> If you want to be truly obnoxious to vegetarians (something, I for one,
> applaud, as long as it is done delicately)... try explaining to them why
> sugar isn't vegetarian (they put bone ash in it as an anti-coagulant).
> Most of the idiotic vegetarians will go "eek!"... it's quite fun.
>
> And the more serious ones will say, "yeah, so what?" and you'll know that
> they're actually a competent vegetarian (and thus worthy of a good deal
> more respect than the suneaters).
>
> Lena

Hi,
I don't eat red meat because I just don't like it.
Just like someone might not like olives or broccoli.
I haven't eaten it in many years.
I don't like pork either, I do eat fish and chicken though.
But I don't call myself vegetarian. So, am I considered
obnoxious like a person who is a vegetarian. Or are you just referring
to those who are preachy about not eating red meat?
Just wondering.
Thanks

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Peter Aitken wrote:

> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Peter Aitken wrote:
> >
> > > "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Peter Aitken wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Peter Aitken wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <snipped>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you want to be truly obnoxious to vegetarians (something, I
> for
> > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > applaud, as long as it is done delicately)... try explaining
> to
> > > them
> > > > > why
> > > > > > > > sugar isn't vegetarian (they put bone ash in it as an
> > > anti-coagulant).
> > > > > > > > Most of the idiotic vegetarians will go "eek!"... it's quite
> fun.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And the more serious ones will say, "yeah, so what?" and
> you'll
> > > know
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > they're actually a competent vegetarian (and thus worthy of a
> good
> > > > > deal
> > > > > > > > more respect than the suneaters).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lena
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you have any evidence to back up this notion? I have never
> seen
> > > any
> > > > > sugar
> > > > > > > that lists bone ash as an ingredient - some list cornstarch but
> > > that's
> > > > > all.
> > > > > > > My guess is that a truly competent vegetarian will simply tell
> you
> > > that
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > are wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...i've never seen cornstarch listed. must look at organic sugar
> > > > > > sometime.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You should look more closely... look for something with calcium in
> > > it--of
> > > > > > course they aren't going to just tell you about bone ash.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.ebonex.com/hist.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.ultimatelife.com/CatSweet.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://members.cox.net/pnienstedt/processed_sugar.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.orahsaddiqim.org/Kashrut/..._Sucrose.shtml
> > > > > >
> > > > > > of course, if you've ever distilled sugar, you'll know immediately
> > > that it
> > > > > > has bone ash in it, as the crystallization properties of the two
> are
> > > quite
> > > > > > different (and the bone ash needs to be filtered out, before you
> get
> > > good
> > > > > > sugar)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lena
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm, let's see. Your first cite refers to using bone ash in making
> sugar
> > > in
> > > > > the 1700s and 1800s. Hardly relevant to sugar today.
> > > >
> > > > rather stupid of you to try to discredit something added for
> historical
> > > > background... fits in with a mindset of "she is wrong... everything
> she
> > > > said must not be credible."
> > >
> > > > > Your second cite is a web page for a company that's trying to scare
> > > people
> > > > > away from using sugar so it is hardly a good source. Even if what
> they
> > > say
> > > > > is true, it says that the ash is used in the production process and
> > > *not*
> > > > > that it is present in the final product, which is what you are
> claiming.
> > > The
> > > > > same comments apply to your third cite.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed. I will, if you like, cite further sources saying that bone
> ash is
> > > > in fact present in the final product.
> > > >
> > > > Lena
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are going to provide new cites that prove that your original cites -
> > > specifically the fourth one that says there is no bone in the finshed
> > > product - are wrong? Sure, go right ahead. But why should we believe
> your
> > > new cites over your old cites? It is telling that in your reply you make
> a
> > > point of ignoring your 4th cite which specifically and directly
> contradicts
> > > your claim that sugar contains bone ash. Care to explain why?
> >
> > would you like me to critique the portion of the jewish faith that keeps
> > kosher? I can do so very easily. for example, all forms of leavening are
> > forbidden on passover... except for baking soda, yeast, and other modern
> > leavening ingredients.


extreme typo here. yeast is still forbidden by most people who keep
kosher. by a strict reading, you would think that all forms of leavening
are forbidden... but in reality only yeast is forbidden (leading to such
monstrosities as a Manichewitz passover cake...)

>> I sincerely doubt that the site has ever exposed
> > sugar to a microscopic analysis, or even would be able to explain why not
> > all the sugar dissolves in water.
> >
> > I'm not saying that a large proportion of bone ash is left there... but
> > i'm also not trying to tell you that rat hair isn't in candy bars either
> > (we all know it is... they're almost impossible to keep out. that's why
> > we have laws regulating the amount of rat hair...).
> >
> > Lena
> >
> > and my other sources have more credible knowledge of chemistry/physics
> > particularly as it applies to organic molecules. Hell, I've got more
> > qualifications than that site does, myself.
>
> When pinned up against the
> wall you change the subject to totally unrelated things rather than
> addressing the topic at hand.

adressing the credibility of the source by talking about the cultural
underpinnings of the beliefs (and specifically the tendency of rabbis to
rewrite contradictory things for the good of the community) is not
offtopic.

> By the way, you promised to provide cites supporting your position thar bone
> ash is present in sugar- where are they?

Personal interviews with pharmacologists and physicists. Will be cited
using MLA standard, if you'd like.

Lena

Socks > wrote:

> i picked up his "mathmatician reads the newspaper" from the library, barely
> started. i wanted to get the later wallsteet one, but someone else has it.

Really? I had to root around for a couple of years before I found
"a mathematician reads the newspaper" which is kind of ironic since
I know the author. I found a used paperback a while ago. Great book!

wrote:
> Socks > wrote:
>
>> i picked up his "mathmatician reads the newspaper" from the library,
>> barely started. i wanted to get the later wallsteet one, but
>> someone else has it.
>
> Really? I had to root around for a couple of years before I found
> "a mathematician reads the newspaper" which is kind of ironic since
> I know the author. I found a used paperback a while ago. Great book!

thank him when you see him!

i'm cross-reading with Against The Gods: The Remarkable Story Of Risk, by
Peter L. Bernstein. actually i'm making more progress on the Risk book
right now. good history.

i thought about changing the title of this message, but a good book on risk
is probably appropriate to this thread.

Frogleg > wrote in message >. ..
> On 7 Jan 2004 09:42:19 -0800, (Melissa Houle)
> wrote:
>
> >I'm hardly living in fear of Mad Cow disease, but I nevertheless plan
> >to eat a bit less beef, for a while.
>
> Because of mad cow? Why would "a bit less" be safer (except
> statistically) than a bunch? If one is concerned about BSE, surely
> total abstinance is the solution. If not, look for specials on beef in
> the grocery store and chow down. :-)

Umm.....because I'm only slightly inconsistent? =o)To slightly better
the odds against Mad Cow? Ah well, today, I broke down and bought some
steaks to freeze and eat later. =o)

Melissa

On 8 Jan 2004 17:23:52 -0800, (Melissa Houle)
wrote:

>Frogleg > wrote

>> On 7 Jan 2004 09:42:19 -0800, (Melissa Houle)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm hardly living in fear of Mad Cow disease, but I nevertheless plan
>> >to eat a bit less beef, for a while.
>>
>> Because of mad cow? Why would "a bit less" be safer (except
>> statistically) than a bunch? If one is concerned about BSE, surely
>> total abstinance is the solution. If not, look for specials on beef in
>> the grocery store and chow down. :-)
>
>Umm.....because I'm only slightly inconsistent? =o)To slightly better
>the odds against Mad Cow? Ah well, today, I broke down and bought some
>steaks to freeze and eat later. =o)

Heard Alton Brown on NPR this morning, who wasn't afraid of mad cow,
but suggested if you're going to give up *some* beef thing,
pre-processed hamburger would be the thing to lose. That's where all
the messy 'separation' processes have an impact. Sidebar: dear Julia
always says that one should learn to cut up a chicken (or debone a
chicken breast) because the factory versions are apparently done with
chainsaws. :-)

Your justification is a lot more statistically reasonable than most.
And steaks are...Good Eats!

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Frogleg wrote:

> On 8 Jan 2004 17:23:52 -0800, (Melissa Houle)
> wrote:
>
> >Frogleg > wrote
>
> >> On 7 Jan 2004 09:42:19 -0800, (Melissa Houle)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm hardly living in fear of Mad Cow disease, but I nevertheless plan
> >> >to eat a bit less beef, for a while.
> >>
> >> Because of mad cow? Why would "a bit less" be safer (except
> >> statistically) than a bunch? If one is concerned about BSE, surely
> >> total abstinance is the solution. If not, look for specials on beef in
> >> the grocery store and chow down. :-)
> >
> >Umm.....because I'm only slightly inconsistent? =o)To slightly better
> >the odds against Mad Cow? Ah well, today, I broke down and bought some
> >steaks to freeze and eat later. =o)
>
> Heard Alton Brown on NPR this morning, who wasn't afraid of mad cow,
> but suggested if you're going to give up *some* beef thing,
> pre-processed hamburger would be the thing to lose. That's where all
> the messy 'separation' processes have an impact.

nah... if you must give up *some* beef... give up petfood. where do you
think they're putting all that 40% fat hamburger y'all grew up with,
anyway?

Lena

Kate Connally > wrote:
> Frogleg wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 02:13:29 GMT, "Socks" > wrote:
>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> That's silly. I can't believe the amount of mathematical
>> >> illiteracy

> Stan, wouldn't that be innumeracy? :-)

Yup!

sf > wrote:

> So, now our budget is going to be balanced on the backs of
> the working poor with a loan from the state teachers
> retirement fund. How much you wanna bet it will never be
> repaid? They stole money from the state employee's
> retirement fund years ago and it still hasn't been repaid,
> to my knowledge.

Its the typical Republican economic plan; borrow now to pay
today's debts, then worry about paying off the borrowed money
during some other political administration.

While frolicking around in rec.food.cooking, of Temple
University said:

>> Stan, wouldn't that be innumeracy? :-)
>
>Yup!

I've heard it called discalculi, or something to that effect.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"You can tell if someone is a doctor. Their handwriting is very messy and
illegible and they know stuff. Medical stuff." John Coxon (afdaiain)