 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
anyone else think that "usual suspect" is so not clever?
"Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Get a life.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"t.racer" > wrote in message ... > "Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Get a life. he is more like Johnny Depp on the vegan circuit > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"t.racer" > wrote in message ... > "Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Get a life. Oh, I think that Usual Suspect is quite clever. The problem with him is that he enjoys personally attacking people if their views on some issues don't agree with his, which aren't always consistent (see his "I am vegan" - "I am NOT vegan" flip-flop in the usenet archives). He's an aggressive, mean-spirited, intolerant, net-terrorist of the worst order. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
He is a person that enjoys arguing. He goes to a vegan group and posts
anti vegan messages. The Heart Association and Cancer Association say that a vegetarian diet is healthier, so he's not on a health crusade. He's simply derives pleasure by being an asshole. C. James Strutz wrote: > "t.racer" > wrote in message > ... > >>"Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Get a life. > > > Oh, I think that Usual Suspect is quite clever. The problem with him is that > he enjoys personally attacking people if their views on some issues don't > agree with his, which aren't always consistent (see his "I am vegan" - "I am > NOT vegan" flip-flop in the usenet archives). He's an aggressive, > mean-spirited, intolerant, net-terrorist of the worst order. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
t.racer wrote:
> "Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Who ****ed in your cornflakes? > Get a life. I have enough of one already that I needn't go around provoking others like you have, dickhead. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Balarama wrote:
> he is more like Johnny Depp on the vegan circuit As Captain Jack Sparrow, of course. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
C. James Strutz wrote:
>>"Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Get a life. > > Oh, I think that Usual Suspect is quite clever. Thank you, Jimbo. > The problem with him is that There you go again with your "aggressive, mean-spirited, intolerant" crap. Why can't you ever play nice? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
> He is a person that enjoys arguing. No, I'm a person who enjoys truth-telling. You're a babbling twit who objects to others disproving your wild vegan claims. > He goes to a vegan group and posts > anti vegan messages. Actually, I respond to wild vegan claims. You're forgetting, you semi-literate oaf, that I'm vegetarian and that I've posted more recipes to this group than you have. > The Heart Association and Cancer Association say > that a vegetarian diet is healthier, No, they do not. I've shown you before what they have to say. The AHA website says: Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound if they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients. However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains too many calories and not enough important nutrients. They don't make categorical statements like you vegans do. Their support for vegetarian diets is qualified. > so he's not on a health crusade. I'm on both a health and truth crusade. You're peddling an agenda. You claim the AHA says vegetarian diets are healthier when in fact they only offer qualified support for them as noted above. You're a dolt and you're too stupid to realize it. > He's simply derives pleasure by being an asshole. Is that what you call someone who actually checks to see if you're telling the truth about what organizations like the Heart Association say and learns that, yet again, you're either too stupid to understand that their support is qualified or deliberately lying to prop up your fad diet? Which is it, beached runt? > C. James Strutz wrote: > >> "t.racer" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>> "Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Get a life. >> >> >> >> Oh, I think that Usual Suspect is quite clever. The problem with him >> is that he enjoys personally attacking people if their views on some >> issues don't agree with his, which aren't always consistent (see his >> "I am vegan" - "I am NOT vegan" flip-flop in the usenet archives). >> He's an aggressive, mean-spirited, intolerant, net-terrorist of the >> worst order. >> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote: > >> He is a person that enjoys arguing. > > > No, I'm a person who enjoys truth-telling. You're a babbling twit who > objects to others disproving your wild vegan claims. > >> He goes to a vegan group and posts anti vegan messages. > > > Actually, I respond to wild vegan claims. You're forgetting, you > semi-literate oaf, that I'm vegetarian and that I've posted more recipes > to this group than you have. > >> The Heart Association and Cancer Association say that a vegetarian >> diet is healthier, > > > No, they do not. I've shown you before what they have to say. The AHA > website says: > Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound if > they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients. > However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains too > many calories and not enough important nutrients. Link: http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4777 > They don't make categorical statements like you vegans do. Their support > for vegetarian diets is qualified. > >> so he's not on a health crusade. > > > I'm on both a health and truth crusade. You're peddling an agenda. You > claim the AHA says vegetarian diets are healthier when in fact they only > offer qualified support for them as noted above. You're a dolt and > you're too stupid to realize it. > >> He's simply derives pleasure by being an asshole. > > > Is that what you call someone who actually checks to see if you're > telling the truth about what organizations like the Heart Association > say and learns that, yet again, you're either too stupid to understand > that their support is qualified or deliberately lying to prop up your > fad diet? Which is it, beached runt? > > >> C. James Strutz wrote: >> >>> "t.racer" > wrote in message >>> ... >>> >>>> "Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Get a life. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Oh, I think that Usual Suspect is quite clever. The problem with him >>> is that he enjoys personally attacking people if their views on some >>> issues don't agree with his, which aren't always consistent (see his >>> "I am vegan" - "I am NOT vegan" flip-flop in the usenet archives). >>> He's an aggressive, mean-spirited, intolerant, net-terrorist of the >>> worst order. >>> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Strutz wrote: >>>"Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Get a life. >> >> Oh, I think that Usual Suspect is quite clever. > > Thank you, Jimbo. You're welcome. >> The problem with him is that > > There you go again with your "aggressive, mean-spirited, intolerant" crap. I tell it like I see it. You accept an honest compliment (clever) but you cry foul when I also honestly describe you as "aggressive, mean-spirited, and intolerant". I suspect you're a younger guy given your maturity level. You need to learn that people won't care how smart or how well educated you are when you're an asshole to them. > Why can't you ever play nice? Heh, maybe we should poll the newsgroup on who plays nice and who doesn't. Want to make any bets? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
> The Heart Association and Cancer Association say > that a vegetarian diet is healthier, "usual suspect" > wrote in message: > No, they do not. I've shown you before what they have to say. The AHA > website says: > Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound if > they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients. > However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains too > many calories and not enough important nutrients. >Link: http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4777 ----------------- Opps! You forgot to quote this part from the AHA link you provided: Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer. -TW ----------- > > > They don't make categorical statements like you vegans do. Their support > > for vegetarian diets is qualified. > > > >> so he's not on a health crusade. > > > > > > I'm on both a health and truth crusade. You're peddling an agenda. You > > claim the AHA says vegetarian diets are healthier when in fact they only > > offer qualified support for them as noted above. You're a dolt and > > you're too stupid to realize it. > > > >> He's simply derives pleasure by being an asshole. > > > > > > Is that what you call someone who actually checks to see if you're > > telling the truth about what organizations like the Heart Association > > say and learns that, yet again, you're either too stupid to understand > > that their support is qualified or deliberately lying to prop up your > > fad diet? Which is it, beached runt? > > > > > >> C. James Strutz wrote: > >> > >>> "t.racer" > wrote in message > >>> ... > >>> > >>>> "Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Get a life. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Oh, I think that Usual Suspect is quite clever. The problem with him > >>> is that he enjoys personally attacking people if their views on some > >>> issues don't agree with his, which aren't always consistent (see his > >>> "I am vegan" - "I am NOT vegan" flip-flop in the usenet archives). > >>> He's an aggressive, mean-spirited, intolerant, net-terrorist of the > >>> worst order. > >>> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>"Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Get a life. >>> >>>Oh, I think that Usual Suspect is quite clever. >> >>Thank you, Jimbo. > > You're welcome. > >>>The problem with him is that >> >>There you go again with your "aggressive, mean-spirited, intolerant" crap. > > I tell it like I see it. So do I (which is why you object). The only difference is you see your own "candor" (which, to be honest, is often much more vitriolic than mine; yours also lacks any measure of substance) as virtuous because you're defending your dogma and fellow true-believers; you reflexively object to my substance-based candor on the grounds that I'm heretical for challenging your veg-n dogma. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The **** wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote: > >>The Heart Association and Cancer Association say >>that a vegetarian diet is healthier, > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message: > >>No, they do not. I've shown you before what they have to say. The AHA >>website says: >> Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound if >> they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients. >> However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains too >> many calories and not enough important nutrients. > >>Link: > > http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4777 > ----------------- > > Opps! You mean "oops." > You forgot to quote this part from the AHA link you provided: I didn't forget anything. > Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem *SEEM*. WTF do you not understand about that word, twit? It doesn't mean the same as "vegetarians HAVE a lower risk" -- which is NOT proven by health studies. > to have a lower risk of > obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood > pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer. The fact remains that Beached Runt said the AHA says vegetarian diets are healthier and they *don't*. If you click the link to their eating plan on the bottom of the link above, you'll find their dietary recommendations. Those recommendations include consumption of LEAN meats and fish (especially oily cold-water fish high in omega-3 FAs), REDUCED-FAT dairy, etc. They offer only qualified support of vegetarianism so long as it's *carefully planned*. Why did you "forget" to quote their recommendations? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > C. James Strutz wrote: > >>>>> "Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Get a life. >>>> >>>> >>>> Oh, I think that Usual Suspect is quite clever. >>> >>> >>> Thank you, Jimbo. >> >> >> You're welcome. >> >>>> The problem with him is that >>> >>> >>> There you go again with your "aggressive, mean-spirited, intolerant" >>> crap. >> >> >> I tell it like I see it. > > > So do I (which is why you object). The only difference is you see your > own "candor" (which, to be honest, is often much more vitriolic than > mine; yours also lacks any measure of substance) as virtuous because > you're defending your dogma and fellow true-believers; you reflexively > object to my substance-based candor on the grounds that I'm heretical > for challenging your veg-n dogma. I don't visit here much. It's funny that this obviously sick individual dominates a usenet group just to be disliked. If it were a group of veg*ns it would be useful. For what it's worth, I've been a vegan for 30 years, have sons that have gone through college as lifelong vegetarians. One was a Georgia top 5 wrestler, American Legion Pitcher, and a State Cup Soccer Player. At age 50 I was running 10K races and pushing weights, swimming miles. It works. He's just a sick individual with no life. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message .. . > The **** wrote: >> Beach Runner wrote: >> >>>The Heart Association and Cancer Association say >>>that a vegetarian diet is healthier, >> >> "usual suspect" > wrote in message: >> >>>No, they do not. I've shown you before what they have to say. >>>The AHA >>>website says: >>> Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound >>> if >>> they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients. >>> However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains >>> too >>> many calories and not enough important nutrients. >> >>>Link: >> >> http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4777 >> ----------------- >> >> Opps! > > You mean "oops." > >> You forgot to quote this part from the AHA link you provided: > > I didn't forget anything. > >> Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem > > *SEEM*. WTF do you not understand about that word, twit? It > doesn't mean the same as "vegetarians HAVE a lower risk" -- > which is NOT proven by health studies. > >> to have a lower risk of >> obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), >> high blood >> pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer. > > The fact remains that Beached Runt said the AHA says vegetarian > diets are healthier and they *don't*. If you click the link to > their eating plan on the bottom of the link above, you'll find > their dietary recommendations. Those recommendations include > consumption of LEAN meats and fish (especially oily cold-water > fish high in omega-3 FAs), REDUCED-FAT dairy, etc. They offer > only qualified support of vegetarianism so long as it's > *carefully planned*. > > Why did you "forget" to quote their recommendations? ================== They're too busy pushing an agenda of half-truths and out-right lys. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The What" > wrote in message .. . > Beach Runner wrote: >> The Heart Association and Cancer Association say >> that a vegetarian diet is healthier, > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message: >> No, they do not. I've shown you before what they have to say. >> The AHA >> website says: >> Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound >> if >> they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients. >> However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains >> too >> many calories and not enough important nutrients. > >>Link: > http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4777 > ----------------- > > Opps! You forgot to quote this part from the AHA link you > provided: ================= Oops, in your agenda pushing spew you forgot to mention a few things from the site too.. "The exact cause of 90-95% of all high blood pressure cases is unknown." Risk factors in heart desease... smoking, physical inactivity, overweight. and, even in the diet setion to reduce these risks they recommend lean meats.. Not "no" meat. But then, you have an agenda to push, so the truth means nothing, eh killer? > > Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower > risk of > obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), > high blood > pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer. > > -TW > ----------- >> >> > They don't make categorical statements like you vegans do. >> > Their support >> > for vegetarian diets is qualified. >> > >> >> so he's not on a health crusade. >> > >> > >> > I'm on both a health and truth crusade. You're peddling an >> > agenda. You >> > claim the AHA says vegetarian diets are healthier when in >> > fact they only >> > offer qualified support for them as noted above. You're a >> > dolt and >> > you're too stupid to realize it. >> > >> >> He's simply derives pleasure by being an asshole. >> > >> > >> > Is that what you call someone who actually checks to see if >> > you're >> > telling the truth about what organizations like the Heart >> > Association >> > say and learns that, yet again, you're either too stupid to >> > understand >> > that their support is qualified or deliberately lying to >> > prop up your >> > fad diet? Which is it, beached runt? >> > >> > >> >> C. James Strutz wrote: >> >> >> >>> "t.racer" > wrote in message >> >>> ... >> >>> >> >>>> "Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Get a life. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Oh, I think that Usual Suspect is quite clever. The >> >>> problem with him >> >>> is that he enjoys personally attacking people if their >> >>> views on some >> >>> issues don't agree with his, which aren't always >> >>> consistent (see his >> >>> "I am vegan" - "I am NOT vegan" flip-flop in the usenet >> >>> archives). >> >>> He's an aggressive, mean-spirited, intolerant, >> >>> net-terrorist of the >> >>> worst order. >> >>> > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bitch Runner wrote:
> > usual suspect wrote: > >> C. James Strutz wrote: >> >>>>>> "Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Get a life. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oh, I think that Usual Suspect is quite clever. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you, Jimbo. >>> >>> >>> >>> You're welcome. >>> >>>>> The problem with him is that >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There you go again with your "aggressive, mean-spirited, intolerant" >>>> crap. >>> >>> >>> >>> I tell it like I see it. >> >> >> >> So do I (which is why you object). The only difference is you see your >> own "candor" (which, to be honest, is often much more vitriolic than >> mine; yours also lacks any measure of substance) as virtuous because >> you're defending your dogma and fellow true-believers; you reflexively >> object to my substance-based candor on the grounds that I'm heretical >> for challenging your veg-n dogma. > > > I don't visit here much. Good. You don't have much to offer. > It's funny that this obviously sick individual > dominates a usenet group just to be disliked. It's not easy for me to defend Jim Strutz, but I wouldn't say he dominates a newsgroup. He is disliked, though, and not for Asperger's Disorder. > If it were a group of > veg*ns it would be useful. No, because vegans aren't useful. > For what it's worth, About zero-cents. To be honest, YOU should have to pay everyone who has to read through your semi-literate posts for their time. So it's worth less than zero-cents. > I've been a vegan for 30 years, have sons that have > gone through college as lifelong vegetarians. Yes, you've told us all about the one who nearly died in a car crash with his young manfriend. > One was a Georgia top 5 > wrestler, Wrestling is homo-erotic. Those who enjoy watching oiled young men rolling on the floor with each other are closet homosexuals. Did you watch your boy roll on the floor with handsome, fit lads? > American Legion Pitcher, and a State Cup Soccer Player. So are many more youngsters who have the nerve to eat meat. Go figure. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Strutz wrote: >> I tell it like I see it. > > So do I (which is why you object). Wrong, I object to your vitriol and your tendency to take positions that are far to the contrary - wherever contrary may be. You hate anyone who refers to themselves as vegan, yet you are vegan. You are a twisted individual. > you're defending your dogma and fellow true-believers; you reflexively > object to my substance-based candor on the grounds that I'm heretical for > challenging your veg-n dogma. What veg-n dogma? You're losing your mind and your "substance-based candor" is a joke. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Bitch Runner wrote: >> >> usual suspect wrote: >> >>> C. James Strutz wrote: >> It's funny that this obviously sick individual dominates a usenet group >> just to be disliked. > > It's not easy for me to defend Jim Strutz, but I wouldn't say he dominates > a newsgroup. Um, he's talking about you Einstein. Maybe I should take back my clever comment... > He is disliked, though, Only by you and I'm somehow not disappointed with that. > and not for Asperger's Disorder. Lashing out again...go for it if it makes you feel better. > Yes, you've told us all about the one who nearly died in a car crash with > his young manfriend. More lashing out. You are quite the pussy when nobody buys your "substance". >> One was a Georgia top 5 wrestler, > > Wrestling is homo-erotic. Those who enjoy watching oiled young men rolling > on the floor with each other are closet homosexuals. Did you watch your > boy roll on the floor with handsome, fit lads? I would love to see a wrestler get a hold of your ass. :^) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The What" wrote:
> > Opps! "usual suspect" wrote: > You mean "oops." --------------- Oops yes, you are absolutely right! Thank you for correcting my mistake. When someone makes a mistake, it's nice if they show their appreciation by stating "thank you" when someone is good enough to take the time to correct it, don't you agree? Thanks again for correcting mine... "The What" wrote: You forgot to quote this part from the AHA link you provided: "usual suspect" wrote: > I didn't forget anything. ----------- Of course you did, that is if you were attempting to correct the mistake "Beach Runner" made when stating: > The Heart Association and Cancer Association say > that a vegetarian diet is healthier, To this you (correctly) replied "No, they do not", which is true. But then instead of quoting what the American Heart Association website actually does say regarding the health of those on a vegetarian diet as compared to those on a non-vegetarian diet, you for some reason quoted a relatively unrelated part which says: "Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound if they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients. However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains too many calories and not enough important nutrients." That's just fine and dandy, but "Beach Runner" wasn't simply discussing how healthful and nutritionally sound the AHA says a vegetarian diet can be, in and of itself. The quote you posted would have been much more pertinent if you had presented it in conjunction with the AHA info which refers to what "Beach Runner" was actually talking about (in particular, what the AHA really says regarding how "healthy" a vegetarian diet is compared to a non-vegetarian diet). But you neglected to quote what the AHA website actually does say when "comparing" the two types of diets. So I simply did you a favor and posted the pertinent AHA quote (repeated below), since it's the one that proves that what "Beach Runner" stated wasn't accurate. What's so hard to understand about that? From the American Heart Association website: "Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer." I had enough courtesy to thank you for correcting my "oops" spelling mistake earlier, so will you now be courteous in return and thank me for correcting your oversight when attempting to disprove Beach Runner's inaccurate statement, when you neglected to post the pertinent quote? -TW ------------ "usual suspect" > wrote in message .. . > The **** wrote: > > Beach Runner wrote: > > > >>The Heart Association and Cancer Association say > >>that a vegetarian diet is healthier, > > > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message: > > > >>No, they do not. I've shown you before what they have to say. The AHA > >>website says: > >> Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound if > >> they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients. > >> However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains too > >> many calories and not enough important nutrients. > > > >>Link: > > > > http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4777 > > ----------------- > > > > Opps! > > You mean "oops." > > > You forgot to quote this part from the AHA link you provided: > > I didn't forget anything. > > > Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem > > *SEEM*. WTF do you not understand about that word, twit? It doesn't mean > the same as "vegetarians HAVE a lower risk" -- which is NOT proven by > health studies. > > > to have a lower risk of > > obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood > > pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer. > > The fact remains that Beached Runt said the AHA says vegetarian diets > are healthier and they *don't*. If you click the link to their eating > plan on the bottom of the link above, you'll find their dietary > recommendations. Those recommendations include consumption of LEAN meats > and fish (especially oily cold-water fish high in omega-3 FAs), > REDUCED-FAT dairy, etc. They offer only qualified support of > vegetarianism so long as it's *carefully planned*. > > Why did you "forget" to quote their recommendations? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" > wrote in message:
> Oops, in your agenda pushing spew you forgot to mention a few > things from the site too.. > > "The exact cause of 90-95% of all high blood pressure cases is > unknown." > > Risk factors in heart desease... smoking, physical inactivity, > overweight. > and, even in the diet setion to reduce these risks they recommend > lean meats.. Not "no" meat. > But then, you have an agenda to push, so the truth means nothing, > eh killer? ----------------- Agenda? All I did was post the pertinent quote from the AHA website to prove that "Beach Runner" made an inaccurate statement, since "usual suspect" failed to do so. From what you stated above, you seem to believe that I have some sort of a diet-related agenda. I have no idea what that may be, so I implore you to tell me what it is. First, let me tell you what I ate yesterday, then you can tell me what my "agenda" is. I had rice, steamed potatoes, carrots, mushrooms and beets, oatmeal, and also 3 hard-boiled eggs and 2 Whoppers from Burger King. So what's my "agenda"? "rick" > wrote: > eh killer? "Killer", you say? Hell yeah! Aren't you? -TW |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > Bitch Runner wrote: > >> >> usual suspect wrote: >> >>> C. James Strutz wrote: >>> >>>>>>> "Usual Suspect," you're a bore. Get a life. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, I think that Usual Suspect is quite clever. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, Jimbo. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You're welcome. >>>> >>>>>> The problem with him is that >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There you go again with your "aggressive, mean-spirited, >>>>> intolerant" crap. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I tell it like I see it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> So do I (which is why you object). The only difference is you see >>> your own "candor" (which, to be honest, is often much more vitriolic >>> than mine; yours also lacks any measure of substance) as virtuous >>> because you're defending your dogma and fellow true-believers; you >>> reflexively object to my substance-based candor on the grounds that >>> I'm heretical for challenging your veg-n dogma. >> >> >> >> I don't visit here much. > > > Good. You don't have much to offer. > If vegans wanted to talk about vegans, the purpose of this group. >> It's funny that this obviously sick individual dominates a usenet >> group just to be disliked. > > > It's not easy for me to defend Jim Strutz, but I wouldn't say he > dominates a newsgroup. He is disliked, though, and not for Asperger's > Disorder. > Why does an anti vegetarian spend so much time here? >> If it were a group of veg*ns it would be useful. > > > No, because vegans aren't useful. > Of course it would be useful for vegans. And of course the American Heart Association and American Dietary Association and American Cancer Society have all endorsed vegetarian diets. >> For what it's worth, > > > About zero-cents. To be honest, YOU should have to pay everyone who has > to read through your semi-literate posts for their time. So it's worth > less than zero-cents. No comment, I have an ivy league graduate degree. > >> I've been a vegan for 30 years, have sons that have gone through >> college as lifelong vegetarians. > > > Yes, you've told us all about the one who nearly died in a car crash > with his young manfriend. No, he was in a crash with a group of cousins. Get your facts straight. He never recovered. He was hurt horribly. > >> One was a Georgia top 5 wrestler, > > > Wrestling is homo-erotic. Those who enjoy watching oiled young men > rolling on the floor with each other are closet homosexuals. Did you > watch your boy roll on the floor with handsome, fit lads? > High school and college wrestling is a sport. He has a girlfriend. He was recruited to wrestle because he was the best athlete in his school and was very successful. It's an Olympic sport. And even if he was, all you do is spread bias. >> American Legion Pitcher, and a State Cup Soccer Player. > > > So are many more youngsters who have the nerve to eat meat. Go figure. True. But they also have higher incidences of cancer and heart disease later in life. All it shows is that a healthy vegan diet can promote a longer diet, but can produce great athletes. Like Carl Young. Then there is the very real issue that the meat industry is pumping animals with antibiotics, creating antibiotic germs. This is a very dangerous situation. And the use and growth of factory farmed animals wastes huge amounts of water, a valuable resource. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The What wrote: > "The What" wrote: > >>>Opps! > > > "usual suspect" wrote: > >>You mean "oops." > > --------------- > Oops yes, you are absolutely right! Thank you for correcting my mistake. > When someone makes a mistake, it's nice if they show their appreciation by > stating "thank you" when someone is good enough to take the time to correct > it, don't you agree? Thanks again for correcting mine... > > "The What" wrote: > You forgot to quote this part from the AHA link you provided: > > "usual suspect" wrote: > >>I didn't forget anything. > > ----------- > Of course you did, that is if you were attempting to correct the mistake > "Beach Runner" made when stating: > > >>The Heart Association and Cancer Association say >>that a vegetarian diet is healthier, > > > To this you (correctly) replied "No, they do not", which is true. But then > instead of quoting what the American Heart Association website actually does > say regarding the health of those on a vegetarian diet as compared to those > on a non-vegetarian diet, you for some reason quoted a relatively unrelated > part which says: > > "Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound if > they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients. > However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains too > many calories and not enough important nutrients." > > That's just fine and dandy, but "Beach Runner" wasn't simply discussing how > healthful and nutritionally sound the AHA says a vegetarian diet can be, in > and of itself. The quote you posted would have been much more pertinent if > you had presented it in conjunction with the AHA info which refers to what > "Beach Runner" was actually talking about (in particular, what the AHA > really says regarding how "healthy" a vegetarian diet is compared to a > non-vegetarian diet). > > But you neglected to quote what the AHA website actually does say when > "comparing" the two types of diets. So I simply did you a favor and posted > the pertinent AHA quote (repeated below), since it's the one that proves > that what "Beach Runner" stated wasn't accurate. What's so hard to > understand about that? > > From the American Heart Association website: > "Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of > obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood > pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer." > > I had enough courtesy to thank you for correcting my "oops" spelling mistake > earlier, so will you now be courteous in return and thank me for correcting > your oversight when attempting to disprove Beach Runner's inaccurate > statement, when you neglected to post the pertinent quote? > No, it would be useful for vegans to discuss how to eat a healthy vegan diet. I've shown that I can raise superior children, and as an AARP member can outperform most folks half my age. I'd be glad to go into specifics. A vegan diet can easily be unhealthy. It's easier to eat a healthy vegetarian diet than a typical American meat oriented, junk food diet. > -TW > ------------ > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > .. . > >>The **** wrote: >> >>>Beach Runner wrote: >>> >>> >>>>The Heart Association and Cancer Association say >>>>that a vegetarian diet is healthier, >>> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message: >>> >>> >>>>No, they do not. I've shown you before what they have to say. The AHA >>>>website says: >>>> Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound if >>>> they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients. >>>> However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains too >>>> many calories and not enough important nutrients. It's not hard at all. Avoid junk food and empty calories. Know what you are eating. >>> >>>>Link: >>> >>>http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4777 >>>----------------- >>> >>>Opps! >> >>You mean "oops." >> >> >>>You forgot to quote this part from the AHA link you provided: >> >>I didn't forget anything. >> >> >>>Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem >> >>*SEEM*. WTF do you not understand about that word, twit? It doesn't mean >>the same as "vegetarians HAVE a lower risk" -- which is NOT proven by >>health studies. >> >> >>>to have a lower risk of >>>obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood >>>pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer. >> >>The fact remains that Beached Runt said the AHA says vegetarian diets >>are healthier and they *don't*. If you click the link to their eating >>plan on the bottom of the link above, you'll find their dietary >>recommendations. Those recommendations include consumption of LEAN meats >>and fish (especially oily cold-water fish high in omega-3 FAs), >>REDUCED-FAT dairy, etc. They offer only qualified support of >>vegetarianism so long as it's *carefully planned*. >> >>Why did you "forget" to quote their recommendations? > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> ----------------- > Agenda? All I did was post the pertinent quote from the AHA website to prove > that "Beach Runner" made an inaccurate statement, since "usual suspect" > failed to do so. > > From what you stated above, you seem to believe that I have some sort of a > diet-related agenda. I have no idea what that may be, so I implore you to > tell me what it is. First, let me tell you what I ate yesterday, then you > can tell me what my "agenda" is. I had rice, steamed potatoes, carrots, > mushrooms and beets, oatmeal, and also 3 hard-boiled eggs and 2 Whoppers > from Burger King. So what's my "agenda"? > Yes I have an agenda in promoting healthy vegetarian eating. Part of that is a group where people can discuss what that is. Instead a few individuals make this such a hostile place that can't take place. I also have a strong environmental objective. And, I've stated the dangers of the use of antibiotics in the meat industry, a great danger. But this group has been destroyed with nasty postings. I'll post the essentials of a healthy vegan diet. Lots of raw fruits and vegetables. Especially leafy greens. Not too many calories. Daily exercise. Avoid processed foods. Avoid added garbage, like corn syrup. Eat fruit first, since it digests quicker than other foods and wait for it to digest. Look for legumes and sources of protein. A typical example is I post that someone is rated in the top 5 wrestlers, and usual suspects write homophobic comments. It demonstrates speed, agility, quick thinking, and pound for pound strength. This is for a young man that was on a college scholarship, had a fine sweetheart. I feel terrible he was in a terrible car accident (he wasn't the driver) Watch calories. Watch for pesticide residues. It unprocessed natural food. Research. Read. There is no doubt that meat eating is associated with colon cancer. Our digestive system is quite long. Promoting antibiotics in food potentially is the greatest danger in promoting the meat industry. Beach Runner. Why Beach Runner? Because I run on the beach, swim and lift weights. I've been handed a setback by a car accident, when my car was hit by a mercedes going 90 mph on a residential street. The doctors say my musculature helped me survive. At age 50 I was running 15K races at 7 minute miles. I was not always a vegetarian. I highly suggest all parents read the bone density diet. The giving of soda and excess proteins to children should be outlawed, if one understands how bones are developed and we have an epidemic of osteoporosis in our society. Interestingly, in societies that don't drink dairy or soda, osteoporosis is virtually unknown. ( of course that's changing with globalization). I'll be glad to discuss how to eat and exercise healthy from youth to aged. I got my kids out on the soccer fields, not sitting playing video games. I'll be glad to discuss junk foods. I will discuss the omega 3 controversy and arguments. When the government pays framers to grow corn, they put corn syrup in everything. It's junk. I also have an agenda to protect habitat. The little bit of habitat is being destroyed, largely for meat production. Diversity of species is something I value. I think when I post about a son wrestling and homophobic comments are stated, they are simply trying to be nasty. I've stated my agenda and some of the basics of healthy heating. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>I tell it like I see it. >> >>So do I (which is why you object). > > Wrong, No, I'm correct. > I object to your vitriol Which I typically reserve for the right situation, such as when someone is ridiculously pigheaded, willfully ignorant, or blatantly deceitful. > and your tendency to take positions that are > far to the contrary - wherever contrary may be. Such as...? Maybe you mean something like this: There are some common misconceptions about being vegetarian. Among the most common is that being vegetarian saves all animal lives. Animals will die to put food on your table whether you are vegetarian or not - even if you are vegan. It's unavoidable unless you go to extreme measures that are not usually practical in today's culture. You might save the lives of some animals: cows, chickens, turkeys, fish, pigs, etc., but other animals will die as a result of agricultural practices, transportation, packaging, warehousing, and for many other reasons. Most people don't think about the other animal casualties because they aren't featured in a meal. Of course, I didn't write that (though I've made those very points many times myself only to be subjected to your objections). You posted that two days ago in rfvc. > You hate anyone who refers > to themselves himself, herself... > as vegan, No, I don't. Michael B calls himself a vegan. I don't hate him at all. He's a decent guy. I don't agree with him about some things, and I'm sure he doesn't agree with me about them, either, but we aren't disagreeable about anything. Dittos for shev who, while not claiming to be vegan _per se_, pushes the agenda and engages in civil discussion about it. > yet you are vegan. By what definition? I have no objections about how or even that animals are raised for food, I just don't eat them. I don't object to hunting; I do it myself and donate the meat to a hunger program. I've noted in the past that I would probably add fish back to my diet and I've had sashimi a couple times this year. I don't go looking to eliminate any and all traces of animal parts from my diet; I don't care if some ingredient MIGHT be of animal origin and on some activist's list of foods to avoid to "save" animals. I have no objections to medical testing or any other testing on animals; far better to try things out on animals first before subjecting humans to potential dangers. I don't give a shit if BEES are exploited for honey; as many times as those ****ers have stung me, they OWE me something useful (I also snicker when ninnies like "Ronny" emote about "bee vomit" when talking about honey and why it should be avoided). I don't object to fur or leather; animal hides are much more environmentally-friendly than petrochemical-based synthetic fibers. Etc. Tell me how any of that is consistent with veganism. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>It's funny that this obviously sick individual dominates a usenet group >>>just to be disliked. >> >>It's not easy for me to defend Jim Strutz, but I wouldn't say he dominates >>a newsgroup. > > Um, You have *no* sense of humor, do you. >>He is disliked, though, > > Only by you For the record, I don't dislike you. I only dislike the way you fly off the handle simply because you don't like others questioning vegan dogma. >>>One was a Georgia top 5 wrestler, >> >>Wrestling is homo-erotic. Those who enjoy watching oiled young men rolling >>on the floor with each other are closet homosexuals. Did you watch your >>boy roll on the floor with handsome, fit lads? > > I would love to see a wrestler get a hold of your ass. :^) That's pretty queer. Please keep your pederasty fantasies to yourself, Jim. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The What wrote:
Just answer inline like everyone else. Your version of Outlook Express uses additional greater-than signs to show what different people wrote. You needn't make your posts read like a play script. > "The What" wrote: > >>>Opps! Note THREE greater-than signs. > "usual suspect" wrote: > >>You mean "oops." Note TWO greater-than signs. I know what I wrote. You don't have to ****ing point it out to me or anyone else. > --------------- > Oops yes, you are absolutely right! Note ONE greater-than sign. > Thank you for correcting my mistake. You're welcome. <snip and restore 2 greater-than signs> >>> You forgot to quote this part from the AHA link you provided: > >>I didn't forget anything. > > Of course you did, No, I did not. "Bitch" said the AHA recommends vegetarian diets. I showed that they do not. > that is if you were attempting to correct the mistake > "Beach Runner" made when stating: > >>The Heart Association and Cancer Association say >>that a vegetarian diet is healthier, > > To this you (correctly) replied "No, they do not", which is true. End of discussion. > But then > instead of quoting what the American Heart Association website actually does > say regarding the health of those on a vegetarian diet as compared to those > on a non-vegetarian diet, The issue at hand was whether or not they recommend a vegetarian diet. "Bitch" said they do. I showed they don't. You agree with me. End of discussion. > you for some reason quoted a relatively unrelated > part which says: That part is RELATED to the issue at hand, which is whether or not the AHA recommends a vegetarian diet. They don't. If you read my full post, I wrote: They don't make categorical statements like you vegans do. Their support for vegetarian diets is qualified. Their qualfication gets beyond the generalization made by activists and parrots like "Bitch." They don't say that vegetarianism is intrinsically healthier than meat eating. If you'd read through their recommendations, as I suggested, you would've found that their recommendations focus on choosing carefully between leaner meats and seafood, reduced-fat dairy products, lots of whole grains and fresh produce. At no point do they urge people to completely avoid meat or dairy, as veg-n dolts like "Bitch" suggest they do. For a little history of this issue, "Bitch" has in the past written that other groups recommend veganism or vegetarianism. Those groups have included the American Dietetics Association and Union of Concerned Scientists. I showed him that the ADA's position is precisely that of the AHA above -- *qualified* support of WELL-PLANNED vegetarian diets, not an endorsement of generalized vegetarianism over meat consumption. The same is true of UCS, an organization whose name belies the fact that the overwhelming majority of their members are political types rather than scientists, whose website recommends sustainable agricultural practices INCLUDING SUSTAINABLE MEAT PRODUCTION. They do not endorse vegetarianism. "Bitch" is either a liar or an idiot, perhaps both. > "Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound if > they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients. > However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains too > many calories and not enough important nutrients." > > That's just fine and dandy, That settles the issue, which was "Bitch's" claim that the AHA recommends vegetarianism. > but "Beach Runner" wasn't simply discussing how > healthful and nutritionally sound the AHA says a vegetarian diet can be, in > and of itself. No, he said the AHA recommends a vegetarian diet. Do they? You agreed with me above that they do NOT. > The quote you posted dealt with the issue at hand. The AHA does NOT recommend vegetarianism. They recommend healthier eating habits whether or not those habits include meat. > would have been much more pertinent It WAS pertinent because I dealt with the issue at hand. > if > you had presented it in conjunction with the AHA info which refers to what > "Beach Runner" was actually talking about (in particular, what the AHA > really says regarding how "healthy" a vegetarian diet is compared to a > non-vegetarian diet). Tell me why I should play the activist game of comparing apples (healthy vegetarian diets) to oranges (unhealthy non-vegetarian diets)? The AHA doesn't do that -- which is why they recommend healthier diets whether they contain meat or not. Compare healthy meat-included diets with healthy vegetarian diets and see if there are any qualitative differences in groups on both diets. There will be none, aside from the findings of studies that vegetarian women are more likely to have breast cancer than women who eat meat. > But you neglected to quote what the AHA website actually does say when > "comparing" the two types of diets. No, I didn't and that's comparing one healthy diet against one unhealthy one -- apples to oranges. And when you stupidly turned the subject away from what the AHA recommends (healthier eating habits, not necessarily vegetarianism -- for which they only offer qualified support), I asked you what you don't understand about the word SEEMS. You glossed right over that. *SEEM*. WTF do you not understand about that word, twit? It doesn't mean the same as "vegetarians HAVE a lower risk" -- which is NOT proven by health studies. The following is from BMJ. The study found that reduced mortality rates from heart disease in vegetarians wasn't significant and that breast cancer death rates among vegetarians was significantly higher (with a wide confidence interval). This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet) and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with both of these dietary factors was NOT SIGNIFICANT. We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was NOT SIGNIFICANT and was LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a SIGNIFICANT INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals. The 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily consumption of fresh fruit was NOT SIGNIFICANT.... http://tinyurl.com/4q6fe > So I simply did you a favor and posted > the pertinent AHA quote (repeated below), It wasn't germane to the issue of whether or not AHA recommends vegetarian diets, which was the issue at hand. They recommend healthier eating habits whether people choose to consume meat and/or dairy or not. <...> > From the American Heart Association website: > "Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of > obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood > pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer." Other studies have shown the contrary. Many of the studies most often cited in favor of vegetarianism only note that OVERconsumption -- not moderate consumption -- of meat leads to those health issues (and meat eaters aren't the only people at risk of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer). Again, comparing apples and oranges. > I had enough courtesy to thank you for correcting my "oops" spelling mistake > earlier, so will you now be courteous in return and thank me No. You didn't stick to the issue at hand, which was whether or not the AHA recommends vegetarian diets. They don't. They recommend healthier eating habits regardless of whether people want to eat meat or dairy products. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The What wrote:
> "rick" > wrote in message: > >>Oops, in your agenda pushing spew you forgot to mention a few >>things from the site too.. >> >>"The exact cause of 90-95% of all high blood pressure cases is >>unknown." >> >>Risk factors in heart desease... smoking, physical inactivity, >>overweight. >>and, even in the diet setion to reduce these risks they recommend >>lean meats.. Not "no" meat. >>But then, you have an agenda to push, so the truth means nothing, >>eh killer? > > ----------------- > Agenda? All I did was post the pertinent quote from the AHA website to prove > that "Beach Runner" made an inaccurate statement, Impertinent quote. The quote I offered showed that they only offer qualified support of vegetarianism. They do NOT recommend it, as "Bitch" suggested. They recommend healthier eating habits whether people choose to eat meat or not. > since "usual suspect" failed to do so. I didn't fail to do anything. I demonstrated that the AHA doesn't recommend vegetarianism, which was the issue at hand. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Strutz wrote: >> I object to your vitriol > > Which I typically reserve for the right situation, such as when someone is > ridiculously pigheaded, willfully ignorant, or blatantly deceitful. You are NOT reserved. It doesn't take much to set you off. >> and your tendency to take positions that are far to the contrary - >> wherever contrary may be. > > Such as...? Maybe you mean something like this: > There are some common misconceptions about being vegetarian. > Among the most common is that being vegetarian saves all animal > lives. Animals will die to put food on your table whether you > are vegetarian or not - even if you are vegan. It's unavoidable > unless you go to extreme measures that are not usually practical > in today's culture. You might save the lives of some animals: > cows, chickens, turkeys, fish, pigs, etc., but other animals > will die as a result of agricultural practices, transportation, > packaging, warehousing, and for many other reasons. Most people > don't think about the other animal casualties because they > aren't featured in a meal. > > Of course, I didn't write that (though I've made those very points many > times myself only to be subjected to your objections). You posted that two > days ago in rfvc. What's your point? I wrote it and I agree with it. It proves your comment yesterday WRONG that I defend "veg-n dogma". If you go back and look at our clashes in the past (which you so like to do), I don't object to your positions as much as I object to your style. You like to argue for the sake of argueing and you do so in a very aggressive and mean-spirited manner. Look, I understand that you are here to argue why you think veganism is a misguided pursuit. Why don't you just let people be vegan if that's what they want to do? And why must you be so disparaging and insulting as you make your points? People are entitled to their thoughts and aspirations just as you are. Why don't you respect that? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Strutz wrote: >>>>It's funny that this obviously sick individual dominates a usenet group >>>>just to be disliked. >>> >>>It's not easy for me to defend Jim Strutz, but I wouldn't say he >>>dominates a newsgroup. >> >> Um, > > You have *no* sense of humor, do you. It's the Asperger thing, you know... >>>He is disliked, though, >> >> Only by you > > For the record, I don't dislike you. I only dislike the way you fly off > the handle simply because you don't like others questioning vegan dogma. Sigh, you just don't get it. I don't defend nor attack vegan perspectives. I fly off at you because you unecessarily attack people here in an aggressive and mean-spirited way. >>>>One was a Georgia top 5 wrestler, >>> >>>Wrestling is homo-erotic. Those who enjoy watching oiled young men >>>rolling on the floor with each other are closet homosexuals. Did you >>>watch your boy roll on the floor with handsome, fit lads? >> >> I would love to see a wrestler get a hold of your ass. :^) > > That's pretty queer. Please keep your pederasty fantasies to yourself, > Jim. Okay, I got this attempt at humor... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bitch Runner wrote:
>>> I don't visit here much. >> >> Good. You don't have much to offer. >> > If vegans wanted to talk about vegans, the purpose of this group. Incomplete sentence. What's your point? I'm on-topic and dealing in facts. Too bad you don't like that. >>> It's funny that this obviously sick individual dominates a usenet >>> group just to be disliked. >> >> It's not easy for me to defend Jim Strutz, but I wouldn't say he >> dominates a newsgroup. He is disliked, though, and not for Asperger's >> Disorder. >> > Why does an anti vegetarian spend so much time here? I'm not anti-vegetarian, you oaf, I'm only pointing out that you're a liar when you say that the AHA, ADA, and UCS recommend vegetarian diets. They don't! They never have! All three not only offer only qualified support for vegetarian diets, they recommend that those who eat meat choose leaner cuts (AHA and ADA) or meat from sustainable farms (UCS). Not one of those groups is anti-meat or pro-vegetarian, contrary to what you've tried to peddle here. >>> If it were a group of veg*ns it would be useful. >> >> >> >> No, because vegans aren't useful. >> > Of course it would be useful for vegans. And of course the American > Heart Association and American Dietary Association and American Cancer > Society have all endorsed vegetarian diets. No, they have not. You started these lies with UCS back in December. I showed you that UCS supports sustainable meat production. Nowhere on their site to they advocate vegetarianism. http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/g...licationID=689 The ADA and AHA do NOT recommend vegetarian diets. They both offer qualified support for well-planned vegetarian diets. Both organizations recommend healthier eating choices whether one eats meat and/or dairy or not. It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that *appropriately planned* vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. http://www.eatright.org/Public/Gover...airs/17084.cfm That's not a generalized recommendation. Their general recommendation is that **ANY** food can be incorporated into a healthful plan. It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that all foods can fit into a healthful eating style. The ADA strives to communicate healthful eating messages to the public that emphasize the total diet, or overall pattern of food eaten, rather than any one food or meal. If consumed in moderation with appropriate portion size and combined with regular physical activity, all foods can fit into a healthful diet. http://www.eatright.org/Member/Polic...ndex_21027.cfm I've already shown you that the AHA does NOT recommend vegetarianism. They offer the same qualified support as the ADA and have the same position that ALL foods can be incorporated into a healthy plan. Look at their plan at the following link. Read the Eating Plan Tips as well as the parts about Meat..., Eggs, and Milk Products. http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=1088 >>> For what it's worth, >> >> About zero-cents. To be honest, YOU should have to pay everyone who >> has to read through your semi-literate posts for their time. So it's >> worth less than zero-cents. > > No comment, I have an ivy league graduate degree. I don't believe you. >>> I've been a vegan for 30 years, have sons that have gone through >>> college as lifelong vegetarians. >> >> Yes, you've told us all about the one who nearly died in a car crash >> with his young manfriend. > > No, he was in a crash with a group of cousins. Get your facts straight. Get yours straight. > He never recovered. He was hurt horribly. Veganism didn't help him much then, did it. >>> One was a Georgia top 5 wrestler, >> >> Wrestling is homo-erotic. Those who enjoy watching oiled young men >> rolling on the floor with each other are closet homosexuals. Did you >> watch your boy roll on the floor with handsome, fit lads? > > High school and college wrestling is a sport. Two pubescent sweaty boys rolling on the floor in tights, holding each other tightly, is not sport. Especially when one spreads his legs and wraps them around the other lad. Did you enjoy watching your boy spread his legs and hold another male in them tightly? > He has a girlfriend. As I said, in the closet. > He was recruited to wrestle because he was the best athlete in his school > and was very successful. It's an Olympic sport. Popularized by the Greeks, who also popularized anal sex and man-boy love. > And even if he was, > all you do is spread bias. You think I spread bias, but at least I don't spread my LEGS for anyone like your son did. >>> American Legion Pitcher, and a State Cup Soccer Player. >> >> So are many more youngsters who have the nerve to eat meat. Go figure. > > True. But they also have higher incidences of cancer and heart disease > later in life. Ipse dixit. ALL groups, regardless of race, diet, or any other factor, develop malignancies and heart disease as they age. That includes vegetarians. You are not immortal. > All it shows is that a healthy vegan diet can promote a longer diet, but > can produce great athletes. Like Carl Young. Do you mean Carl *LEWIS*? What about Lance Armstrong? He consumes meat. It hasn't affected his ability to overcome testicular cancer (meat played NO role in that) and win six (seven!) consecutive Tours de France. Healthy diets can include meat. The ADA, AHA, and other health-oriented organizations ALL agree on that point. > Then there is the very real issue that the meat industry is pumping > animals with antibiotics, creating antibiotic germs. You did NOT attend an Ivy League university. There are antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but "antibiotic germs" is oxymoronic. Anti-biotic means "against life," specifically against bacteria. > This is a very dangerous situation. Ignorance is a more dangerous situation and you have more than your fair share of it. You should tend to that first. > And the use and growth of factory farmed animals > wastes huge amounts of water, a valuable resource. Where did you acquire this bit of misinformation? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
<...> > Yes I have an agenda in promoting healthy vegetarian eating. You've never promoted SPECIFICS about healthy eating, you've made GENERALIZATIONS about "vegetarian good, meat bad" even though organizations like ADA, AHA, UCS, etc., distinguish between healthy and unhealthy diets REGARDLESS of meat or dairy. They all note that meat and dairy can be part of a healthy diet. They do NOT recommend vegetarianism specifically (they offer only qualified support for WELL-PLANNED vegetarian diets), nor generally as you've lied when writing that they do. > Part of that is a group where people can discuss what that is. And that's precisely what I'm doing. I'm pointing out that you're not distinguishing between healthful eating and unhealthful eating. You're making rash generalizations that meat is bad and vegetarian is good, which is comparing apples and oranges. > Instead a few > individuals make this such a hostile place that can't take place. Wrong. Your objection is to people being honest and candid about the matters up for discussion. You don't want to be bothered with the fact that a diet which contains lean meats and reduced-fat dairy can be remarkably healthier than a vegetarian diet which is laden with fats, sugar, and processed foods. You're not interested in the truth, you only want to push a pro-veg agenda in spite of the facts. > I also have a strong environmental objective. Do you prefer cotton and synthetics to fur and leather? > And, I've stated the dangers of the use of antibiotics in the meat > industry, a great danger. No, an emotive and overstated danger. > But this group has been destroyed with nasty postings. What about all your lies about groups endorsing vegetarian diets when they clearly don't? > I'll post the essentials of a healthy vegan diet. Lots of raw fruits > and vegetables. Compatible with a diet that includes lean meats and reduced-fat dairy. > Especially leafy greens. Compatible with a diet that includes lean meats and reduced-fat dairy. > Not too many calories. Compatible with a diet that includes lean meats and reduced-fat dairy. > Daily exercise. Compatible with a diet that includes lean meats and reduced-fat dairy. > Avoid processed foods. Compatible with a diet that includes lean meats and reduced-fat dairy. > Avoid added garbage, like corn syrup. Compatible with a diet that includes lean meats and reduced-fat dairy. <...> > Look for legumes and sources of protein. Compatible with a diet that includes lean meats and reduced-fat dairy. > A typical example is I post that someone is rated in the top 5 > wrestlers, and usual suspects write homophobic comments. It's not homophobic to point out that wrestling is popular among homosexuals. > It demonstrates speed, agility, quick thinking, and pound for pound > strength. So does cross country running, bicycling, swimming, and a variety of other sports where contestants don't hug each other or go spread-eagle for members of the same sex. <...> > Watch calories. Compatible with a diet that includes lean meats and reduced-fat dairy. > Watch for pesticide residues. Compatible with a diet that includes lean meats and reduced-fat dairy. > It unprocessed natural > food. Research. Read. Compatible with a diet that includes lean meats and reduced-fat dairy. > There is no doubt that meat eating is associated with colon cancer. Wrong. There's evidence that eating *TOO MUCH* of certain meats is associated with a higher risk of colon cancer. There's also evidence -- from the same studies -- that consumption of certain meats like fish and poultry offer a protective benefit against those same cancers. You fail to distinguish between what the research actually shows; instead, you make bogus generalizations which are unsupportable by the data. You are a quack. > Our digestive system is quite long. And yours is full of shit. > Promoting antibiotics in food potentially is the greatest danger in > promoting the meat industry. No, it isn't. Healthy animals equals healthy meats equals healthy consumers. Animals are withdrawn from antibiotics prior to slaughter. Meat is tested for antibiotic residues before it's sold to consumers. Livestock producers are catching on that overuse of antibiotics is as bad as no use; many producers don't use antibiotics prophylactically, but instead only use them when one or more of their animals requires them. <...> > I was not always a vegetarian. I highly suggest all parents read the > bone density diet. It's based on pseudoscience. > The giving of soda and excess proteins to children > should be outlawed, I knew you were an authoritarian zealot. Thanks for proving it. > if one understands how bones are developed You don't. > and we > have an epidemic of osteoporosis in our society. Because of our longevity. People didn't live long enough for malignancies to develop or for their bones to become brittle because they normally died in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. > Interestingly, It's of no interest to informed persons. > in societies that don't drink dairy or soda, osteoporosis is virtually > unknown. ( of course that's changing with globalization). No, you bumbling twit, it's because they're starting to live longer because they now have access to medical technology. That's why their cancer rates are exploding and rivaling ours. That's why their aging populations have similar diseases at similar rates as ours. <...> > I also have an agenda to protect habitat. The little bit of habitat is > being destroyed, largely for meat production. Ipse dixit and false. The "factory farms" you rail against mean that it takes significantly LESS land to raise MORE animals than it did in the past. > Diversity of species is something I value. Too bad you don't share the same value when it comes to diverse ideas. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>I object to your vitriol >> >>Which I typically reserve for the right situation, such as when someone is >>ridiculously pigheaded, willfully ignorant, or blatantly deceitful. > > You are NOT reserved. Ask shevek. Ask Michael B. > It doesn't take much to set you off. Actually, it doesn't take much MORE to set me off because I've been dealing with you for a while now. I cut plenty of other plenty of slack. Go back to the archives and note how I gave Skanky a second chance to deal with the issues she raised about me. Instead, she took my generosity and turned it into rope with which she's hung herself. >>>and your tendency to take positions that are far to the contrary - >>>wherever contrary may be. >> >>Such as...? Maybe you mean something like this: >>There are some common misconceptions about being vegetarian. >>Among the most common is that being vegetarian saves all animal >>lives. Animals will die to put food on your table whether you >>are vegetarian or not - even if you are vegan. It's unavoidable >>unless you go to extreme measures that are not usually practical >>in today's culture. You might save the lives of some animals: >>cows, chickens, turkeys, fish, pigs, etc., but other animals >>will die as a result of agricultural practices, transportation, >>packaging, warehousing, and for many other reasons. Most people >>don't think about the other animal casualties because they >>aren't featured in a meal. >> >>Of course, I didn't write that (though I've made those very points many >>times myself only to be subjected to your objections). You posted that two >>days ago in rfvc. > > What's your point? I wrote it and I agree with it. It proves your comment > yesterday WRONG that I defend "veg-n dogma". If you go back and look at our > clashes in the past (which you so like to do), I don't object to your > positions as much as I object to your style. Your objections have all been knee-jerk: I express why someone is wrong and you fly off the handle and call me mean-spirited. You say I'm unconventional and when pressed for details you whiff and suggest something about politics (which, to be honest, shows that I'm in the mainstream: my party controls the White House, both houses of Congress, and more governorships and state legislatures than it did 20 years ago). > You like to argue for the sake > of argueing No, I don't. > and you do so in a very aggressive and mean-spirited manner. Nahhh. You're exaggerating. > Look, No. You look. Go read the posts I made to Skanky starting on the third of December in response to her wild accusations about me. She replied by suggesting that her malice was warranted because of what she'd read me write to others. I noted to her in response that In nearly every instance, it's with someone with whom I've had dealings which preceded your recent appearance in this group. SHE sought to inflame ME. I didn't flame her. That came later after I'd given her second, third, fourth, etc., chances to repent. I gave you the same offer of an olive branch. You've declined it. You get what you deserve, Jim, whether it's a ****ed off girlfriend who wonders why you're such an asshole or a usenet adversary who knows why you're one. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > C. James Strutz wrote: [--snip--] > No. You look. Go read the posts I made to Skanky starting on the third > of December in response to her wild accusations about me. She replied by > suggesting that her malice was warranted because of what she'd read me > write to others. I noted to her in response that > In nearly every instance, it's with someone with whom I've had > dealings which preceded your recent appearance in this group. > > SHE sought to inflame ME. I didn't flame her. That came later after I'd > given her second, third, fourth, etc., chances to repent. I gave you the > same offer of an olive branch. You've declined it. You get what you > deserve, Jim, whether it's a ****ed off girlfriend who wonders why > you're such an asshole or a usenet adversary who knows why you're one. First off, look at the name you call me, "Skanky". You are the abusive one here. Unless one ignores all your jabs and talks polite back to you anyways, like Shevek does, you blow up. I've seen you incite things in posts to him which he chose to ignore. Face it name-caller, you're just bad news. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Skanky Hoser wrote:
> [--snip--] > > >>No. You look. Go read the posts I made to Skanky starting on the third >>of December in response to her wild accusations about me. She replied by >>suggesting that her malice was warranted because of what she'd read me >>write to others. I noted to her in response that >>In nearly every instance, it's with someone with whom I've had >>dealings which preceded your recent appearance in this group. >> >>SHE sought to inflame ME. I didn't flame her. That came later after I'd >>given her second, third, fourth, etc., chances to repent. I gave you the >>same offer of an olive branch. You've declined it. You get what you >>deserve, Jim, whether it's a ****ed off girlfriend who wonders why >>you're such an asshole or a usenet adversary who knows why you're one. > > > First off, look at the name you > call me, "Skanky". It's more fitting than "Skunky." > You are the abusive one here. Since when did telling the truth become "abusive"? > Unless one > ignores all your jabs and talks > polite back to you anyways, like > Shevek does, you blow up. Not true. > I've seen you incite things in posts > to him which he chose to ignore. Examples, please. > Face it name-caller, Look who's talking -- why, it's the dopey slut who called me a troll before ever engaging in any kind of substantive discussion despite my repeated attempts to have one. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Strutz wrote: >> It doesn't take much to set you off. > > Actually, it doesn't take much MORE to set me off because I've been > dealing with you for a while now. I cut plenty of other plenty of slack. It's frightening to think that you'd be worse if I hadn't been an influence... > Go back to the archives and note how I gave Skanky a second chance to deal > with the issues she raised about me. Instead, she took my generosity and > turned it into rope with which she's hung herself. Why do you call her Skanky? It's kind of unflattering, don't you think? You can't expect to convince people of anything if you continue to insult them. >> What's your point? I wrote it and I agree with it. It proves your comment >> yesterday WRONG that I defend "veg-n dogma". If you go back and look at >> our clashes in the past (which you so like to do), I don't object to your >> positions as much as I object to your style. > > Your objections have all been knee-jerk: Okay, here's a test for you. What do you think I object to? > I express why someone is wrong and you fly off the handle and call me > mean-spirited. You're a whole lot smarter than this. IT'S NOT **THAT** YOU "EXPRESS", IT'S **HOW** YOU EXPRESS. > (which, to be honest, shows that I'm in the mainstream: my party controls > the White House, both houses of Congress, and more governorships and state > legislatures than it did 20 years ago). Can't disagree with you there. Everything's relative though. Women are disfranchised in Saudi Arabia because it's part of the "mainstream". That doesn't make it right by our standards. >> You like to argue for the sake of argueing > > No, I don't. See? :^) >> and you do so in a very aggressive and mean-spirited manner. > > Nahhh. You're exaggerating. Certainly not! > No. You look. Go read the posts I made to Skanky starting on the third of > December in response to her wild accusations about me. She replied by > suggesting that her malice was warranted because of what she'd read me > write to others. You mean she stepped in to defend one of your attacks against somebody? I don't see anything the matter with that. > I noted to her in response that > In nearly every instance, it's with someone with whom I've had > dealings which preceded your recent appearance in this group. Yes, you have a long history of attacking people here. > SHE sought to inflame ME. Gosh, imagine that... > I didn't flame her. You sure have in the past though. > That came later after I'd given her second, third, fourth, etc., chances > to repent. I gave you the same offer of an olive branch. You've declined > it. We've gone back and forth on this. Your olive branches have always been very tentative. In almost all cases I rail against you because of your bad behavior in this newsgroup. You know, it's like I'd step in if I saw you kicking a dog. You can hand me all the olive branches you want but I'm still going to step in if you continue to kick the dog. Stop the bad behavior and you'll be surprised how much less conflict you'll find yourself in. > You get what you deserve, Jim, Funny, that's kind of my attitude toward you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . .. > snip typical spew... > >... And the use and growth of factory farmed animals wastes huge >amounts of water, a valuable resource. ===================== Really? care to elaborate on this info? Can you? Repeat all the nonsense you "know" from reading extremist, propagada sites. Give it a go... > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>It doesn't take much to set you off. >> >>Actually, it doesn't take much MORE to set me off because I've been >>dealing with you for a while now. I cut plenty of others plenty of slack. > > It's frightening to think that you'd be worse if I hadn't been an > influence... Stop flattering yourself. >>Go back to the archives and note how I gave Skanky a second chance to deal >>with the issues she raised about me. Instead, she took my generosity and >>turned it into rope with which she's hung herself. > > Why do you call her Skanky? It's a play on her self-given nickname of "Skunky," which is a no doubt reference to her drug abuse. > It's kind of unflattering, don't you think? Her illogic and general stupidity is much more unflattering. <...> >>No. You look. Go read the posts I made to Skanky starting on the third of >>December in response to her wild accusations about me. She replied by >>suggesting that her malice was warranted because of what she'd read me >>write to others. > > You mean she stepped in That's all what she did. She stepped in and didn't respond to the substance of the issue at hand whatsoever. I'd responded to something about fried foods and she chimed in with: Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans or something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan hurt you long ago? You and Skanky would make a great couple when this psychologist chick dumps you. You have so much in common. She's not a psychologist (in fact, she's not the intellectual type at all) so she won't sit around diagnosing why you're inattentive, cold, and distant. Best of all, she'd be too stoned to even notice that you're a dick. >>SHE sought to inflame ME. > > Gosh, imagine that... Your double standard is noted. >>I didn't flame her. > > You sure have in the past though. Not prior to that. Not even immediately following that. I was too nice to her for too long. I wrote, "I've done NONE of that to you." She replied, "Not much," I replied back, "Not AT ALL." [She later replied to me, "Maybe not at first," to which I responded, "Not at first, not at all, not yet. Never."] Her reply continued, "but I've been watching how you treat other people in this newsgroup." I replied, "In nearly every instance, it's with someone with whom I've had dealings which preceded your recent appearance in this group." I didn't seek her out; I didn't flame her; I did nothing to entice her to reply to me as she had. I gave her plenty of opportunity to at least make nice, if not to apologize. She chose to do neither. That entire thread showed us that Skanky: 1. Makes up and applies her own definitions to words (i.e., she doesn't know what vegan means or what veganism is), making any attempt to reach consensus with her about anything impossible; 2. Makes bogus claims about farming techniques and about such things as the use of hormones (specifically, she said beef contained DES; DES has been banned in beef production since 1979), most likely from her reliance on activist literature; 3. Gullibly believes and mindlessly repeats propaganda from AR groups, such as the claim that it takes umpteen pounds of feed to produce a pound of meat. She refused to give up this ridiculous claim despite being shown information to the contrary about a variety of species including poultry, rabbits, goats, hogs, and cattle; 4. Gullibly believes that organic means pesticide-free, when it only means synthetic pesticide-free; 5. Naively adopts prattle from the vegan kook fringe about "veganics" and believes that such Luddite growing techniques will one day be the norm and she'll be able to buy "veganic" foods at the store; 6. Claimed to have studied nutrition, yet was unaware that the supplements she was promoting (i.e., hempseed oil) contained nutrients already contained in the average diet. She further stupidly tried to suggest those already prevalent nutrients were in some special "balance," but couldn't explain just what that meant; and 7. Assumes that because vegans don't eat foods containing cholesterol they're therefore immune from cholesterol-related disease. She was dumbfounded to learn that the body produces its own cholesterol and that such endogenous production had more to do with genetics and consumption of saturated fats (including transfats). I consider her contemptible because of her continued willful ignorance, her fantasies about "veganics" and other issues, and her insolence towards those who *kindly* offer suggestions on how she can practice what she preaches. >>That came later after I'd given her second, third, fourth, etc., chances >>to repent. I gave you the same offer of an olive branch. You've declined >>it. > > We've gone back and forth on this. No, *you*'ve gone back and forth. I've offered the branch, you've rejected it. It's okay because you've proven you're undeserving of a truce. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > C. James Strutz wrote: > >>>It doesn't take much to set you off. > >> > >>Actually, it doesn't take much MORE to set me off because I've been > >>dealing with you for a while now. I cut plenty of others plenty of slack. > > > > It's frightening to think that you'd be worse if I hadn't been an > > influence... > > Stop flattering yourself. > > >>Go back to the archives and note how I gave Skanky a second chance to deal > >>with the issues she raised about me. Instead, she took my generosity and > >>turned it into rope with which she's hung herself. > > > > Why do you call her Skanky? > > It's a play on her self-given nickname of "Skunky," which is a no doubt > reference to her drug abuse. It's not a play. It's an intended insult. > > It's kind of unflattering, don't you think? > > Her illogic and general stupidity is much more unflattering. Again, look how often you insult. > >>No. You look. Go read the posts I made to Skanky starting on the third of > >>December in response to her wild accusations about me. She replied by > >>suggesting that her malice was warranted because of what she'd read me > >>write to others. > > > > You mean she stepped in > > That's all what she did. She stepped in and didn't respond to the > substance of the issue at hand whatsoever. I'd responded to something > about fried foods and she chimed in with: > Gee, Usual, one would almost get the idea you don't like vegans > or something. Were you dumped by one once? Did some evil vegan > hurt you long ago? Waa, you can dish it out but you can't take it. > You and Skanky would make a great couple when this psychologist chick > dumps you. You have so much in common. She's not a psychologist (in > fact, she's not the intellectual type at all) so she won't sit around > diagnosing why you're inattentive, cold, and distant. Best of all, she'd > be too stoned to even notice that you're a dick. More insults. I think I was underestimating. It's probably more like 99.point something %. > >>SHE sought to inflame ME. > > > > Gosh, imagine that... > > Your double standard is noted. > > >>I didn't flame her. > > > > You sure have in the past though. > > Not prior to that. Not even immediately following that. I was too nice > to her for too long. > > I wrote, "I've done NONE of that to you." > > She replied, "Not much," > > I replied back, "Not AT ALL." > > [She later replied to me, "Maybe not at first," to which I responded, > "Not at first, not at all, not yet. Never."] > > Her reply continued, "but I've been watching how you treat other people > in this newsgroup." > > I replied, "In nearly every instance, it's with someone with whom I've > had dealings which preceded your recent appearance in this group." > > I didn't seek her out; I didn't flame her; I did nothing to entice her > to reply to me as she had. I gave her plenty of opportunity to at least > make nice, if not to apologize. She chose to do neither. > > That entire thread showed us that Skanky: > 1. Makes up and applies her own definitions to words (i.e., she doesn't > know what vegan means or what veganism is), making any attempt to reach > consensus with her about anything impossible; Made up words like your flexitarians and orthorexia? > 2. Makes bogus claims about farming techniques and about such things as > the use of hormones (specifically, she said beef contained DES; DES has > been banned in beef production since 1979), most likely from her > reliance on activist literature; Has it been banned in other countries? Has it been banned in other animals? > 3. Gullibly believes and mindlessly repeats propaganda from AR groups, > such as the claim that it takes umpteen pounds of feed to produce a > pound of meat. She refused to give up this ridiculous claim despite > being shown information to the contrary about a variety of species > including poultry, rabbits, goats, hogs, and cattle; The numbers favour the vegan. > 4. Gullibly believes that organic means pesticide-free, when it only > means synthetic pesticide-free; You are a liar. I even discussed my own homemade pesticide. > 5. Naively adopts prattle from the vegan kook fringe about "veganics" > and believes that such Luddite growing techniques will one day be the > norm and she'll be able to buy "veganic" foods at the store; With every sentence, you can't help but insult, can you? > 6. Claimed to have studied nutrition, yet was unaware that the > supplements she was promoting (i.e., hempseed oil) contained nutrients > already contained in the average diet. She further stupidly tried to > suggest those already prevalent nutrients were in some special > "balance," but couldn't explain just what that meant; and I fully knew it had BOTH common and uncommon nutrients. If a mix of Omega 3, 6, and 9 are so bad for you, why do they sell that particular mix as a suppliment? > 7. Assumes that because vegans don't eat foods containing cholesterol > they're therefore immune from cholesterol-related disease. She was > dumbfounded to learn that the body produces its own cholesterol and that > such endogenous production had more to do with genetics and consumption > of saturated fats (including transfats). I've never heard of a longterm vegan having a cholesterol problem. The bit that the body produces is fine. Have you ever heard of any syndrome where someone's body makes too much even after they have removed dietary sources? > I consider her contemptible because of her continued willful ignorance, > her fantasies about "veganics" and other issues, and her insolence > towards those who *kindly* offer suggestions on how she can practice > what she preaches. Kindly!?!? Calling me Skanky and a **** on many a time. Again I note above that you cannot converse without insulting. > >>That came later after I'd given her second, third, fourth, etc., chances > >>to repent. I gave you the same offer of an olive branch. You've declined > >>it. > > > > We've gone back and forth on this. > > No, *you*'ve gone back and forth. I've offered the branch, you've > rejected it. It's okay because you've proven you're undeserving of a truce. You've offered no olive branches. You've merely told me I was wrong about just about everything, and expected me to agree with you and not mind your insulting. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message:
> No. You didn't stick to the issue at hand, which was whether or not the > AHA recommends vegetarian diets. They don't. ----------------- What are you talking about? That's not the "issue at hand" at all. Again, here's what "Beach Runner" originally stated: "The Heart Association and Cancer Association say that a vegetarian diet is healthier," He did NOT say "The Heart Association and Cancer Association recommend a vegetarian diet." He said "The Heart Association and Cancer Association say that a vegetarian diet is healthier," THAT'S what the real "issue at hand" is - does the American Heart Association actually say that a vegetarian diet is healthier? This has nothing to do with what the AHA's dietary recommendations are, as you keep insisting. It has everything to do with whether or not the AHA says vegetarian diets are healthier (than non-vegetarian diets). You seem to be assuming that IF the AHA did say that a vegetarian diet is healthier, that automatically would mean that their dietary recommendation would be for a vegetarian diet. I think that's a false assumption. I don't think they would exclusively recommend a vegetarian diet under any circumstance, simply because that would be unrealistic - most people just don't wish to be vegetarians. So, working under that false assumption you neglected to post the following quote from the AHA website which deals specifically with the real matter at hand - what the AHA actually says regarding whether vegetarian diets are healthier (than non-vegetarian diets). Since you didn't post the quote, I did: From the AHA website: "Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer." And yes, their use of the word "seem" proves that "Beach Runner" was wrong, the AHA does not actually say that vegetarians diets are (definitely) healthier. We both agree on that, anyway. The above quote I posted certainly was effective at proving "Beach Runner" wrong, wasn't it? (Which is what you had set out to do.) So I must say I certainly am disappointed that you refuse to even thank me for doing you a favor and posting that AHA quote that is actually relevant to the real issue at hand, which you neglected to do since you were working under your false assumption. Some people are just so unappreciative.... :-( -TW |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| usual suspect must be the Gonad | Vegan | |||
| usual suspect must be the Gonad | Vegan | |||
| at least keep up, usual suspect | Vegan | |||
| regarding fruitarians to usual suspect | Vegan | |||
| Attn: usual suspect | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
