You made some caustic allegations. Now back them up.

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>

>>>> Let's have some specifics here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's see, you are WAY far to the right politically,
>>
>>
>> DAMMIT, BE SPECIFIC. Which of my views is "WAY far to the right"?
>
>
> I'm not going there. The more specific I get the more defensive you will
> get, particularly regarding politics.


I'm defensive NOW because you've gone chickenshit on this. Don't throw
out things you can't or won't support. You opened the door, now come on
in and speak. Which of my views is "WAY far to the right"?

>> Examples?
>>
>>> your peculiar opposition to vegans
>>
>>
>> Veganism IS peculiar. Opposition to it is quite conventional. What world
>> do you
>> live in all of a sudden? Shall I find all the whiny posts in this
group's
>> archives about airlines and hotels and restaurants not catering to every
>> vegan's whims?
>
>
> Note that peculiar doesn't describe veganism in my sentence, it describes
> your 180 degree shift to oppose it. You suddenly became a staunch and
> vehement opponent to veganism. I'm not making a case for or against
veganism
> here.


My opposition is not peculiar. You're fully aware of when and why I
stopped carrying water for vegans here. It may have stunned you or
something, but that doesn't make it peculiar. If anything is peculiar,
it's that I ever parroted the rhetoric of a political philosophy I never
shared -- and some certainly did find it peculiar that I was a
Republican whose diet was "vegan."

>>> even though you have a vegan diet,
>>
>>
>> My diet is irrelevant to my beliefs. So, too, is the fact that I run.
>
>
> A vegan or vegan-like diet is unconventional in the broad sense. It says
> that something about you is different. And how much do you run a week? 40
> miles? 50 miles? That's a lot, more than all but marathon trainers.


It's relative: running 10 miles a week is a lot to a couch potato who
can't run 20 yards without getting winded. But does it have anything to
do with being unconventional? I don't think so.

>>> you regularly run marathon distances, etc. It
>>> all points to someone who tends to be unconventional.
>>
>>
>> Ipse dixit. I may be a complex person, but I am not unconventional.
>
>
> Being unconventional isn't a bad thing. To the contrary, many creative
> people are unconventional.


What's your point, James? You made some claims about me that you're
refusing to support. I don't care for a discourse about what makes
someone unconventional, your claim was about me. Tell me why you think
I'm not conventional.

<...>

>> Still waiting for specifics.
>
>
> Wait longer.


Just as I suspected. What a chickenshit.

<...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

> You made some caustic allegations. Now back them up.

Caustic allegations?! I made some passing comment about "unconventional" and
you keep pressing me for details that only serves to fuel your negativity
and defensiveness. None of what I wrote was intended to be negative. To the
contrary, being unconventional is a good thing. It would be a very boring
world if everyone were conventional. And if you think this is caustic from
me then you have VERY thin skin.

I don't care whether you are politically to the right of me or whether you
hate vegans (though I despise your abusive treatment of people here). I
don't care if you're an avid runner or whether you hunt. I honestly don't
care.

Why don't you go back to posting useful information and recipes like you
used to and dispense with your childish name calling and hostility. This
"business" is finished.

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>You made some caustic allegations. Now back them up.
>
> Caustic allegations?! I made some passing comment about "unconventional" and
> you keep pressing me for details that only serves to fuel your negativity
> and defensiveness.

"It doesn't surprise me that you think you are conventional - you are
NOT." It's not negative to ask you what you find unconventional about
me, James. YOU're the one being defensive. You're the one dodging the
issues and claims you've made.

> None of what I wrote was intended to be negative. To the
> contrary, being unconventional is a good thing. It would be a very boring
> world if everyone were conventional.

That wasn't the thrust of your remarks and you know it. Now stop
squirming and just come out with it. I'm not ****ed off and not ready to
tear you a new one, I just want to know what you REALLY meant when you
said I was unconventional and that my political views are "WAY far to
the right."

> And if you think this is caustic from
> me then you have VERY thin skin.
>
> I don't care whether you are politically to the right of me or whether you
> hate vegans (though I despise your abusive treatment of people here).

Then why did *you* seek to make an issue of it by writing, "Let's see,
you are WAY far to the right politically"? I'm still waiting for you to
enumerate any of my "WAY far" right political views.

> I
> don't care if you're an avid runner or whether you hunt. I honestly don't
> care.

I think you're avoiding dealing with the worms now that you've opened
the can. Remember, you're the one who raised those issues when trying to
support your wild-assed claim that I'm unconventional. You're the one
throwing out issues like running and hunting as if those issues make
someone unconventional or "WAY to the right politically." Come on, be a
straight shooter for once in your life.

> Why don't you go back to posting useful information and recipes like you
> used to and dispense with your childish name calling and hostility.

Well, James, I'll go back to it when you explain which of my views are
unconventional and which ones are "WAY far to the right politically." At
least admit you weren't being complimentary about it at all. You can
confess that much, can't you?

> This "business" is finished.

No, James, I'll hold it over your head and laugh as you continue your
ridiculous tap dance until you come clean what you meant.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>You made some caustic allegations. Now back them up.
> >
> > Caustic allegations?! I made some passing comment about "unconventional"
and
> > you keep pressing me for details that only serves to fuel your
negativity
> > and defensiveness.
>
> "It doesn't surprise me that you think you are conventional - you are
> NOT." It's not negative to ask you what you find unconventional about
> me, James.

No, but it is negative to provoke statements that you will, in turn, use to
scathe me. You whack me, I whack you, you whack me, what's the point? Grow
up already.

YOU're the one being defensive. You're the one dodging the
> issues and claims you've made.

No, I'm just heading off stupidity that you are perpetuating.

> > None of what I wrote was intended to be negative. To the
> > contrary, being unconventional is a good thing. It would be a very
boring
> > world if everyone were conventional.
>
> That wasn't the thrust of your remarks and you know it. Now stop
> squirming and just come out with it.

I'm the one who wrote it and I know the intent. You make wrong assumptions.

> I'm not ****ed off and not ready to
> tear you a new one,

HA HA HA HA HA!!! You are too funny.

> I just want to know what you REALLY meant when you
> said I was unconventional and that my political views are "WAY far to
> the right."
>
> Then why did *you* seek to make an issue of it by writing, "Let's see,
> you are WAY far to the right politically"? I'm still waiting for you to
> enumerate any of my "WAY far" right political views.

> You're the one
> throwing out issues like running and hunting as if those issues make
> someone unconventional or "WAY to the right politically."

> Well, James, I'll go back to it when you explain which of my views are
> unconventional and which ones are "WAY far to the right politically."

Struck a nerve, did I? :^)

> > This "business" is finished.
>
> No, James, I'll hold it over your head and laugh as you continue your
> ridiculous tap dance until you come clean what you meant.

It's very clear what you REALLY want to know is why I said that you're "WAY
far to the right" politically, isn't it? That's the crux of this whole
grilling. That's why you created this new thread because you couldn't stand
not knowing what I meant by that. You are soooo wrapped up into your
politics that you take great offense when someone labels you as "WAY far to
the right". You are EXTREME, and I rest my case as to your lack of
convention.

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
>>YOU're the one being defensive. You're the one dodging the
>>issues and claims you've made.
>
> No,

YES.

> I'm just heading off stupidity that you are perpetuating.

Stupidity YOU started but cannot finish.

<...>
>>That wasn't the thrust of your remarks and you know it. Now stop
>>squirming and just come out with it.
>
> I'm the one who wrote it and I know the intent. You make wrong assumptions.

Surely you can level with me if it were meant to be so damn flattering.
So come on and brown nose me.

>>I'm not ****ed off and not ready to
>>tear you a new one,
>
> HA HA HA HA HA!!! You are too funny.

I'm getting a kick out of you tap dancing.

<...>
>>Well, James, I'll go back to it when you explain which of my views are
>>unconventional and which ones are "WAY far to the right politically."
>
> Struck a nerve, did I? :^)

No, you've only shown you don't know me as well as you think you do.

>>>This "business" is finished.
>>
>>No, James, I'll hold it over your head and laugh as you continue your
>>ridiculous tap dance until you come clean what you meant.
>
> It's very clear what you REALLY want to know is why I said that you're "WAY
> far to the right" politically, isn't it? That's the crux of this whole
> grilling.

No, you added that after I asked you why you found me unconventional. I
still want to know what you find unconventional about me -- and don't
dance around issues like running. That's a chickenshit evasion from what
you REALLY meant and you know it.

> That's why you created this new thread because you couldn't stand
> not knowing what I meant by that.

I created a new thread because it was clear you were avoiding the old one.

> You are soooo wrapped up into your politics

You have no clue.

> that you take great offense

No offense was taken. Shit, you couldn't even name ONE issue on which
you think I'm extreme.

> when someone labels you as "WAY far to
> the right". You are EXTREME, and I rest my case as to your lack of
> convention.

You've yet to lay out a case. You've yet to give one example of why you
think I'm extreme. Can you?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:

> >>Well, James, I'll go back to it when you explain which of my views are
> >>unconventional and which ones are "WAY far to the right politically."
> >
> > Struck a nerve, did I? :^)
>
> No, you've only shown you don't know me as well as you think you do.

One only needs to read the anger in your writing to know what you're about.
I think everybody here knows all they need to know about you.

> > It's very clear what you REALLY want to know is why I said that you're
"WAY
> > far to the right" politically, isn't it? That's the crux of this whole
> > grilling.
>
> No, you added that after I asked you why you found me unconventional. I
> still want to know what you find unconventional about me -- and don't
> dance around issues like running. That's a chickenshit evasion from what
> you REALLY meant and you know it.

So what do you think I REALLY meant?

> > when someone labels you as "WAY far to
> > the right". You are EXTREME, and I rest my case as to your lack of
> > convention.
>
> You've yet to lay out a case. You've yet to give one example of why you
> think I'm extreme. Can you?

I don't have to lay out a case, your persona makes it quite clear.

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>Well, James, I'll go back to it when you explain which of my views are
>>>>unconventional and which ones are "WAY far to the right politically."
>>>
>>>Struck a nerve, did I? :^)
>>
>>No, you've only shown you don't know me as well as you think you do.
>
> One only needs to read the anger in your writing to know what you're about.

I assure you there's no malice in my replies about this issue, whether
in this thread or the previous one. I told you I'm not out to tear you a
new one. I just really would like to know what you consider extreme and
"way far to the right." That's all. Honest.

> I think everybody here knows all they need to know about you.

They definitely know you're a chickenshit now. Again, I don't mean that
with malice. I mean that from the standpoint that you say things about
people being outside the mainstream and then refuse to say WHY, only to
bring up weirdly irrelevant issues like running and hunting.

>>>It's very clear what you REALLY want to know is why I said that you're
>>> "WAY
>>>far to the right" politically, isn't it? That's the crux of this whole
>>>grilling.
>>
>>No, you added that after I asked you why you found me unconventional. I
>>still want to know what you find unconventional about me -- and don't
>>dance around issues like running. That's a chickenshit evasion from what
>>you REALLY meant and you know it.
>
> So what do you think I REALLY meant?

I've no idea -- that's why I'm asking.

>>>when someone labels you as "WAY far to
>>>the right". You are EXTREME, and I rest my case as to your lack of
>>>convention.
>>
>>You've yet to lay out a case. You've yet to give one example of why you
>>think I'm extreme. Can you?
>
> I don't have to lay out a case,

Yes, you do. You rested without offering any evidence. If this were
court and I were on trial for being "WAY far to the right" or
unconventional, you would not have met your burden. It's YOUR claim.
Either prove it or be man enough to apologize.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news
> C. James Strutz wrote:

> Yes, you do. You rested without offering any evidence. If this were court
> and I were on trial for being "WAY far to the right" or unconventional,
> you would not have met your burden. It's YOUR claim. Either prove it or be
> man enough to apologize.

Apologize?! You want me to apologize for saying that you are
"unconventional", which was not even intended as a "caustic" criticism? It's
very clear that this is just a cover for what really bothers you - why I
said you are "WAY far to the right" politically. I had no idea that comment
would strike such a nerve with you. There's no useful purpose in fueling
more aggressive debate on something so trivial and self-serving,
particularly since it has nothing to do with alt.food.vegan. Nor is there
any need to apologize for something that was harmless and unintended. Deal
with it.

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>Yes, you do. You rested without offering any evidence. If this were court
>>and I were on trial for being "WAY far to the right" or unconventional,
>>you would not have met your burden. It's YOUR claim. Either prove it or be
>>man enough to apologize.
>
> Apologize?! You want me to apologize for saying that you are
> "unconventional", which was not even intended as a "caustic" criticism?

You're a ****ing liar, James. You know how I know? Because you started
out by saying one thing and when pressed about it you quickly switched
tacks, as though calling someone "unconventional" and suggesting his
politics are far outside the mainstream is a compliment. Then you
switched tacks again and raised issues like running and hunting which
had *NOTHING* whatsoever to do with your original, shitty remarks.

You also write that giving specifics for something you NOW say you meant
to be flattering would "fuel an even more aggressive debate." That
raises my eyebrows. Why would *compliments* fuel an aggressive debate,
James? Is it because your remarks weren't intended to be so flattering
in the first place?

I just went back and reviewed the history of this whole issue. Your
constant wiggling and wavering have been over saying one thing and then
claiming you meant something else. You're a spineless, gutless coward.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:

> You're a ****ing liar, James. You know how I know? Because you started out
> by saying one thing and when pressed about it you quickly switched tacks,
> as though calling someone "unconventional" and suggesting his politics are
> far outside the mainstream is a compliment. Then you switched tacks again
> and raised issues like running and hunting which had *NOTHING* whatsoever
> to do with your original, shitty remarks.

You're ****ed because I'm not going to play your games.

> You also write that giving specifics for something you NOW say you meant
> to be flattering would "fuel an even more aggressive debate." That raises
> my eyebrows. Why would *compliments* fuel an aggressive debate, James? Is
> it because your remarks weren't intended to be so flattering in the first
> place?

They weren't meant to be complimentary or overly critical, they were neutral
comments AS I SAID BEFORE. They were meant to be honest observations. I'm
not going to play your games because YOU will escalate things into a
clubbing match. I keep telling you that and you don't seem to get it. Well
you have your clubbing match anyway, happy now?

> I just went back and reviewed the history of this whole issue. Your
> constant wiggling and wavering have been over saying one thing and then
> claiming you meant something else. You're a spineless, gutless coward.

What's amazing to me is you conveniently misread things, turn people's words
around on them, exaggerate "facts", move goalposts, provoke people, gang up
on people with your anti-vegan cohorts, become abusive and rude, and a host
of other shitty tactics to make your case. And you accuse me of "wiggling
and wavering" and calling me a "spineless, gutless coward". Not only are you
a hypocrite but you have the emotional maturity of a 6 year old. Grow up.

C. James Strutz wrote:

The C stands for Chickenshit.

>>You're a ****ing liar, James. You know how I know? Because you started out
>>by saying one thing and when pressed about it you quickly switched tacks,
>>as though calling someone "unconventional" and suggesting his politics are
>>far outside the mainstream is a compliment. Then you switched tacks again
>>and raised issues like running and hunting which had *NOTHING* whatsoever
>>to do with your original, shitty remarks.
>
> You're ****ed because I'm not going to play your games.

No, and I'm not even ****ed. *YOU* just don't want your bluff called.
You made some claims about me and you refuse to substantiate them.
You're yellow, James.

>>You also write that giving specifics for something you NOW say you meant
>>to be flattering would "fuel an even more aggressive debate." That raises
>>my eyebrows. Why would *compliments* fuel an aggressive debate, James? Is
>>it because your remarks weren't intended to be so flattering in the first
>>place?
>
> They weren't meant to be complimentary or overly critical,

Overly is a very apporpriate qualification, particularly given your
immediate equivocations like "being unconventional isn't a bad thing."
You know you initially sought to brand me as extreme. When called on it,
you backed off and tried to bullshit your way out via irrelevant stuff
about running. Now you're back to admitting it wasn't a compliment after
all. Keep wiggling. It's a suitable undertaking for a spineless creature.

> they were neutral comments AS I SAID BEFORE.

How is calling someone an extremist "neutral"?

> They were meant to be honest observations.

From a patently dishonest, disingenuous blowhard like you.

> I'm not going to play your games because YOU will escalate things into a
> clubbing match. I keep telling you that and you don't seem to get it. Well
> you have your clubbing match anyway, happy now?

I want you to be honest. You're not being honest. You're being
duplicitous. When it serves your purpose to compliment, you compliment;
as soon as you have a chance to be honest, you start to admit that
you're not being complimentary. You're a weak person, a very weak person.

>>I just went back and reviewed the history of this whole issue. Your
>>constant wiggling and wavering have been over saying one thing and then
>>claiming you meant something else. You're a spineless, gutless coward.
>
> What's amazing to me is you conveniently misread things,

Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
expect it to stick.

> turn people's words around on them,

Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
expect it to stick.

> exaggerate "facts",

Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
expect it to stick.

> move goalposts,

Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
expect it to stick.

> provoke people,

Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
expect it to stick.

> gang up on people with your anti-vegan cohorts,

Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
expect it to stick.

> become abusive and rude,

Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
expect it to stick.

> and a host of other shitty tactics to make your case.

Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
expect it to stick.

> And you accuse me of "wiggling and wavering"

There's a huge difference between us: I substantiated my claim.

> and calling me a "spineless, gutless coward".

If the exoskeleton fits...

<...>

I encourage you to read carefully through the Scented Nectar threads
from over the weekend and reassess your statements. I gave her plenty of
opportunity to support her claims. Initially, I wasn't abusive or rude;
she sure as hell was from the start. I didn't exaggerate any claims, I
only gave credible and well-documented rebuttals to her exaggerated
claims. Search the "silly nectar" thread about omega-6 FAs. I didn't
exaggerate the danger of omega3:6 imbalance; she exaggerated the
benefits of omega-6 FAs. I didn't call her names until she started
snipping away the information I provided to refute her claims and saying
that I hadn't proven my case.

That sounds familiar and it gives me an idea. Maybe you and she can hook
up. You seem to be cut from the same cloth.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> The C stands for Chickenshit.
>
> >>You're a ****ing liar, James. You know how I know? Because you
started out
> >>by saying one thing and when pressed about it you quickly switched
tacks,
> >>as though calling someone "unconventional" and suggesting his
politics are
> >>far outside the mainstream is a compliment. Then you switched tacks
again
> >>and raised issues like running and hunting which had *NOTHING*
whatsoever
> >>to do with your original, shitty remarks.
> >
> > You're ****ed because I'm not going to play your games.
>
> No, and I'm not even ****ed. *YOU* just don't want your bluff called.
> You made some claims about me and you refuse to substantiate them.
> You're yellow, James.

If you're not ****ed, why do you insult all the time?

> >>You also write that giving specifics for something you NOW say you
meant
> >>to be flattering would "fuel an even more aggressive debate." That
raises
> >>my eyebrows. Why would *compliments* fuel an aggressive debate,
James? Is
> >>it because your remarks weren't intended to be so flattering in the
first
> >>place?
> >
> > They weren't meant to be complimentary or overly critical,
>
> Overly is a very apporpriate qualification, particularly given your
> immediate equivocations like "being unconventional isn't a bad thing."
> You know you initially sought to brand me as extreme. When called on
it,
> you backed off and tried to bullshit your way out via irrelevant stuff
> about running. Now you're back to admitting it wasn't a compliment
after
> all. Keep wiggling. It's a suitable undertaking for a spineless
creature.
>
> > they were neutral comments AS I SAID BEFORE.
>
> How is calling someone an extremist "neutral"?
>
> > They were meant to be honest observations.
>
> From a patently dishonest, disingenuous blowhard like you.
>
> > I'm not going to play your games because YOU will escalate things
into a
> > clubbing match. I keep telling you that and you don't seem to get
it. Well
> > you have your clubbing match anyway, happy now?
>
> I want you to be honest. You're not being honest. You're being
> duplicitous. When it serves your purpose to compliment, you
compliment;
> as soon as you have a chance to be honest, you start to admit that
> you're not being complimentary. You're a weak person, a very weak
person.
>
> >>I just went back and reviewed the history of this whole issue. Your
> >>constant wiggling and wavering have been over saying one thing and
then
> >>claiming you meant something else. You're a spineless, gutless
coward.
> >
> > What's amazing to me is you conveniently misread things,
>
> Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
> expect it to stick.

I don't think CJS needs to give examples. What you
type is example enough.

> > turn people's words around on them,
>
> Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
> expect it to stick.


I don't think CJS needs to give examples. What you
type is example enough.

> > exaggerate "facts",
>
> Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
> expect it to stick.

I don't think CJS needs to give examples. What you
type is example enough.

> > move goalposts,
>
> Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
> expect it to stick.


I don't think CJS needs to give examples. What you
type is example enough.

> > provoke people,
>
> Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
> expect it to stick.

I don't think CJS needs to give examples. What you
type is example enough.

> > gang up on people with your anti-vegan cohorts,
>
> Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
> expect it to stick.

I don't think CJS needs to give examples. What you
type is example enough.

> > become abusive and rude,
>
> Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
> expect it to stick.


I don't think CJS needs to give examples. What you
type is example enough.

> > and a host of other shitty tactics to make your case.
>
> Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
> expect it to stick.

I don't think CJS needs to give examples. What you
type is example enough.

> > And you accuse me of "wiggling and wavering"
>
> There's a huge difference between us: I substantiated my claim.

You haven't substantiated anything much except
stuff that actually proved the meat industry as
a whole causes way more cds than the plant
foods that go directly to humans.

> > and calling me a "spineless, gutless coward".
>
> If the exoskeleton fits...
>
> <...>
>
> I encourage you to read carefully through the Scented Nectar threads
> from over the weekend and reassess your statements. I gave her plenty
of
> opportunity to support her claims. Initially, I wasn't abusive or
rude;

Ah, ain't this sweet. You missed me. The above is
to provoke me into posting back to you. Here you
go sweetie.

Your nastiness was visible even while you were being polite.
We argued my claims such as the fact that the meat
industry uses at least 3 times the pounds in crops to
produce only 1 pound in finished product, whereas
plant foods are 1 pound of crops = 1 pound of products.
This means that plant foods have less of those cd's
you go on about. This is a fact you refuse to see.

> she sure as hell was from the start. I didn't exaggerate any claims, I
> only gave credible and well-documented rebuttals to her exaggerated
> claims. Search the "silly nectar" thread about omega-6 FAs. I didn't
> exaggerate the danger of omega3:6 imbalance; she exaggerated the
> benefits of omega-6 FAs.

I never said that hempseed oil had any IMbalance. I merely stated
that it contains all 3 omega oils. You got all freaked out about
omega 6. Do you remember telling me something about
the body needing cholesterol? Looks like the same thing. A
substance needed in small amounts but bad in large
amounts. So what's my exaggeration?

> I didn't call her names until she started
> snipping away the information I provided to refute her claims and
saying
> that I hadn't proven my case.

Snipping crap is cause for namecalling I see.
You just get mad if people don't answer every
single question or statement you make.

How about finally admitting that the 3 (at least) to 1
ratio exists.

> That sounds familiar and it gives me an idea. Maybe you and she can
hook
> up. You seem to be cut from the same cloth.



SN
http://www.scentednectar.com
A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> news
>> C. James Strutz wrote:

>> No, and I'm not even ****ed. *YOU* just don't want your bluff called.
>> You made some claims about me and you refuse to substantiate them.
>> You're yellow, James.
>
> If you're not ****ed, why do you insult all the time?

Good question, one which I'm sure he won't answer.

>> Examples? Oh yeah, you don't give examples. You just throw mud and
>> expect it to stick.
>
> I don't think CJS needs to give examples. What you
> type is example enough.

Exactly my point. It went right over his head.

> Your nastiness was visible even while you were being polite.
> We argued my claims such as the fact that the meat
> industry uses at least 3 times the pounds in crops to
> produce only 1 pound in finished product, whereas
> plant foods are 1 pound of crops = 1 pound of products.
> This means that plant foods have less of those cd's
> you go on about. This is a fact you refuse to see.

It goes against the grain of his anti-vegan propaganda campaign, which is
very odd since he's vegan. What's more is the additional produce that is
consumed by cattle means that more land is used for agriculture resulting in
increased erosion of land, increased fragmention of wildlife habitat, more
collateral deaths of wildlife, increased use of petroleum based fertilizer
and pesticides, increased consumption of fresh water, increased amounts of
methane released into the atmosphere, and increased oil consumption for
transportation among other things.

>> she sure as hell was from the start. I didn't exaggerate any claims, I
>> only gave credible and well-documented rebuttals to her exaggerated
>> claims. Search the "silly nectar" thread about omega-6 FAs. I didn't
>> exaggerate the danger of omega3:6 imbalance; she exaggerated the
>> benefits of omega-6 FAs.
>
> I never said that hempseed oil had any IMbalance. I merely stated
> that it contains all 3 omega oils. You got all freaked out about
> omega 6. Do you remember telling me something about
> the body needing cholesterol? Looks like the same thing. A
> substance needed in small amounts but bad in large
> amounts. So what's my exaggeration?

One of his "tricks" is to turn people's words around to use against them,
even if it means to exaggerate and make things up.

>> I didn't call her names until she started
>> snipping away the information I provided to refute her claims and
> saying
>> that I hadn't proven my case.
>
> Snipping crap is cause for namecalling I see.
> You just get mad if people don't answer every
> single question or statement you make.

Another of his "tricks" - shifting the burden of proof on the other person,
quickly followed by denial.

> How about finally admitting that the 3 (at least) to 1
> ratio exists.

He won't, his massive ego couldn't bear it.

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> If you're not ****ed, why do you insult all the time?

I don't insult ALL the time. Go back and re-read the first several
messages in the thread addressed to you from last weekend. I didn't
insult -- YOU did.

<...>
> I don't think CJS needs to give examples.

Not surprising coming from you, someone who throws out repeated unproven
and unsubstantiated claims.

<...>
>>There's a huge difference between us: I substantiated my claim.
>
> You haven't substantiated anything much

I've substantiated every claim I made.

> except
> stuff that actually proved the meat industry as
> a whole causes way more cds than the plant
> foods that go directly to humans.

No, Skunky, remember when I noted the irony of the examples I offered.
Those were to show that your generalization about grain-finished animals
was off. You never got back to me about how much of that grass upon
which cows, bison, and wild game graze could be used to feed you or
starving Ethiopians. When was the last time you ate grass (not counting
your ganja brownies)?

<...>
> Ah, ain't this sweet. You missed me.

No, I didn't.

> The above is
> to provoke me into posting back to you. Here you
> go sweetie.

Spare me terms of endearment.

> Your nastiness was visible even while you were being polite.

You have a chip on your shoulder because you cannot defend your claims.

> We argued my claims

You argued without evidence.

> such as the fact that the meat
> industry uses at least 3 times the pounds in crops to
> produce only 1 pound in finished product,

Actually, you claimed ratios of 10-16:1. Didn't you. You're also still
comparing apples and oranges. I asked you to get beyond the issue of
grain-finished since Rick and I were advocating *grazed* ruminants. The
grain ratio to beef is 0:1.

> whereas
> plant foods are 1 pound of crops = 1 pound of products.

How much grass and scrub can you eat at one sitting?

> This means that plant foods have less of those cd's
> you go on about. This is a fact you refuse to see.

No, you incessantly insist on comparing apples to oranges. You're
closed-minded and intolerant because you argue even against the
alternatives like wild game, bison, and grass-fed beef which don't fit
into your model (which you've taken from vegan propaganda) and "waste"
grains or legumes. Further, you're a rank hypocrite for raising the
"waste" issue because your own recipes call for processed products like
Yves fake ground Italian sausage. Texturized soy protein, like that used
by Yves, also doesn't yield a 1:1 ratio.

>>she sure as hell was from the start. I didn't exaggerate any claims, I
>>only gave credible and well-documented rebuttals to her exaggerated
>>claims. Search the "silly nectar" thread about omega-6 FAs. I didn't
>>exaggerate the danger of omega3:6 imbalance; she exaggerated the
>>benefits of omega-6 FAs.
>
> I never said that hempseed oil had any IMbalance.

I didn't say you said it did. You were extolling the virtues of omega-6.

> I merely stated that it contains all 3 omega oils.

Yes, and I pointed out the fact that it's healthier to seek out sources
richer in omega-3 to improve your overall ratio between the omega-3 and
omega-6.

> You got all freaked out about omega 6.

Freaked out? No, I was showing that your glee was misplaced.

> Do you remember telling me something about
> the body needing cholesterol? Looks like the same thing.

Not even close. Most people consume too much omega-6, and you were
extolling the virtues of hemp because its oil contains omega-6. You
already get enough from all the oil and margarine you use in your recipes.

> A substance needed in small amounts but bad in large
> amounts.

Ipse dixit. You're making an inaccurate, or at least misleading,
generalization about cholesterol. Large amounts of (serum) HDL are good.
Large amounts of (serum) LDL are "bad." You're screwing up on the whole
notion of RATIOS. One should have a healthful ratio of HDL:LDL. One
should also want a healthful ratio of omega-3mega-6. The foods and
recipes you've offered are deleterious as far as both ratios go. To make
matters worse, you've generalized that all meat is bad and all veg is
good despite the evidence I've shown you. And the evidence I've offered
has been balanced between pro-industry sources and sound medical sources.

> So what's my exaggeration?

That all meat is bad, that all meat is "wasteful," that all veg-n is
good, etc.

<...>
> How about finally admitting that the 3 (at least) to 1
> ratio exists.

Not for grazed animals, which is the standard which I've endorsed.

>>That sounds familiar and it gives me an idea. Maybe you and she can
>>hook up. You seem to be cut from the same cloth.

Well... are you interested in yellow, spineless, rail-thin wussies from PA?

Chickenshit James Strutz wrote:
>>If you're not ****ed, why do you insult all the time?
>
> Good question, one which I'm sure he won't answer.

I answered her. Why don't you go back and answer me, yellow Chickenshit?

<...>
> What's more is the additional produce that is
> consumed by cattle means that more land is used for agriculture resulting in
> increased erosion of land, increased fragmention of wildlife habitat, more
> collateral deaths of wildlife, increased use of petroleum based fertilizer
> and pesticides, increased consumption of fresh water, increased amounts of
> methane released into the atmosphere, and increased oil consumption for
> transportation among other things.

I advocate grazed animals like grass-fed beef, bison, wild game. Those
animals do NOT utilize grains. I also advocate eating locally -- again,
go back and look at the issue from the threads involving Scented Nectar
and her profligate use of rice and plantains. Do you not agree that it's
just as harmful to ship tropical produce to places like Toronto as it is
to send cattle by truck across one state?

<...>
> One of his "tricks" is to turn people's words around to use against them,
> even if it means to exaggerate and make things up.

Give one example of that, or just admit that's what YOU're doing now and
have been doing repeatedly since late last week.

<...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> <...>
> > If you're not ****ed, why do you insult all the time?
>
> I don't insult ALL the time. Go back and re-read the first several
> messages in the thread addressed to you from last weekend. I didn't
> insult -- YOU did.

Your tone comes through loud and clear.

> No, Skunky, remember when I noted the irony of the examples I offered.
> Those were to show that your generalization about grain-finished
animals
> was off. You never got back to me about how much of that grass upon
> which cows, bison, and wild game graze could be used to feed you or
> starving Ethiopians. When was the last time you ate grass (not
counting
> your ganja brownies)?

Wheat, oats, barley, rye, millet, these are all
grasses too.

> > such as the fact that the meat
> > industry uses at least 3 times the pounds in crops to
> > produce only 1 pound in finished product,
>
> Actually, you claimed ratios of 10-16:1. Didn't you. You're also still
> comparing apples and oranges. I asked you to get beyond the issue of
> grain-finished since Rick and I were advocating *grazed* ruminants.
The
> grain ratio to beef is 0:1.

Grass is also a grain. When used for grazing it is a crop.

It's you who's comparing wrong. If you want to talk about
grazed ruminants, then compare it to wildcrafted, or
organically grown (no need for pyrethrins) and
compassionately harvest (=manual harvest).

> grains or legumes. Further, you're a rank hypocrite for raising the
> "waste" issue because your own recipes call for processed products
like
> Yves fake ground Italian sausage. Texturized soy protein, like that
used
> by Yves, also doesn't yield a 1:1 ratio.

So what, in the dairy industry it takes a huge amount of milk
to make a tiny bit of cheese.

He's very transparent. Quite odd. I wonder
if he hates himself for being vegan (although
he won't call it that).

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
>> Further, you're a rank hypocrite for raising the
>>"waste" issue because your own recipes call for processed products
>>like Yves fake ground Italian sausage. Texturized soy protein, like that
>>used by Yves, also doesn't yield a 1:1 ratio.
>
> So what, in the dairy industry it takes a huge amount of milk
> to make a tiny bit of cheese.

Great point, and it's about a 10:1 ratio of milk to finished cheese. So
why do you continue to eat cheese and waste so many resources (remember
that your dairy products come from animals that consume more feed than
beef cattle!), Skunky? I saw several recipes calling for cheese on your
website. "Waste" is the issue YOU keep raising, and it's one you don't
seem to give a damn about when it comes to your own diet -- just
everyone else's.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> <...>
> >> Further, you're a rank hypocrite for raising the
> >>"waste" issue because your own recipes call for processed products
> >>like Yves fake ground Italian sausage. Texturized soy protein, like
that
> >>used by Yves, also doesn't yield a 1:1 ratio.
> >
> > So what, in the dairy industry it takes a huge amount of milk
> > to make a tiny bit of cheese.
>
> Great point, and it's about a 10:1 ratio of milk to finished cheese.
So
> why do you continue to eat cheese and waste so many resources
(remember
> that your dairy products come from animals that consume more feed than
> beef cattle!), Skunky? I saw several recipes calling for cheese on
your
> website. "Waste" is the issue YOU keep raising, and it's one you don't
> seem to give a damn about when it comes to your own diet -- just
> everyone else's.

As you already know, I'm slowly becoming vegan. Most
of those recipes are older ones, except the chili and
broth. Since I'm not 100% vegan yet, I guess I'm a
vegan wannabe. That's why I'm here. My recipes are
vegetarian, but my directory of recipe sites has lots
of vegan listings, which I hope are of use to people.


--
http://www.scentednectar.com
A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites.

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
>>>So what, in the dairy industry it takes a huge amount of milk
>>>to make a tiny bit of cheese.
>>
>>Great point, and it's about a 10:1 ratio of milk to finished cheese.
>>So why do you continue to eat cheese and waste so many resources
>>(remember that your dairy products come from animals that consume more feed than
>>beef cattle!), Skunky? I saw several recipes calling for cheese on
>>your website. "Waste" is the issue YOU keep raising, and it's one you don't
>>seem to give a damn about when it comes to your own diet -- just
>>everyone else's.
>
> As you already know, I'm slowly becoming vegan.

You're not slow, though, to cast blame upon people for doing the very
things you do. That makes you a hypocrite regardless of your intentions.

> Most of those recipes are older ones, except the chili and
> broth.

What does their age have to do with anything? You keep raising issues
related to "waste," but then we find out that you waste just as much as
anyone else. Do you see your hypocrisy? Or, like other vegans, do you
consider yourself immune from such charges simply because your
INTENTIONS are different (despite the evidence that your REALITY isn't
different)?

> Since I'm not 100% vegan yet, I guess I'm a
> vegan wannabe.

No, you're vegetarian. Give up the phony activism and learn as much as
you can about sound nutrition. The two issues *don't* go together, as
I've already shown you (whether you like my tone or not).

> That's why I'm here.

You're defending the vegan religion, but it's a futile endeavor.

> You're not slow, though, to cast blame upon people for doing the very
> things you do. That makes you a hypocrite regardless of your
intentions.

I think being vegan is best, vegetarian in between, and
meat eating the worse. I see no hypocrasy.

> > Most of those recipes are older ones, except the chili and
> > broth.
>
> What does their age have to do with anything?

The more dairy based, the older it is, is
what I'm saying. And don't ignore that some of
my recipes are vegan.

> > Since I'm not 100% vegan yet, I guess I'm a
> > vegan wannabe.
>
> No, you're vegetarian.

No shit. What do call what you are by the way?

And what do you do when invited to a meat meal?
Do you say, "I don't eat animal products but I'm
not one of those ****ing vegans!!"?

> Give up the phony activism and learn as much as
> you can about sound nutrition. The two issues *don't* go together, as
> I've already shown you (whether you like my tone or not).

An activism which advocates the healthiest diet
there is, can't be all that bad.

> You're defending the vegan religion, but it's a futile endeavor.

Enough with your phony religion crap. It's getting a
bit tiring.

"rick etter" > wrote in message
> > Your nastiness was visible even while you were being polite.
> > We argued my claims such as the fact that the meat
> > industry uses at least 3 times the pounds in crops to
> > produce only 1 pound in finished product, whereas
> > plant foods are 1 pound of crops = 1 pound of products.
> ==========================
> Man, you just can't help showing your ignorane, can you fool?
Remember what
> I told you about learning something before you spew your stupidity.
How
> much of a corn plant do you eat? The stalk? The cob? The silk? The
> leaves? Nope, just that little portion of kernels. What is that,
maybe
> 30%, 40% of the plant? Hardly 1 for 1, killer. Same works for any
crop
> you want to discuss .
> Plus, now for the irony of your position. Do you know where that
'waste'
> material goes, fool? Into animal feed. The feed that you claim to
despise
> and don't want to support! So, actually, you support the
'factory-farmed'
> beef industry far more than I do! I just love you complete and utter
> stupidity, hypocrite.

So, actually, I guess you're saying my consumption of corn causes
even less cds than I realized. Whatever cds the crop causes
it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!

In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
for future years.

Try using a bit less of the insults. They make you sound loony.
--
http://www.scentednectar.com
A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
news
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>> > Your nastiness was visible even while you were being polite.
>> > We argued my claims such as the fact that the meat
>> > industry uses at least 3 times the pounds in crops to
>> > produce only 1 pound in finished product, whereas
>> > plant foods are 1 pound of crops = 1 pound of products.
>> ==========================
>> Man, you just can't help showing your ignorane, can you fool?
> Remember what
>> I told you about learning something before you spew your stupidity.
> How
>> much of a corn plant do you eat? The stalk? The cob? The silk? The
>> leaves? Nope, just that little portion of kernels. What is that,
> maybe
>> 30%, 40% of the plant? Hardly 1 for 1, killer. Same works for any
> crop
>> you want to discuss .
>> Plus, now for the irony of your position. Do you know where that
> 'waste'
>> material goes, fool? Into animal feed. The feed that you claim to
> despise
>> and don't want to support! So, actually, you support the
> 'factory-farmed'
>> beef industry far more than I do! I just love you complete and utter
>> stupidity, hypocrite.
>
> So, actually, I guess you're saying my consumption of corn causes
> even less cds than I realized.
=======================
LOL But not as few as if you ate gras-fed beef or game. Too bad you still
lose, killer.


Whatever cds the crop causes
> it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
==================
LOL But it wasn't5 grown for that fool. It was grown for you. That you
don't even realize how much you support an industry you claim to hate is
amusing, killer.


>
> In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
> extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
> for future years.
===============
There's the clue, fool. "In an organic." You don't have one. You buy
your veggies from the supermart. You get your entertainment from usenet.
Animals mean nothing to you, as long as you can spew your hate about what
you think others are doing, while doing absolutly nothing about your own
impact.


>
> Try using a bit less of the insults. They make you sound loony.
==================
LOL From the most ignorant loon here. What a compliment...


> --
> http://www.scentednectar.com
> A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites.
>
>
>
>
>

"rick etter" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message

> LOL But not as few as if you ate gras-fed beef or game. Too bad you
> still lose, killer.

You know everything about losing...

> Whatever cds the crop causes
>> it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
> ==================
> LOL But it wasn't5 grown for that fool. It was grown for you. That you
> don't even realize how much you support an industry you claim to hate is
> amusing, killer.

She's essentially saying that the collateral deaths attributed to corn
produced for silage is in the same proportion of collateral deaths
attributed to corn produced for grain. The more corn produced for silage,
the more collateral deaths it causes. It's pretty hard to deny.

>> In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
>> extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
>> for future years.
> ===============
> There's the clue, fool. "In an organic." You don't have one. You buy
> your veggies from the supermart. You get your entertainment from usenet.
> Animals mean nothing to you, as long as you can spew your hate about what
> you think others are doing, while doing absolutly nothing about your own
> impact.

She's free to compost and/or support organic agriculture if she wants to.
Any little bit helps.

>> Try using a bit less of the insults. They make you sound loony.
> ==================
> LOL From the most ignorant loon here. What a compliment...

I think you take the prize for the most ignorant person in this newsgroup,
which is really quite an accomplishment considering all the contestants.

"rick etter" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message

> LOL But not as few as if you ate gras-fed beef or game. Too bad you
> still lose, killer.

You know everything about losing...

> Whatever cds the crop causes
>> it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
> ==================
> LOL But it wasn't5 grown for that fool. It was grown for you. That you
> don't even realize how much you support an industry you claim to hate is
> amusing, killer.

She's essentially saying that the collateral deaths attributed to corn
produced for silage is in the same proportion of collateral deaths
attributed to corn produced for grain. The more corn produced for silage,
the more collateral deaths it causes. It's pretty hard to deny.

>> In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
>> extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
>> for future years.
> ===============
> There's the clue, fool. "In an organic." You don't have one. You buy
> your veggies from the supermart. You get your entertainment from usenet.
> Animals mean nothing to you, as long as you can spew your hate about what
> you think others are doing, while doing absolutly nothing about your own
> impact.

She's free to compost and/or support organic agriculture if she wants to.
Any little bit helps.

>> Try using a bit less of the insults. They make you sound loony.
> ==================
> LOL From the most ignorant loon here. What a compliment...

I think you take the prize for the most ignorant person in this newsgroup,
which is really quite an accomplishment considering all the contestants.

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>
> > LOL But not as few as if you ate gras-fed beef or game. Too bad
you
> > still lose, killer.
>
> You know everything about losing...

He keeps losing the fact that grass fed game
must be compared to veganic (I like that new
word!) farming, and when compared, the
veganic wins as far as cds go.

> > Whatever cds the crop causes
> >> it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
> > ==================
> > LOL But it wasn't5 grown for that fool. It was grown for you.
That you
> > don't even realize how much you support an industry you claim to
hate is
> > amusing, killer.
>
> She's essentially saying that the collateral deaths attributed to corn
> produced for silage is in the same proportion of collateral deaths
> attributed to corn produced for grain. The more corn produced for
silage,
> the more collateral deaths it causes. It's pretty hard to deny.
>
> >> In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
> >> extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
> >> for future years.
> > ===============
> > There's the clue, fool. "In an organic." You don't have one. You
buy
> > your veggies from the supermart. You get your entertainment from
usenet.
> > Animals mean nothing to you, as long as you can spew your hate about
what
> > you think others are doing, while doing absolutly nothing about your
own
> > impact.
>
> She's free to compost and/or support organic agriculture if she wants
to.
> Any little bit helps.

I'm in more of a current position to buy organic than to
grow it myself, but idealy I think it would be great to have
a couple acres and grow most of the food needed.

> >> Try using a bit less of the insults. They make you sound loony.
> > ==================
> > LOL From the most ignorant loon here. What a compliment...
>
> I think you take the prize for the most ignorant person in this
newsgroup,
> which is really quite an accomplishment considering all the
contestants.

Yeah, I think he wins too.

SN
http://www.scentednectar.com
A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>
> > LOL But not as few as if you ate gras-fed beef or game. Too bad
you
> > still lose, killer.
>
> You know everything about losing...

He keeps losing the fact that grass fed game
must be compared to veganic (I like that new
word!) farming, and when compared, the
veganic wins as far as cds go.

> > Whatever cds the crop causes
> >> it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
> > ==================
> > LOL But it wasn't5 grown for that fool. It was grown for you.
That you
> > don't even realize how much you support an industry you claim to
hate is
> > amusing, killer.
>
> She's essentially saying that the collateral deaths attributed to corn
> produced for silage is in the same proportion of collateral deaths
> attributed to corn produced for grain. The more corn produced for
silage,
> the more collateral deaths it causes. It's pretty hard to deny.
>
> >> In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
> >> extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
> >> for future years.
> > ===============
> > There's the clue, fool. "In an organic." You don't have one. You
buy
> > your veggies from the supermart. You get your entertainment from
usenet.
> > Animals mean nothing to you, as long as you can spew your hate about
what
> > you think others are doing, while doing absolutly nothing about your
own
> > impact.
>
> She's free to compost and/or support organic agriculture if she wants
to.
> Any little bit helps.

I'm in more of a current position to buy organic than to
grow it myself, but idealy I think it would be great to have
a couple acres and grow most of the food needed.

> >> Try using a bit less of the insults. They make you sound loony.
> > ==================
> > LOL From the most ignorant loon here. What a compliment...
>
> I think you take the prize for the most ignorant person in this
newsgroup,
> which is really quite an accomplishment considering all the
contestants.

Yeah, I think he wins too.

SN
http://www.scentednectar.com
A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>You're not slow, though, to cast blame upon people for doing the very
>>things you do. That makes you a hypocrite regardless of your
>>intentions.
>
> I think being vegan is best,

Why?

> vegetarian in between,

Why?

> and meat eating the worse.

You mean worsT. Why?

> I see no hypocrasy.

You can't spell it, either.

>>>Most of those recipes are older ones, except the chili and
>>>broth.
>>
>>What does their age have to do with anything?
>
> The more dairy based, the older it is, is
> what I'm saying. And don't ignore that some of
> my recipes are vegan.

Recipes aren't vegan. People are.

>>>Since I'm not 100% vegan yet, I guess I'm a
>>>vegan wannabe.
>>
>>No, you're vegetarian.
>
> No shit. What do call what you are by the way?

Human.

> And what do you do when invited to a meat meal?

If I'm free, I graciously accept invitations and then I find stuff I can
eat.

> Do you say, "I don't eat animal products but I'm
> not one of those ****ing vegans!!"?

I don't identify myself according to food, and I'd never use my personal
tastes as a segue to preach to others about what they should or
shouldn't eat.

>>Give up the phony activism and learn as much as
>>you can about sound nutrition. The two issues *don't* go together, as
>>I've already shown you (whether you like my tone or not).
>
> An activism which advocates the healthiest diet

It doesn't advocate a healthy diet at all. It advocates that people not
eat animals. It doesn't even distinguish between foods that cause more
animals to suffer and die, just that you not eat animal parts.

> there is, can't be all that bad.

Not surprising coming from someone who doesn't even distinguish between
good and bad fats. Your ignorant generalizations may cause you even more
pain and suffering than if you'd not altered your diet at all.

>>You're defending the vegan religion, but it's a futile endeavor.
>
> Enough with your phony religion crap. It's getting a
> bit tiring.

You're the one who believes in and pushes the phony vegan religion.

In late 1944, The Vegan Society was established, advocating a
totally plant-based diet excluding flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, and animals' milk, butter, and cheese, and also
encouraging the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal
commodities, including clothing and shoes. The group argued that
the elimination of exploitation of any kind was necessary in
order to bring about a more reasonable and humane society. FROM
ITS INCEPTION, VEGANISM WAS DEFINED AS A "PHILOSOPHY" AND "WAY
OF LIVING." IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE MERELY A DIET AND, STILL
TODAY, DESCRIBES A LIFESTYLE AND BELIEF SYSTEM THAT REVOLVES
AROUND A REVERENCE FOR LIFE.
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/veganliving.htm

My emphasis above. It is a "philosophy" and "way of living." The
dictionary defines religion as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs
held to with ardor and faith." The tenets of veganism are held by ardor
and faith -- sanctimonious faith that NO animal suffered or died as a
result of one's activities, even though animals do suffer and die for
your food. Veganism actively seeks out converts (you yourself wished
everyone were vegan), and is intolerant of those who do not convert.
Veganism *is* a religion.

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> So, actually, I guess you're saying my consumption of corn causes
> even less cds than I realized.

Not at all, Skanky. You're the primary consumer of the corn. The silage
is a byproduct of your consumption. You're still morally culpable --
100% -- for every CD occurring during the production of the corn.

> Whatever cds the crop causes
> it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!

As long as you eat the corn, and as long as you suggest it could be used
to feed humans rather than animals, you're fully culpable for the CDs
resulting from the corn production.

> In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
> extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
> for future years.

Those "extra plant parts" are put to use in a variety of ways.
Composting is but one way it's used. It's also put into cattle and
turned into tasty, nutritious protein in the form of meat and dairy
(which you still consume). It's not wasted, contrary to all your
attempts to avoid moral culpability for the collateral deaths and
casualties your consumption causes.

<...>

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> So, actually, I guess you're saying my consumption of corn causes
> even less cds than I realized.

Not at all, Skanky. You're the primary consumer of the corn. The silage
is a byproduct of your consumption. You're still morally culpable --
100% -- for every CD occurring during the production of the corn.

> Whatever cds the crop causes
> it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!

As long as you eat the corn, and as long as you suggest it could be used
to feed humans rather than animals, you're fully culpable for the CDs
resulting from the corn production.

> In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
> extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
> for future years.

Those "extra plant parts" are put to use in a variety of ways.
Composting is but one way it's used. It's also put into cattle and
turned into tasty, nutritious protein in the form of meat and dairy
(which you still consume). It's not wasted, contrary to all your
attempts to avoid moral culpability for the collateral deaths and
casualties your consumption causes.

<...>

Chickenshit James Strutz wrote:
>>LOL But not as few as if you ate gras-fed beef or game. Too bad you
>>still lose, killer.
>
> You know everything about losing...

Imagine that coming from the pantywaist who keeps lecturing others about
being crude and mean to others.

>>Whatever cds the crop causes
>>
>>>it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
>>
>>==================
>>LOL But it wasn't5 grown for that fool. It was grown for you. That you
>>don't even realize how much you support an industry you claim to hate is
>>amusing, killer.
>
> She's essentially saying that the collateral deaths attributed to corn
> produced for silage is in the same proportion of collateral deaths
> attributed to corn produced for grain. The more corn produced for silage,
> the more collateral deaths it causes. It's pretty hard to deny.

The difference, though, is those who eat beef or other meat don't make
claims of moral superiority. The vegans do. Any plot growing corn will
produce CDs whether the food is for human or livestock consumption.

Vegans are hypocrites for objecting only to the 1001st death, and the
counting game you're entering into is nothing but moral relativism --
NOT moral or ethical superiority. You've already lost the moment you
start playing the counting game because your diet causes CDs, too.

>>>In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
>>>extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
>>>for future years.
>>
>>===============
>>There's the clue, fool. "In an organic." You don't have one. You buy
>>your veggies from the supermart. You get your entertainment from usenet.
>>Animals mean nothing to you, as long as you can spew your hate about what
>>you think others are doing, while doing absolutly nothing about your own
>>impact.
>
> She's free to compost and/or support organic agriculture if she wants to.
> Any little bit helps.

She clearly knows a thing about compost and manure, what with all the
bullshit she's been throwing around this group.

>>>Try using a bit less of the insults. They make you sound loony.
>>
>>==================
>>LOL From the most ignorant loon here. What a compliment...
>
> I think you take the prize for the most ignorant person in this newsgroup,
> which is really quite an accomplishment considering all the contestants.

Guess which prize you win, pussy boy.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> He keeps losing the fact that grass fed game

Or beef, bison, goat, other wild game (rabbits, squirrels, gator, etc.),
and fish...

> must be compared to veganic (I like that new
> word!) farming,

It's not a word. And the irony is you're the one who invoked "peaceful
harvests" and wanted to compare it to feedlot-based grain-fed beef.

> and when compared, the
> veganic wins as far as cds go.

No, it doesn't. You and Rick live reasonably near each other, and make
for a good real-world contrast in different diets and philosophies.

Your "vegan" diet relies on commercially-grown foods, all of which
result in CDs. Your "vegan" diet includes machine-harvested rice which
results in CDs. Your "vegan" diet includes tropical foods shipped in
from far away, which also results in CDs.

Rick's diet is locally-produced and much less dependent on machine
harvesting. As a result, his food results in fewer CDs than yours. If
the counting game determines who's more ethical, Rick beats you easily
because you've already lost the moment you start counting.

<...>
> I'm in more of a current position to buy organic than to
> grow it myself,

AHA. We finally get to your reality rather than your rhetoric. I suppose
it's pretty easy to talk of "peaceful harvests" when you don't actually
have one.

> but idealy I think it would be great to have
> a couple acres and grow most of the food needed.

ALL your little food fantasies are Utopian delusions. You don't live in
an ideal world, you live in THIS one. Lay off the dope for a while so
you can afford to buy or lease land and see if you can live up to all
the sanctimonious, self-righteous bullshit you peddle. Until then,
Skanky, practice what you preach.

<...>

Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > He keeps losing the fact that grass fed game
>
> Or beef, bison, goat, other wild game (rabbits, squirrels, gator,
etc.),
> and fish...
>
> > must be compared to veganic (I like that new
> > word!) farming,
>
> It's not a word. And the irony is you're the one who invoked "peaceful
> harvests" and wanted to compare it to feedlot-based grain-fed beef.

Ok, how about your 'scrub beef'. Veganic still wins hands down.

> > and when compared, the
> > veganic wins as far as cds go.
>
> No, it doesn't. You and Rick live reasonably near each other, and make
> for a good real-world contrast in different diets and philosophies.
>
> Your "vegan" diet relies on commercially-grown foods, all of which
> result in CDs. Your "vegan" diet includes machine-harvested rice which
> results in CDs. Your "vegan" diet includes tropical foods shipped in
> from far away, which also results in CDs.
>
> Rick's diet is locally-produced and much less dependent on machine
> harvesting. As a result, his food results in fewer CDs than yours. If
> the counting game determines who's more ethical, Rick beats you easily
> because you've already lost the moment you start counting.

As I understand it, veganic uses compassionate harvesting
An ideal diet is from such practices. 0 cds.

> > I'm in more of a current position to buy organic than to
> > grow it myself,
>
> AHA. We finally get to your reality rather than your rhetoric. I
suppose
> it's pretty easy to talk of "peaceful harvests" when you don't
actually
> have one.

The organic farms that supply my area are pretty good.

> > but idealy I think it would be great to have
> > a couple acres and grow most of the food needed.
>
> ALL your little food fantasies are Utopian delusions. You don't live
in
> an ideal world, you live in THIS one. Lay off the dope for a while so
> you can afford to buy or lease land and see if you can live up to all
> the sanctimonious, self-righteous bullshit you peddle. Until then,
> Skanky, practice what you preach.

Not delusions. More and more people are turning back to
non-harmful, small scale farming.


SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Chickenshit James Strutz wrote:

More childish name-calling. Grow up already.

>>>LOL But not as few as if you ate gras-fed beef or game. Too bad you
>>>still lose, killer.
>>
>> You know everything about losing...
>
> Imagine that coming from the pantywaist who keeps lecturing others about
> being crude and mean to others.

On the scale of "crude and mean", my comment about losing ranks far below
most of the trash that comes out of your keyboard.

>> She's essentially saying that the collateral deaths attributed to corn
>> produced for silage is in the same proportion of collateral deaths
>> attributed to corn produced for grain. The more corn produced for silage,
>> the more collateral deaths it causes. It's pretty hard to deny.
>
> The difference, though, is those who eat beef or other meat don't make
> claims of moral superiority.

That's BS. I suppose you never came across old-school folks who give you a
weird look when you tell them you don't eat meat. They're the first to tell
you you should eat meat because it's "good for you". They're usually the
same people who think that overweight looks normal or even healthy. Yeah,
pass the biscuits and gravy...

> The vegans do.

You hijacked the thread to spew more of your anti-vegan hatred.

> Any plot growing corn will produce CDs whether the food is for human or
> livestock consumption.

Didn't I just say that?

> Vegans are hypocrites for objecting only to the 1001st death, and the
> counting game you're entering into is nothing but moral relativism --
> NOT moral or ethical superiority. You've already lost the moment you start
> playing the counting game because your diet causes CDs, too.

Who's talking about "moral or ethical superiority"? Nobody else but YOU. The
point was, assuming that the number of collateral deaths are constant for
all corn production, then more corn produced for silage means more
collateral deaths. It says nothing about "moral or ethical superiority" and
does NOT admit to causing no collateral deaths. IIRC, Scented Nectar's
original point was that that amount of corn produced for silage is MANY
TIMES that which is produced for grain at a calorie-calorie equivalence of
the end products, and that causes a proportionally greater number of
collateral deaths. She is right.

>> She's free to compost and/or support organic agriculture if she wants to.
>> Any little bit helps.
>
> She clearly knows a thing about compost and manure, what with all the
> bullshit she's been throwing around this group.

And your point is???

>> I think you take the prize for the most ignorant person in this
>> newsgroup, which is really quite an accomplishment considering all the
>> contestants.
>
> Guess which prize you win, pussy boy.

Tell me, redneck.

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>
>> LOL But not as few as if you ate gras-fed beef or game. Too bad you
>> still lose, killer.
>
> You know everything about losing...
>
>> Whatever cds the crop causes
>>> it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
>> ==================
>> LOL But it wasn't5 grown for that fool. It was grown for you. That you
>> don't even realize how much you support an industry you claim to hate is
>> amusing, killer.
>
> She's essentially saying that the collateral deaths attributed to corn
> produced for silage is in the same proportion of collateral deaths
> attributed to corn produced for grain. The more corn produced for silage,
> the more collateral deaths it causes. It's pretty hard to deny.
================
Problem is, which she and you seem to keep denying is that there is no need
to feed any grains or its by-product to cows. So, if you eat that instead
of grass-fed beef and game, the deaths are attributable to you, and you
alone.


>
>>> In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
>>> extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
>>> for future years.
>> ===============
>> There's the clue, fool. "In an organic." You don't have one. You buy
>> your veggies from the supermart. You get your entertainment from usenet.
>> Animals mean nothing to you, as long as you can spew your hate about what
>> you think others are doing, while doing absolutly nothing about your own
>> impact.
>
> She's free to compost and/or support organic agriculture if she wants to.
> Any little bit helps.
=================
Sure she is, as are you. But neither of you do anything about it excpet
spew your hate and focus only on what you think others are doing.

>
>>> Try using a bit less of the insults. They make you sound loony.
>> ==================
>> LOL From the most ignorant loon here. What a compliment...
>
> I think you take the prize for the most ignorant person in this newsgroup,
> which is really quite an accomplishment considering all the contestants.
==================
Really fool? Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to refute what I have
posted to you many times. How come then you have never done so?


>
>

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>
>> LOL But not as few as if you ate gras-fed beef or game. Too bad you
>> still lose, killer.
>
> You know everything about losing...
>
>> Whatever cds the crop causes
>>> it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
>> ==================
>> LOL But it wasn't5 grown for that fool. It was grown for you. That you
>> don't even realize how much you support an industry you claim to hate is
>> amusing, killer.
>
> She's essentially saying that the collateral deaths attributed to corn
> produced for silage is in the same proportion of collateral deaths
> attributed to corn produced for grain. The more corn produced for silage,
> the more collateral deaths it causes. It's pretty hard to deny.
================
Problem is, which she and you seem to keep denying is that there is no need
to feed any grains or its by-product to cows. So, if you eat that instead
of grass-fed beef and game, the deaths are attributable to you, and you
alone.


>
>>> In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
>>> extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
>>> for future years.
>> ===============
>> There's the clue, fool. "In an organic." You don't have one. You buy
>> your veggies from the supermart. You get your entertainment from usenet.
>> Animals mean nothing to you, as long as you can spew your hate about what
>> you think others are doing, while doing absolutly nothing about your own
>> impact.
>
> She's free to compost and/or support organic agriculture if she wants to.
> Any little bit helps.
=================
Sure she is, as are you. But neither of you do anything about it excpet
spew your hate and focus only on what you think others are doing.

>
>>> Try using a bit less of the insults. They make you sound loony.
>> ==================
>> LOL From the most ignorant loon here. What a compliment...
>
> I think you take the prize for the most ignorant person in this newsgroup,
> which is really quite an accomplishment considering all the contestants.
==================
Really fool? Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to refute what I have
posted to you many times. How come then you have never done so?


>
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> >
>> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>>
>> > LOL But not as few as if you ate gras-fed beef or game. Too bad
> you
>> > still lose, killer.
>>
>> You know everything about losing...
>
> He keeps losing the fact that grass fed game
> must be compared to veganic (I like that new
> word!) farming, and when compared, the
> veganic wins as far as cds go.
========================
No, it does not fool! I'm comparing my diet to yours! Yours loses, and
you don't like it, so you have to start trying to stand your strawmen up.
Alternative meat sources are far more available mainstream than your
mythical veganic veggies. Besides, again, many of what you call your
veganic veggies are im[ports from around the world! You can pretend they
are vegan killer, but they are not.

>
>> > Whatever cds the crop causes
>> >> it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
>> > ==================
>> > LOL But it wasn't5 grown for that fool. It was grown for you.
> That you
>> > don't even realize how much you support an industry you claim to
> hate is
>> > amusing, killer.
>>
>> She's essentially saying that the collateral deaths attributed to corn
>> produced for silage is in the same proportion of collateral deaths
>> attributed to corn produced for grain. The more corn produced for
> silage,
>> the more collateral deaths it causes. It's pretty hard to deny.
>>
>> >> In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
>> >> extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
>> >> for future years.
>> > ===============
>> > There's the clue, fool. "In an organic." You don't have one. You
> buy
>> > your veggies from the supermart. You get your entertainment from
> usenet.
>> > Animals mean nothing to you, as long as you can spew your hate about
> what
>> > you think others are doing, while doing absolutly nothing about your
> own
>> > impact.
>>
>> She's free to compost and/or support organic agriculture if she wants
> to.
>> Any little bit helps.
>
> I'm in more of a current position to buy organic than to
> grow it myself, but idealy I think it would be great to have
> a couple acres and grow most of the food needed.
=====================
You couldn't do it. You are too convenience oriented and consumer driven
to even try. Besides, I've already shown you the myths of your 'organic'
veggies, killer. You can continue to support a massive petro-chemical
industry if you like, hypocrite.

>
>> >> Try using a bit less of the insults. They make you sound loony.
>> > ==================
>> > LOL From the most ignorant loon here. What a compliment...
>>
>> I think you take the prize for the most ignorant person in this
> newsgroup,
>> which is really quite an accomplishment considering all the
> contestants.
>
> Yeah, I think he wins too.
==================
And yet, you have never been able to refute what I post either. Between the
two of you can't you at least come up with someyhing that isn't an ignorant
ly?

>
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com
> A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites
> Irony, stupidity and ignorance on display!!!
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> >
>> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>>
>> > LOL But not as few as if you ate gras-fed beef or game. Too bad
> you
>> > still lose, killer.
>>
>> You know everything about losing...
>
> He keeps losing the fact that grass fed game
> must be compared to veganic (I like that new
> word!) farming, and when compared, the
> veganic wins as far as cds go.
========================
No, it does not fool! I'm comparing my diet to yours! Yours loses, and
you don't like it, so you have to start trying to stand your strawmen up.
Alternative meat sources are far more available mainstream than your
mythical veganic veggies. Besides, again, many of what you call your
veganic veggies are im[ports from around the world! You can pretend they
are vegan killer, but they are not.

>
>> > Whatever cds the crop causes
>> >> it's a great deal attributable to corn being mostly animal fodder!
>> > ==================
>> > LOL But it wasn't5 grown for that fool. It was grown for you.
> That you
>> > don't even realize how much you support an industry you claim to
> hate is
>> > amusing, killer.
>>
>> She's essentially saying that the collateral deaths attributed to corn
>> produced for silage is in the same proportion of collateral deaths
>> attributed to corn produced for grain. The more corn produced for
> silage,
>> the more collateral deaths it causes. It's pretty hard to deny.
>>
>> >> In an organic, compassionately harvested garden, all those
>> >> extra plant parts would be composted, enriching the soil
>> >> for future years.
>> > ===============
>> > There's the clue, fool. "In an organic." You don't have one. You
> buy
>> > your veggies from the supermart. You get your entertainment from
> usenet.
>> > Animals mean nothing to you, as long as you can spew your hate about
> what
>> > you think others are doing, while doing absolutly nothing about your
> own
>> > impact.
>>
>> She's free to compost and/or support organic agriculture if she wants
> to.
>> Any little bit helps.
>
> I'm in more of a current position to buy organic than to
> grow it myself, but idealy I think it would be great to have
> a couple acres and grow most of the food needed.
=====================
You couldn't do it. You are too convenience oriented and consumer driven
to even try. Besides, I've already shown you the myths of your 'organic'
veggies, killer. You can continue to support a massive petro-chemical
industry if you like, hypocrite.

>
>> >> Try using a bit less of the insults. They make you sound loony.
>> > ==================
>> > LOL From the most ignorant loon here. What a compliment...
>>
>> I think you take the prize for the most ignorant person in this
> newsgroup,
>> which is really quite an accomplishment considering all the
> contestants.
>
> Yeah, I think he wins too.
==================
And yet, you have never been able to refute what I post either. Between the
two of you can't you at least come up with someyhing that isn't an ignorant
ly?

>
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com
> A huge directory listing over 600 veg recipe sites
> Irony, stupidity and ignorance on display!!!
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Scented Nectar wrote:
>> > He keeps losing the fact that grass fed game
>>
>> Or beef, bison, goat, other wild game (rabbits, squirrels, gator,
> etc.),
>> and fish...
>>
>> > must be compared to veganic (I like that new
>> > word!) farming,
>>
>> It's not a word. And the irony is you're the one who invoked "peaceful
>> harvests" and wanted to compare it to feedlot-based grain-fed beef.
>
> Ok, how about your 'scrub beef'. Veganic still wins hands down.
> =================
Not your diet, fool. We aren't discussing mythical foods, we're talking
about real foods that you and I and Usual all buy. The fact that *you*
have to resort to a diet that is not available says your diet as it now
stands loses, and that you know you cannot defend it.


>> > and when compared, the
>> > veganic wins as far as cds go.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. You and Rick live reasonably near each other, and make
>> for a good real-world contrast in different diets and philosophies.
>>
>> Your "vegan" diet relies on commercially-grown foods, all of which
>> result in CDs. Your "vegan" diet includes machine-harvested rice which
>> results in CDs. Your "vegan" diet includes tropical foods shipped in
>> from far away, which also results in CDs.
>>
>> Rick's diet is locally-produced and much less dependent on machine
>> harvesting. As a result, his food results in fewer CDs than yours. If
>> the counting game determines who's more ethical, Rick beats you easily
>> because you've already lost the moment you start counting.
>
> As I understand it, veganic uses compassionate harvesting
> An ideal diet is from such practices. 0 cds.
======================
No. Any production on the scale it would mean to support people will
require machinery, and the necessary petro-chemical industry. Plus, *ALL*
crop land is environmental destruction.


>
>> > I'm in more of a current position to buy organic than to
>> > grow it myself,
>>
>> AHA. We finally get to your reality rather than your rhetoric. I
> suppose
>> it's pretty easy to talk of "peaceful harvests" when you don't
> actually
>> have one.
>
> The organic farms that supply my area are pretty good.
======================
Why do you try to resort to this ly? Organic does not mean cruelty-free or
pesticide-free. Haven't you read anything I've posted for you? You really
wish to remain terminally ignorant, don;t you killer? So much for your
stated claim as to wanting to reduce your impact, hypocrite.


>
>> > but idealy I think it would be great to have
>> > a couple acres and grow most of the food needed.
>>
>> ALL your little food fantasies are Utopian delusions. You don't live
> in
>> an ideal world, you live in THIS one. Lay off the dope for a while so
>> you can afford to buy or lease land and see if you can live up to all
>> the sanctimonious, self-righteous bullshit you peddle. Until then,
>> Skanky, practice what you preach.
>
> Not delusions. More and more people are turning back to
> non-harmful, small scale farming.
================
Except you. But again, it is not 'non-harmful.'


>
>
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Irony, stupidity and ignorance on display!!!
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Scented Nectar wrote:
>> > He keeps losing the fact that grass fed game
>>
>> Or beef, bison, goat, other wild game (rabbits, squirrels, gator,
> etc.),
>> and fish...
>>
>> > must be compared to veganic (I like that new
>> > word!) farming,
>>
>> It's not a word. And the irony is you're the one who invoked "peaceful
>> harvests" and wanted to compare it to feedlot-based grain-fed beef.
>
> Ok, how about your 'scrub beef'. Veganic still wins hands down.
> =================
Not your diet, fool. We aren't discussing mythical foods, we're talking
about real foods that you and I and Usual all buy. The fact that *you*
have to resort to a diet that is not available says your diet as it now
stands loses, and that you know you cannot defend it.


>> > and when compared, the
>> > veganic wins as far as cds go.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. You and Rick live reasonably near each other, and make
>> for a good real-world contrast in different diets and philosophies.
>>
>> Your "vegan" diet relies on commercially-grown foods, all of which
>> result in CDs. Your "vegan" diet includes machine-harvested rice which
>> results in CDs. Your "vegan" diet includes tropical foods shipped in
>> from far away, which also results in CDs.
>>
>> Rick's diet is locally-produced and much less dependent on machine
>> harvesting. As a result, his food results in fewer CDs than yours. If
>> the counting game determines who's more ethical, Rick beats you easily
>> because you've already lost the moment you start counting.
>
> As I understand it, veganic uses compassionate harvesting
> An ideal diet is from such practices. 0 cds.
======================
No. Any production on the scale it would mean to support people will
require machinery, and the necessary petro-chemical industry. Plus, *ALL*
crop land is environmental destruction.


>
>> > I'm in more of a current position to buy organic than to
>> > grow it myself,
>>
>> AHA. We finally get to your reality rather than your rhetoric. I
> suppose
>> it's pretty easy to talk of "peaceful harvests" when you don't
> actually
>> have one.
>
> The organic farms that supply my area are pretty good.
======================
Why do you try to resort to this ly? Organic does not mean cruelty-free or
pesticide-free. Haven't you read anything I've posted for you? You really
wish to remain terminally ignorant, don;t you killer? So much for your
stated claim as to wanting to reduce your impact, hypocrite.


>
>> > but idealy I think it would be great to have
>> > a couple acres and grow most of the food needed.
>>
>> ALL your little food fantasies are Utopian delusions. You don't live
> in
>> an ideal world, you live in THIS one. Lay off the dope for a while so
>> you can afford to buy or lease land and see if you can live up to all
>> the sanctimonious, self-righteous bullshit you peddle. Until then,
>> Skanky, practice what you preach.
>
> Not delusions. More and more people are turning back to
> non-harmful, small scale farming.
================
Except you. But again, it is not 'non-harmful.'


>
>
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Irony, stupidity and ignorance on display!!!
>