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

Then why do you keep LYING about killfiling me?

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

You've already made one.

> it's against the law.

That makes you a scofflaw.

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

No, they do not.

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

And from your own link:

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

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

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

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

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

> Why not.

A variety of factors.

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

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

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

Unproven assertion.

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

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

> If they became vegetarian they would live longer.

Unproven (and false) assertion.

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

Then encourage them to eat it more often.

> You won't find it at McDonalds.

So the **** what?

> Vegan is a life style as well.

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

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

Then stop peddling pseudoscience about diet, nitwit.

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

Liar.

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

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

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

>>>>> Ipse dixit. You can cite studies that find a correlation between
>>>>> HIGH intake of certain meats and colorectal cancers, but none which
>>>>> show the same risks from moderate or minimal consumption. Indeed,
>>>>> you and I have already discussed the findings of one study which
>>>>> found that HIGH consumption of poultry and fish had a protective
>>>>> benefit against colorectal cancers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In general,
>>
>>
>>
>> Stop making baseless generalizations.
>>
>>> vegetarians live longer,
>>
>>
>>
>> Unproven assertion. The data contradict you.
>>
>>> are more health aware,
>>
>>
>>
>> Another unproven assertion.
>>
>>> read labels.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another unproven assertion. If you want to get into generalizations,
>> vegetarians aren't reading labels for health information but rather to
>> see if the contents include micrograms of animal parts.
>>
>>>>> [O]rganic pesticides have very real drawbacks. Most of them are
>>>>> broad spectrum, meaning they kill beneficial insects (just like
>>>>> those dangerous synthetic chemicals). They are not as thoroughly
>>>>> tested as synthetics. Batch strength can vary. And, perhaps most
>>>>> dangerous of all, they are perceived by the gardening public as
>>>>> safe. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
>>>>> http://www.headlice.org/news/2005/pesticidemyth.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if a product is considered to be organic, it is still a
>>>>> pesticide. It is important to be careful when using any
>>>>> pesticide, even organic or natural pesticides. Just because a
>>>>> product is thought to be organic, or natural, does not mean that
>>>>> it is not toxic. Some organic pesticides are as toxic, or even
>>>>> more toxic, than many synthetic chemical pesticides. Organic
>>>>> pesticides have specific modes of action, just as do synthetic
>>>>> pesticides.
>>>>> http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As new organic labeling laws take effect this week, the USDA has
>>>>> pointed out that it "makes no claim that organically produced
>>>>> food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced
>>>>> food." However, this has not stopped organic marketers from
>>>>> making such claims.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And consumer reports says organic grown food has less residual
>>> pesticide.
>>
>>
>>
>> One-quarter of the organic produce samples that Consumer Reports
>> tested had some pesticide residues on them.
>>
>> The organic produce Consumer Reports purchased for its study
>> cost – on average – 57 percent more than the conventionally
>> grown produce the magazine bought.
>>
>> See also:
>> http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...s/organic.html
>
> So he says that. I trust Consumer Reports a lot more.

Consumer Reports also noted:

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

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

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

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

> I'm tired of you.

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

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