|
Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Retard wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>> >>>>"Retard" .****> wrote in message ... >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>> >>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>> >>>>I see through him. >>> >>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>we get here on this forum. >> >>I've recommended that people consume products which > > ... they don't want, They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing -- saving animals though their consumption still kills them. They're content with their hypocrisy. > you attack them and belittle their efforts at staying 'clean.' They're not clean, they're hypocrites. >>>They're no better or worse >>>than drug pushers, in my opinion, >> >>So says the Un > clean fat **** > who doesn't practice what he preaches. >>>their product onto non-users in the very same way with >> >>What a terrible analogy > > It's a perfect **** up. |
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Reynard wrote: >>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>Reynard wrote in message ... >>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>> >>>>>I see through him. >>>> >>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>we get here on this forum. >>> >>>I've recommended that people consume products which >> >> ... they don't want, > >They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. >> you attack them and belittle their efforts at staying 'clean.' > >They're not clean, they're hypocrites. Spoken like the true user you are, trying to push your substances onto clean targets by calling them hypocrites. >>>>They're no better or worse >>>>than drug pushers, in my opinion, >>> >>>So says the > >Un >> clean > >fat **** > >> who doesn't > >practice what he preaches. > >>>>their product onto non-users in the very same way with >>> >>>What a terrible analogy >> >> It's a perfect > >**** up. Oh how clever; you made a sentence out of four or more other sentences. <restore> It's a perfect analogy, pusher. An analogy is written in the form. A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (A) A pusher pushing meat is like (B) A pusher pushing drugs (B) has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Therefore, (A) a pusher pushing meat has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Shove off, pusher! |
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Reynard wrote: >>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>Reynard wrote in message ... >>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>> >>>>>I see through him. >>>> >>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>we get here on this forum. >>> >>>I've recommended that people consume products which >> >> ... they don't want, > >They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. >> you attack them and belittle their efforts at staying 'clean.' > >They're not clean, they're hypocrites. Spoken like the true user you are, trying to push your substances onto clean targets by calling them hypocrites. >>>>They're no better or worse >>>>than drug pushers, in my opinion, >>> >>>So says the > >Un >> clean > >fat **** > >> who doesn't > >practice what he preaches. > >>>>their product onto non-users in the very same way with >>> >>>What a terrible analogy >> >> It's a perfect > >**** up. Oh how clever; you made a sentence out of four or more other sentences. <restore> It's a perfect analogy, pusher. An analogy is written in the form. A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (A) A pusher pushing meat is like (B) A pusher pushing drugs (B) has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Therefore, (A) a pusher pushing meat has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Shove off, pusher! |
peril wrote:
> "Abner Hale" > wrote in message ps.com... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>>>In answer to trolls questions, I discuss cds. You keep >>>>>bringing it up. I never claimed to be able to eliminate >>>>>all cds, but a reduction is fine by me. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Hang on. How do you know you're "reducing?" By how many deaths have >>>>you reduced in the last ten years, and how did you arrive at that >>>>number? >>> >>> >>>Let's see. A long time ago, I ate meat. For each >>>pound of meat, it took a huge,huge amount of >>>crops just to make one pound of meat. >> >>NOT huge, huge, sorry. Estimates range from 1.5 to 3 pounds, once you > > > Calculations feed : beef. 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 |
Scented Nectar wrote:
<...> > It's kind of silly to suggest that a vegetarian eat > meat. :) Especially when their primary reason > is health. If I thought that humans were meant to > eat meat, I would chalking it up to nature as much > as any other carnivore. But I believe that we are > meant to be vegetarian. On what basis? |
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Abner Hale" > wrote in message > ups.com... > >>You know, what's best of all, is that you COMPLETELY ABDICATED on my >>original point. I challenged you to support your blanket assertion >>that cds caused by meat are always less than cds caused by vegetables. >>You effectively conceded. >> >>You really are a twit. > > > And you're a name calling nothing. You've ignored all > proof posted by me and others. What proof? > You would have found > your answers there (repeatedly). In your nonresponses? Ha. |
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:26:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Scented Nectar wrote: >> "Reynard" > wrote in message ... >>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >> >>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>therefore answer you. >>> >>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >> >> I see through him. > >No, you avoid dealing with facts whether they're presented by me Like this (below) "Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains, vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely and you have much more of the latter to feed the world." usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26 haw haw haw. |
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>The reasons are all quite valid. Health, animal welfare, >>>aesthetics, religion, allergies, trend following, etc. >> >>"Trend following?" WTF? > > > There's a zillion reasons for people going veggie. There are more ex-vegetarians than current ones. That's always been the case of faddist diets, whether vegetarian or Atkins or anything else. |
Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Retard wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>> >>>>Retard wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Retard wrote in message ... >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>>> >>>>>>I see through him. >>>>> >>>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>>we get here on this forum. >>>> >>>>I've recommended that people consume products which >>> >>>... they don't want, >> >>They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing > > They are not > doing exactly what they say they're doing: They're NOT causing no (or even less) harm to animals. <...> |
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Reynard wrote: >>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>Reynard wrote in message ... >>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I see through him. >>>>>> >>>>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>>>we get here on this forum. >>>>> >>>>>I've recommended that people consume products which >>>> >>>>... they don't want, >>> >>>They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing >> >> They are > >not Can't you go through a single thread without having to edit your opponent's replies, pusher? <restore> They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. >> you attack them and belittle their efforts at staying 'clean.' > >They're not clean, they're hypocrites. Spoken like the true user you are, trying to push your substances onto clean targets by calling them hypocrites. >>>>They're no better or worse >>>>than drug pushers, in my opinion, >>> >>>So says the > >Un >> clean > >fat **** > >> who doesn't > >practice what he preaches. > >>>>their product onto non-users in the very same way with >>> >>>What a terrible analogy >> >> It's a perfect > >**** up. Oh how clever; you made a sentence out of four or more other sentences. <restore> It's a perfect analogy, pusher. An analogy is written in the form. A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (A) A pusher pushing meat is like (B) A pusher pushing drugs (B) has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Therefore, (A) a pusher pushing meat has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Shove off, pusher! |
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> > Anyways, if you're so concerned about cds, >> > then do something about it. I've done my >> > bit, like it or leave it. >> > ================= >> No, all you've done is managed to kill even more than necessary. Why > is it >> you like doing that, killer? You've been shown that even without > eating >> meat that you could do far better, yet you remain willfully ignorant > and >> determined to cause as much unnecessary death and suffering as > possible. >> Why is that? Just like tracking around bloody footprints? > > > I've been shown zip from you. ======================= Only the door, little-girl. Apparently you're too stupid to read the sites that I have posted, many times now. Somehow, all you manage to do is snip and ignore them, just like all the so-called vegan religious loons do.... Just insults, > propaganda more appropriate for a meat > industry lobbyist, and more insults. Do you > actually think I'm going to believe much of > what you write? ================== LOL You don't have to fool. Unlike *YOU*, I post info to back up my claims. You have presented nothing, because you have nothing, killer. Insulting an intelligence that isn't there is hardly a insult, hypocrite. > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > |
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > "Abner Hale" > wrote in message > ups.com... >> >> You know, what's best of all, is that you COMPLETELY ABDICATED on my >> original point. I challenged you to support your blanket assertion >> that cds caused by meat are always less than cds caused by vegetables. >> You effectively conceded. >> >> You really are a twit. > > And you're a name calling nothing. You've ignored all > proof posted by me and others. You would have found > your answers there (repeatedly). ===================== You've never posted any proof you ignorant fool! Man, what a retard.... > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > |
Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Retard wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>> >>>>Retard wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Retard wrote in message ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I see through him. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>>>>we get here on this forum. >>>>>> >>>>>>I've recommended that people consume products which >>>>> >>>>>... they don't want, >>>> >>>>They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing >>> >>>They are >> >>not > > Can't ever get it right, can you, shit-stirring fat ****. |
Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:26:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>"Retard" .****> wrote in message ... >>> >>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>> >>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>therefore answer you. >>>> >>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>> >>>I see through him. >> >>No, you avoid dealing with facts whether they're presented by me > > > Like this (below) Some of us learn from our mistakes; we take in new and convincing information and adjust our positions accordingly. You just keep repeating yours over and over, and hold a bitter grudge against those who have open minds. You college types have no natural awareness of what's going on around you, sometimes. -- Dreck, Claire's uncle, http://tinyurl.com/54zxm |
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:40:40 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Reynard wrote: >>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I see through him. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>>>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>>>>>we get here on this forum. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I've recommended that people consume products which >>>>>> >>>>>>... they don't want, >>>>> >>>>>They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing >>>> >>>>They are >>> >>>not >> Can't you go through a single thread without having to edit your opponent's replies, pusher? They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. >> you attack them and belittle their efforts at staying 'clean.' > >They're not clean, they're hypocrites. Spoken like the true user you are, trying to push your substances onto clean targets by calling them hypocrites. It's a perfect analogy, pusher. An analogy is written in the form. A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (A) A pusher pushing meat is like (B) A pusher pushing drugs (B) has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Therefore, (A) a pusher pushing meat has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Shove off, pusher! |
"rick etter" > wrote in message . net...
> >> ==================== > >> You don't absorb your own b12, From; The Bacterial Flora of Humans (8) While E. coli is a consistent resident of the small intestine, many other enteric bacteria may reside here as well, including Klebsiella, Enterobacter and Citrobacter. 1. The normal flora synthesize and excrete vitamins in excess of their own needs, which can be absorbed as nutrients by the host. For example, enteric bacteria secrete Vitamin K and Vitamin B12, and lactic acid bacteria produce certain B-vitamins. http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Bact303/Bact303normalflora The B12-Cobalt Connection ... B12 synthesis by indigenous bacteria is known to occur naturally in the human small intestine, primary site of B12 absorption. As long as gut bacteria have cobalt and certain other nutrients, they produce B12. In principle then, internal B12 synthesis could fulfill our needs without any B12 provided by diet. ... The emerging nutritional crisis of B12 deficiency calls for remedial action in the macro- as well as micro-environment. Broad-spectrum remineralization of topsoils using crushed rock or dried seaweed from ocean areas known to contain sufficient cobalt can reestablish mineral balances necessary for healthy food supply able to fulfill our requirement, both direct and indirect, for B12 . The cobalt connection is especially relevant to us growing our own food, since cobalt-deficient areas likely are well-established. Beyond promoting remineralization to the farm community, we can adopt the practice in our gardens.' http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm . 'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits absorption of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to begin with in soils that have been abused. This may be caused in part by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels of fertilizer tend to kill them. Standard diets tend to be low in various minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis. http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health...s/organic.html The Baer report (Rutgers Univ., 1984) "Variations in Mineral Contents of Vegetables" Percentage of | Quantities per 100 Grams | Trace Elements. Parts per million Dry Weight Dry Weight Dry matter Vegetable: Mineral Ash | Calcium Magnesium | Boron Manganese Iron Copper *Cobalt Snap Beans Organic 10.45 40.5 60 73 60 227 69 0.26 Non-organic 4.04 15.5 14.8 10 2 10 3 0 Cabbage Organic 10.38 60 43.6 42 13 94 48 0.15 Non-organic 6.12 17.5 13.6 7 2 20 0.4 0 Lettuce Organic 24.48 71 49.3 37 169 516 60 0.19 Non-organic 7.01 16 13.1 6 1 9 3 0 Tomatoes Organic 14.2 23 59.2 36 68 1938 53 0.63 Non-organic 6.07 4.5 4.5 3 1 1 0 0 Spinach Organic 28.56 96 203.9 88 117 1584 32 0.25 Non-organic 12.38 47.5 46.9 12 1 49 0.3 0.2 http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/wh...whyorganic.htm |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:30:29 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:26:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>> >>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>> >>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>> >>>>I see through him. >>> >>>No, you avoid dealing with facts whether they're presented by me >> >> Like this (below) > >Some of us learn from our mistakes; Or, rather, some get taken in by the pushers and end up being pushers themselves. You're a weak-willed nebbish, easily taken in by the lies and disinformation spread by the pushers here who coerced you into taking their substances. In these quotes below you state that you dislike flesh, so how does learning from your mistakes suddenly change your tastes for food items? You also state that you believe the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs are bad for you, animals, your environment, and the whole World, but you sing a different tune now you've become a meat pusher, so how did learning from mistakes do that, pusher? <restore> "I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my environment, and the whole world. Is that first part selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other, more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.) mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and without serious health problems associated with an animal-based diet?" usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09 and "Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains, vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely and you have much more of the latter to feed the world." usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26 Those quotes belie your current pusher's position, and no amount of regret will ever undo the hypocrisy of it. The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. Omar Khayyam |
"rick etter" > wrote in message .net...
> reduced yields from organic farming '2. Lower yields are experienced during the transition to organic production Most researchers agree that yields tend to drop for three to five years during the conversion from industrial to organic approaches (Dabbert and Madden, 1986; US Congress, 1983; Hanson et al, 1990; Lampkin, 1989; Smolik and Dobbs, 1991). This is because it takes time for the soil to develop the positive attributes associated with organic agriculture. It also takes time for operators to learn organic crop management techniques. Some of the lower organic crop yield estimates cited in Exhibit III-1 may have been from industrial farms in transition to organic production. http://tinyurl.com/uvdi 'During the four-year period, corn yield in the organic system averaged 91.8% of conventional corn yield and soybean yield in the organic system averaged 99.6% of conventional soybean yield. By year three, there was no significant difference between organic and conventional yields; and both organic corn and soybeans exceeded conventional yields in the fourth year (the first year after certification). ' http://www.i-sis.org.uk/organicproductionworks.php > http://www.highyieldconservation.org...c_farming.html > http://www.highyieldconservation.org...esticides.html > http://www.highyieldconservation.org/articles/scarcity_abundance.html" Center for Global Food Issues, Hudson Institute and Avery, again. 'Monsanto and the Campaign to Undermine Organics Monsanto also partially funds the extreme anti-organic Center for Global Food Issues, a project of the right-wing Hudson Institute. It is run by Dennis Avery [1] (http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=15&page=A) The Hudson Institute is funded by many firms whose products are excluded from organic agricultu eg, AgrEvo, Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto, Novartis Crop Protection, Zeneca, Du Pont, DowElanco, ConAgra, and Cargill. [2] (http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=48&page=1&op=1) and his son Alex Avery. .....' http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...rmine_Organics |
Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:40:40 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Retard wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>> >>>>Retard wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I see through him. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>>>>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>>>>>>we get here on this forum. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I've recommended that people consume products which >>>>>>> >>>>>>>... they don't want, >>>>>> >>>>>>They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing >>>>> >>>>>They are >>>> >>>>not >> > > They are NOT > doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining > from meat, Some of their claims: 1. "Until we stop exploiting animals, billions will continue to abused, neglected and killed." http://www.theanimalspirit.com/vegan.html This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food production, too. 2. "Cruelty-free Diet Promoted at High Schools." http://www.vivausa.org/newsreleases/02-01.html This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food production, too. Viva also claims to be ...a dynamic organization campaigning on behalf of animals killed for food. http://www.vivausa.org/index.html They just mean the ones that actually end up on plates, not the ones killed in the fields for their own food. 3. One AR site lists: Cruelty free diets : * Vegetarian use the discussion board for more help ! Lacto-ovo-vegetarian : eats both dairy products and eggs. Lacto-vegetarian : eats dairy products but not eggs. Ovo-vegetarian : eats eggs but not dairy products. * Vegan : does not eat dairy products, eggs or any other animal or fish product. * Fruitarian : eats only raw fruits http://www.animalsuffering.com/ This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the humane slaughter which they object. Etc. Your point is flawed, you unemployed, morbidly obese dope. |
Retard wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:30:29 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Retard wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:26:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>> >>>>>I see through him. >>>> >>>>No, you avoid dealing with facts whether they're presented by me >>> >>>Like this (below) >> >>Some of us learn from our mistakes; > > Or, rather, some get taken in by the pushers and end > up being pushers themselves. That's why you're still a closed-minded vegan, fatso, despite all the evidence that your "diet" contributes to the very problem it's supposed to solve. |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:22:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:40:40 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Reynard wrote: >>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I see through him. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>>>>>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>>>>>>>we get here on this forum. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I've recommended that people consume products which >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>... they don't want, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing >>>>>> >>>>>>They are >>>>> >>>>>not >> >> They are > >NOT Can't you go through a single thread without having to edit your opponent's replies, pusher? They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. >> you attack them and belittle their efforts at staying 'clean.' > >They're not clean, they're hypocrites. Spoken like the true user you are, trying to push your substances onto clean targets by calling them hypocrites. It's a perfect analogy, pusher. An analogy is written in the form. A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (A) A pusher pushing meat is like (B) A pusher pushing drugs (B) has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Therefore, (A) a pusher pushing meat has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Shove off, pusher! |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:28:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:30:29 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Reynard wrote: >>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:26:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>>> >>>>>>I see through him. >>>>> >>>>>No, you avoid dealing with facts whether they're presented by me >>>> >>>>Like this (below) >>> >>>Some of us learn from our mistakes; >> >> Or, rather, some get taken in by the pushers and end >> up being pushers themselves. > >That's why you're still a closed-minded vegan, fatso, despite all the >evidence that your "diet" contributes to the very problem it's supposed >to solve. Rather than lash out like a hurt child, call me silly names and delete the evidence which proves you've lied, explain how "learning from your own mistakes" changed your tastes for certain foods. In these quotes below you state that you dislike flesh, so how does learning from your mistakes suddenly change your tastes for food items? You also state that you believe the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs are bad for you, animals, your environment, and the whole World, but you sing a different tune now you've become a meat pusher, so how did learning from mistakes do that, pusher? <restore> "I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my environment, and the whole world. Is that first part selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other, more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.) mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and without serious health problems associated with an animal-based diet?" usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09 and "Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains, vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely and you have much more of the latter to feed the world." usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26 Those quotes belie your current pusher's position, and no amount of regret will ever undo the hypocrisy of it. The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. Omar Khayyam |
Retard wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:22:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Retard wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:40:40 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>> >>>>Retard wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>>>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>>>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>>>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>>>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>>>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>>>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I see through him. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>>>>>>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>>>>>>>>we get here on this forum. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I've recommended that people consume products which >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>... they don't want, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing >>>>>>> >>>>>>>They are >>>>>> >>>>>>not >>> >>>They are >> >>NOT > > Can't you I can do a lot more than you, you unemployed, self-crippled fat ****. > They are NOT > doing exactly what they say they're doing: Some of their claims: 1. "Until we stop exploiting animals, billions will continue to abused, neglected and killed." http://www.theanimalspirit.com/vegan.html This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food production, too. 2. "Cruelty-free Diet Promoted at High Schools." http://www.vivausa.org/newsreleases/02-01.html This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food production, too. Viva also claims to be ...a dynamic organization campaigning on behalf of animals killed for food. http://www.vivausa.org/index.html They just mean the ones that actually end up on plates, not the ones killed in the fields for their own food. 3. One AR site lists: Cruelty free diets : * Vegetarian use the discussion board for more help ! Lacto-ovo-vegetarian : eats both dairy products and eggs. Lacto-vegetarian : eats dairy products but not eggs. Ovo-vegetarian : eats eggs but not dairy products. * Vegan : does not eat dairy products, eggs or any other animal or fish product. * Fruitarian : eats only raw fruits http://www.animalsuffering.com/ This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the humane slaughter which they object. Etc. Your point is flawed, you unemployed, morbidly obese dope. Vegans claim to do a lot more than merely not eat meat. They claim that merely not eating meat (or other animal products) has a certain result: the cessation of animal deaths. They refuse to alter their behavior when it's demonstrated that their consumption does NOT change the result they seek. They're hypocritical poseurs for advocating a solution that worsens the initial "problem" rather than addressing it in any meaningful, practical way. |
Retard wrote:
> explain how "learning from your own mistakes" > changed your tastes for certain foods. Strawman. My tastes haven't changed (nor have my politics, which is why I was never vegan to begin with). I'd noted that I would probably resume eating fish -- much to the outrage of both Lesley and Zakhar -- in posts from that same era. |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:29:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:22:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Reynard wrote: >>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:40:40 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>>>>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I see through him. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>>>>>>>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>>>>>>>>>we get here on this forum. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I've recommended that people consume products which >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>... they don't want, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing >>>>>>>> <restore> They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. >> you attack them and belittle their efforts at staying 'clean.' > >They're not clean, they're hypocrites. Spoken like the true user you are, trying to push your substances onto clean targets by calling them hypocrites. >>>>They're no better or worse >>>>than drug pushers, in my opinion, >>> It's a perfect analogy, pusher. An analogy is written in the form. A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (A) A pusher pushing meat is like (B) A pusher pushing drugs (B) has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Therefore, (A) a pusher pushing meat has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Shove off, pusher! |
Retard wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:29:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Retard wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:22:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>> >>>>Retard wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:40:40 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I see through him. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>>>>>>>>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>>>>>>>>>>we get here on this forum. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I've recommended that people consume products which >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>... they don't want, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing >>>>>>>>> > <restore> > They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining > from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. > > >>>you attack them and belittle their efforts at staying 'clean.' >> >>They're not clean, they're hypocrites. > > > Spoken like the true You mean truth. Some of their claims: 1. "Until we stop exploiting animals, billions will continue to abused, neglected and killed." http://www.theanimalspirit.com/vegan.html This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food production, too. 2. "Cruelty-free Diet Promoted at High Schools." http://www.vivausa.org/newsreleases/02-01.html This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food production, too. Viva also claims to be ...a dynamic organization campaigning on behalf of animals killed for food. http://www.vivausa.org/index.html They just mean the ones that actually end up on plates, not the ones killed in the fields for their own food. 3. One AR site lists: Cruelty free diets : * Vegetarian use the discussion board for more help ! Lacto-ovo-vegetarian : eats both dairy products and eggs. Lacto-vegetarian : eats dairy products but not eggs. Ovo-vegetarian : eats eggs but not dairy products. * Vegan : does not eat dairy products, eggs or any other animal or fish product. * Fruitarian : eats only raw fruits http://www.animalsuffering.com/ This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the humane slaughter which they object. Etc. Your point is flawed, you unemployed, morbidly obese dope. Vegans claim to do a lot more than merely not eat meat. They claim that merely not eating meat (or other animal products) has a certain result: the cessation of animal deaths. They refuse to alter their behavior when it's demonstrated that their consumption does NOT change the result they seek. They're hypocritical poseurs for advocating a solution that worsens the initial "problem" rather than addressing it in any meaningful, practical way. |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:34:05 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Retard wrote: >> explain how "learning from your own mistakes" >> changed your tastes for certain foods. > >Strawman. You've claimed that your change in stance was because you learned something from your mistakes, yet part of this change seems to have altered your taste for certain foods as well, so it's clear you're not telling the truth about this alleged learning from your mistakes because learning from one's mistakes cannot change one's taste in food as well. In these quotes below you state that you dislike flesh, so how does learning from your mistakes suddenly change your tastes for food items? You also state that you believe the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs are bad for you, animals, your environment, and the whole World, but you sing a different tune now you've become a meat pusher, so how did learning from mistakes do that, pusher? <restore> "I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my environment, and the whole world. Is that first part selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other, more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.) mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and without serious health problems associated with an animal-based diet?" usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09 and "Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains, vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely and you have much more of the latter to feed the world." usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26 Those quotes belie your current pusher's position, and no amount of regret will ever undo the hypocrisy of it. The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. Omar Khayyam |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:36:25 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:29:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Reynard wrote: >>>>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:22:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:40:40 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I see through him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>we get here on this forum. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I've recommended that people consume products which >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>... they don't want, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing >>>>>>>>>> >> <restore> >> They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining >> from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. You didn't comment on this, pusher, but at least you left it in this time. >>>>you attack them and belittle their efforts at staying 'clean.' >>> >>>They're not clean, they're hypocrites. >> >> Spoken like the true > >You mean truth. No I meant what you keep snipping away. I meant that what you wrote was spoken like the true user you are, trying to push your substances onto clean targets by calling them hypocrites. You are a pusher, and like any other pusher you'll lie to your targets here to make it easier to push your unwanted substances onto them. It's a perfect analogy, pusher. An analogy is written in the form. A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (A) A pusher pushing meat is like (B) A pusher pushing drugs (B) has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Therefore, (A) a pusher pushing meat has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Shove off, pusher! |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:36:25 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:29:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Reynard wrote: >>>>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:22:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:40:40 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I see through him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>we get here on this forum. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I've recommended that people consume products which >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>... they don't want, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing >>>>>>>>>> >> <restore> >> They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining >> from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. You didn't comment on this, pusher, but at least you left it in this time. >>>>you attack them and belittle their efforts at staying 'clean.' >>> >>>They're not clean, they're hypocrites. >> >> Spoken like the true > >You mean truth. No I meant what you keep snipping away. I meant that what you wrote was spoken like the true user you are, trying to push your substances onto clean targets by calling them hypocrites. You are a pusher, and like any other pusher you'll lie to your targets here to make it easier to push your unwanted substances onto them. It's a perfect analogy, pusher. An analogy is written in the form. A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (A) A pusher pushing meat is like (B) A pusher pushing drugs (B) has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Therefore, (A) a pusher pushing meat has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Shove off, pusher! |
Retard wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:34:05 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > > >>Retard wrote: >> >>>explain how "learning from your own mistakes" >>>changed your tastes for certain foods. >> >>Strawman. > > > You've claimed that your change in stance was > because you learned something from your mistakes, Correct. > yet part of this change seems Seems? Is that the best you can do, fatso? > to have altered your > taste for certain foods as well, Which foods would those be, Nash? I'd already noted in afv, aaev, and tpa that I'd probably consume fish again. Other than the fish I ate last week, my diet is virtually unchanged. I consume dairy only when my girlfriend cooks something with it (non-fat yogurt or skim milk), and I've had processed foods (e.g., fake Italian sausage) with egg whites maybe three times in the last year. > so it's clear you're The only thing that's clear is you cannot get past shit-stirring. |
Retard wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:36:25 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > >>Retard wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:29:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>> >>>>Retard wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:22:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:40:40 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Retard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I see through him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we get here on this forum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've recommended that people consume products which >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>... they don't want, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing >>>>>>>>>>> >>><restore> >>>They are NOT >>>doing exactly what they say they're doing: Their claims include: 1. "Until we stop exploiting animals, billions will continue to abused, neglected and killed." http://www.theanimalspirit.com/vegan.html This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food production, too. 2. "Cruelty-free Diet Promoted at High Schools." http://www.vivausa.org/newsreleases/02-01.html This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food production, too. Viva also claims to be ...a dynamic organization campaigning on behalf of animals killed for food. http://www.vivausa.org/index.html They just mean the ones that actually end up on plates, not the ones killed in the fields for their own food. 3. One AR site lists: Cruelty free diets : * Vegetarian use the discussion board for more help ! Lacto-ovo-vegetarian : eats both dairy products and eggs. Lacto-vegetarian : eats dairy products but not eggs. Ovo-vegetarian : eats eggs but not dairy products. * Vegan : does not eat dairy products, eggs or any other animal or fish product. * Fruitarian : eats only raw fruits http://www.animalsuffering.com/ This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation, drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the humane slaughter which they object. Etc. Your point is flawed, you unemployed, morbidly obese dope. Vegans claim to do a lot more than merely not eat meat. They claim that merely not eating meat (or other animal products) has a certain result: the cessation of animal deaths. They refuse to alter their behavior when it's demonstrated that their consumption does NOT change the result they seek. They're hypocritical poseurs for advocating a solution that worsens the initial "problem" rather than addressing it in any meaningful, practical way. > You didn't comment on this, I overlooked it. Thanks for pointing it out, fatso. |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:51:51 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:34:05 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Reynard wrote: >>> >>>>explain how "learning from your own mistakes" >>>>changed your tastes for certain foods. >>> >>>Strawman. >> >> You've claimed that your change in stance was >> because you learned something from your mistakes, > >Correct. > >> yet part of this change seems > >Seems? Is that the best you can do, fatso? I wrote 'seems' because I don't believe one's taste in foods can change by learning something from one's mistakes. >> to have altered your >> taste for certain foods as well, > >Which foods would those be The foods I mentioned which are in your quotes that you keep snipping away. In these quotes below you state that you dislike flesh, so how does learning from your mistakes suddenly change your tastes for food items? You also state that you believe the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs are bad for you, animals, your environment, and the whole World, but you sing a different tune now you've become a meat pusher, so how did learning from mistakes do that? <restore> "I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my environment, and the whole world. Is that first part selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other, more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.) mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and without serious health problems associated with an animal-based diet?" usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09 and "Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains, vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely and you have much more of the latter to feed the world." usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26 Those quotes belie your current pusher's position, and no amount of regret will ever undo the hypocrisy of it. The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. Omar Khayyam |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:54:01 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:36:25 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>Reynard wrote: >>>>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:29:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:22:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:40:40 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>therefore answer you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I see through him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we get here on this forum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've recommended that people consume products which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>... they don't want, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>><restore> Your constant editing of my replies is getting ridiculous and shows you have nothing to offer as a valid response to my remarks. Can't you go through a single thread without having to edit your opponent's replies, pusher? <restore> They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. >> you attack them and belittle their efforts at staying 'clean.' > >They're not clean, they're hypocrites. Spoken like the true user you are, trying to push your substances onto clean targets by calling them hypocrites. >>>>They're no better or worse >>>>than drug pushers, in my opinion, >>> >>>So says the > >Un >> clean > >fat **** > >> who doesn't > >practice what he preaches. > >>>>their product onto non-users in the very same way with >>> >>>What a terrible analogy >> >> It's a perfect > >**** up. Oh how clever; you made a sentence out of four or more other sentences. <restore> It's a perfect analogy, pusher. An analogy is written in the form. A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (A) A pusher pushing meat is like (B) A pusher pushing drugs (B) has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Therefore, (A) a pusher pushing meat has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Shove off, pusher! |
"Reynard" > wrote
> > The Moving Finger writes; Yawn, same old tactics eh Derek? Nobody believes that changing one's position on something makes you a liar or a hypocrite. |
"Reynard" > wrote
> They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining > from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher. It's not about "pushing meat", it's about reminding vegans that their diets are not bloodless. |
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "rick etter" > wrote in message > .net... >> reduced yields from organic farming > ==================== I see your dishonesty is still intact, hypocrite. that wasn't a statement i made. Thanks for proving all you have is snip without correct annotation and run.... snippage... |
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "rick etter" > wrote in message > . net... >> >> ==================== >> >> You don't absorb your own b12, > Read from your vegan websites, fool... www.veganhealth.org/b12/int "...It has long been assumed that B12 is produced by bacteria in the large intestine (aka the colon), but since B12 is produced below the ileum (where B12 is absorbed), it is not available for absorption. This theory is reinforced by the fact that many species of totally or primarily vegetarian animals eat their feces. It is surmised that eating feces allows them to obtain B12 on their diets of plant foods. Although I believe this to be true, it has not been verified beyond a reasonable doubt...." www.natural-connection.com/resource/ tnc_reference_library/b12_information.html www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/ comp-anat/comp-anat-7c.shtml snip nonsense lys doesn't understand anyway... |
John Deere wrote:
.... > a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or > b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason. > > In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent > of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation. Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed vegetarian of some kind? That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed with much hatred. It would be springing from an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of will by finding some "justification"! FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet due to lack of will. When people are raised on meat in every meal, just the effort they made once does deserve some praise. |
"John Deere" > wrote
> John Deere wrote: > ... >> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or >> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason. >> >> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent >> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation. > > Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little > clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed > vegetarian of some kind? > > That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed > with much hatred. It would be springing from > an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of > will by finding some "justification"! You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance. > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet > due to lack of will. When people are raised on > meat in every meal, just the effort they made > once does deserve some praise. I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan self-flattery. |
Dutch wrote: > "John Deere" > wrote > > > John Deere wrote: > > ... > >> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or > >> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason. > >> > >> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent > >> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation. > > > > Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little > > clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed > > vegetarian of some kind? > > > > That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed > > with much hatred. It would be springing from > > an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of > > will by finding some "justification"! > > You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance. > > > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached > > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet > > due to lack of will. When people are raised on > > meat in every meal, just the effort they made > > once does deserve some praise. > > I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan > self-flattery. They have to pat themselves on the back. Nobody else will. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter