"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "rick etter" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "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.
>> >
>> > You're still babbling. What are you on about?
>> ==================
>> Still dodging the discussion of *your* impact, killer...
>> Dodging is all you have since you have nothing of substance to say...
>
> To hear you tell it, I must be world enemy #1.
========================
LOL Sounds like you have a guilty conscience, eh killer?


That's all
> I can get out of that hateful babbling. Are you by any
> chance paranoid?
=====================
The only hate on display is yours, hypocrite. Hate for others, and obvious
hate for animals, since you will not even try to learn anything to lessen
your impact.


>
>> >
>> >
>> >> > 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 run amok.
>

Retard wrote:
>>>>>>>As a card carrying atheist, I object to you calling
>>>>>>>being vegan a religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Veganism is religion.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction.
>>>>
>>>>I later admitted that *I* was the one off in the wrong direction on that
>>>>point
>>>
>>>You did nothing of the kind.
>>
>>I did

RESTORE
I did so when I stopped carrying water for vegans, fatso.
END RESTORE

<snip typical shit-stirring prattle from the bluefooted cuckold>

Retard wrote:
>>>It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
>>>I have the right to do if I want to.
>>
>>You've altered meanings when snipping certain context.
>
> You're a hypocrite

No, fatso, you are. That entire thread -- indeed, much of that timeframe
in tpa and aaev -- was predicated upon your shitty attempts at taking
everyone's words out of context through rampant snipping. You cried foul
when others returned the favor, or even mockingly altered your
statements. Fat people who squat in glass council flats... well, you get
the idea/

Retard wrote:
>>>It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
>>>I have the right to do if I want to.
>>
>>You've altered meanings when snipping certain context.
>
> You're a hypocrite

No, fatso, you are. That entire thread -- indeed, much of that timeframe
in tpa and aaev -- was predicated upon your shitty attempts at taking
everyone's words out of context through rampant snipping. You cried foul
when others returned the favor, or even mockingly altered your
statements. Fat people who squat in glass council flats... well, you get
the idea/

Retard wrote:
> [..]
>
>>>Shall I continue, nitwit?
>>
>>Do continue twisting stuff and repeating stuff
>>that is false. Keep on changing my words too,
>>my boy.
>
>
> You'll find that he'll even alter your written sentences
> by adding words of his own into them, and then respond
> to that instead of what you've written before long.

Pay very close attention to the reply of Dutch in that thread. Your
history of deceitful editing made you a prime target for a little table
turning. Note how you STILL whine about stuff that happened months ago,
not to mention how you still deceitfully snip to take others out of
context to make your asinine pretexts. While you're making introductions
with Skanky Nectar, tell her what a loathsome arsehole you are, Nash --
a self-crippled, dole-scrounging cuckold. Tell her how you injured
yourself. Tell her about your ****ing miserable bluefoot. Tell her the
reason why I and others finally had enough of your deceit and why we
played the same game you STILL play. You've awfully thin skin for such a
*fat* ****.

> If you click on this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and
> follow it's short thread from the beginning, you'll see
> that he edited entire sentences of his opponent's posts
> before making his replies to them. He'll stoop to any
> level to continue his heckling and cannot be taken
> seriously as a real contender here.

Pot kettle black. You've no room to whine about it after all the
distorted editing you made, crybaby.

Retard wrote:
> [..]
>
>>>Shall I continue, nitwit?
>>
>>Do continue twisting stuff and repeating stuff
>>that is false. Keep on changing my words too,
>>my boy.
>
>
> You'll find that he'll even alter your written sentences
> by adding words of his own into them, and then respond
> to that instead of what you've written before long.

Pay very close attention to the reply of Dutch in that thread. Your
history of deceitful editing made you a prime target for a little table
turning. Note how you STILL whine about stuff that happened months ago,
not to mention how you still deceitfully snip to take others out of
context to make your asinine pretexts. While you're making introductions
with Skanky Nectar, tell her what a loathsome arsehole you are, Nash --
a self-crippled, dole-scrounging cuckold. Tell her how you injured
yourself. Tell her about your ****ing miserable bluefoot. Tell her the
reason why I and others finally had enough of your deceit and why we
played the same game you STILL play. You've awfully thin skin for such a
*fat* ****.

> If you click on this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and
> follow it's short thread from the beginning, you'll see
> that he edited entire sentences of his opponent's posts
> before making his replies to them. He'll stoop to any
> level to continue his heckling and cannot be taken
> seriously as a real contender here.

Pot kettle black. You've no room to whine about it after all the
distorted editing you made, crybaby.

Retard wrote:
<...>
>>>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.
>
> Figures from USDA show that an 800-pound, medium-
> frame steer calf will eat about 16.8 pounds of dry matter
> a day of a high-concentrate ration. He will gain about 3
> pounds a day with daily nutrients in his feed at the level
> shown here. The balanced daily ration for the 800-pound
> yearling steer is:
> Pounds
> Corn 14.7
> Soybean meal 0.52
> Corn silage 10.00
> Limestone 0.17
> Total 25.83
> http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplo...sci/g02052.htm
>
> So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
> 3 pounds of flesh, we have a feed to weight ratio of
> 8.61:1,

Significantly less than the OP's original claim of 10-16 lbs which was
meant to claim that beef production was wasteful of resources. You're
also getting back to an apples-oranges comparison -- we were discussing
grass-fed beef and wild game, which aren't finished on grains.

> but that's not the end of it because the bones
> etc. have to be removed.

Irrelevant to the matter at hand. You're playing Lesley's game of
retarded math.

<...>
>>I showed you that the ratio for livestock is nearly
>>identical to the one for putting a pound of meat on
>>a vegan.
>
> No, you did not and never have done, dummy.

I have, you ****ing asshole:
Growing rabbits eat about 3 pounds of feed for a pound of gain
http://tinyurl.com/5zl6s

You could consider just growing all tom turkeys as you can cut
down on
feed costs because of the factor involving the feed conversion
factor. A
tom of up to eighteen pounds requires forty two pounds of feed.
(Appears to be from a school paper. Still, less than 2.5 pounds
of feed
per pound of bird.)
http://tinyurl.com/57n47

It will take about 5 pounds of feed to age 6 weeks and 8-9
pounds to 8
weeks for the commercial strains.
(So about 14 pounds of feed to finish a 4 pound chicken --
again, about
three pounds of feed to pound of meat.)
http://tinyurl.com/5z65c

I posted that on 4 December in response to her generalization that all
meat requires a 10-16:1 feed to pound gain ratio.
http://tinyurl.com/6lkfw

You're a fat ****ing liar, Nash.

Retard wrote:
<...>
>>>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.
>
> Figures from USDA show that an 800-pound, medium-
> frame steer calf will eat about 16.8 pounds of dry matter
> a day of a high-concentrate ration. He will gain about 3
> pounds a day with daily nutrients in his feed at the level
> shown here. The balanced daily ration for the 800-pound
> yearling steer is:
> Pounds
> Corn 14.7
> Soybean meal 0.52
> Corn silage 10.00
> Limestone 0.17
> Total 25.83
> http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplo...sci/g02052.htm
>
> So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
> 3 pounds of flesh, we have a feed to weight ratio of
> 8.61:1,

Significantly less than the OP's original claim of 10-16 lbs which was
meant to claim that beef production was wasteful of resources. You're
also getting back to an apples-oranges comparison -- we were discussing
grass-fed beef and wild game, which aren't finished on grains.

> but that's not the end of it because the bones
> etc. have to be removed.

Irrelevant to the matter at hand. You're playing Lesley's game of
retarded math.

<...>
>>I showed you that the ratio for livestock is nearly
>>identical to the one for putting a pound of meat on
>>a vegan.
>
> No, you did not and never have done, dummy.

I have, you ****ing asshole:
Growing rabbits eat about 3 pounds of feed for a pound of gain
http://tinyurl.com/5zl6s

You could consider just growing all tom turkeys as you can cut
down on
feed costs because of the factor involving the feed conversion
factor. A
tom of up to eighteen pounds requires forty two pounds of feed.
(Appears to be from a school paper. Still, less than 2.5 pounds
of feed
per pound of bird.)
http://tinyurl.com/57n47

It will take about 5 pounds of feed to age 6 weeks and 8-9
pounds to 8
weeks for the commercial strains.
(So about 14 pounds of feed to finish a 4 pound chicken --
again, about
three pounds of feed to pound of meat.)
http://tinyurl.com/5z65c

I posted that on 4 December in response to her generalization that all
meat requires a 10-16:1 feed to pound gain ratio.
http://tinyurl.com/6lkfw

You're a fat ****ing liar, Nash.

FAT Retard wrote:
<...>
>>>>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
>
> Exactly!
>
>>(if he really is, that is),
>
> I certainly am, and since quitting the fags back in April
> I'm nearly up to 17.5 stones.

You weigh 250 pounds now, Nash?!! I don't say this often, but Goddamn. I
remember when you wrote about lacking self-control and stuffing your
face with all kinds of food. I'm glad you've given up the cancer sticks,
but you're making yourself even more unhealthy through your sloth and
over-eating. Try to get help for that. You're not getting younger and
your obesity is only going to cause grave (pun intended) problems.

> I was fat before then though.

No shit. What are you, 5'7"?

>>you're still being sizeist.
>
> 'useless object' is trying to use exceptions to define a
> rule,

No, it's you vegans and liberals who do that.

> but when doing that he leads the way for vegans
> to label meatarians as fat diabetics suffering from heart
> disease and cancers of the colon.

You're living proof that vegans aren't inherently healthy. *You're* at
very high risk for diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, Dreck; most meat
eaters, especially those who consume lean cuts, are infinitely healthier
than you are. Why do you want to put your family through even more grief
because you won't take steps to prevent preventable diseases and
injuries? Have some self-respect and show your family a little
compassion. Get help.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Retard wrote:
> <...>
> >>>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.
> >
> > Figures from USDA show that an 800-pound, medium-
> > frame steer calf will eat about 16.8 pounds of dry matter
> > a day of a high-concentrate ration. He will gain about 3
> > pounds a day with daily nutrients in his feed at the level
> > shown here. The balanced daily ration for the 800-pound
> > yearling steer is:
> > Pounds
> > Corn 14.7
> > Soybean meal 0.52
> > Corn silage 10.00
> > Limestone 0.17
> > Total 25.83
> > http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplo...sci/g02052.htm
> >
> > So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
> > 3 pounds of flesh, we have a feed to weight ratio of
> > 8.61:1,
>
> Significantly less than the OP's original claim of 10-16 lbs which was
> meant to claim that beef production was wasteful of resources. You're
> also getting back to an apples-oranges comparison -- we were
discussing
> grass-fed beef and wild game, which aren't finished on grains.
>
> > but that's not the end of it because the bones
> > etc. have to be removed.
>
> Irrelevant to the matter at hand. You're playing Lesley's game of
> retarded math.
>
> <...>
> >>I showed you that the ratio for livestock is nearly
> >>identical to the one for putting a pound of meat on
> >>a vegan.
> >
> > No, you did not and never have done, dummy.
>
> I have, you ****ing asshole:
> Growing rabbits eat about 3 pounds of feed for a pound of
gain
> http://tinyurl.com/5zl6s
>
> You could consider just growing all tom turkeys as you can
cut
> down on
> feed costs because of the factor involving the feed
conversion
> factor. A
> tom of up to eighteen pounds requires forty two pounds of
feed.
> (Appears to be from a school paper. Still, less than 2.5
pounds
> of feed
> per pound of bird.)
> http://tinyurl.com/57n47
>
> It will take about 5 pounds of feed to age 6 weeks and 8-9
> pounds to 8
> weeks for the commercial strains.
> (So about 14 pounds of feed to finish a 4 pound chicken --
> again, about
> three pounds of feed to pound of meat.)
> http://tinyurl.com/5z65c
>
> I posted that on 4 December in response to her generalization that all
> meat requires a 10-16:1 feed to pound gain ratio.
> http://tinyurl.com/6lkfw
>
> You're a fat ****ing liar, Nash.

Again, usual, the sizeist one, has just posted proof
that at best the meat industry has a 2.5:1
croproduct ratio, while in a vegan diet,
there is a 1:1 ratio.



--
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:
>>Your observation about her is correct: she's entirely subjective in
>>defining things and romanticizing about primitive agricultural
>>practices she'd never employ for herself or pay someone to do.
>
> You have no idea what percentage of organic foods
> I buy. Don't pretend that you do.

Goalpost move: you snipped the context which showed that the issue
wasn't your purchase of organics, but "peacefully harvested" or (your
new word) "veganic" produce. You've admitted that your produce is
neither. BTW, organic doesn't mean cruelty free. It never did and never
will.

>>She needs to look up the definition of RELIGION and then compare what
>>the dictionary and other sources say about VEGANISM. Professors of
>>anthropology lump it in with other religions:
>>
>> the lighter side of millennial thinking: neo-Paganism, Veganism,
>> and other "New Age" phenomena
>> http://anthro.rutgers.edu/courses/308shapiro2004.htm
>>
>>One vegan (and another retired professor) debates the issue in the
>>wake of one judge's ruling that veganism isn't a religion and determines it
>>IS a religion:
>>http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm
>
> I still don't see it in the dictionary under vegan.

As the vegan author (a retired professor of *linguistics*) of the above
article notes, dictionaries are written by laymen. He wouldn't expect
them to call veganism a religion, but he labors through the definitions
of veganism and religion and finds that veganism *is* a religion.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>You'll find that he'll even alter your written sentences
>>by adding words of his own into them, and then respond
>>to that instead of what you've written before long.
>>
>>If you click on this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and
>>follow it's short thread from the beginning, you'll see
>>that he edited entire sentences of his opponent's posts
>>before making his replies to them. He'll stoop to any
>>level to continue his heckling and cannot be taken
>>seriously as a real contender here.
>
> I've got to wonder about what kind of personality
> sticks around a newsgroup where he's not liked
> or welcome. I think he hates himself.

My girlfriend accuses me of the opposite. So have others in this group.
Opinions are like assholes, though: everybody has one.

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> To hear you tell it, I must be world enemy #1.

According to what you preach, you are. You'd have a lot more credibility
if you were to practice even half of what you preach.

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> To hear you tell it, I must be world enemy #1.

According to what you preach, you are. You'd have a lot more credibility
if you were to practice even half of what you preach.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>><...>
>>>
>>>>It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
>>>>I have the right to do if I want to.
>>>
>>>You've altered meanings when snipping certain context.
>>
>>You're a hypocrite to claim that, while Google archives
>>show where you ALTER your opponent's sentences
>>by ADDING your own words before then responding
>>to them.
>>
>>Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and follow it's
>>short thread from the beginning, and you'll see that you
>>edited entire sentences of my posts before making your
>>replies to them.
>
> Holy crap. I shouldn't be surprised though.

Especially if you were to look at other threads from the same era at
aaev and tpa to see why we were doing that to Dreck. His snipping was
deceitful, but the only way he could make his sordid pretexts was to
take us out of context. The allegations about his wanking come from his
own admission:
------
From: "Derek" >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: the source of Jon's success is 40+ years of celibacy
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:47:25 +0100

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Derek wrote:
> <snip>
>> You're no Victor Mature, but American girls being
>> what they are and not very fussy... <snip>
>
> wtf do you know about American girls?

I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
watch it every time the wife goes shopping. What else is
there to learn about them?
------
http://tinyurl.com/4nmdw

As is the case with his snipping, he *conveniently* left out the
relevant context in an attempt to stir some shit, which, I suppose, is
about all an unemployed, self-crippled, obese ex-greasemonkey can do.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>><...>
>>>
>>>>It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
>>>>I have the right to do if I want to.
>>>
>>>You've altered meanings when snipping certain context.
>>
>>You're a hypocrite to claim that, while Google archives
>>show where you ALTER your opponent's sentences
>>by ADDING your own words before then responding
>>to them.
>>
>>Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and follow it's
>>short thread from the beginning, and you'll see that you
>>edited entire sentences of my posts before making your
>>replies to them.
>
> Holy crap. I shouldn't be surprised though.

Especially if you were to look at other threads from the same era at
aaev and tpa to see why we were doing that to Dreck. His snipping was
deceitful, but the only way he could make his sordid pretexts was to
take us out of context. The allegations about his wanking come from his
own admission:
------
From: "Derek" >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: the source of Jon's success is 40+ years of celibacy
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:47:25 +0100

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Derek wrote:
> <snip>
>> You're no Victor Mature, but American girls being
>> what they are and not very fussy... <snip>
>
> wtf do you know about American girls?

I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
watch it every time the wife goes shopping. What else is
there to learn about them?
------
http://tinyurl.com/4nmdw

As is the case with his snipping, he *conveniently* left out the
relevant context in an attempt to stir some shit, which, I suppose, is
about all an unemployed, self-crippled, obese ex-greasemonkey can do.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message

snippage...

>
> Again, usual, the sizeist one, has just posted proof
> that at best the meat industry has a 2.5:1
====================
No, it doesn't. The minimum is none. Why is that so hard for 2 braincells
to wrap thenselves around? The concept to hard for you?


> croproduct ratio, while in a vegan diet,
> there is a 1:1 ratio.
=================
No, it is not, and it has been proven to you before killer. Why do you
continue to ly even after you've been proven wrong, hypocrite?


>
>
>
> --
> 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
...
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message

snippage...

>
> Again, usual, the sizeist one, has just posted proof
> that at best the meat industry has a 2.5:1
====================
No, it doesn't. The minimum is none. Why is that so hard for 2 braincells
to wrap thenselves around? The concept to hard for you?


> croproduct ratio, while in a vegan diet,
> there is a 1:1 ratio.
=================
No, it is not, and it has been proven to you before killer. Why do you
continue to ly even after you've been proven wrong, hypocrite?


>
>
>
> --
> 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:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Retard wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Figures from USDA show that an 800-pound, medium-
>>>frame steer calf will eat about 16.8 pounds of dry matter
>>>a day of a high-concentrate ration. He will gain about 3
>>>pounds a day with daily nutrients in his feed at the level
>>>shown here. The balanced daily ration for the 800-pound
>>>yearling steer is:
>>> Pounds
>>>Corn 14.7
>>>Soybean meal 0.52
>>>Corn silage 10.00
>>>Limestone 0.17
>>>Total 25.83
>>>http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplo...sci/g02052.htm
>>>
>>>So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
>>>3 pounds of flesh, we have a feed to weight ratio of
>>>8.61:1,
>>
>>Significantly less than the OP's original claim of 10-16 lbs which was
>>meant to claim that beef production was wasteful of resources. You're
>>also getting back to an apples-oranges comparison -- we were
>
> discussing
>
>>grass-fed beef and wild game, which aren't finished on grains.
>>
>>
>>>but that's not the end of it because the bones
>>>etc. have to be removed.
>>
>>Irrelevant to the matter at hand. You're playing Lesley's game of
>>retarded math.
>>
>><...>
>>
>>>>I showed you that the ratio for livestock is nearly
>>>>identical to the one for putting a pound of meat on
>>>>a vegan.
>>>
>>>No, you did not and never have done, dummy.
>>
>>I have, you ****ing asshole:
>> Growing rabbits eat about 3 pounds of feed for a pound of
>
> gain
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5zl6s
>>
>> You could consider just growing all tom turkeys as you can
>
> cut
>
>>down on
>> feed costs because of the factor involving the feed
>
> conversion
>
>>factor. A
>> tom of up to eighteen pounds requires forty two pounds of
>
> feed.
>
>> (Appears to be from a school paper. Still, less than 2.5
>
> pounds
>
>>of feed
>> per pound of bird.)
>> http://tinyurl.com/57n47
>>
>> It will take about 5 pounds of feed to age 6 weeks and 8-9
>>pounds to 8
>> weeks for the commercial strains.
>> (So about 14 pounds of feed to finish a 4 pound chicken --
>>again, about
>> three pounds of feed to pound of meat.)
>> http://tinyurl.com/5z65c
>>
>>I posted that on 4 December in response to her generalization that all
>>meat requires a 10-16:1 feed to pound gain ratio.
>>http://tinyurl.com/6lkfw
>>
>>You're a fat ****ing liar, Nash.
>
>
> Again, usual, the sizeist one, has just posted proof
> that at best the meat industry has a 2.5:1
> croproduct ratio, while in a vegan diet,
> there is a 1:1 ratio.

Tautology. You've not proven a 1:1 ratio for *any* diet. Take a look at
all the processed foods your own recipes (not the linked ones) use: fake
soy meat substitute, processed rice, etc.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:26:09 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>>As a card carrying atheist, I object to you calling
>>>>>>>>being vegan a religion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Veganism is religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>
>>>>>I later admitted that *I* was the one off in the wrong direction on that
>>>>>point
>>>>
>>>>You did nothing of the kind.
>>>
>>>I did

I've provided the conversation to prove you lied twice
now, and you've snipped it away just as many times
and left a simple denial in its stead. Google archives
show exactly where you told Bart he was off in the
wrong direction when he tried to compare veganism
to a religion, and you then went on to categorically
state that "Veganism is not a religion.."

[start - Bart to you]
> If one was to compare Veganism to a religious/spiritual brand,
> it would come close to Buddhism and Hinduism.
[you]
Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is
not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people...
[end]
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

But now you're trying to assert that it is a religion. When
did Jon start telling you how to think about your religion,
Christian? Have you no mind of your own, or even the
religious beliefs you once held since Jon forced you into
thinking his way?

It clear to me now that your current position on ALL the
issues raised here carry as little weight as your older one,
seeing as you can't make up your mind which to hold. Like
Jon, Rick and Dutch, you're only here to heckle. You've
nothing substantial to offer any would-be arguer. I think
that even you realise you're nothing but a joke.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:38:37 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>>>>Shall I continue, nitwit?
>>>
>>>Do continue twisting stuff and repeating stuff
>>>that is false. Keep on changing my words too,
>>>my boy.
>>
>> You'll find that he'll even alter your written sentences
>> by adding words of his own into them, and then respond
>> to that instead of what you've written before long.
>
>Pay very close attention to the reply of Dutch in that thread. Your
>history of deceitful editing

Show a single instance where I have edited my opponent's
statements by including my own words into them, as you've
been shown to repeatedly do, liar.

>made you a prime target for a little table turning.

You don't get to blame me for your dishonesty, boy.

>Note how you STILL whine about stuff that happened months ago,

And I'll be bringing it up in months to come yet. What you
do is fundamentally dishonest and cowardly. Most arguers
just snip what they aren't willing to respond to, and there's
nothing wrong in that. You, though, have a long history of
editing your opponent's statements, often to convey a
completely different meaning to what was intended in the
original statement, and then you make your reply to that
instead. That's incredibly poor form, wouldn't you say?

>> If you click on this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and
>> follow it's short thread from the beginning, you'll see
>> that he edited entire sentences of his opponent's posts
>> before making his replies to them. He'll stoop to any
>> level to continue his heckling and cannot be taken
>> seriously as a real contender here.
>
>Pot kettle black.

Then provide a single instance where I've written words
into my opponent's statements before then replying to
them.You can't accuse me of doing what you do without
providing evidence to back yourself up, boy, so get busy
and start Googling for an example.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:38:37 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>>>>Shall I continue, nitwit?
>>>
>>>Do continue twisting stuff and repeating stuff
>>>that is false. Keep on changing my words too,
>>>my boy.
>>
>> You'll find that he'll even alter your written sentences
>> by adding words of his own into them, and then respond
>> to that instead of what you've written before long.
>
>Pay very close attention to the reply of Dutch in that thread. Your
>history of deceitful editing

Show a single instance where I have edited my opponent's
statements by including my own words into them, as you've
been shown to repeatedly do, liar.

>made you a prime target for a little table turning.

You don't get to blame me for your dishonesty, boy.

>Note how you STILL whine about stuff that happened months ago,

And I'll be bringing it up in months to come yet. What you
do is fundamentally dishonest and cowardly. Most arguers
just snip what they aren't willing to respond to, and there's
nothing wrong in that. You, though, have a long history of
editing your opponent's statements, often to convey a
completely different meaning to what was intended in the
original statement, and then you make your reply to that
instead. That's incredibly poor form, wouldn't you say?

>> If you click on this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and
>> follow it's short thread from the beginning, you'll see
>> that he edited entire sentences of his opponent's posts
>> before making his replies to them. He'll stoop to any
>> level to continue his heckling and cannot be taken
>> seriously as a real contender here.
>
>Pot kettle black.

Then provide a single instance where I've written words
into my opponent's statements before then replying to
them.You can't accuse me of doing what you do without
providing evidence to back yourself up, boy, so get busy
and start Googling for an example.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:30:31 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Retard wrote:
>>>>It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
>>>>I have the right to do if I want to.
>>>
>>>You've altered meanings when snipping certain context.
>>
>> You're a hypocrite
>
>No, fatso, you are. That entire thread -- indeed, much of that timeframe
>in tpa and aaev --

...on which you've conveniently snipped the link I
supplied to..

> was predicated upon your shitty attempts at taking
>everyone's words out of context through rampant snipping.

I snip away your rants and childish name-calling, but I've
never altered my opponent's sentences by writing words
into them to give a different context to then reply to, as you
and Dutch OFTEN do.

>You cried foul when others returned the favor

To return the favour you would need to simply snip the
material you haven't the time or inclination to respond to,
because that's all I ever do. You, on the other hand go
one step further and write words into your opponent's
sentences before responding to them, and that's something
entirely different to the casual snipping I and most other
participants do. You can't compare your dishonest editing
with everyday snipping, hypocrite.

> or even mockingly altered your statements.

Admitting to altering my statements is bad enough without
making things worse for yourself by saying, "He made me
do it.", when caught out, 'useless' You're a sad joke.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:30:31 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Retard wrote:
>>>>It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
>>>>I have the right to do if I want to.
>>>
>>>You've altered meanings when snipping certain context.
>>
>> You're a hypocrite
>
>No, fatso, you are. That entire thread -- indeed, much of that timeframe
>in tpa and aaev --

...on which you've conveniently snipped the link I
supplied to..

> was predicated upon your shitty attempts at taking
>everyone's words out of context through rampant snipping.

I snip away your rants and childish name-calling, but I've
never altered my opponent's sentences by writing words
into them to give a different context to then reply to, as you
and Dutch OFTEN do.

>You cried foul when others returned the favor

To return the favour you would need to simply snip the
material you haven't the time or inclination to respond to,
because that's all I ever do. You, on the other hand go
one step further and write words into your opponent's
sentences before responding to them, and that's something
entirely different to the casual snipping I and most other
participants do. You can't compare your dishonest editing
with everyday snipping, hypocrite.

> or even mockingly altered your statements.

Admitting to altering my statements is bad enough without
making things worse for yourself by saying, "He made me
do it.", when caught out, 'useless' You're a sad joke.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:24:26 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>><...>
>>>>
>>>>>It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
>>>>>I have the right to do if I want to.
>>>>
>>>>You've altered meanings when snipping certain context.
>>>
>>>You're a hypocrite to claim that, while Google archives
>>>show where you ALTER your opponent's sentences
>>>by ADDING your own words before then responding
>>>to them.
>>>
>>>Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and follow it's
>>>short thread from the beginning, and you'll see that you
>>>edited entire sentences of my posts before making your
>>>replies to them.
>>
>> Holy crap. I shouldn't be surprised though.
>
>Especially if you were to look at other threads from the same era at
>aaev and tpa to see why we were doing that to Dreck. His snipping was
>deceitful

There is nothing wrong in snipping material which doesn't
merit a response, such as the stupid name-calling you use
as a replacement for debate, but what you do when altering
the sentences of your opponent's statements before then
responding to them is fundamentally dishonest, inexcusable,
and made even worse while trying to excuse your cowardly
behaviour on your victim by screaming, "He made me do it!"

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:24:26 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>><...>
>>>>
>>>>>It's not changing it, it's selectively answering, which
>>>>>I have the right to do if I want to.
>>>>
>>>>You've altered meanings when snipping certain context.
>>>
>>>You're a hypocrite to claim that, while Google archives
>>>show where you ALTER your opponent's sentences
>>>by ADDING your own words before then responding
>>>to them.
>>>
>>>Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and follow it's
>>>short thread from the beginning, and you'll see that you
>>>edited entire sentences of my posts before making your
>>>replies to them.
>>
>> Holy crap. I shouldn't be surprised though.
>
>Especially if you were to look at other threads from the same era at
>aaev and tpa to see why we were doing that to Dreck. His snipping was
>deceitful

There is nothing wrong in snipping material which doesn't
merit a response, such as the stupid name-calling you use
as a replacement for debate, but what you do when altering
the sentences of your opponent's statements before then
responding to them is fundamentally dishonest, inexcusable,
and made even worse while trying to excuse your cowardly
behaviour on your victim by screaming, "He made me do it!"

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:53:39 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
><...>
>>>>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.
>>
>> Figures from USDA show that an 800-pound, medium-
>> frame steer calf will eat about 16.8 pounds of dry matter
>> a day of a high-concentrate ration. He will gain about 3
>> pounds a day with daily nutrients in his feed at the level
>> shown here. The balanced daily ration for the 800-pound
>> yearling steer is:
>> Pounds
>> Corn 14.7
>> Soybean meal 0.52
>> Corn silage 10.00
>> Limestone 0.17
>> Total 25.83
>> http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplo...sci/g02052.htm
>>
>> So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
>> 3 pounds of flesh, we have a feed to weight ratio of
>> 8.61:1,
>
>Significantly less than the OP's original claim of 10-16 lbs

I haven't finished yet, and you snipped the rest of my
post which shows it takes around 20lbs of feed to
produce 1lb of retail cuts.

<unsnip>
So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
3 pounds of flesh, we have a feed to weight ratio of
8.61:1, but that's not the end of it because the bones
etc. have to be removed.

On-the-hook:
This phrase refers to the hanging weight of a dressed
beef carcass. A typical 1200 lb. *Beef Steer* from
Geske Farms will yield approximately 500-pounds
of retail cuts from a dressed 700-pound Choice
carcass. *my emphasis*
http://www.geskefarms.com/terms.htm#T&E

From this we can calculate that only 41.6% of the
animal is used for retail cuts. If we divide the amount
of feed required (8.61) to produce 1 pound of steer by
the 41.6% of actual beef we get from it ( 8.61 /0.416 )
we arrive at the final feed to beef ratio of 20.69:1
It takes 20.7 pounds of feed to produce 1 pound
of edible beef.
<endsnip>

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:12:47 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>> You'll find that he'll even alter your written sentences
>> by adding words of his own into them, and then respond
>> to that instead of what you've written before long.
>>
>> If you click on this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and
>> follow it's short thread from the beginning, you'll see
>> that he edited entire sentences of his opponent's posts
>> before making his replies to them. He'll stoop to any
>> level to continue his heckling and cannot be taken
>> seriously as a real contender here.
>
>I've got to wonder about what kind of personality
>sticks around a newsgroup where he's not liked
>or welcome. I think he hates himself.

Himself and everyone else around him. You won't find
anyone more hateful than 'usual suspect'. His hate oozes
from all nine openings in his body.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:06:07 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
><...>
>>>>>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
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
>>>(if he really is, that is),
>>
>> I certainly am, and since quitting the fags back in April
>> I'm nearly up to 17.5 stones.
>
>You weigh 250 pounds now, Nash?!!

No. Do the math and you'll see it's exactly 245lbs .

>>>you're still being sizeist.
>>
>> 'useless object' is trying to use exceptions to define a
>> rule,
>
>No, it's you vegans and liberals who do that.

You stated above that, "He [me] is prima facie evidence
that veganism isn't inherently healthy...", and that's where
your error lies in trying to attack the vegan diet. Read
the rest of my sentence below this line to see where.

>> but when doing that he leads the way for vegans
>> to label meatarians as fat diabetics suffering from heart
>> disease and cancers of the colon.
>
>You're living proof that vegans aren't inherently healthy.

And when using me as the exception to the rule you
lead the way for all vegans to label meatarians as fat
diabetics suffering from heart diseases and cancers of
the colon. Do you get that yet, boy?

Morbidly Obese Retard wrote:
>>>I certainly am, and since quitting the fags back in April
>>>I'm nearly up to 17.5 stones.
>>
>>You weigh 250 pounds now, Nash?!!
>
> No.

Yes.

> Do the math and you'll see it's exactly 245lbs .

I rounded up, oh round one, in the direction of your weight trend. In
your rush to stir shit and call me names (you hypocritical crybaby), you
didn't answer my question about your height. You're 5'7", right?

Morbidly Obese Retard wrote:
>>>I certainly am, and since quitting the fags back in April
>>>I'm nearly up to 17.5 stones.
>>
>>You weigh 250 pounds now, Nash?!!
>
> No.

Yes.

> Do the math and you'll see it's exactly 245lbs .

I rounded up, oh round one, in the direction of your weight trend. In
your rush to stir shit and call me names (you hypocritical crybaby), you
didn't answer my question about your height. You're 5'7", right?

Morbidly Obese Retard wrote:
>>>I certainly am, and since quitting the fags back in April
>>>I'm nearly up to 17.5 stones.
>>
>>You weigh 250 pounds now, Nash?!!
>
> No.

Yes.

> Do the math and you'll see it's exactly 245lbs .

I rounded up, oh round one, in the direction of your weight trend. In
your rush to stir shit and call me names (you hypocritical crybaby), you
didn't answer my question about your height. You're 5'7", right?

Reynard wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:53:39 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>
>>Reynard wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Figures from USDA show that an 800-pound, medium-
>>>frame steer calf will eat about 16.8 pounds of dry matter
>>>a day of a high-concentrate ration. He will gain about 3
>>>pounds a day with daily nutrients in his feed at the level
>>>shown here. The balanced daily ration for the 800-pound
>>>yearling steer is:
>>> Pounds
>>>Corn 14.7
>>>Soybean meal 0.52
>>>Corn silage 10.00
>>>Limestone 0.17
>>>Total 25.83
>>>http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplo...sci/g02052.htm
>>>
>>>So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
>>>3 pounds of flesh, we have a feed to weight ratio of
>>>8.61:1,
>>
>>Significantly less than the OP's original claim of 10-16 lbs
>
> I haven't finished yet,

You sure have, you fat liar:

RESTORE
<...>
>> I showed you that the ratio for livestock is nearly identical to the
one for putting a pound of meat on a vegan.
>
>
> No, you did not and never have done, dummy.

I have, you ****ing asshole:
Growing rabbits eat about 3 pounds of feed for a pound of gain
http://tinyurl.com/5zl6s

You could consider just growing all tom turkeys as you can cut
down on
feed costs because of the factor involving the feed conversion
factor. A
tom of up to eighteen pounds requires forty two pounds of feed.
(Appears to be from a school paper. Still, less than 2.5 pounds
of feed
per pound of bird.)
http://tinyurl.com/57n47

It will take about 5 pounds of feed to age 6 weeks and 8-9
pounds to 8
weeks for the commercial strains.
(So about 14 pounds of feed to finish a 4 pound chicken --
again, about
three pounds of feed to pound of meat.)
http://tinyurl.com/5z65c

I posted that on 4 December in response to her generalization that all
meat requires a 10-16:1 feed to pound gain ratio.
http://tinyurl.com/6lkfw

You're a fat ****ing liar, Nash.
END RESTORE

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:49:21 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:53:39 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>><...>
>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Figures from USDA show that an 800-pound, medium-
>>>>frame steer calf will eat about 16.8 pounds of dry matter
>>>>a day of a high-concentrate ration. He will gain about 3
>>>>pounds a day with daily nutrients in his feed at the level
>>>>shown here. The balanced daily ration for the 800-pound
>>>>yearling steer is:
>>>> Pounds
>>>>Corn 14.7
>>>>Soybean meal 0.52
>>>>Corn silage 10.00
>>>>Limestone 0.17
>>>>Total 25.83
>>>>http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplo...sci/g02052.htm
>>>>
>>>>So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
>>>>3 pounds of flesh, we have a feed to weight ratio of
>>>>8.61:1,
>>>
>>>Significantly less than the OP's original claim of 10-16 lbs
>>
>> I haven't finished yet,
>
>You sure

Yes. You snipped the rest of it away, and that part
shows that it takes around 20lbs of feed to produce
1lb of retail cuts.

<unsnip>
So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
3 pounds of flesh, we have a feed to weight ratio of
8.61:1, but that's not the end of it because the bones
etc. have to be removed.

On-the-hook:
This phrase refers to the hanging weight of a dressed
beef carcass. A typical 1200 lb. *Beef Steer* from
Geske Farms will yield approximately 500-pounds
of retail cuts from a dressed 700-pound Choice
carcass. *my emphasis*
http://www.geskefarms.com/terms.htm#T&E

From this we can calculate that only 41.6% of the
animal is used for retail cuts. If we divide the amount
of feed required (8.61) to produce 1 pound of steer by
the 41.6% of actual beef we get from it ( 8.61 /0.416 )
we arrive at the final feed to beef ratio of 20.69:1
It takes 20.7 pounds of feed to produce 1 pound
of edible beef.
<endsnip>

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:49:21 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:53:39 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>><...>
>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Figures from USDA show that an 800-pound, medium-
>>>>frame steer calf will eat about 16.8 pounds of dry matter
>>>>a day of a high-concentrate ration. He will gain about 3
>>>>pounds a day with daily nutrients in his feed at the level
>>>>shown here. The balanced daily ration for the 800-pound
>>>>yearling steer is:
>>>> Pounds
>>>>Corn 14.7
>>>>Soybean meal 0.52
>>>>Corn silage 10.00
>>>>Limestone 0.17
>>>>Total 25.83
>>>>http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplo...sci/g02052.htm
>>>>
>>>>So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
>>>>3 pounds of flesh, we have a feed to weight ratio of
>>>>8.61:1,
>>>
>>>Significantly less than the OP's original claim of 10-16 lbs
>>
>> I haven't finished yet,
>
>You sure

Yes. You snipped the rest of it away, and that part
shows that it takes around 20lbs of feed to produce
1lb of retail cuts.

<unsnip>
So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
3 pounds of flesh, we have a feed to weight ratio of
8.61:1, but that's not the end of it because the bones
etc. have to be removed.

On-the-hook:
This phrase refers to the hanging weight of a dressed
beef carcass. A typical 1200 lb. *Beef Steer* from
Geske Farms will yield approximately 500-pounds
of retail cuts from a dressed 700-pound Choice
carcass. *my emphasis*
http://www.geskefarms.com/terms.htm#T&E

From this we can calculate that only 41.6% of the
animal is used for retail cuts. If we divide the amount
of feed required (8.61) to produce 1 pound of steer by
the 41.6% of actual beef we get from it ( 8.61 /0.416 )
we arrive at the final feed to beef ratio of 20.69:1
It takes 20.7 pounds of feed to produce 1 pound
of edible beef.
<endsnip>

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:46:04 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>>>>I certainly am, and since quitting the fags back in April
>>>>I'm nearly up to 17.5 stones.
>>>
>>>You weigh 250 pounds now, Nash?!!
>>
>> No.
>
>Yes.

Even though you've been shown that 17.5 stones is
equal to 245lbs, you still insist it's 250. What a dunce!

>> Do the math and you'll see it's exactly 245lbs .
>
>I rounded up,

Then your math is even worse that I thought because
17.5 stones is exactly equal to 245lbs. There was no
need to do any rounding.