Scented Nectar wrote:
> Ok, you're cut off for a while.

Now you sound like my girlfriend when she finds out I've flirted with a
cashier or waitress.

> You're nothing but an insult spewer.

Don't forget that you're the one who's talked of engaging in *******
relations with the wives of your opponents here. All *I* did was address
your flawed points. Here they are again should you decide to address
them rather than run away.

You said you gave up meat in '81 and haven't done ANY accounting of harm
you've caused animals, but you still make claims about your new sense of
virtue. I replied:
IOW, you've no way to validate how many animals you're killing
or how many you're no longer killing. You're just winging it and
making yourself feel better through (wholly false) positive
affirmations that you're not causing as much harm to animals as
other people. How sanctimonious of you.

When asked repeatedly about your "research," you've only repeated that
you've engaged in it for a number of years. You refuse to give any more
details ("...to YOU" meaning me) and you get all hissy when I point out
the glaringly bad information you've already peddled he
I know what you've posted here. You're ignorant about matters of
nutrition.... Nothing to show ANYONE. Your previous posts on the
issues of inhaling toxic smoke, omega-6 intake, and your false
generalizations about meat versus no meat demonstrate your
ignorance.

You claimed it was a "fact" that your diet causes less harm to animals
than ANY diet which contains meat. You've been shown repeatedly that
this is not so. You then tried to wiggle around and say that your diet
requires "less crops." I replied:
No, they do not. I demonstrated that your favorite foods like
fake sausage require tremendous inputs for their yields --
greater even than the inflated ratios you claimed for meat
production. Additionally, you've suggested organic farming would
minimize harm to animals; the problem is agricultural experts
point out the reduced yields from organic farming require
substantially more land be farmed to feed a given number of
people.

I also provided the following links:
http://www.highyieldconservation.org...c_farming.html
http://www.highyieldconservation.org...esticides.html
http://www.highyieldconservation.org...abundance.html

Finally, you've repeatedly claimed that organic farming causes no harm
to animals. I showed you otherwise, and in every instance your response
was to completely snip the information rather than deal with it.

---------
Oh yes, they are. Click on the links and learn something for a change,
Little Miss Health Researcher.

RESTORE AND ADD INFO FROM NEW THREAD
Organic pesticides cause cancer in rodents (and humans):
One of organic farming's most widely used
pesticides--pyrethrum--has been classified as a ``likely human
carcinogen.'' An advisory committee to the Environmental
Protection Agency made the classification two years ago, after
pyrethrum caused higher-than-normal numbers of tumors in two
different sets of laboratory rodents.
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...1/jun_8_01.htm

Organic pesticides induce Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms in rodents
(and humans):
Rotenone, a commonly used organic pesticide, has attracted a lot
of attention in Dr. Greenamyre's lab. In past studies, Dr.
Greenamyre and colleagues found that rotenone can induce major
features of PD in rats, including slowness, stiffness and
tremor. Published in Nature Neuroscience in November 2000, these
results support the idea that chronic exposure to environmental
pesticides may contribute to the incidence of Parkinson's
disease in humans. With the new funding, Dr. Greenamyre will
continue to research rodent and cell models of PD to determine
which genes cause susceptibility or resistance to the
PD-inducing effects of pesticides.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community.../20022444.html

Organic pesticides affect more than just target species:
Some organic pesticides may be toxic to nontargets.
http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/public...are/which.html

Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and
many of them are banned under the Rotterdam Convention:
The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries –
including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect
once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list
included 22 organic pesticides considered to be highly toxic...
http://www.nex.org.br/english/denuci...enenamento.htm

Finally, but not because I'm out of ammo on the subject, an organic
pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane is banned because of
its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its initials: DDT.
http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm

Here's more. Organic pesticides kill fish:
While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only
slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other
animals. For instance, the organic pesticide ryania is very
toxic to fish.
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm

Organic pesticides kill a variety of non-target species, and foods grown
organically are not labeled "pesticide free":
Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone
kills fish. Copper sulphate kills many creatures. In California,
an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all
pesticide use. For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call
their produce "pesticide free."
http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html
See also:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...etails&id=1677

Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its
conventional counterpart:
Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but
"natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide
sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic
agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the
eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful
and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb."

Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper
sulphate used by organic farmers is toxic to humans, very toxic
to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to
small mammals.
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...0/sep_8_00.htm

Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a
variety of species including humans:
There have been reports of human suicide resulting from the
ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate
is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is toxic to aquatic
invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters. Based on data
on the potential hazards posed by this material to the
slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass, and in
an effort to minimize exposure of endangered species to this
material, applicators in some counties are required to consult
EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate.
http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm

Organic pesticides ARE toxins:
Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic
farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills
pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even
though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has
questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of
various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that
paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper
compounds that can be tough on other organisms and the
environment. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the
pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on
a wide range of insects. Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to
mammals and highly toxic to fish. It is illegal to apply them
around ponds or waterways. So even though it says "organic", it
can still pack a nasty punch.
http://www.springledgefarm.com/glossary.htm

How much more evidence do you need, Skunky, before you stop making wild
claims about the superiority of organic farming techniques with respect
to concern for human health, wildlife safety, etc.? You jelly-headed,
clueless urbanite.
----------

Get used to seeing that whole list again, Skunky, because I will paste
it in to every stupid claim you make about organic food production being
better for animals or people.

> You couldn't understand my
> concepts even if you really tried.

I might be able to if you could actually EXPLAIN them. You've had every
opportunity to explain yourself and support your claims. I approached
you in a very civil manner after you callously replied to me and made
some very wrong insinuations. I've urged you this entire time to support
your claims, and you've balked every single time.

> That makes for repetition on my part and is boring.

You have been engaging in repetition, but you've yet to EXPLAIN anything.