Tough times made for odd meals
http://www.countryliving.com/food-dr...n-era-recipes/

"In the 1930s, gelatin was considered a modern, cutting edge food,"
writes Rudie Obias at Mental Floss. Back then, people apparently enjoyed
a food called Corned Beef Luncheon Salad, a mix of canned corned beef,
plain gelatin, canned peas, vinegar, lemon juice, and, sometimes, if you
were lucky, cabbage.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:27:04 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>Tough times made for odd meals
>http://www.countryliving.com/food-dr...n-era-recipes/
>
> "In the 1930s, gelatin was considered a modern, cutting edge food,"
>writes Rudie Obias at Mental Floss. Back then, people apparently enjoyed
>a food called Corned Beef Luncheon Salad, a mix of canned corned beef,
>plain gelatin, canned peas, vinegar, lemon juice, and, sometimes, if you
>were lucky, cabbage.

Certainly no worse than using Spam, actually I'd argue it's much
better than spam. Canned corned beef was very popular up until around
the mid-70's in Australia. Things improved considerably here after the
mid-70's...

On 2016-09-10 8:05 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:27:04 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
were lucky, cabbage.
>
> Certainly no worse than using Spam, actually I'd argue it's much
> better than spam. Canned corned beef was very popular up until around
> the mid-70's in Australia. Things improved considerably here after the
> mid-70's...
>


I used to like it when I was a kid and didn't know any better.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 20:39:30 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-09-10 8:05 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:27:04 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> were lucky, cabbage.
>>
>> Certainly no worse than using Spam, actually I'd argue it's much
>> better than spam. Canned corned beef was very popular up until around
>> the mid-70's in Australia. Things improved considerably here after the
>> mid-70's...
>>
>
>I used to like it when I was a kid and didn't know any better.

Me too

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:27:09 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Tough times made for odd meals
> http://www.countryliving.com/food-dr...n-era-recipes/
>
> "In the 1930s, gelatin was considered a modern, cutting edge food,"
> writes Rudie Obias at Mental Floss. Back then, people apparently enjoyed
> a food called Corned Beef Luncheon Salad, a mix of canned corned beef,
> plain gelatin, canned peas, vinegar, lemon juice, and, sometimes, if you
> were lucky, cabbage.

There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 01:32:43 GMT, "l not -l" > wrote:

>
>On 10-Sep-2016, Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-10 8:05 PM, Je�us wrote:
>> > On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:27:04 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>> were lucky, cabbage.
>> >
>> > Certainly no worse than using Spam, actually I'd argue it's much
>> > better than spam. Canned corned beef was very popular up until around
>> > the mid-70's in Australia. Things improved considerably here after the
>> > mid-70's...
>> >
>>
>>
>> I used to like it when I was a kid and didn't know any better.
>
>I still like it on occasion;; but, only to make a quick hash. A can of
>corned beef and a can of diced potatoes make a quick, tasty corned beef hash
>when no leftover corned beef is on hand.

I'd much rather a SPAM hash than a canned corned beef hash... I think
canned corned beef is disgusting... it consists primarily of
unidentifiable animal parts, probably lots of meaty cow labia.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 02:27:55 -0400, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 01:32:43 GMT, "l not -l" > wrote:
>
>>
>>On 10-Sep-2016, Dave Smith > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-09-10 8:05 PM, Je�us wrote:
>>> > On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:27:04 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>> were lucky, cabbage.
>>> >
>>> > Certainly no worse than using Spam, actually I'd argue it's much
>>> > better than spam. Canned corned beef was very popular up until around
>>> > the mid-70's in Australia. Things improved considerably here after the
>>> > mid-70's...
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> I used to like it when I was a kid and didn't know any better.
>>
>>I still like it on occasion;; but, only to make a quick hash. A can of
>>corned beef and a can of diced potatoes make a quick, tasty corned beef hash
>>when no leftover corned beef is on hand.
>
>I'd much rather a SPAM hash than a canned corned beef hash... I think
>canned corned beef is disgusting... it consists primarily of
>unidentifiable animal parts, probably lots of meaty cow labia.

Oh, you

> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:27:04 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> >Tough times made for odd meals
> >http://www.countryliving.com/food-dr...n-era-recipes/
> >
> > "In the 1930s, gelatin was considered a modern, cutting edge food,"
> >writes Rudie Obias at Mental Floss.

That sort of lazy ignorant journalism makes me despair.

Janet UK

On 9/11/2016 8:44 AM, Janet wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 19:27:04 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> Tough times made for odd meals
>>> http://www.countryliving.com/food-dr...n-era-recipes/
>>>
>>> "In the 1930s, gelatin was considered a modern, cutting edge food,"
>>> writes Rudie Obias at Mental Floss.
>
> That sort of lazy ignorant journalism makes me despair.
>
> Janet UK
>
I have some old cookbooks from the 1950's which show pictures of food
trapped in gelatin. Weird looking concoctions. What, I'm supposed to
*eat* that?! LOL

There's always this fun site:

http://www.lileks.com/institute/gallery/knox/index.html

Jill

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:12 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:27:09 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> Tough times made for odd meals
>> http://www.countryliving.com/food-dr...n-era-recipes/
>>
>> "In the 1930s, gelatin was considered a modern, cutting edge food,"
>> writes Rudie Obias at Mental Floss. Back then, people apparently enjoyed
>> a food called Corned Beef Luncheon Salad, a mix of canned corned beef,
>> plain gelatin, canned peas, vinegar, lemon juice, and, sometimes, if you
>> were lucky, cabbage.
>
>There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.


I think gelatin has been around since the first human boiled a joint
of Mammoth.

On 9/11/2016 9:13 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:12 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:27:09 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> Tough times made for odd meals
>>> http://www.countryliving.com/food-dr...n-era-recipes/
>>>
>>> "In the 1930s, gelatin was considered a modern, cutting edge food,"
>>> writes Rudie Obias at Mental Floss. Back then, people apparently enjoyed
>>> a food called Corned Beef Luncheon Salad, a mix of canned corned beef,
>>> plain gelatin, canned peas, vinegar, lemon juice, and, sometimes, if you
>>> were lucky, cabbage.
>>
>> There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
>
>
> I think gelatin has been around since the first human boiled a joint
> of Mammoth.
>
True! Boiled horse hooves, actually.

Jill

On 9/11/2016 1:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:

>
> There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
>

Could be. Animals eat animals though so is it such a bad thing to do?

On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 3:14:05 AM UTC-10, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:12 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi1yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:27:09 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> Tough times made for odd meals
> >> http://www.countryliving.com/food-dr...n-era-recipes/
> >>
> >> "In the 1930s, gelatin was considered a modern, cutting edge food,"
> >> writes Rudie Obias at Mental Floss. Back then, people apparently enjoyed
> >> a food called Corned Beef Luncheon Salad, a mix of canned corned beef,
> >> plain gelatin, canned peas, vinegar, lemon juice, and, sometimes, if you
> >> were lucky, cabbage.
> >
> >There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
>
>
> I think gelatin has been around since the first human boiled a joint
> of Mammoth.

Gelatin has always been around. It took a lot of time and effort to prepare aspic dishes and it was probably considered sophisticated, upper-class, and exotic. Actually, it still is today.

On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 4:54:21 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/11/2016 1:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> >
> > There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
> >
>
> Could be. Animals eat animals though so is it such a bad thing to do?

Animals have no souls or carry with them the concept of evil. All animals that kill and eat animals have no problem with it - except humans. A lot of humans consider eating flesh to be a bad thing so the answer to your question depends on who you ask.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 10:11:42 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 9/11/2016 9:13 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:12 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:27:09 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> Tough times made for odd meals
>>>> http://www.countryliving.com/food-dr...n-era-recipes/
>>>>
>>>> "In the 1930s, gelatin was considered a modern, cutting edge food,"
>>>> writes Rudie Obias at Mental Floss. Back then, people apparently enjoyed
>>>> a food called Corned Beef Luncheon Salad, a mix of canned corned beef,
>>>> plain gelatin, canned peas, vinegar, lemon juice, and, sometimes, if you
>>>> were lucky, cabbage.
>>>
>>> There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
>>
>>
>> I think gelatin has been around since the first human boiled a joint
>> of Mammoth.
>>
>True! Boiled horse hooves, actually.
>
>Jill

My favorite, prepare a stock from simmered fish heads and trimmings,
then construct a poached seafood aspic.

In article >,
says...
>
> On 9/11/2016 1:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> >
> > There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
> >
>
> Could be. Animals eat animals though so is it such a bad thing to do?

Maybe you can use your own judgement, rather than do what animals do. On
the other hand, it wouldn't make a difference

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 10:56:28 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 3:14:05 AM UTC-10, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:05:12 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi1yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:27:09 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> >> Tough times made for odd meals
>> >> http://www.countryliving.com/food-dr...n-era-recipes/
>> >>
>> >> "In the 1930s, gelatin was considered a modern, cutting edge food,"
>> >> writes Rudie Obias at Mental Floss. Back then, people apparently enjoyed
>> >> a food called Corned Beef Luncheon Salad, a mix of canned corned beef,
>> >> plain gelatin, canned peas, vinegar, lemon juice, and, sometimes, if you
>> >> were lucky, cabbage.
>> >
>> >There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
>>
>>
>> I think gelatin has been around since the first human boiled a joint
>> of Mammoth.
>
>Gelatin has always been around. It took a lot of time and effort
>to prepare aspic dishes and it was probably considered sophisticated,
>upper-class, and exotic. Actually, it still is today.

Growing up in Brooklyn with a fishmonger on nearly every block and
having one of the largest sport fishing fleets on the planet fresh
fish was at that time one of the least expensive meals one could
prepare; seafood aspic was a major meal at least once every week,
usually twice as it didn't pay to make a small amount. For holidays
or just for fun seafood aspic became a work of art, containing
intricately carved vegetables and set in fancy molds.

On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:05:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 4:54:21 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 9/11/2016 1:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
> > >
> >
> > Could be. Animals eat animals though so is it such a bad thing to do?
>
> Animals have no souls or carry with them the concept of evil. All animals that kill and eat animals have no problem with it - except humans. A lot of humans consider eating flesh to be a bad thing so the answer to your question depends on who you ask.

And our concept of evil is imparted into our being through the religious kooks of the world who influence parents and their children. The concept that humans are inherently evil from the time of conception is one of the biggies. "Original Sin" goes way back but is still taught today.
Causes nothing but trouble IMHO.

As far as eating flesh is concerned...what about the flesh of the plants that we eat? Carrots and lettuce have feelings too, so it is said. When you cut into a beet, maybe that is real blood that the beet "sees" pouring out of its poor savaged body.
If you believe everything the Bible reveals you will know that the Earth and all it contains is for OUR use so animals are certainly fair game.
=====


=====

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:05:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 4:54:21 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > On 9/11/2016 1:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Could be. Animals eat animals though so is it such a bad thing to do?
> >
> > Animals have no souls or carry with them the concept of evil. All animals that kill and eat animals have no problem with it - except humans. A lot of humans consider eating flesh to be a bad thing so the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
>
> And our concept of evil is imparted into our being through the religious kooks of the world who influence parents and their children. The concept that humans are inherently evil from the time of conception is one of the biggies. "Original Sin" goes way back but is still taught today.
> Causes nothing but trouble IMHO.
>
> As far as eating flesh is concerned...what about the flesh of the plants that we eat? Carrots and lettuce have feelings too, so it is said. When you cut into a beet, maybe that is real blood that the beet "sees" pouring out of its poor savaged body.
> If you believe everything the Bible reveals you will know that the Earth and all it contains is for OUR use so animals are certainly fair game.
> =====

God, you're a relic from the past.

On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:05:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 4:54:21 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > > On 9/11/2016 1:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Could be. Animals eat animals though so is it such a bad thing to do?
> > >
> > > Animals have no souls or carry with them the concept of evil. All animals that kill and eat animals have no problem with it - except humans. A lot of humans consider eating flesh to be a bad thing so the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
> >
> > And our concept of evil is imparted into our being through the religious kooks of the world who influence parents and their children. The concept that humans are inherently evil from the time of conception is one of the biggies. "Original Sin" goes way back but is still taught today.
> > Causes nothing but trouble IMHO.
> >
> > As far as eating flesh is concerned...what about the flesh of the plants that we eat? Carrots and lettuce have feelings too, so it is said. When you cut into a beet, maybe that is real blood that the beet "sees" pouring out of its poor savaged body.
> > If you believe everything the Bible reveals you will know that the Earth and all it contains is for OUR use so animals are certainly fair game.
> > =====
>
> God, you're a relic from the past.

Obviously you're very poorly educated. I always regarded the Dutch as being smart and well educated. What happened to you?
=====

On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 9:29:31 AM UTC-10, Roy wrote:
> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:05:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 4:54:21 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > On 9/11/2016 1:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Could be. Animals eat animals though so is it such a bad thing to do?
> >
> > Animals have no souls or carry with them the concept of evil. All animals that kill and eat animals have no problem with it - except humans. A lot of humans consider eating flesh to be a bad thing so the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
>
> And our concept of evil is imparted into our being through the religious kooks of the world who influence parents and their children. The concept that humans are inherently evil from the time of conception is one of the biggies. "Original Sin" goes way back but is still taught today.
> Causes nothing but trouble IMHO.
>
> As far as eating flesh is concerned...what about the flesh of the plants that we eat? Carrots and lettuce have feelings too, so it is said. When you cut into a beet, maybe that is real blood that the beet "sees" pouring out of its poor savaged body.
> If you believe everything the Bible reveals you will know that the Earth and all it contains is for OUR use so animals are certainly fair game.
> =====
>
>
> =====

We have religion simply because we are aware of our own mortality. Without that, we could live like the animals - without morality. One can choose to believe in the concept of original sin or not, the only thing I know is that once man has eaten of the tree of knowledge, he can never go back and live like animals again.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > >
> > > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:05:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 4:54:21 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > > > On 9/11/2016 1:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Could be. Animals eat animals though so is it such a bad thing to do?
> > > >
> > > > Animals have no souls or carry with them the concept of evil. All animals that kill and eat animals have no problem with it - except humans. A lot of humans consider eating flesh to be a bad thing so the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
> > >
> > > And our concept of evil is imparted into our being through the religious kooks of the world who influence parents and their children. The concept that humans are inherently evil from the time of conception is one of the biggies. "Original Sin" goes way back but is still taught today.
> > > Causes nothing but trouble IMHO.
> > >
> > > As far as eating flesh is concerned...what about the flesh of the plants that we eat? Carrots and lettuce have feelings too, so it is said. When you cut into a beet, maybe that is real blood that the beet "sees" pouring out of its poor savaged body.
> > > If you believe everything the Bible reveals you will know that the Earth and all it contains is for OUR use so animals are certainly fair game.
> > > =====
> >
> > God, you're a relic from the past.
>
> Obviously you're very poorly educated. I always regarded the Dutch as being smart and well educated. What happened to you?
> =====

Justifying eating meat -or anything else for that matter- by referring
to the bible is so retarded. I thought people like that were extinct.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
wrote:

>On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>> >
>> > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:05:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 4:54:21 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> > > > On 9/11/2016 1:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Could be. Animals eat animals though so is it such a bad thing to do?
>> > >
>> > > Animals have no souls or carry with them the concept of evil. All animals that kill and eat animals have no problem with it - except humans. A lot of humans consider eating flesh to be a bad thing so the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
>> >
>> > And our concept of evil is imparted into our being through the religious kooks of the world who influence parents and their children. The concept that humans are inherently evil from the time of conception is one of the biggies. "Original Sin" goes way back but is still taught today.
>> > Causes nothing but trouble IMHO.
>> >
>> > As far as eating flesh is concerned...what about the flesh of the plants that we eat? Carrots and lettuce have feelings too, so it is said. When you cut into a beet, maybe that is real blood that the beet "sees" pouring out of its poor savaged body.
>> > If you believe everything the Bible reveals you will know that the Earth and all it contains is for OUR use so animals are certainly fair game.
>> > =====
>>
>> God, you're a relic from the past.
>
>Obviously you're very poorly educated. I always regarded the Dutch as being smart and well educated. What happened to you?
>=====

He's a vegetarian who has problems with people eating meat. It's
animal cruelty, yannow? Except for fish, apparently. Fish are *******s
and don't deserve to live. It's not cruel to kill and eat fish,
apparently. Cognitive dissonance at it's very finest.

On 9/11/2016 6:48 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:05:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 4:54:21 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/11/2016 1:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could be. Animals eat animals though so is it such a bad thing to do?
>>>>>
>>>>> Animals have no souls or carry with them the concept of evil. All animals that kill and eat animals have no problem with it - except humans. A lot of humans consider eating flesh to be a bad thing so the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
>>>>
>>>> And our concept of evil is imparted into our being through the religious kooks of the world who influence parents and their children. The concept that humans are inherently evil from the time of conception is one of the biggies. "Original Sin" goes way back but is still taught today.
>>>> Causes nothing but trouble IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> As far as eating flesh is concerned...what about the flesh of the plants that we eat? Carrots and lettuce have feelings too, so it is said. When you cut into a beet, maybe that is real blood that the beet "sees" pouring out of its poor savaged body.
>>>> If you believe everything the Bible reveals you will know that the Earth and all it contains is for OUR use so animals are certainly fair game.
>>>> =====
>>>
>>> God, you're a relic from the past.
>>
>> Obviously you're very poorly educated. I always regarded the Dutch as being smart and well educated. What happened to you?
>> =====
>
> He's a vegetarian who has problems with people eating meat. It's
> animal cruelty, yannow? Except for fish, apparently. Fish are *******s
> and don't deserve to live. It's not cruel to kill and eat fish,
> apparently. Cognitive dissonance at it's very finest.
>

One of his positions is the way animals are raised. Most chickens and
hogs have not had the best care along the way. It is more factory than
farm. I can agree with that part of raising animals for food.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 18:52:33 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 9/11/2016 6:48 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:05:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 4:54:21 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/11/2016 1:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could be. Animals eat animals though so is it such a bad thing to do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Animals have no souls or carry with them the concept of evil. All animals that kill and eat animals have no problem with it - except humans. A lot of humans consider eating flesh to be a bad thing so the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
>>>>>
>>>>> And our concept of evil is imparted into our being through the religious kooks of the world who influence parents and their children. The concept that humans are inherently evil from the time of conception is one of the biggies. "Original Sin" goes way back but is still taught today.
>>>>> Causes nothing but trouble IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as eating flesh is concerned...what about the flesh of the plants that we eat? Carrots and lettuce have feelings too, so it is said. When you cut into a beet, maybe that is real blood that the beet "sees" pouring out of its poor savaged body.
>>>>> If you believe everything the Bible reveals you will know that the Earth and all it contains is for OUR use so animals are certainly fair game.
>>>>> =====
>>>>
>>>> God, you're a relic from the past.
>>>
>>> Obviously you're very poorly educated. I always regarded the Dutch as being smart and well educated. What happened to you?
>>> =====
>>
>> He's a vegetarian who has problems with people eating meat. It's
>> animal cruelty, yannow? Except for fish, apparently. Fish are *******s
>> and don't deserve to live. It's not cruel to kill and eat fish,
>> apparently. Cognitive dissonance at it's very finest.
>>
>
>One of his positions is the way animals are raised. Most chickens and
>hogs have not had the best care along the way. It is more factory than
>farm. I can agree with that part of raising animals for food.

No question at all about that and I totally agree. There's no need for
it, and IMO the price for most commonly available meat is far too low,
as it reflects the poor treatment those animals have had to endure.

In article >, lid
says...
>
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> says...
> >> >
> >> > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:05:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> >> > > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 4:54:21 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> > > > On 9/11/2016 1:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their flesh.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Could be. Animals eat animals though so is it such a bad thing to do?
> >> > >
> >> > > Animals have no souls or carry with them the concept of evil. All animals that kill and eat animals have no problem with it - except humans. A lot of humans consider eating flesh to be a bad thing so the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
> >> >
> >> > And our concept of evil is imparted into our being through the religious kooks of the world who influence parents and their children. The concept that humans are inherently evil from the time of conception is one of the biggies. "Original Sin" goes way back but is still taught today.
> >> > Causes nothing but trouble IMHO.
> >> >
> >> > As far as eating flesh is concerned...what about the flesh of the plants that we eat? Carrots and lettuce have feelings too, so it is said. When you cut into a beet, maybe that is real blood that the beet "sees" pouring out of its poor savaged body.
> >> > If you believe everything the Bible reveals you will know that the Earth and all it contains is for OUR use so animals are certainly fair game.
> >> > =====
> >>
> >> God, you're a relic from the past.
> >
> >Obviously you're very poorly educated. I always regarded the Dutch as being smart and well educated. What happened to you?
> >=====
>
> He's a vegetarian who has problems with people eating meat. It's
> animal cruelty, yannow? Except for fish, apparently. Fish are *******s
> and don't deserve to live. It's not cruel to kill and eat fish,
> apparently. Cognitive dissonance at it's very finest.

That was a bit childish, Jebus. It's alright, though. We all have our
weaker moments.

In article >,
says...
>
> On 9/11/2016 6:48 PM, Je?us wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:05:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 4:54:21 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Could be. Animals eat animals though so is it such a bad thing to do?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Animals have no souls or carry with them the concept of evil. All animals that kill and eat animals have no problem with it - except humans. A lot of humans consider eating flesh to be a bad thing so the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
> >>>>
> >>>> And our concept of evil is imparted into our being through the religious kooks of the world who influence parents and their children. The concept that humans are inherently evil from the time of conception is one of the biggies. "Original Sin" goes way back but is still taught today.
> >>>> Causes nothing but trouble IMHO.
> >>>>
> >>>> As far as eating flesh is concerned...what about the flesh of the plants that we eat? Carrots and lettuce have feelings too, so it is said. When you cut into a beet, maybe that is real blood that the beet "sees" pouring out of its poor savaged body.
> >>>> If you believe everything the Bible reveals you will know that the Earth and all it contains is for OUR use so animals are certainly fair game.
> >>>> =====
> >>>
> >>> God, you're a relic from the past.
> >>
> >> Obviously you're very poorly educated. I always regarded the Dutch as being smart and well educated. What happened to you?
> >> =====
> >
> > He's a vegetarian who has problems with people eating meat. It's
> > animal cruelty, yannow? Except for fish, apparently. Fish are *******s
> > and don't deserve to live. It's not cruel to kill and eat fish,
> > apparently. Cognitive dissonance at it's very finest.
> >
>
> One of his positions is the way animals are raised. Most chickens and
> hogs have not had the best care along the way. It is more factory than
> farm. I can agree with that part of raising animals for food.

Yes, thanks, that's a large part of what I'm saying.

On 2016-09-11 7:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
> In article >, lid
> says...
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
=====
>>
>> He's a vegetarian who has problems with people eating meat. It's
>> animal cruelty, yannow? Except for fish, apparently. Fish are *******s
>> and don't deserve to live. It's not cruel to kill and eat fish,
>> apparently. Cognitive dissonance at it's very finest.
>
> That was a bit childish, Jebus. It's alright, though. We all have our
> weaker moments.
>


Nope. He has pretty well nailed it. I know a number of people who are
whatever you want to label people who don't eat four legged meat or
chicken but who eat fish and seafood. Chickens, pigs, cows and lambs
are killed in a pretty humane manner. Shrimp and fish are dragged up in
nets and thrown into the hull of the boat and left to suffocate. I can't
imagine how someone can think that sort of death is more humane than
having a shot to the head or the head chopped off.

In article >,
says...
>
> On 2016-09-11 7:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
> > In article >, lid
> > says...
> >>
> >> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> =====
> >>
> >> He's a vegetarian who has problems with people eating meat. It's
> >> animal cruelty, yannow? Except for fish, apparently. Fish are *******s
> >> and don't deserve to live. It's not cruel to kill and eat fish,
> >> apparently. Cognitive dissonance at it's very finest.
> >
> > That was a bit childish, Jebus. It's alright, though. We all have our
> > weaker moments.
> >
> Nope. He has pretty well nailed it. I know a number of people who are
> whatever you want to label people who don't eat four legged meat or
> chicken but who eat fish and seafood. Chickens, pigs, cows and lambs
> are killed in a pretty humane manner. Shrimp and fish are dragged up in
> nets and thrown into the hull of the boat and left to suffocate. I can't
> imagine how someone can think that sort of death is more humane than
> having a shot to the head or the head chopped off.

You clearly have no idea of how industry cows, pigs and chickens live or
are killed. You shove anything you can get your hands on, in your pie
hole, so don't you start lecturing me. If you want lecturing, I'll be
lecturing you. Thank you

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 19:51:29 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-09-11 7:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> In article >, lid
>> says...
>>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>=====
>>>
>>> He's a vegetarian who has problems with people eating meat. It's
>>> animal cruelty, yannow? Except for fish, apparently. Fish are *******s
>>> and don't deserve to live. It's not cruel to kill and eat fish,
>>> apparently. Cognitive dissonance at it's very finest.
>>
>> That was a bit childish, Jebus. It's alright, though. We all have our
>> weaker moments.
>>
>
>
>Nope. He has pretty well nailed it. I know a number of people who are
>whatever you want to label people who don't eat four legged meat or
>chicken but who eat fish and seafood. Chickens, pigs, cows and lambs
>are killed in a pretty humane manner. Shrimp and fish are dragged up in
>nets and thrown into the hull of the boat and left to suffocate. I can't
>imagine how someone can think that sort of death is more humane than
>having a shot to the head or the head chopped off.

I do note that he had no answer for the double standard I pointed out.
Piscatorial genocide should be stamped out, man

In article >, lid
says...
>
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 19:51:29 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> >On 2016-09-11 7:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >> In article >, lid
> >> says...
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> >=====
> >>>
> >>> He's a vegetarian who has problems with people eating meat. It's
> >>> animal cruelty, yannow? Except for fish, apparently. Fish are *******s
> >>> and don't deserve to live. It's not cruel to kill and eat fish,
> >>> apparently. Cognitive dissonance at it's very finest.
> >>
> >> That was a bit childish, Jebus. It's alright, though. We all have our
> >> weaker moments.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Nope. He has pretty well nailed it. I know a number of people who are
> >whatever you want to label people who don't eat four legged meat or
> >chicken but who eat fish and seafood. Chickens, pigs, cows and lambs
> >are killed in a pretty humane manner. Shrimp and fish are dragged up in
> >nets and thrown into the hull of the boat and left to suffocate. I can't
> >imagine how someone can think that sort of death is more humane than
> >having a shot to the head or the head chopped off.
>
> I do note that he had no answer for the double standard I pointed out.
> Piscatorial genocide should be stamped out, man

Dude, if you want me to reply to you, you should have the decency to
talk to me directly. Don't use Dave as some kind of weird go-between.

On 2016-09-11 9:26 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 19:51:29 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-11 7:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> In article >, lid
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>> =====
>>>>
>>>> He's a vegetarian who has problems with people eating meat. It's
>>>> animal cruelty, yannow? Except for fish, apparently. Fish are *******s
>>>> and don't deserve to live. It's not cruel to kill and eat fish,
>>>> apparently. Cognitive dissonance at it's very finest.
>>>
>>> That was a bit childish, Jebus. It's alright, though. We all have our
>>> weaker moments.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nope. He has pretty well nailed it. I know a number of people who are
>> whatever you want to label people who don't eat four legged meat or
>> chicken but who eat fish and seafood. Chickens, pigs, cows and lambs
>> are killed in a pretty humane manner. Shrimp and fish are dragged up in
>> nets and thrown into the hull of the boat and left to suffocate. I can't
>> imagine how someone can think that sort of death is more humane than
>> having a shot to the head or the head chopped off.
>
> I do note that he had no answer for the double standard I pointed out.
> Piscatorial genocide should be stamped out, man
>
Of course not. Hence the ad hominem.
I wonder how long it takes a fish to suffocate in a gill net or in the
hull of a boat. The people who think mammals suffer to much don't give a
shit about fish.

In article >,
says...
>
> On 2016-09-11 9:26 PM, Je?us wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 19:51:29 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-09-11 7:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >>> In article >, lid
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> >> =====
> >>>>
> >>>> He's a vegetarian who has problems with people eating meat. It's
> >>>> animal cruelty, yannow? Except for fish, apparently. Fish are *******s
> >>>> and don't deserve to live. It's not cruel to kill and eat fish,
> >>>> apparently. Cognitive dissonance at it's very finest.
> >>>
> >>> That was a bit childish, Jebus. It's alright, though. We all have our
> >>> weaker moments.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Nope. He has pretty well nailed it. I know a number of people who are
> >> whatever you want to label people who don't eat four legged meat or
> >> chicken but who eat fish and seafood. Chickens, pigs, cows and lambs
> >> are killed in a pretty humane manner. Shrimp and fish are dragged up in
> >> nets and thrown into the hull of the boat and left to suffocate. I can't
> >> imagine how someone can think that sort of death is more humane than
> >> having a shot to the head or the head chopped off.
> >
> > I do note that he had no answer for the double standard I pointed out.
> > Piscatorial genocide should be stamped out, man
> >
> Of course not. Hence the ad hominem.
> I wonder how long it takes a fish to suffocate in a gill net or in the
> hull of a boat. The people who think mammals suffer to much don't give a
> shit about fish.

And you don't give a shit about fish, mammals or anything else you can
stick in your pie hole

On 2016-09-11 9:54 PM, Bruce wrote:
> In article >,
> says...

>> Of course not. Hence the ad hominem.
>> I wonder how long it takes a fish to suffocate in a gill net or in the
>> hull of a boat. The people who think mammals suffer to much don't give a
>> shit about fish.
>
> And you don't give a shit about fish, mammals or anything else you can
> stick in your pie hole
>


You seem to be obsessed with sticking things in holes.

In article >,
says...
>
> On 2016-09-11 9:54 PM, Bruce wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
>
> >> Of course not. Hence the ad hominem.
> >> I wonder how long it takes a fish to suffocate in a gill net or in the
> >> hull of a boat. The people who think mammals suffer to much don't give a
> >> shit about fish.
> >
> > And you don't give a shit about fish, mammals or anything else you can
> > stick in your pie hole
> >
>
>
> You seem to be obsessed with sticking things in holes.

It's called eating.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

On 9/11/2016 6:48 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:05:26 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 4:54:21 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/11/2016 1:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's not much point in judging the way people ate who are far
>>>>>>> removed from our place and time. People in the future will think it
>>>>>>> abhorrent that we killed animals so that we could partake of their
>>>>>>> flesh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could be. Animals eat animals though so is it such a bad thing to
>>>>>> do?
>>>>>
>>>>> Animals have no souls or carry with them the concept of evil. All
>>>>> animals that kill and eat animals have no problem with it - except
>>>>> humans. A lot of humans consider eating flesh to be a bad thing so the
>>>>> answer to your question depends on who you ask.
>>>>
>>>> And our concept of evil is imparted into our being through the
>>>> religious kooks of the world who influence parents and their children.
>>>> The concept that humans are inherently evil from the time of conception
>>>> is one of the biggies. "Original Sin" goes way back but is still taught
>>>> today.
>>>> Causes nothing but trouble IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> As far as eating flesh is concerned...what about the flesh of the
>>>> plants that we eat? Carrots and lettuce have feelings too, so it is
>>>> said. When you cut into a beet, maybe that is real blood that the beet
>>>> "sees" pouring out of its poor savaged body.
>>>> If you believe everything the Bible reveals you will know that the
>>>> Earth and all it contains is for OUR use so animals are certainly fair
>>>> game.
>>>> =====
>>>
>>> God, you're a relic from the past.
>>
>> Obviously you're very poorly educated. I always regarded the Dutch as
>> being smart and well educated. What happened to you?
>> =====
>
> He's a vegetarian who has problems with people eating meat. It's
> animal cruelty, yannow? Except for fish, apparently. Fish are *******s
> and don't deserve to live. It's not cruel to kill and eat fish,
> apparently. Cognitive dissonance at it's very finest.
>

One of his positions is the way animals are raised. Most chickens and
hogs have not had the best care along the way. It is more factory than
farm. I can agree with that part of raising animals for food.

==========

+1


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 7:27:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Tough times made for odd meals
> http://www.countryliving.com/food-dr...n-era-recipes/
>
> "In the 1930s, gelatin was considered a modern, cutting edge food,"
> writes Rudie Obias at Mental Floss. Back then, people apparently enjoyed
> a food called Corned Beef Luncheon Salad, a mix of canned corned beef,
> plain gelatin, canned peas, vinegar, lemon juice, and, sometimes, if you
> were lucky, cabbage.

I don't see how gelatin could have been considered modern. Aspic had been in use for decades, if not centuries.

http://www.richardfisher.com

Most corned beef that I've had had no gelatin.

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:26:09 PM UTC-4, Helpful person wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 7:27:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > Tough times made for odd meals
> > http://www.countryliving.com/food-dr...n-era-recipes/
> >
> > "In the 1930s, gelatin was considered a modern, cutting edge food,"
> > writes Rudie Obias at Mental Floss. Back then, people apparently enjoyed
> > a food called Corned Beef Luncheon Salad, a mix of canned corned beef,
> > plain gelatin, canned peas, vinegar, lemon juice, and, sometimes, if you
> > were lucky, cabbage.
>
> I don't see how gelatin could have been considered modern. Aspic had been in use for decades, if not centuries.
>
> http://www.richardfisher.com

Packaged gelatin certainly was modern, making aspic available to
housewives who lacked the expertise and time to make their own.

<http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/08/history-of-jell-o-salad.html>

Cindy Hamilton

On 2016-09-12 2:21 PM, wrote:
> Most corned beef that I've had had no gelatin.
>


I have not had any in years but I do not remember gelatin. I do
remember lots of white fat.