the same to you, Pearl, but I
>> wasn't going to start being rude. Why don't YOU
>> challenge him if you can? And if you do, try doing
>> it with your own words rather than your usual copy
>> and paste jobs. That'll make a nice change.
>
>NASTY. Yep... you sure munched up those droppings.

You're an incompetent liar and defender of zoophiles.
<end restore>

There's some very important matters in what you
snipped away which you ought to try dealing with
instead of running away from them.

>> No, you whined in response to my comment on
>> Ron's, that Leif was a good guy, so stop lying.
>> You complained that I don't challenge him, and
>> that's whining.
>
>No.

This thread shows that you did, you horse-trading
liar. Tell me, how can your horse-trading be
reconciled with animal rights? Oh, and don't try
to pretend you don't trade rights-holding horses
for money; you wrote and told me all about those
potential buyers you lied to while trying to sell one
that hadn't been ridden for a long time.

>You are lying, and therefore I'm done with you.

Well, I'm not done with you, so buckle up.

"Derek" > wrote in message ...

> liars like Lesley who trades
> horses and promotes herself as a vegan while at the
> same time following a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:31:33 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:32:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> ><..>
> >> >May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
> >> knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
> >> now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you, and I'm sure
> >> that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",
> >> "wrong", "vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."
> >> William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
> >> any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
> >> let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
> >> I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
> >> HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
> >> himself.

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

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:43:58 +0100, "William" > wrote:
>
> [..]
> >Derek, thank you for your email but it wasn't necessary. I'm a bit surprised to know
> >you actually went along with these guys and got all aggressive though.
>
> I didn't "[go] along with these guys .." I went for her on
> my own accord.
>
> >OK, I've read
> >those posts but you haven't told me why you attacked her.
>
> Read my email again and note where I say, "I offer no reason
> for those attacks because they were without reason, full of bad
> intention and wrong ...." All I offered in that email are my
> regrets.
>
> >And yes, you regret it and
> >blame yourself. Too late!
>
> That's unfortunately true.
>
> >Do you argue with everyone that disagrees with you?
>
> Mostly, if they're in the mood for an argument.
...

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

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:18:25 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>
> [..]
> > They weren't baseless accusations
>
> That's exactly what they were, thico chumpy: baseless accusations
> and lies.

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


You've done the same to many other AR supporters here, and still are.

What the hell's the matter with you?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:22:53 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>
>> liars like Lesley who trades
>> horses and promotes herself as a vegan while at the
>> same time following a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.

Why don't you address those two points, Lesley?
You trade rights-holding horses for personal gain
and you follow a lacto-ovo diet while describing
yourself as a vegan. Why?

[..]
>You've done the same to many other AR supporters
>here, and still are.

I've chased off a few AR pretenders while they
promote vivisection, if that's what you mean.

>What the hell's the matter with you?

I'm fine, thank you.

"Derek" > wrote in message ...

<froth>

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:31:33 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:32:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> ><..>
> >> >May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
> >> knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
> >> now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you, and I'm sure
> >> that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",
> >> "wrong", "vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."
> >> William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
> >> any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
> >> let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
> >> I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
> >> HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
> >> himself.

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

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:43:58 +0100, "William" > wrote:
>
> [..]
> >Derek, thank you for your email but it wasn't necessary. I'm a bit surprised to know
> >you actually went along with these guys and got all aggressive though.
>
> I didn't "[go] along with these guys .." I went for her on
> my own accord.
>
> >OK, I've read
> >those posts but you haven't told me why you attacked her.
>
> Read my email again and note where I say, "I offer no reason
> for those attacks because they were without reason, full of bad
> intention and wrong ...." All I offered in that email are my
> regrets.
>
> >And yes, you regret it and
> >blame yourself. Too late!
>
> That's unfortunately true.
>
> >Do you argue with everyone that disagrees with you?
>
> Mostly, if they're in the mood for an argument.
...

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

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:18:25 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>
> [..]
> > They weren't baseless accusations
>
> That's exactly what they were, thico chumpy: baseless accusations
> and lies.

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


You've done the same to many other AR supporters here, and still are.

What the hell's the matter with you?

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "chico chupacabra" > lied in message
> ...
>
> [snip]
>
> Got a valid explanation for how the WTC collapsed yet, traitor
> chico?
=================
Two planes hit them, I'm sure you've heard of it....



snip...

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:27:36 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>
><froth>

<restore>

>>"Derek" > wrote in message news
>>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:30:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>> >"Derek" > wrote in message news >>> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:34:44 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>> >> >> [..]
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >You haven't challenged him for *ages*.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
>>> >> >> show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
>>> >> >> allow them the valuable experience of challenging
>>> >> >> him themselves unaided by me?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >There is no value in talking with a raving mad halfwit. If
>>> >> >you hadn't noticed, he's the laughing-stock of Usenet. No
>>> >> >one takes him seriously.
>>> >>
>>> >> If you believe that why are you whining about my
>>> >> leaving him unchallenged?
>>> >
>>> >"whining"? I don't whine, Derek, and I don't "believe"
>>> >that - it's a fact of record. I wrote that in response to
>>> >your ?"whine":
>
> <restore>
> No, you whined in response to my comment on
> Ron's, that Leif was a good guy, so stop lying.
> You complained that I don't challenge him, and
> that's whining.
>
> >> >> >Serves him!
> >> >>
> >> >> On the contrary. Left unchallenged by me serves them!
> >> >
> >> >Nobody wants to talk to him. He has nothing of value.
> >>
> >> Again, if you believe that why are you whining about
> >> my leaving him unchallenged?
> >
> >See above.
>
> You always write that when you have nothing
> to offer in retaliation.
>
> >> >> >> What I do admire about him is his intelligence,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree that he IS devious, but I'm also aware that he's
> >> >> the most intelligent tutor available to me here on Usenet,
> >> >> and I chose to take full advantage of that tutelage in the
> >> >> manner he gave it rather than waste it.
> >> >
> >> >Nope - you've lost me.
> >>
> >> No, you know exactly what I mean.
> >
> >No, I really really REALLY don't.
>
> Good.
>
> >> >> >> the knowledge he holds,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >About WHAT??????
> >> >>
> >> >> Rights.
> >> >
> >> >He doesn't believe in rights.
> >>
> >> Though he rejects the proposition of animal rights he is
> >> no less a very knowledgeable tutor on the subject.
> >
> ><bucket please>
>
> You may not like the fact, but it cannot be denied.
>
> >> [Karen to Jon]
> >> "You know what the ethical arguments for AR are,
> >> and you quote them when it suits you to use them
> >> against a poster you disagree with. Then you pretend
> >> to have convenient amnesia when it suits you to attack
> >> pro-AR supporters in turn. You could write a book
> >> defending AR if you wanted to do it .."
> >> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 10 2006 http://tinyurl.com/j89zl
> >>
> >> Satisfied yet? There's no doubt that he knows more
> >> about rights than ANYONE on this forum, and only
> >> a fool would waste the opportunity to take full
> >> advantage of any tutelage from him and in whatever
> >> manner he was prepared to give it, so get off my
> >> back!
> >
> >He knows the words, but not the song.
>
> No, he knows it all, exactly as Karen correctly wrote.
> You, on the other hand, know nothing and rely solely
> on copying and pasting other people's material instead
> of writing your own thoughts and views.
>
> >> >> >> and yes, believe it or not, his patience
> >> >> >> with me while I learn all I can from him as his
> >> >> >> adversarial student.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Oh .. my .. gosh. The only thing you learn from it is
> >> >> >NASTY.
> >> >>
> >> >> NO, he taught me to *learn* and think about my position
> >> >> clearly so I could then benefit from it. Learning how to
> >> >> think clearly is a discipline unlike any other. Memorising
> >> >> mathematical equations and using them to solve problems
> >> >> in physics and electronics is mundane by comparison.
> >> >
> >> >Too bad you've alienated the real AR experts here, from
> >> >whom you/we could have learned - frlpwr, Rupert, Karen..
> >>
> >> Karen openly promotes zoophilia and regularly participated
> >> in "zoophile sexual activity" with her pet;
> >
> >Karen opposes all conditioning, which rules out zoophilia.
>
> No, she promotes and participates in sexual activities
> with animals, and you haven't the guts to challenge
> her about it.
>
> >> "I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on
> >> my hand."
> >> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 8 2006 http://tinyurl.com/rwxc4
> >
> >She believed she was doing the right thing by the bird,
> >- rightly or wrongly.
>
> Her beliefs and participation regarding zoophilia are well
> documented, so stop trying to defend the animal abuser.
>
> >> It might just as easily have been a dog and something
> >> more than just a wank on her hand if she deluded herself
> >> into thinking a dog wanted to be sucked off, and she
> >> readily acknowledges that her aberrant activity would
> >> NOT take place in an AR-based society.
> >
> >I think she may subscribe to the view that dogs who aren't
> >allowed to mate with their own species should be altered.
>
> No, you have no reason for assuming that. She actively
> promotes zoophilia and avails herself as a sexual partner
> to her pets.
>
> >> "Yes, zoophile sexual interaction with animals is an
> >> aberrant activity which is a result of humans' basic
> >> wrong in keeping domestic animals, especially as
> >> pets and property. I highly, HIGHLY doubt zoophilia
> >> would take place between free, wild animals and
> >> humans, or in an AR-based society. You are right
> >> there."
> >> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 7 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jacmc
> >>
> >> That's and acknowledgment from her that her beliefs
> >> and aberrant activities put her well outside the AR
> >> tent, and frlpwr condones it, which puts her in the
> >> same position as Karen.
> >
> >You are doing the same thing you've been doing since
> >you got here -- misinterpreting the positions of various
> >AR supporters
>
> No. Her quotes are there for all to read, and they show
> that she actively promotes zoophilia and avails herself
> as a sexual partner for her pets. You enable that
> zoophilia by trying to defend her, and that puts you in
> the same boat as frlpwr.
>
> >> Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he
> >> claims to be. He wrongly believes he is morally justified
> >> in causing the deaths of SOME animals in commercial
> >> agriculture to prevent LARGER amounts of serious
> >> suffering.
> >>
> >> "Since boycotting commercial agriculture would involve
> >> imposing very serious costs on myself, as well as
> >> abandoning opportunities to prevent large amounts of
> >> serious suffering, I am morally justified in not doing it."
> >> Rupert Jun 1 2006 http://tinyurl.com/s2cq7
> >
> >He is balancing the relative harms/benefits in the options
> >available to him, and doing what he believes is the best.
>
> That's utilitarianism, not deontology. He believes that it
> is morally permissible to kill SOME animals in the hope
> that it will prevent the suffering of a LARGER group
> of animals.
>
> >That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
>
> Then I take it you're a utilitarian as well and will morally
> justify the killing of a few animals to prevent the suffering
> of a greater number of them. Priceless!
>
> >> There are your 3 so-called "real AR experts", Pearl; 2
> >> zoophile apologists and a utilitarian who thinks he's a
> >> deontological rightist. Pah!
> >
> >Those three people are well-educated serious AR supporters.
>
> No, they are not. They are zoophiles, apologists for and
> enablers of zoophilia, and a utilitarian who really doesn't
> have the slightest idea about rights.
>
> >> [..]
> >> >> >You argued with me.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, and why not?
> >> >
> >> >You resorted to snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.
> >>
> >> You're lying now.
> >
> >I don't lie.
>
> Yes, you did by asserting I support meat-eating after I
> made it perfectly clear to you that I don't in my first
> sentence, liar.
>
> >> I made it clear to you from the start
> >> that I would never promote meat.
> >>
> >> "Though I would never promote meat there's no doubt that
> >> everyone can eat it and still maintain excellent health as
> >> well as lose excess weight. As per the subject title of this
> >> thread, a "vegetarian diet is good for obese people", but
> >> then so is a meat-centric diet. Leif is correct when saying,
> >> "Weight gain or loss follows a very simple arithmetic rule",
> >> and that rule can be paraphrased using Kirchoff's first
> >> law; the sum of currents (calories in this case) entering a
> >> node (body) plus the sum of currents leaving a node sum
> >> to zero."
> >> Me Aug 12 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ln8f8
> >>
> >> You lied about me by trying to imply that I support meat-
> >> eating when I made it very clear to you from the start
> >> that I would never promote meat.
> >
> >You ignored and snipped my response to that as well:
>
> I snipped your copy and past away and told you that
> even Campbell can't reject the laws of physics to
> make his point, so stop lying.
>
> >> You lied about me by trying to imply that I support meat-
> >> eating when I made it very clear to you from the start
> >> that I would never promote meat.
> >
> >No.
>
> Look just above where you wrote, "You resorted to
> snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.", even
> though I made it perfectly clear to you in my opening
> sentence that I would never promote meat, you inept
> liar.
>
> >> >> >> >and the result is
> >> >> >> >you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
> >> >> >> >causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes, that's very true, but consequences and regrets
> >> >> >> be damned, Pearl; I act according to the principles
> >> >> >> I hold, and if my actions make me unpopular, then
> >> >> >> so be it. I'm not here to win anyone's favour; I'm just
> >> >> >> being myself - warts-n-all.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Warts may become malignant. You could be brilliant.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't want to be if I can't be myself.
> >> >
> >> >Sleep with dogs and get up stinking. It's your choice.
> >>
> >> I was just about to say the same to you, Pearl, but I
> >> wasn't going to start being rude. Why don't YOU
> >> challenge him if you can? And if you do, try doing
> >> it with your own words rather than your usual copy
> >> and paste jobs. That'll make a nice change.
> >
> >NASTY. Yep... you sure munched up those droppings.
>
> You're an incompetent liar and defender of zoophiles.
> <end restore>
>
>There's some very important matters in what you
>snipped away which you ought to try dealing with
>instead of running away from them.
>
>>> No, you whined in response to my comment on
>>> Ron's, that Leif was a good guy, so stop lying.
>>> You complained that I don't challenge him, and
>>> that's whining.
>>
>>No.
>
>This thread shows that you did, you horse-trading
>liar. Tell me, how can your horse-trading be
>reconciled with animal rights? Oh, and don't try
>to pretend you don't trade rights-holding horses
>for money; you wrote and told me all about those
>potential buyers you lied to while trying to sell one
>that hadn't been ridden for a long time.
>
>>You are lying, and therefore I'm done with you.
>
>Well, I'm not done with you, so buckle up.

<end re-restore>

Deal with the material in that post you keep snipping away
and then expalin how your horse-trading can be reconciled
with animal rights, Lesley.

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:22:53 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >> liars like Lesley who trades
> >> horses and promotes herself as a vegan while at the
> >> same time following a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.
>
> Why don't you address those two points, Lesley?
> You trade rights-holding horses for personal gain
> and you follow a lacto-ovo diet while describing
> yourself as a vegan. Why?

The small moneys received were no more than partial
recompense for material costs incurred raising them.
I DO NOT believe in ownership of sentient beings.
I knew that the ponies were going on to a great life.

I have never described myself as vegan. You lie.

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:31:33 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:32:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> ><..>
> >> >May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
> >> knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
> >> now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you, and I'm sure
> >> that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",
> >> "wrong", "vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."
> >> William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
> >> any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
> >> let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
> >> I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
> >> HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
> >> himself.

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

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:43:58 +0100, "William" > wrote:
>
> [..]
> >Derek, thank you for your email but it wasn't necessary. I'm a bit surprised to know
> >you actually went along with these guys and got all aggressive though.
>
> I didn't "[go] along with these guys .." I went for her on
> my own accord.
>
> >OK, I've read
> >those posts but you haven't told me why you attacked her.
>
> Read my email again and note where I say, "I offer no reason
> for those attacks because they were without reason, full of bad
> intention and wrong ...." All I offered in that email are my
> regrets.
>
> >And yes, you regret it and
> >blame yourself. Too late!
>
> That's unfortunately true.
>
> >Do you argue with everyone that disagrees with you?
>
> Mostly, if they're in the mood for an argument.
...

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

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:18:25 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>
> [..]
> > They weren't baseless accusations
>
> That's exactly what they were, thico chumpy: baseless accusations
> and lies.

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

> [..]

restored.

> >You've done the same to many other AR supporters
> >here, and still are.
>
> I've chased off a few AR pretenders while they
> promote vivisection, if that's what you mean.

A good example of your clinging to your misinterpretations
in order to harass ("chase off", bully) other AR supporters.

Zakhar wrote:
"for example if one rabbit would save 1000 humans, then
I could accept that the rabbit should die".'

I emphasised then, in an effort to explain the meaning:
"for example *if* one rabbit *would* save 1000 humans,
then I could accept that the rabbit should die.

If = A hypothetical situation. Would = 100% certainty.

If one rabbit would save you from dying of starvation,
you (similarly) would accept that the rabbit should die.

"Eating meat for survival is perfectly ethical and correct. "
Dec 18 2003, 11:26 pm by ipse dixit (Derek)

> >What the hell's the matter with you?
>
> I'm fine, thank you.

No, you are most definitely not "fine".

pearl wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote in message
> news
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:30:06 +0100, "pearl" >
> > wrote:
> > >"Derek" > wrote in message
> > >news > > >2006 23:34:44 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: >
> > >>"Derek" > wrote in message
> > .. . > >> On Sat, 26
> > >Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > >>
> > >>"Derek" > wrote in message
> > .. . > >> [..]
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >You haven't challenged him for *ages*.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
> > >> >> show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
> > >> >> allow them the valuable experience of challenging
> > >> >> him themselves unaided by me?
> > >> >
> > >> >There is no value in talking with a raving mad halfwit. If
> > >> >you hadn't noticed, he's the laughing-stock of Usenet. No
> > >> >one takes him seriously.
> > >>
> > >> If you believe that why are you whining about my
> > >> leaving him unchallenged?
> > >
> > >"whining"? I don't whine, Derek, and I don't "believe"
> > >that - it's a fact of record. I wrote that in response to
> > >your ?"whine":
>
> Is this something you learned from your "tutor"? Snip away
> your opponent's rebuttal and just pretend it doesn't exist?
>
> --restore--
> "And as for admiring his "brutal display of 'force'",
> I've been on the receiving end of that for over 5 years,
> and on a daily basis, so no, I don't admire that."
>
> You haven't been on the "receiving end" of anything
> for quite a while, because you have been ingratiating
> yourself to him - staying out of his way, or agreeing.
> --end--
>
> >
> > No, you whined in response to my comment on
> > Ron's, that Leif was a good guy, so stop lying.
> > You complained that I don't challenge him, and
> > that's whining.
>
> No. You are lying, and therefore I'm done with you.

Four more replies later, you're a liar.

"rick" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "chico chupacabra" > lied in message
> > ...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Got a valid explanation for how the WTC collapsed yet, traitor
> > chico?
> =================
> Two planes hit them, I'm sure you've heard of it....

'9/11 - WTC Towers Designed to take Multiple Airliner Crashes

World Trade Center Towers - Recorded on 1/25/2001

Frank A. DeMartini - Manager, WTC Construction & Project
Management is on record stating the Towers were designed to
have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. He goes on to say that he
believes the towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners.
The structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door
this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing
that screen netting, it really does nothing to the screen door.

Watch the video clip (0.44 seconds)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL4isaZRapY

pearl wrote:

> <dh@.> wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:36:02 +0100, "pearl" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > ><dh@.> wrote in message
> > .. . > On Sat, 26 Aug
> > >2006 02:28:14 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: >
> > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message
> > .. . > >> On Fri, 25
> > >Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote: > >
> > >> >> >>> Claim and Standard:
> > >> >> >>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
> > >> >> >>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
> > >> >> >>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
> > >> >
> > >> >> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label, but
> > >> >> if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
> > >> >> fed, that is GREAT! I already felt good about eating beef,
> > >> >> and if you're right we can all feel even better about it :-)
> > >> >
> > >> >'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
> > >> >five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
> > >> >American population.
> > >>
> > >> The American population would consume a lot more
> > >> grain if we didn't eat meat.
> > >
> > >Americans are already consuming too much grain in their diet.
> > >
> > >15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.
> > >
> > >> >..
> > >> >More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
> > >> >producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
> > >> >272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
> > >> >for cultivated feed grains.
> > >>
> > >> Good enough.
> > >
> > >No.. very bad indeed.
> > >
> > >'The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is
> > >capable of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read:
> > >'livestock']." By this definition more than 80% of the West
> > >qualifies as range, including a complex array of more than 40 major
> > >ecosystem types, all of which have been significantly degraded by
> > >ranching. .. ..
> > >Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental
> > >changes in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions
> > >throughout most of the West. These reports progressively establish
> > >livestock grazing as the biggest single perpetrator of these
> > >changes, particularly considering that it was the only significant
> > >land use over most of the West.
> >
> > How would it be better if they were growing corn and soy beans
> > instead....if they could?
>
> 15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.

Ipse dixit.

Pearl, Derek aka Ipse Dixit did write to me (several pages) and he explained why he attacked you among other things. He was honest
and didn't try to excuse himself in any way. Now I've read all this crap between you two over the last few days I can see that he
was fully within his rights to attack you because you are as he says you are. Sorry and all that but you are lying to him and
defending human/animal sex relationships because you don't want to lose the friendship of those who do it. That's all I have to say.

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "Derek" > wrote in message ...
>
> <froth>
>
> "Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:31:33 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:32:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> ><..>
>> >> >May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.
>> >>
>> >> I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
>> >> knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
>> >> now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you, and I'm sure
>> >> that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",
>> >> "wrong", "vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."
>> >> William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
>> >> any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
>> >> let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
>> >> I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
>> >> HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
>> >> himself.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:43:58 +0100, "William" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>> >Derek, thank you for your email but it wasn't necessary. I'm a bit surprised to know
>> >you actually went along with these guys and got all aggressive though.
>>
>> I didn't "[go] along with these guys .." I went for her on
>> my own accord.
>>
>> >OK, I've read
>> >those posts but you haven't told me why you attacked her.
>>
>> Read my email again and note where I say, "I offer no reason
>> for those attacks because they were without reason, full of bad
>> intention and wrong ...." All I offered in that email are my
>> regrets.
>>
>> >And yes, you regret it and
>> >blame yourself. Too late!
>>
>> That's unfortunately true.
>>
>> >Do you argue with everyone that disagrees with you?
>>
>> Mostly, if they're in the mood for an argument.
> ..
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:18:25 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>> > They weren't baseless accusations
>>
>> That's exactly what they were, thico chumpy: baseless accusations
>> and lies.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> You've done the same to many other AR supporters here, and still are.
>
> What the hell's the matter with you?
>
>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:27:36 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >
> ><froth>
>
> <restore>

<resnip rabid froth>

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:31:33 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:32:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> ><..>
> >> >May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
> >> knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
> >> now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you, and I'm sure
> >> that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",
> >> "wrong", "vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."
> >> William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
> >> any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
> >> let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
> >> I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
> >> HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
> >> himself.

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

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:43:58 +0100, "William" > wrote:
>
> [..]
> >Derek, thank you for your email but it wasn't necessary. I'm a bit surprised to know
> >you actually went along with these guys and got all aggressive though.
>
> I didn't "[go] along with these guys .." I went for her on
> my own accord.
>
> >OK, I've read
> >those posts but you haven't told me why you attacked her.
>
> Read my email again and note where I say, "I offer no reason
> for those attacks because they were without reason, full of bad
> intention and wrong ...." All I offered in that email are my
> regrets.
>
> >And yes, you regret it and
> >blame yourself. Too late!
>
> That's unfortunately true.
>
> >Do you argue with everyone that disagrees with you?
>
> Mostly, if they're in the mood for an argument.
...

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

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:18:25 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>
> [..]
> > They weren't baseless accusations
>
> That's exactly what they were, thico chumpy: baseless accusations
> and lies.

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