Skanky Cankles wrote:
<...>
> The meat industry as a whole causes more cds
> than food grown for humans as a whole.

Ipse dixit.

> The proof's been explained to you too many times to count.

Wrong. You've offered no proof at all. You've merely repeated the same
thing over and over. Repetition doesn't make something true. It only
makes false information seem more credible to cognitively-challenged
people. Like you.

Skanky Cankles wrote:
<...>
>>>>Veganism is religion.
>>
>>And you're a "holy roller" in it.
>
> Uh huh, shall I calleth myself Sacred Nectar?

Try Sanctimonious Nectar. Or Self-righteous Nectar. Either one.

Self-righteous Nabob wrote:
<...>
> You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
> me and what I'm doing.

He's spot on. "Saving all the animals" is bullshit when you eat
machine-harvested rice, other grains, and legumes. "Fighting against
wasting resources" is bullshit when you use processed soy protein (Yves
ground Italian sausage). "Peaceful harvest" is bullshit when you
purchase tropical fruits like plantains and other produce grown on
commercial farms from supermarkets. Everything you say is different from
what you do. You talk the talk, but you sure as hell don't walk the
walk. Like other sanctimonious holy rollers, you seem to have a pretty
hard time practicing what you preach. You're a rank and disgusting
hypocrite.

Self-righteous Nabob wrote:
<...>
> You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
> me and what I'm doing.

He's spot on. "Saving all the animals" is bullshit when you eat
machine-harvested rice, other grains, and legumes. "Fighting against
wasting resources" is bullshit when you use processed soy protein (Yves
ground Italian sausage). "Peaceful harvest" is bullshit when you
purchase tropical fruits like plantains and other produce grown on
commercial farms from supermarkets. Everything you say is different from
what you do. You talk the talk, but you sure as hell don't walk the
walk. Like other sanctimonious holy rollers, you seem to have a pretty
hard time practicing what you preach. You're a rank and disgusting
hypocrite.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky Cankles wrote:
> <...>
> > His contradictory ways
>
> Have you started counting your own contradictory ways yet, hypocrite?
> Shall I make a list?
>
> 1. Favors "peaceful harvests" in theory, but purchases
machine-harvested
> foods like rice despite rampant CDs.
> 2. Makes broad generalizations so she can compare apples to oranges.
> 3. Writes glowingly of eating hempseeds for their omega-6 FAs, even
> though those are the FAs she already gets enough of from the rest of
her
> diet; avoids foods rich in omega-3 FAs, which she needs to balance out
> her abundant intake of omega-6s, because those food include parts of
> dead animals.
> 4. Consumes organics despite the fact that organic crops often receive
> 2-7x the amount of the same pesticides (natural versions, though)
> conventional crops receive.
> 5. Writes about local farms, yet purchases foods shipped in from other
> continents despite the fact that those crops, and transporting them by
> ship and plane, cause ecological damage, CDs, etc.
>
> Shall I continue, nitwit?

Do continue twisting stuff and repeating stuff
that is false. Keep on changing my words too,
my boy.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky Cankles wrote:
> <...>
> > His contradictory ways
>
> Have you started counting your own contradictory ways yet, hypocrite?
> Shall I make a list?
>
> 1. Favors "peaceful harvests" in theory, but purchases
machine-harvested
> foods like rice despite rampant CDs.
> 2. Makes broad generalizations so she can compare apples to oranges.
> 3. Writes glowingly of eating hempseeds for their omega-6 FAs, even
> though those are the FAs she already gets enough of from the rest of
her
> diet; avoids foods rich in omega-3 FAs, which she needs to balance out
> her abundant intake of omega-6s, because those food include parts of
> dead animals.
> 4. Consumes organics despite the fact that organic crops often receive
> 2-7x the amount of the same pesticides (natural versions, though)
> conventional crops receive.
> 5. Writes about local farms, yet purchases foods shipped in from other
> continents despite the fact that those crops, and transporting them by
> ship and plane, cause ecological damage, CDs, etc.
>
> Shall I continue, nitwit?

Do continue twisting stuff and repeating stuff
that is false. Keep on changing my words too,
my boy.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> Read further down the page, dummy:
> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health
> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion
> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
> veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a term such
> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
> shoes.
> http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan

What you quoted above was a quote from a popular
vegan author. The same page says:
"The term vegan was originally coined to differentiate
those vegetarians who (primarily for ethical or
environmental reasons) sought to eliminate all
animal products in all areas of their lives from those
who simply avoided eating meat.

> Irrelevant. Not all Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus,
Jains,
> or Wiccans consider themselves part of a religion, either. The issue
is

Yeah, right. In other words bullshit. If someone does not
consider themselves to be part of a religion, then they're
not part of it. Duh.

> > But show me where a dictionary defines vegan as a
> > religion.
>
> Dictionaries aren't the best place to look for what is or isn't
> religion, anthropologists are. I *can* show you anthropologists who'll
> call it a religion.

I think I'll wait for it to appear in the dictionary, which does
not miss calling other religions religions.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> Read further down the page, dummy:
> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health
> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion
> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
> veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a term such
> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
> shoes.
> http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan

What you quoted above was a quote from a popular
vegan author. The same page says:
"The term vegan was originally coined to differentiate
those vegetarians who (primarily for ethical or
environmental reasons) sought to eliminate all
animal products in all areas of their lives from those
who simply avoided eating meat.

> Irrelevant. Not all Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus,
Jains,
> or Wiccans consider themselves part of a religion, either. The issue
is

Yeah, right. In other words bullshit. If someone does not
consider themselves to be part of a religion, then they're
not part of it. Duh.

> > But show me where a dictionary defines vegan as a
> > religion.
>
> Dictionaries aren't the best place to look for what is or isn't
> religion, anthropologists are. I *can* show you anthropologists who'll
> call it a religion.

I think I'll wait for it to appear in the dictionary, which does
not miss calling other religions religions.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news
> Self-righteous Nabob wrote:
> <...>
> > You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
> > me and what I'm doing.
>
> He's spot on. "Saving all the animals" is bullshit when you eat
> machine-harvested rice, other grains, and legumes. "Fighting against
> wasting resources" is bullshit when you use processed soy protein
(Yves
> ground Italian sausage). "Peaceful harvest" is bullshit when you
> purchase tropical fruits like plantains and other produce grown on
> commercial farms from supermarkets. Everything you say is different
from
> what you do. You talk the talk, but you sure as hell don't walk the
> walk. Like other sanctimonious holy rollers, you seem to have a pretty
> hard time practicing what you preach. You're a rank and disgusting
> hypocrite.

None of us eat free of cds currently. It's just that
vegans have way less than meat eaters. So calm
down ok?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky Cankles wrote:
> <...>
> >>>>Veganism is religion.
> >>
> >>And you're a "holy roller" in it.
> >
> > Uh huh, shall I calleth myself Sacred Nectar?
>
> Try Sanctimonious Nectar. Or Self-righteous Nectar. Either one.

Call me whatever you want. I know who and what
I am. You do not, Boy Usual. (get it? like boy wonder!)




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky Cankles wrote:
> <...>
> >>>>Veganism is religion.
> >>
> >>And you're a "holy roller" in it.
> >
> > Uh huh, shall I calleth myself Sacred Nectar?
>
> Try Sanctimonious Nectar. Or Self-righteous Nectar. Either one.

Call me whatever you want. I know who and what
I am. You do not, Boy Usual. (get it? like boy wonder!)




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> Wrong. You've offered no proof at all. You've merely repeated the same
> thing over and over. Repetition doesn't make something true. It only
> makes false information seem more credible to cognitively-challenged
> people. Like you.

You're wrong. You even supplied some of the proof
Almost everyone reading this can see right through
you.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> Wrong. You've offered no proof at all. You've merely repeated the same
> thing over and over. Repetition doesn't make something true. It only
> makes false information seem more credible to cognitively-challenged
> people. Like you.

You're wrong. You even supplied some of the proof
Almost everyone reading this can see right through
you.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> Your own source debunks you. Hahahaha!

Try reading the whole page, especially the main
(core) meaning and the original meaning.

> > 3. People I know in real life tend to think of vegetarians
> > as meaning lacto-ovo, and vegan as meaning
> > no animal products whatsoever in the food.
>
> That's irrelevant. "Vegetarian" has broad (encompassing all non-meat
> foods) and narrow definitions (lacto-ovo, etc.). If the standard is
> people we know IRL, then "vegetarian" will usually include diets
> containing poultry and seafood since MOST people think of abstinence
> from red meat only. Fortunately, the standard isn't colloquial misuse
of
> words, whether we're discussing vegetarianism or veganism.

All you're proving is that everyone has different
definitions. Who the **** cares?

> > Still no mention of religion, I notice.
>
> Dictionaries aren't the best place to look for what is or isn't
> religion, anthropologists are. I *can* show you anthropologists who'll
> call it a religion.

Dictionaries are actually quite good at calling
a religion a religion.

> Better question: how many people have you tried to convert to
veganism?

Certainly not you, since you're already a vegan who
pretends not to be.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> Your own source debunks you. Hahahaha!

Try reading the whole page, especially the main
(core) meaning and the original meaning.

> > 3. People I know in real life tend to think of vegetarians
> > as meaning lacto-ovo, and vegan as meaning
> > no animal products whatsoever in the food.
>
> That's irrelevant. "Vegetarian" has broad (encompassing all non-meat
> foods) and narrow definitions (lacto-ovo, etc.). If the standard is
> people we know IRL, then "vegetarian" will usually include diets
> containing poultry and seafood since MOST people think of abstinence
> from red meat only. Fortunately, the standard isn't colloquial misuse
of
> words, whether we're discussing vegetarianism or veganism.

All you're proving is that everyone has different
definitions. Who the **** cares?

> > Still no mention of religion, I notice.
>
> Dictionaries aren't the best place to look for what is or isn't
> religion, anthropologists are. I *can* show you anthropologists who'll
> call it a religion.

Dictionaries are actually quite good at calling
a religion a religion.

> Better question: how many people have you tried to convert to
veganism?

Certainly not you, since you're already a vegan who
pretends not to be.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

Racist Nectar wrote:
<...>
> Do continue twisting stuff and repeating stuff
> that is false.

Nothing was twisted.

> Keep on changing my words too, my boy.

I'm not your boy, or anyone else's. Stop using racist epithets.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Racist Nectar wrote:
> <...>
> > Do continue twisting stuff and repeating stuff
> > that is false.
>
> Nothing was twisted.
>
> > Keep on changing my words too, my boy.
>
> I'm not your boy, or anyone else's. Stop using racist epithets.

It's only racist if said from a white person
to a black person. On the internet we all
have the same colour, by the way.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Racist Nectar wrote:
> <...>
> > Do continue twisting stuff and repeating stuff
> > that is false.
>
> Nothing was twisted.
>
> > Keep on changing my words too, my boy.
>
> I'm not your boy, or anyone else's. Stop using racist epithets.

It's only racist if said from a white person
to a black person. On the internet we all
have the same colour, by the way.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>Read further down the page, dummy:
>>There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
>>vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health
>>reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion
>>for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
>>writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
>>veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a term such
>>as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
>>animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
>>shoes.
>>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
>
> What you quoted above was a quote from a popular
> vegan author.

No, it cites her.

> The same page says:
> "The term vegan was originally coined to differentiate
> those vegetarians who (primarily for ethical or
> environmental reasons) sought to eliminate all
> animal products in all areas of their lives from those
> who simply avoided eating meat.

Because it's part of a belief system, which other people, without all
the semantic hang-ups you have, would call a religion.

>>Irrelevant. Not all Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus,
>>Jains, or Wiccans consider themselves part of a religion, either. The issue
>>is
>
> Yeah, right. In other words bullshit. If someone does not
> consider themselves to be part of a religion, then they're
> not part of it. Duh.

You raised the issue of what people think of themselves, which misses
the issue of what distinguishes something as being religion. Personal
subscription doesn't make something a religion. You snipped the context
which conveyed my point:
The issue is whether or not it fits the definition. A religion
is an organized belief system based on certain tenets of faith;
a personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes,
beliefs, and practices; scrupulous conformity; or a cause,
principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Veganism fits every single aspect of those definitions.

BTW, "CARD-CARRYING" atheism is also religion.

>>>But show me where a dictionary defines vegan as a
>>>religion.
>>
>>Dictionaries aren't the best place to look for what is or isn't
>>religion, anthropologists are. I *can* show you anthropologists who'll
>>call it a religion.
>
> I think I'll wait for it to appear in the dictionary,

You didn't go far in your education, did you.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
>>>me and what I'm doing.
>>
>>He's spot on. "Saving all the animals" is bullshit when you eat
>>machine-harvested rice, other grains, and legumes. "Fighting against
>>wasting resources" is bullshit when you use processed soy protein
>>(Yves ground Italian sausage). "Peaceful harvest" is bullshit when you
>>purchase tropical fruits like plantains and other produce grown on
>>commercial farms from supermarkets. Everything you say is different
>>from what you do. You talk the talk, but you sure as hell don't walk the
>>walk. Like other sanctimonious holy rollers, you seem to have a pretty
>>hard time practicing what you preach. You're a rank and disgusting
>>hypocrite.
>
> None of us eat free of cds currently.

Bingo. You're a hypocrite.

> It's just that vegans have way less than meat eaters.

Ipse dixit, and Objecting to the 1001st Death.

> So calm down ok?

**** off.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
>>>me and what I'm doing.
>>
>>He's spot on. "Saving all the animals" is bullshit when you eat
>>machine-harvested rice, other grains, and legumes. "Fighting against
>>wasting resources" is bullshit when you use processed soy protein
>>(Yves ground Italian sausage). "Peaceful harvest" is bullshit when you
>>purchase tropical fruits like plantains and other produce grown on
>>commercial farms from supermarkets. Everything you say is different
>>from what you do. You talk the talk, but you sure as hell don't walk the
>>walk. Like other sanctimonious holy rollers, you seem to have a pretty
>>hard time practicing what you preach. You're a rank and disgusting
>>hypocrite.
>
> None of us eat free of cds currently.

Bingo. You're a hypocrite.

> It's just that vegans have way less than meat eaters.

Ipse dixit, and Objecting to the 1001st Death.

> So calm down ok?

**** off.

Racist Nectar wrote:
>>>Uh huh, shall I calleth myself Sacred Nectar?
>>
>>Try Sanctimonious Nectar. Or Self-righteous Nectar. Either one.
>
> Call me whatever you want.

Call me what you want, too, but lay off your repeated use of racist
epithets.

Racist Nectar wrote:
>>Wrong. You've offered no proof at all. You've merely repeated the same
>>thing over and over. Repetition doesn't make something true. It only
>>makes false information seem more credible to cognitively-challenged
>>people. Like you.
>
> You're wrong.

No, YOU are.

> You even supplied some of the proof

No, I disabused your error, which you lifted from vegan activist sites,
that animals require 10-16 pounds of feed to make a pound of meat. I
showed you that the ratio for livestock is nearly identical to the one
for putting a pound of meat on a vegan.

> Almost everyone reading this can see right through
> you.

Then why can't you address the points raised against your claims with
any substance?

Racist Nectar wrote:
<...>
>>>Keep on changing my words too, my boy.
>>
>>I'm not your boy, or anyone else's. Stop using racist epithets.
>
> It's only racist if said from a white person
> to a black person.

Guess what, bitch...

Racist Nectar wrote:
<...>
>>>Keep on changing my words too, my boy.
>>
>>I'm not your boy, or anyone else's. Stop using racist epithets.
>
> It's only racist if said from a white person
> to a black person.

Guess what, bitch...

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Racist Nectar wrote:
> <...>
> >>>Keep on changing my words too, my boy.
> >>
> >>I'm not your boy, or anyone else's. Stop using racist epithets.
> >
> > It's only racist if said from a white person
> > to a black person.
>
> Guess what, bitch...

Are you sure, nutcase?

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

Forgot to add quote and link...

usual suspect wrote:
>>>> Keep on changing my words too, my boy.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not your boy, or anyone else's. Stop using racist epithets.
>>
>>
>> It's only racist if said from a white person
>> to a black person.
>
>
> Guess what, bitch...

From: USual sUSpect >
Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan
Subject: The Vegan Trial #5
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 12:30:04 GMT

.....I am from an interracial family. Your opinion cannot change that fact.

http://tinyurl.com/5rymn
-------------
From: USual sUSpect >
Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan
Subject: The Vegan Trial #5
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 23:36:03 GMT

["Frankencrotch":]
> Malicious little ****s always make malicious little mistakes. Even if
> you *were* from a bi-racial family, liar, that wouldn't exclude you
> perpetuating socialized racism and bigotry.

[usual suspect:]
INTERracial is preferable, since we're dealing with more than two races
here. You have not made a case that the Swintons were prosecuted for the
color of their skin. The facts of their case are such that anyone would
have been charged and prosecuted for what they did. Skin color is not an
excuse for starving children.

http://tinyurl.com/6c9g3
--------------

Go **** yourself, Racist Skank.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Racist Nectar wrote:
> >>Wrong. You've offered no proof at all. You've merely repeated the
same
> >>thing over and over. Repetition doesn't make something true. It only
> >>makes false information seem more credible to cognitively-challenged
> >>people. Like you.
> >
> > You're wrong.
>
> No, YOU are.
>
> > You even supplied some of the proof
>
> No, I disabused your error, which you lifted from vegan activist
sites,
> that animals require 10-16 pounds of feed to make a pound of meat. I
> showed you that the ratio for livestock is nearly identical to the one
> for putting a pound of meat on a vegan.

Why are you comparing fattening a cow to fattening up
a vegan? Are you a cannibal? Let's compare pound
of food with pound of food. Or amounts of crops needed
to make our final foods (meat vs vegan of course).

> > Almost everyone reading this can see right through
> > you.
>
> Then why can't you address the points raised against your claims with
> any substance?

I see substance that you are blind to. I suspect there
are others who agree.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Racist Nectar wrote:
> >>Wrong. You've offered no proof at all. You've merely repeated the
same
> >>thing over and over. Repetition doesn't make something true. It only
> >>makes false information seem more credible to cognitively-challenged
> >>people. Like you.
> >
> > You're wrong.
>
> No, YOU are.
>
> > You even supplied some of the proof
>
> No, I disabused your error, which you lifted from vegan activist
sites,
> that animals require 10-16 pounds of feed to make a pound of meat. I
> showed you that the ratio for livestock is nearly identical to the one
> for putting a pound of meat on a vegan.

Why are you comparing fattening a cow to fattening up
a vegan? Are you a cannibal? Let's compare pound
of food with pound of food. Or amounts of crops needed
to make our final foods (meat vs vegan of course).

> > Almost everyone reading this can see right through
> > you.
>
> Then why can't you address the points raised against your claims with
> any substance?

I see substance that you are blind to. I suspect there
are others who agree.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> >>> I'm not your boy, or anyone else's. Stop using racist epithets.

If you want to play the race card, then you better
be ready to drop ALL your isms. Do you see
what I'm getting at?

> > Guess what, bitch...

That's right, don't be SEXIST usual. Most of the time
I'd just roll my eyes and not give a shit, but if you're
playing the ism card, I will too (until it's tiring!).

> >>> I'm not your boy, or anyone else's. Stop using racist epithets.

If you want to play the race card, then you better
be ready to drop ALL your isms. Do you see
what I'm getting at?

> > Guess what, bitch...

That's right, don't be SEXIST usual. Most of the time
I'd just roll my eyes and not give a shit, but if you're
playing the ism card, I will too (until it's tiring!).

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>Wrong. You've offered no proof at all. You've merely repeated the
>>>>same thing over and over. Repetition doesn't make something true. It only
>>>>makes false information seem more credible to cognitively-challenged
>>>>people. Like you.
>>>
>>>You're wrong.
>>
>>No, YOU are.
>>
>>
>>>You even supplied some of the proof
>>
>>No, I disabused your error, which you lifted from vegan activist
>>sites, that animals require 10-16 pounds of feed to make a pound of meat. I
>>showed you that the ratio for livestock is nearly identical to the one
>>for putting a pound of meat on a vegan.
>
> Why are you comparing fattening a cow to fattening up
> a vegan?

The ratios are similar. For some stupid reason (disinformation),
activists prate that takes infinitely more resources to put a pound on
any other organism than it takes to put on a human. Animal physiology is
quite similar, though there are some metabolic differences between species.

> Are you a cannibal?

No.

> Let's compare pound of food with pound of food.

I've done that by showing that your Yves processed soy protein isn't a
pound for pound product from soybeans. Like seitan, it takes 8-12 pounds
of raw product to make a final product. I don't hear you bitching about
wasting all that grain or all that soy even though it's more than twice
as "wasteful" according to your own standard than various meats. And
that's ignoring grass-fed ruminants and wild game -- which consume NO
grain or soy. Further, your Yves fake meat is shipped all the way across
Canada. It's made in Vancouver, you reside in Toronto.

> Or amounts of crops needed
> to make our final foods (meat vs vegan of course).

You're seeking to compare apples to oranges again. Compare the meat Rick
eats to your phony-meat diet. His beef isn't finished on grains or soy,
so the grain/soy:meat ratio is nil -- and no CDs. It's 100% grass-fed
right down the road from him so no CDs from transportation, either. You,
otoh, eat Yves fake soy sausage. It's processed from soybeans. It's not
a 1:1 ratio. It's shipped all the way across Vancouver to Toronto before
you get your grubby paws on it. It's responsible for CDs from the soy
fields to the storage facilities to the processing facilities to the
warehouses to the grocery store where you buy it (all that storage
incurs CDs -- ask your local health inspection agency about proactive
pest control measures required for food storage facilities).

Rick's diet: few if any CDs, low feed:finished product ratio.
Your diet: many CDs, high feed:finished product ratio.

>>>Almost everyone reading this can see right through
>>>you.
>>
>>Then why can't you address the points raised against your claims with
>>any substance?
>
> I see substance

Your head is firmly up your ass. You see only your colon walls.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>I'm not your boy, or anyone else's. Stop using racist epithets.
>
> If you want to play the race card, then you better
> be ready to drop ALL your isms.

**** you.

> Do you see what I'm getting at?

I know exactly what you liberals "get at."

>>>Guess what, bitch...
>
> That's right, don't be SEXIST usual. Most of the time
> I'd just roll my eyes and not give a shit, but if you're
> playing the ism card, I will too (until it's tiring!).

At least you're honest that you're up to it. Most liberals are far more
underhanded about it. See Harry Reid.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Racist Nectar wrote:
> >>>Uh huh, shall I calleth myself Sacred Nectar?
> >>
> >>Try Sanctimonious Nectar. Or Self-righteous Nectar. Either one.
> >
> > Call me whatever you want.
>
> Call me what you want, too, but lay off your repeated use of racist
> epithets.

It wasn't meant racially, but it was ageist. If you want
to complain about isms, you'll have to stop them
yourself. You've made sizeist (fatso) remarks,
racist (you're yellow James) remarks, and sexist
(bitch) remarks. Do you really want to go down
this road?

Scented Nectar wrote:
> It wasn't meant racially, but it was ageist.

You used it despite being told that it was racially offensive.

> If you want
> to complain about isms, you'll have to stop them
> yourself.

Tu quoque fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

> You've made sizeist (fatso) remarks,

To Dreck Nask, the most obese vegan on the entire planet. He is prima
facie evidence that veganism isn't inherently healthy, and that veganism
doesn't inherently lead to weight loss.

> racist (you're yellow James) remarks,

Reference to his cowardice, not to race.

<...>

Scented Nectar wrote:
> It wasn't meant racially, but it was ageist.

You used it despite being told that it was racially offensive.

> If you want
> to complain about isms, you'll have to stop them
> yourself.

Tu quoque fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

> You've made sizeist (fatso) remarks,

To Dreck Nask, the most obese vegan on the entire planet. He is prima
facie evidence that veganism isn't inherently healthy, and that veganism
doesn't inherently lead to weight loss.

> racist (you're yellow James) remarks,

Reference to his cowardice, not to race.

<...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > It wasn't meant racially, but it was ageist.
>
> You used it despite being told that it was racially offensive.

Nonsense, I haven't used it since you mentioned
race. I meant it ageistly.

> > You've made sizeist (fatso) remarks,
>
> To Dreck Nask, the most obese vegan on the entire planet. He is prima
> facie evidence that veganism isn't inherently healthy, and that
veganism
> doesn't inherently lead to weight loss.

So what if he's fat (if he really is, that is), you're
still being sizeist.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Again, dishonest loser, why do you continue to snip posts up without
>> indicating those snips? Don'yt like the rtuth, and trying to weasel
> out of
>> it?
>
> I'll snip however I like. Don't expect me to
> respond to EVERY silly thing you write. It
> get tiring trying to explain simple facts to you.
=====================
You haven't any facts to write, killer. But, if you feel you can't respond
to one of my points, you should note the snipping. Instead, you try to
dishonestly pretend that you didn't get caught in one of your lys by
changing the post.


>
>> Try the real websters site for a change. The site you posted even
> says they
>> are *NOT* associated with the real websters people. Man, you are just
> too,
>> too stupid...
>
> No. You are stupid for being so hung up about the
> 'official' definition. I have a different def. than you
> and you'll just have to live with that.
=====================
ROTFLMAO That;s the point fool! Your definition is just yours, to make
*you* feel good! It has nothing to do with the real word, or the lifestyle
it entails. *YOU* are too selfish and lazy to actually be vegan....


>
>> 2.The many, many
>> > recipe sites that use the word vegan as an
>> > adjective for their recipe collections.
>> =================
>> Lazy people that want a 'word' that makes them 'feel' good without
> having to
>> live up to the real meaning.
>
> Oh really? You know all of these hundreds of people
> personally and find them lazy? Your talk of 'real
> meaning' and words that make them feel good
> sounds kind of nuts.
====================
You should know, eh stupid? Again, pretending that your meaning is the
real one is just your stupidity and ignorance on display.

>
>> 3. People
>> > I know in real life tend to think of vegetarians
>> > as meaning lacto-ovo, and vegan as meaning
>> > no animal products whatsoever in the food.
>> ================
>> Again, you can pretend anything you want, but no matter how many
> adjectives
>> you put in front of vegetarian, whenever you add an animal product,
> you are
>> no longer vegetarian.
>
> I have lacto friends who would disagree with you
> and you know what? WHO THE **** CARES.
=====================
Ah, the next phase. The vegan obscenity on parade. I feel your hate,
killer. Must be your diet, eh hypocrite?

>
>> > Still no mention of religion, I notice.
>> ====================
>> Then you are blind, or do I have to read the whole page to you? When
> the
>> meaning starts adding philosophy and ethics, rights for 'all beings',
> you're
>> getting into religion. And then, when you start comparing it to other
>> religions, then your goose is cooked. (pun intended)
>
> Show me ANY dictionary that defines it as a religion. You can't.
==========================
Look at the context again you ignorant dolt!


>
>> It wasn't a word until
>> 1944, and the guy who made up the wrod gave it a specific meaning.
> That you
>> and a bunch of lazy animal killers want to co-opt the meaning because
> you
>> can't be bothered with living up to the real meaning just proves how
>> hypocritical you are.
>
> Quote the 1944 meaning. Does it say that veganism
> is a religion?
================
Yes. It using the same types of words and phrases as religions do.

>
>> > So far no one has tried talking me into joining
>> > any religion here. Are you sure it's not all in your mind?
>> =================
>> LOL You're spewing the religion you ignorant loon! Every ignorant
> word
>> you post is right out the the religion.
>
>
> Who's the deity/deities?
==================
You tell me. It's YOUR religion, killer.


>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> You opinion doesn't count as proof fool. But besides that, we are
>> discussing what *you* and I as individuals can do. All you seem to
> be able
>> to do is fall back on the old, well everybody doesn't do it, so I
> don't have
>> to either game. What the rest of the world does is immaterial to
> *your*
>> stated goal of causing less animal death and suffering But you can't
> prove
>> that that you even try, so you have to make outlandish claims about
>> everybody else! Just for once, why not focus on what *you* are doing
> and
>> what changes *you* can make to improve your impact. You don't do
> that,
>> thereby proving that to you it's only about spewing your haterd of
> others,
>> and not your so-called love of animals. If animals were your concern,
> you'd
>> do what *you* can first.
>
> You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
> me and what I'm doing.
=====================
Then the bizarre comes from you stupid. You have been the one to tell us
how you eat! You really are just too stupid to keep you're own ignorance
on track, aren't you killer? But again, the dodge of *your* impact noted.


>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> You opinion doesn't count as proof fool. But besides that, we are
>> discussing what *you* and I as individuals can do. All you seem to
> be able
>> to do is fall back on the old, well everybody doesn't do it, so I
> don't have
>> to either game. What the rest of the world does is immaterial to
> *your*
>> stated goal of causing less animal death and suffering But you can't
> prove
>> that that you even try, so you have to make outlandish claims about
>> everybody else! Just for once, why not focus on what *you* are doing
> and
>> what changes *you* can make to improve your impact. You don't do
> that,
>> thereby proving that to you it's only about spewing your haterd of
> others,
>> and not your so-called love of animals. If animals were your concern,
> you'd
>> do what *you* can first.
>
> You're babbling, boy. Making bizarre claims about
> me and what I'm doing.
=====================
Then the bizarre comes from you stupid. You have been the one to tell us
how you eat! You really are just too stupid to keep you're own ignorance
on track, aren't you killer? But again, the dodge of *your* impact noted.


>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>
>