Leif Erikson wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote:
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>>"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>Have you ever been interested in anything that could not be used to
>>>>>>bolster the conclusions you made before looking at any evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Have you?
>>>>>
>>>>>I came to the conclusions I have, because of the evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Can you prove that? Can you prove that your decision to adopt an
>>>>obsessional diet came *after* your obsessional interest in diet?
>>>
>>>
>>>Can you prove that you stopped beating your wife after
>>>you started on your kids? Can you prove that, troll?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'll take that as a no shall I?
>>
>>After I decided to propose to my wife I didn't *start* to take an
>>interest in women. After I bought my computer I didn't subscribe to a
>>computer magazine to help me confirm I had bought the right one. After I
>>bought my house I didn't arrange a dozen viewings of properties within
>>my price range. With me information seeking comes *before* the decision
>>making. I find it odd that people would make a decision and them spend
>>the rest of their life trying to justify it. Who are you trying to
>>justify it to? Do "they" really care that you found some good reasons
>>*after* you made your decision?
>
>
> You have got this issue exactly right. Lesley (the real name of
> "pearl") made an *emotional* commitment to weird dietary dogma, then
> has furiously worked to try to make it appear to be evidence-based.
> But it's all bullshit: the dietary/religious commitment came first,
> *then* the pseudo-scientific rationale for it.
>

That is absolutely standard for our species. First come significant
policy stances such as "I'll be a terrorist" or "I'll be a vegan" or "I
want to smoke weed without seeming to be a hypocrite
http://mwillett.org/Politics/dopehead1.htm " or "I really enjoy turning
BMWs on their roofs and setting fire to McDonalds" or "I want to be
Prime Minister of Great Britain before I'm 40" then people find out what
their motivations and general principles "must have been" to bring them
to that point. (In the case of the last one the process is still
continuing).

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

Leif Erikson wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>More garbage from meat industry shills.
>
>
> Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> concerning bird flu and BSE.
>

Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
not a disease created by farming.

Do these arseholes think that everybody who expresses a contrary view is
in the pay of the meat industry? Paranoid losers.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

Martin Willett wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> >>More garbage from meat industry shills.
> >
> >
> > Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> > concerning bird flu and BSE.
> >
>
> Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
> in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
> obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
> wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
> not a disease created by farming.

The disease itself isn't created by farming, but both the speed of
propagation and the degree of human exposure certainly are affected by
farming. But the below-referenced arseholes are blaming the problem on
the *methodology* of farming, rather than farming -per se-, and it is
farming -per se- rather than the techniques that create the exposure.


>
> Do these arseholes think that everybody who expresses a contrary view is
> in the pay of the meat industry? Paranoid losers.
>
> --
> Martin Willett
>
>
> http://mwillett.org

Martin Willett wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> >>More garbage from meat industry shills.
> >
> >
> > Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> > concerning bird flu and BSE.
> >
>
> Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
> in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
> obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
> wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
> not a disease created by farming.

It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
disease much faster.
>
> Do these arseholes think that everybody who expresses a contrary view is
> in the pay of the meat industry? Paranoid losers.

You asshole sund very much like a meat industry shill.

wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>More garbage from meat industry shills.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> > > concerning bird flu and BSE.
> > >
> >
> > Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
> > in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
> > obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
> > wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
> > not a disease created by farming.
>
> It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
> disease much faster.

Prove it.


> >
> > Do these arseholes think that everybody who expresses a contrary view is
> > in the pay of the meat industry? Paranoid losers.
>
> You asshole sund very much like a meat industry shill.

> wrote
> Martin Willett wrote:
>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>More garbage from meat industry shills.
>> >
>> >
>> > Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
>> > concerning bird flu and BSE.
>> >
>>
>> Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
>> in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
>> obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
>> wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
>> not a disease created by farming.
>
> It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
> disease much faster.
>>
>> Do these arseholes think that everybody who expresses a contrary view is
>> in the pay of the meat industry? Paranoid losers.
>
> You asshole sund very much like a meat industry shill.

You sound very much like a half-wit.

wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote:
>
>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>More garbage from meat industry shills.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
>>>concerning bird flu and BSE.
>>>
>>
>>Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
>>in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
>>obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
>>wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
>>not a disease created by farming.
>
>
> It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
> disease much faster.

Bullshit.

You're an ignorant ****.

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> > Martin Willett wrote:
> >> Leif Erikson wrote:
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>More garbage from meat industry shills.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> >> > concerning bird flu and BSE.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
> >> in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
> >> obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
> >> wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
> >> not a disease created by farming.
> >
> > It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
> > disease much faster.
> >>
> >> Do these arseholes think that everybody who expresses a contrary view is
> >> in the pay of the meat industry? Paranoid losers.
> >
> > You asshole sund very much like a meat industry shill.
>
> You sound very much like a half-wit.

A clueless meat industry shill like you (rick==Dutch) would be happy
with half a wit.

S. Maizlich wrote:
> wrote:
> > Martin Willett wrote:
> >
> >>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>More garbage from meat industry shills.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> >>>concerning bird flu and BSE.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
> >>in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
> >>obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
> >>wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
> >>not a disease created by farming.
> >
> >
> > It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
> > disease much faster.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> You're an ignorant ****.

Be carefull with dirt you asshole unless you are ready to eat some.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> wrote:
> > Martin Willett wrote:
> > > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>More garbage from meat industry shills.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> > > > concerning bird flu and BSE.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
> > > in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
> > > obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
> > > wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
> > > not a disease created by farming.
> >
> > It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
> > disease much faster.
>
> Prove it.

It is elementary to anyone who is not a meat industry shill. The cruel
overcrowding makes any disease spread faster because of their proximity
to each other. These cruelly confined animals get no exercise and are
naturally prone to disease.
>
>
> > >
> > > Do these arseholes think that everybody who expresses a contrary view is
> > > in the pay of the meat industry? Paranoid losers.
> >
> > You asshole sund very much like a meat industry shill.

S. Maizlich wrote:
> wrote:
> > Martin Willett wrote:
> >
> >>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>More garbage from meat industry shills.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> >>>concerning bird flu and BSE.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
> >>in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
> >>obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
> >>wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
> >>not a disease created by farming.
> >
> >
> > It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
> > disease much faster.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> You're an ignorant ****.

You are an ignorant shit eating asshole.

"Autymn D. C." > wrote in message oups.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > Another ignorant troll.
>
> Yes you are.

Not I.

-restore-
> > > > * The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
> > > > the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
> > > > nutrient needs.
> > >
> > > a tautology
> >
> > I don't see any.
--
> > > You would if you understood your own words.
> >
> > Show where.
>
> I did.

No you haven't.

-restore-
> > > > * Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
> > > > healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
> > > > animal-based food.
> > >
> > > a tautology--
> >
> > No.
--
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Show where.
>
> Do you even know what a tautology is, or are you but a troll?

I do, but your continuing evasion is noted.

> > > You proven liar, dogs are omnivores; cats are carnivores.
> >
> > No. You're a proven ignoramus.
> >
> > 'The order Carnivora includes the cat, hyena, bear,
> > weasel, seal, mongoose, civet and dog families ..'
> > http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm
>
> You're a proven sofist shithead:

Projection.

> "Carnivora" is only a name. It
> doesn't make them carnivores (a word):

Learn what the word means.

'car·ni·vore
n.
1. A flesh-eating animal.
2. Any of various predatory, flesh-eating mammals of the order
Carnivora, including the dogs, cats, bears, weasels, hyenas,
and raccoons.
3. One who victimizes or injures others; a predator.
4. An insectivorous plant.
...
carnivore
n 1: terrestrial or aquatic flesh-eating mammal; terrestrial carnivores
have four or five clawed digits on each limb 2: any animal that feeds
on flesh; "Tyrannosaurus Rex was a large carnivore"; "insectivorous
plants are considered carnivores
...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=carnivore

> "Moreover, canids have a broader
> appetite than is commonly realized; most include a substantial
> proportion of vegetable and insect matter in their diet1."

Dogs are like virtually all carnivores to some extent omnivorous.

> > > And bones
> > > and marrow are a meat, so your blurb is irrelevant.
> >
> > You're making up definitions to suit yourself.
>
> No, I'm a comprehensive literalist. Look up the original meaning of
> "meat".

'Originally, the word meat meant simply "food." '
http://www.answers.com/topic/meat

Yes, "one can live healthily for many months on an
all-meat diet, as well."- using the original definition.

> > meat
> > n.
> > 1. The edible flesh of animals, especially that of
> > mammals as opposed to that of fish or poultry.
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=meat
> >
> > flesh ( P ) Pronunciation Key (flsh)
> > n.
> > 1. The soft tissue of the body of a vertebrate, covering the
> > bones and consisting mainly of skeletal muscle and fat.
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=flesh
> >
> > Bone marrow is not 'flesh', it is called 'bone marrow'.
> > Likewise for bones. Bones are not referred to as 'meat'.
>
> Boil bones and they become soft tissue. Bone covers bone, so I win.

Bones are not "meat" (in the usual sense of the word).

> Marrow, meat, and pith are akin: http://dictionary.com/search?q=pith.
> I win again.

No they are not.

> > > This one suffers from my later comment about fat and milk. Go away
> > > whither you get a brain. I don't uphold Atkins's diet either.
> >
> > Your later later comment is "Saturated fat is good". Cretin.
>
> It's not to Atkins's, cretinose fiend. This is fat, not protein.

That makes no sense.

> > > Then why don't some humans eat fruits? Are they not humans, retard?
> >
> > Which humans don't eat any fruits? Make sure you
> > back up your inane claims with verifiable evidence.
>
> Those who like food that comes in boxes, bags, and cans; those worthles
> bodybuilders who can't afford to eat sugar; those meat-fans...

I don't think so.

> > > Humans are omnivorous.
> >
> > Ipse dixit and false.
>
> Yes you are.

Nope.

> > > Worts would be more digestible if we still had wisdom teeth and
> > > appendix, but we don't. We moved on from ruminants.
> >
> > We're on a 60 million year-old branch of frugivorous adaptation.
>
> Children who drink much juice get fat and I would guess more diabetic.

'Diet excess originates from 3 synthetic additives, processed
fructose, sucrose, and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
This does not include naturally occurring fructose found in
fruit and vegetables. Natural plant fructose is not associated
with either blood glucose or blood lipid disorders as those
generated by synthetic fructose. In fact, nutritionists
encourage fruit and vegetable intake for increasing fiber,
micronutrients, and antioxidants in the diet. The intake of
natural fructose from calorie-sparse whole plants is actually
low, and as an unaltered natural sugar, it is not associated
with untoward metabolic consequences following
consumption of large amounts of processed fructose. '
http://www.e-caps.com/za/ECP?PAGE=AR...RTICLE.ID=2262

Try again.

> > > Stomach acid is good for killing germs; it's part of immunity to
> > > botulism and the ilk.
> >
> > Not all, and putrefactive bacteria are already in the intestines.
>
> "digestion"

'There are two kinds of bacteria in the intestinal flora, beneficial
and harmful. In healthy subjects, they are well balanced and
beneficial bacteria dominate. Beneficial bacteria play useful roles
in the aspects of nutrition and prevention of disease. They produce
essential nutrients such as vitamins and organic acids, which are
absorbed from the intestines and utilised by the gut epithelium and
by vital organs such as the liver. Organic acids also suppress the
growth of pathogens in the intestines.

Other intestinal bacteria produce substances that are harmful to
the host, such as putrefactive products, toxins and carcinogenic
substances. When harmful bacteria dominate in the intestines,
essential nutrients are not produced and the level of harmful
substances rises. These substances may not have an immediate
detrimental effect on the host but they are thought to be
contributing factors to ageing, promoting cancer, liver and kidney
disease, hypertension and arteriosclerosis, and reduced immunity.
...
http://tinyurl.com/7mfar

> > > Humans not having ready fangs or spades must deal with less and fewer
> > > food.
> >
> > '"less and fewer". -That's- a tautology. It's also nonsense.
>
> No it's not.

Yes, it is.

> > > Putrefaction is done away with by drinking less to have greater acid.
> >
> > No it isn't. There are many billions of bacteria in the small
> > intestine and trillions upon trillions in the large intestine.
>
> The more and manier there are, the better the digestion.

'Other intestinal bacteria produce substances that are harmful to
the host, such as putrefactive products, toxins and carcinogenic
substances. When harmful bacteria dominate in the intestines,
essential nutrients are not produced and the level of harmful
substances rises. These substances may not have an immediate
detrimental effect on the host but they are thought to be
contributing factors to ageing, promoting cancer, liver and kidney
disease, hypertension and arteriosclerosis, and reduced immunity.
...
http://tinyurl.com/7mfar

> > > Of course, one needn't eat as much flesh as worts to get the same
> > > nutrition, so gutly backup happens in the overgrown. Inner germs wreak
> > > many cancers; kill them early and most will be fine.
> >
> > 'The most common species of putrefactive bacteria is
> > 'Escherichia coli'. In the words of Bernard Jensen,
> > 'Escherichia coli likes protein for breakfast, lunch and dinner.'
> > http://www.wholisticresearch.com/inf....php3?artid=57
>
> Where is your research for the other side? What fixes the
> putrefaction?

A course of a quality multi-strain probiotic, and a diet
comprised of foods which are not prone to putrefaction.

> > > > > See the "variety" argument of yours and apply it to meats.
> >
> > The above is from regular meat consumption.
>
> yes, /meat/ (beef), not /meats/

"meat products". Meat-eaters. Not vegetarian or vegan.

-restore-
'Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists.
Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.

Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day
Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide
range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those
studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses
showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal
ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for
subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal
and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts
<1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain
to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male
vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88
and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are
healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat.
PMID: 10479227
-end restore-

> > > > > The diseases come from milk and fat,
> >
> > But now you say that "Saturated fat is good".
>
> Yes.

But "diseases come from .. fat", and in the Atkins context
you could only have been referring to saturated animal fat.

> > > > There is at least 6% saturated fat content in lean meat.
> > >
> > > Saturated fat is good:
> >
> > "The diseases come from milk and fat,".

So... which is it?

> > > The Truth About Saturated Fat,
> > > http://www.mercola.com/2002/aug/17/saturated_fat1.htm.
>
> Read it, print it, copy it, send it.

"The diseases come from milk and fat,".

> > 'The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
> > associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic
> > heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest
> > third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior
> > disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13)
> > for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol;
> > P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. In contrast, no
> [snip]
-restore-
protective effects were noted for dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption.
Consumption of eggs and cheese were both positively associated with
ischemic heart disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01
for both foods). -
> > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S
>
> "but these effects were reduced when subjects with a history of
> cardiovascular disease or diabetes were excluded [death rate ratios
> (and 95% CIs): 0.83 (0.48, 1.43) for ischemic heart disease and 1.02
> (0.82, 1.27) for all causes of death]."

Vegetarians and vegans, with how many being lifelong veg*ns?
And that doesn't alter the findings about animal fat intake, above.

> My link is more comprehensive, and its samples outlot and outweih
> yours.

You're quoting from the link I posted.

> I wouldn't go by the British fare, with its mineral
> deficiencies and toxicities.

Yes. Veg*ns also suffer because of intensive farming.

> It's a shame that your study said
> /nothing/ about the cuts (any organs?), cooking, combinations (with
> starches and oils?), or even the fitness of the nonvegetarians:

'The effects of various dietary factors on mortality from ischemic
heart disease and all causes of death were examined in a recent
analysis (12). Subjects were grouped not only according to their
diet (meat eater, semivegetarian, or vegetarian/vegan), but also by
their consumption of meat, eggs, milk, cheese, fish, green vegetables,
carrots, fresh or dried fruit, nuts, and alcohol, according to the
answers they provided on the recruitment questionnaire. Subjects
were also divided into thirds by estimated intake of total fat,
saturated fat, and dietary cholesterol from land animal sources,
and into thirds by estimated dietary fiber intake based on their
reported consumption of fiber-rich foods. ... The most striking
results from the analysis were the strong positive associations
between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic
heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the
highest third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects
with no prior disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat,
2.77 (1.25, 6.13) for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96)
for dietary cholesterol; P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001,
respectively]. In contrast, no protective effects were noted for
dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption. Consumption of eggs
and cheese were both positively associated with ischemic heart
disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01 for both
foods). ..'
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S#R11

> "When the first 5 y of follow-up were excluded from the analysis, the
> death rate ratios became closer to unity and were no longer
> statistically significant, partly because the smaller number of deaths
> meant that the CIs were much wider [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for
> non-meat-eaters compared with meat eaters: 0.99 (0.76, 1.30) for all
> causes of death, 0.89 (0.51, 1.54) for ischemic heart disease, and 0.89
> (0.60, 1.32) for all malignant neoplasms]. These large reductions in
> the apparent effect of diet group may be because the healthy volunteer
> effect was more pronounced in the vegetarian subjects, who were likely
> to have been more strongly motivated and, therefore, generally
> healthier than the nonvegetarian subjects at recruitment. It is also
> likely that there was some crossover among diet groups during the first
> 5 y of the study, which would dilute the apparent benefits of a
> meatless diet. The largest benefit noted, for mortality from all
> malignant neoplasms, is not in accord with the results of a recent
> meta-analysis of vegetarian cohort studies (11)."

The vegetarians are not in most cases lifelong vegetarians,
and they still consume eggs and dairy (animal) products.

> Your sample and land are a fluke: The vegetarians volunteered for the
> study, who then grabbed nonvegetarians. It's a performer's effect.
> Use the studies from my link of samples who didn't take a test, or
> didn't know. Experiments are to be blind, dumbass. None of the
> parties were--not the cancer crowd nor the vegetarian "society" and
> obsociety (their friends).

Nonsense babble.

> > > The health problems most have happen in the poor, who thrive on cheap
> > > starches and fats (oils in this case). There are pricier but better
> > > choices in both the fleshly and wortly.
> >
> > People with health problems thrive?
>
> It means "grow or get by quickly". They get fat and big, fast.

thrive
1. To make steady progress; prosper.
2. To grow vigorously; flourish: "the wild deer that throve here" (Tom Clancy).
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thrive

'vig·or·ous
adj.
1. Strong, energetic, and active in mind or body; robust. See Synonyms at healthy.
2. Marked by or done with force and energy. See Synonyms at active.

vigor·ous·ly adv.
vigor·ous·ness n.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vigorously

> > Meat consumption is associated with disease, period.
>
> No, half-arsing of meat is associate with disease:
> http://www.ajcn.org/content/vol70/is...ge/052502.jpeg.
> (And a period is an interval of time.) The body doesn't do well with
> wavering or jumbling of foods: bran and wheat kill; greens kill; or
> those who were already near death who ate only these died more. As for
> fat from meat, come back when you get the details I wanted.

NS - Statistical significance was tested for, but not found.
Statistically significant, p <0.05
Statistically highly significant, p <0.01.

Look again.

> > > > > and not from /fleshes/.
> > > >
> > > > And you call others illiterate? The word is 'flesh'.
> > >
> > > The many is "fleshes", dolt.
> >
> > 'Mass nouns are those that cannot be semantically indefinitized
> > or pluralized (that is, that cannot be used with the indefinite article,
> > and for which there is no plural form). "Flesh," is a mass term -
> > we would not say "a flesh," nor "fleshes." A "count" noun, on
> > the other hand, is a noun that can be used with the indefinite article
> > and for which there is a plural form. "Dog" is a count noun - we
> > can say "a dog," or "dogs." Simply put, a count noun is
> > something that can be counted; a mass term is one that cannot.
> > We can count dogs but not flesh. '
> > http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm
>
> That's another "we" that I am not of. And it's descriptive, not
> prescriptive or constructive.

It's wrong.

> > > (snipped robotic output)
> > Predictable evasion.
>
> evasion of irrelevant Aspergian puke, yes
>
> -Aut

They really were scraping the barrel to come up with you.

wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Martin Willett wrote:
>>>
>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>More garbage from meat industry shills.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
>>>>>concerning bird flu and BSE.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
>>>>in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
>>>>obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
>>>>wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
>>>>not a disease created by farming.
>>>
>>>It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
>>>disease much faster.
>>
>>Prove it.
>
>
> It is elementary to anyone who is not a meat industry shill.

That isn't a proof, you fat ****; it's a whiff-off.



>>>>Do these arseholes think that everybody who expresses a contrary view is
>>>>in the pay of the meat industry? Paranoid losers.
>>>
>>>You asshole sund very much like a meat industry shill.
>
>

wrote:

> S. Maizlich wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Martin Willett wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>More garbage from meat industry shills.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
>>>>>concerning bird flu and BSE.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
>>>>in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
>>>>obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
>>>>wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
>>>>not a disease created by farming.
>>>
>>>
>>>It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
>>>disease much faster.
>>
>>Bullshit.
>>
>>You're an ignorant ****.
>
>
> You are an ignorant shit eating asshole.

You're an ignorant lying fat ****. You don't know
*ANYTHING* about the origination or propagation of bird
flu or BSE or any other animal disease. Shut your
****ing mouth.

lesley lied:

> "Autymn D. C." > wrote in message oups.com...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>>Another ignorant troll.
>>
>>Yes you are.
>
>
> Not I.

Yes, you are. You're a whore, too.



>>No, half-arsing of meat is associate with disease:
>>http://www.ajcn.org/content/vol70/is...ge/052502.jpeg.
>>(And a period is an interval of time.) The body doesn't do well with
>>wavering or jumbling of foods: bran and wheat kill; greens kill; or
>>those who were already near death who ate only these died more. As for
>>fat from meat, come back when you get the details I wanted.
>
>
> NS - Statistical significance was tested for, but not found.
> Statistically significant, p <0.05
> Statistically highly significant, p <0.01.
>
> Look again.

You don't know what *any* of that means. You've never
studied statistics in your life.

****ing halfwitted foot-rubbing whore.

"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
<..>
> > You 'don't want to', because you are addicted to animal fat.
> >
> > 'The Longest River: Denial
> >
> > Denial is a hallmark of someone who is engaging in this addiction
> > pattern but has not accepted that his or her behavior is out of
> > control. This denial is a psychological defense mechanism that
> > enables a person to continue to engage in a behavior in spite of
> > relatively obvious negative consequences on his or her life. It's
> > a way to protect oneself from seeing or feeling things that are
> > unpleasant.
> >
> > .. denial permits one to distort reality, a very powerful psychological
> > defense; it can have devastating consequences on our lives, and the
> > ability to disregard such negative consequences while continuing the
> > behavior is a hallmark of denial.
> > ...'
> > http://www.addictionrecov.org/paradi...greenfield.htm.
> >
>
> You are denying the simple and obvious fact that most people on this
> planet enjoy eating meat and animal based foods and are not interested
> in your attempts to make them feel guilty, or small, or stupid or cruel.

I am aware of the simple and obvious fact that many people on this
planet falsely believe that they require meat and animal based foods
to maintain or enjoy good health, and need an urgent wake-up call.

You are denying the simple and obvious fact that you are addicted
to eating meat and animal based foods; and as part of your denial
you attempt to make others feel guilty, or small, or stupid or cruel.

> >>Do you support freedom of choice and democracy or do you
> >>think your morality and your diet should be imposed on humanity for its
> >>own good?
> >
> > You don't support animals' freedom of choice; you think your 'morality'
> > and your diet should be imposed on other creatures for your own good.
>
> Yes, you're seem to be implying that is some kind of bad thing. Why?

Why should you be treated any differently to how you treat others?

> No
> other animals give a shit about other species, we care far more than any
> other species cares.

Other species tend to avoid humans, and won't attack without good
reason. You don't give a shit about other species. -You- don't care.

> > Do unto others as you would that others should do unto you.
>
> Why?

You are aware of how actions affect you, and therefore others.

> What's in it for us?

Even if there's nothing in it for you.

> It makes sense to do that with intelligent
> beings who have some chance of reciprocating, it makes sense to be nice
> to people and intelligent aliens, it does not make sense to do it to
> things that cannot possibly reciprocate.

Even if they can't, they can suffer.

> Me not eating a lamb isn't
> going to change the odds of me being eaten by a lamb. Kow towing to a
> veal calf makes no more sense than making a sacrifice to the volcano god
> or beating your car with a stick. Animals cannot reciprocate with us. If
> we don't eat them they don't get eaten. That's it. The world is not
> improved and we don't reduce the number of people getting eaten by
> tigers or sharks or the the chances of getting hurricanes or
> earthquakes. Making deals with dumb animals is like throwing money into
> a wishing well: it might feel like some kind of a contract to you
> because it costs you something, but it does not pay you back with
> anything. If you have a puritan mindset it might make you feel good,
> like self-flagellation might make you feel good. But I don't have a
> puritan mindset and I don't want one thanks very much.

You talk of reciprocation, but torture and kill creatures
who have never, and would never, do you any harm.

> Your "fundamental moral principle" is screwing up your life because you
> are trying to apply it where it does not work.

Your lack of any moral principles is screwing up your life
in many more ways than one, and you don't even know it.

> <snipped quoted material unread>
-
In addition to the terrible suffering inflicted on sentient creatures
and harm to the environment, you are causing harm to yourself.
-
> >>
> >>The perpetual cry of the woman, the natural belittler of meat in the
> >>diet, the woman who traditionally has supplied the bulk of the calories
> >>through drudgery.
> >
> >
> > It's called cooperation and sharing.
>
> >
> >
> >>No herbivorous species would ever cooperate for
> >>precicely this reason: providing food from vegetable matter is drudgery
> >>and shirking is bitterly resented.
> >
> >
> > That makes no sense. What's "shirking", if not not cooperating?
>
> Shirking is behaving naturally, in your own interest. Cows do not chew
> each others' cud. A system of cooperation is always likely to collapse
> because of shirking, it can never develop in a herbivorous species
> without a highly peculiar reproductive method (e.g. naked mole rats and
> termites) and that is why it hasn't. Herbivores never share any food or
> cooperate over food after they have weaned. There's a massive animal
> kingdom out there, show me the counter example.

Humans are frugivores, not grazers.

> >>Hunting contributes very high quality food to the diet.
> >
> >
> > 'High quality' to carnivorous species- which we are not.
> >
> > Life-saving calories in times of scarcity.
>
>
> The world's vegans could throw away all their special nutritional
> supplements and all their diet books, their scales and measures and
> forget about all their dietary concerns (and the idea of eating dirt or
> shit) completely if they just ate one portion of meat or fish per week.
> That is an extremely healthy human diet.

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading
to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
animal-based food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html

Because of widespread cobalt deficiency, a vitamin B12
supplement is recommended, (and not only for veg*ns).

> >>Exactly how
> >>valuable the contribution of meat is will always be a matter of
> >>contention, the hunters were always traditionally the men who would play
> >>up the importance of meat
> >
> >
> > Nice of you to admit it.
> >
> >
> >>and women would play it down. Meat was also
> >>the currency of sexual betrayal. In every hunter gatherer tribe studied
> >>the best hunters had access to the most women.
> >
> > Because it would indicate that they were fitter, no doubt; and
> > in times of need, an ability to actually catch something helps.
>
> ********. The better hunters get more women because they have higher
> status with the men and sometimes because they can provide valuable meat.
>
> Women are attracted to fit men? Yeah right.
<snip>

Of course.

> >>Belittling meat is simply
> >> part of the strategy to try to get women's contributions valued
> >>more highly.
> >
> >
> > Strategy? Oh dear. Maybe you should.
>
> In any trade it helps to make out that what you are bringing to the deal
> is worth more than that which you are taking away, despite the rather
> obvious point that your willingness to make the trade proves that the
> exact opposite is true. Of course men will make out that meat is highly
> valuable and women will make out that it is totally trivial and so
> hardly any vegetable food or sex needs to be offered in exchange, but
> the exchange is made, which reveals the true value that both parties
> actually put on their commodities.

'Men may seek large game not because they can trade the meat
for prestige and other benefits, but because it requires a
particular skill that is a reliable indicator of other characteristics.'
http://www.stanford.edu/~rbird/files/dol.pdf

> >>>>Cooperation begins to make a lot more
> >>>>sense. If you bring down an animal too big for you to eat alone you
> >>>>share it, and convert the calories you couldn't eat into social debts
> >>>>and obligations.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>One large animal every thirty hunter days between everyone won't go far.
> >>
> >>It is quite sufficient for most tribes to ensure they don't routinely
> >>resort to cannibalism.
> >
> >
> > If there's a real need for it smaller animals would also be hunted.
>
> Of course, but eating smaller animals is a sign of poverty, desperation
> or lack of true prowess at food provision that is why British roast beef
> eaters disdained the frog and snail-eating French. The rich eat turbot
> and beef steak, the poor eat winkles and rabbit. The really poor eat
> rats and beetles.

'Wealthy Romans ate delicacies like flamingos, snails and stuffed dormice.'
http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/wallnet/ant/cooking.htm

'At the occasion of Henry IV of England´s coronation in 1399 almost forty
dishes came to the table, almost all of them meat dishes: wild boars, baby
swans, capons, cranes, herons, curlews, partridges, quail and meat balls.'
http://www.animalfreedom.org/english...able_meat.html

Quit BSing.

> Not to mention of course it is also a sign that vegan diets don't work
> unless there is a large variety of vegetable food available, which is
> not the case in many environments that man can live in quite comfortably
> by making use of animal food.

These days there is nothing to prevent most people from being vegan.

> >>>>That kind of society makes sense but it requires a
> >>>>further boost in brains and social skills. Meat helped us to become
> >>>>sharers and carers. Without meat we would never have become human.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You're wrong. Compassion is supposedly a human trait. Where's yours?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Ah. Now why did I find this AFTER I was looking for evidence that vegans
> >>made out they were morally superior?
> >
> > NORMAL human beings.
>
> <snip>
>
> Argue your own case or don't bother.

This appears to apply to you.

-restore-

'9. Callousness/lack of empathy

Psychopaths readily take advantage of others, expressing utter
contempt for anyone else's feelings. Someone in distress is not
important to them.

Psychopaths are unable to empathize with the pain of their victims.
...'
http://www.fwselijah.com/psychopa.htm
-

> >>Compassion is a human trait but it isn't what makes us human.
> >
> >
> > A lack of compassion makes one less-than-human. Inhuman.
> >
> > in·hu·man ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-hymn)
> > adj.
> >
> > 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at cruel.
> > 2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
> > 3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
> > 4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
> >
> > in·human·ly adv.
> > in·human·ness n.
> > ..
> > inhuman
> > adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
> > "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
> > cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
> > nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
> > inhuman noises"
> >
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inhuman

The silence is deafening.

> >>If we
> >>discovered a tribe of people who were clearly intelligent, tool-using
> >>and inter-fertile with us but had no compassion we would not conclude
> >>that they did not belong to our species or did not qualify to be called
> >>human, although we would be justified in studying them to understand
> >>this anomalous condition.
> >
> >
> > It's called Psychopathy.
> >
> >
> >>Likewise a species of compassionate wombats or
> >>even chimpanzees would not be regarded as people.
> >
> >
> > As human people.
> >
> > '9. Informal. Animals or other beings distinct from humans:
> > Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods.
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=people
>
> Votes for rabbits? I don't think so.

Nevertheless.

> >>It was sharing and cooperation that was vitally important in making the
> >>transition from a baboon-like existence to the rich complex social life
> >>we enjoy today.
> >
> >
> > The collection, preparation and sharing of plant foods is cooperative.
>
> On which planet is this? Forget that, it would not work on any planet.

'Many affiliative or cooperative behaviors among group-living
animals can be explained by individual actions that may benefit
several individuals.

In acts of cooperation, both participants may receive immediate
benefits from the interaction.

Coordinated behaviors such as joint resource defense, range
defense, cooperative hunting, alliance formation, cooperative
food searching and harvesting, mutual grooming, huddling,
spatial proximity, and predator vigilance can be explained
in terms of immediate benefits to participating individuals.
Acts that appear to benefit recipients may also benefit actors.
These benefits need not be equal for each individual. If the
cost to the actors of affiliative behavior is low, even if the
rewards are low and/or variable, we should expect affilation
and cooperation to be common. This intraspecific mutualism
may help explain why nonhuman primates and other social
mammals live in relatively stable social groups and solve the
problems of everyday life in a generally cooperative fashion.

Brown (1983, p. 30) described a type of cooperative behavior
that occurs when ''each animal must perform a necessary
minimum itself that may benefit another individual as a
by-product.'' This has been referred to as ''by-product
mutualism.'' This is typically characterized by behaviors that
a solitary individual must do regardless of the presence of
others, such as hunting for food. In many species, these
activities are more profitable in groups than alone. Dugatkin
(1997, p. 31-32) stated: ''This category might be thought
of as the simplest type of cooperation in that no kinship need
be involved, nor are the cognitive mechanisms that require
scorekeeping ... necessary for byproduct mutualism to evolve.

As such byproduct mutualism is ''simple'' in the sense of
what is needed for cooperation to evolve, and this in turn
might make it the most common category of cooperation,
when all is said and done.''
...'
http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/beg/su...et_al_2005.pdf

> Which herbivorous species share food? The rule of the herbivore is eat
> what you collect. Watch squirrels, they bury nuts. They don't gather all
> the nuts together in a big pile and share them out collectively to get
> them through the long winter, despite the fact that this might be a more
> efficient way to operate.

'Squirrels are notorious because of their habit of buying nuts
in the ground. Stored nuts have no particular ownership, and
the members of a squirrel community share each other's efforts.
The general position of stored food probably is located slightly
by a sense of memory, but the actual position of individual nuts
is found by a keen sense of smell. Many buried nuts are not
recovered, and a large percentage of them sprout and eventually
become trees.
http://www.animals-b-gone.com/Squirr...rrel_info.html

> If any herbivore tried to do that the system
> would collapse before it began to evolve as the smarter and/or stronger
> squirrels would not waste their energy collecting food but would make
> sure they got all they needed from the collective store. Collective
> farming does not work for man or any other species that breeds in a
> similar way.

'Clutton-Brock (2002) recently provided evidence that the
benefits of cooperation in vertebrate societies, generally, may
show parallels to those in human societies, where cooperation
between unrelated individuals is frequent and social institutions
are often maintained by generalized cooperation and reciprocity.
Cooperation and affiliation represent behavioral tactics that can
be used by group members to obtain resources, provide comfort,
maintain or enhance their social position, or increase reproductive
opportunities (Brown, 1983; Sapolsky et al., 1997; Taylor et al.,
2000; Clutton-Brock et al., 2001; Clutton-Brock, 2002; Cheverud,
2004).
...'
http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/beg/su...et_al_2005.pdf

> >>That would not have happened without a change in diet
> >>that had meat eating as a vital component of it for the simple reason
> >>that no vegetable based food requires elaborate cooperation to exploit.
> >
> >
> > Wrong. You'd have foraging parties, just as you'd go looking for
> > animals. In fact, knowing where to find plant-foods is essential;
> > when on a hunt, you'd do a fairly random search over the terrain.
> >
>
> Foraging parties collect food alongside each other, into separate
> baskets. They don't collect food collectively, unless they physically
> can't do it any other way.

'cooperative food searching and harvesting.'
http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/beg/su...et_al_2005.pdf

> >>Digging up a yam or picking a mango does not take a lot of cooperation,
> >>language or plans drawn up in the sand with a stick but gathering honey
> >>or hunting a buffalo does.
> >
> >
> > The gathering, preparation and provisioning of plant-foods
> > involves a lot of cooperation. Your argument is flawed.
>
> Yeah, cows are forever holding strategy meetings, aren't they?

Humans are not grazers- we are frugivorous primates.

> Gorillas move from one area to another, and help themselves to food.
> That's it. That is the strategy. The silverback moves off thataway and
> the rest follow or he cuffs them one.

Gorillas are primarily folivore.

> You are simply making a statement. You haven't even quoted chapter and
> verse. Plant food does not require cooperation and exploiting it is not
> conducive to developing cooperation.

Groups of people search for food and forage together; they eat some
and take the rest back to the place of habitation to share it with others.

> >>>>Of course that does not mean we ate a lot of meat or ate more meat than
> >>>>vegetable-derived calories or even protein, only that meat eating was a
> >>>>vitally important part of our behaviour.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I helped us survive in times of need. Be grateful.
> >>>
> >>
> >>*You* did? That seems like a very strange claim to me.
> >
> >
> > Typo, of course. Animals have. Be thankful.
> >
> >
>
> What do you mean by be thankful?

Aware and appreciative of benefit toward those who allowed that.

> I do not believe in anything that needs
> to be thanked or appeased for the survival of my species.

That's very ungracious of you, but expected.

<willett opinion snipped>

"S. Maizlich" >

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> > Martin Willett wrote:
>> >> Leif Erikson wrote:
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>More garbage from meat industry shills.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
>> >> > concerning bird flu and BSE.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus
>> >> found
>> >> in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
>> >> obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it
>> >> as
>> >> wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
>> >> not a disease created by farming.
>> >
>> > It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
>> > disease much faster.
>> >>
>> >> Do these arseholes think that everybody who expresses a contrary view
>> >> is
>> >> in the pay of the meat industry? Paranoid losers.
>> >
>> > You asshole sund very much like a meat industry shill.
>>
>> You sound very much like a half-wit.
>
> A clueless

No really, you sound like a moron.

the lying slut Lesley, foot-rubbing whore in Cork,
Ireland, lied:
> "S. Maizlich" >
>
> Faking quotes,

Faking nothing. You have ZERO qualification in statistics.

S. Maizlich wrote:
> lesley lied:
>
> > "Autymn D. C." > wrote in message oups.com...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>>Another ignorant troll.
> >>
> >>Yes you are.
> >
> >
> > Not I.
>
> Yes, you are. You're a whore, too.
>
>
>
> >>No, half-arsing of meat is associate with disease:
> >>http://www.ajcn.org/content/vol70/is...ge/052502.jpeg.
> >>(And a period is an interval of time.) The body doesn't do well with
> >>wavering or jumbling of foods: bran and wheat kill; greens kill; or
> >>those who were already near death who ate only these died more. As for
> >>fat from meat, come back when you get the details I wanted.
> >
> >
> > NS - Statistical significance was tested for, but not found.
> > Statistically significant, p <0.05
> > Statistically highly significant, p <0.01.
> >
> > Look again.
>
> You don't know what *any* of that means. You've never
> studied statistics in your life.
>
> ****ing halfwitted foot-rubbing whore.

Such wisdom from S. Maizlich the shit eating meat industry shill!

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> > Martin Willett wrote:
> >> >> Leif Erikson wrote:
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>More garbage from meat industry shills.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> >> >> > concerning bird flu and BSE.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus
> >> >> found
> >> >> in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
> >> >> obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it
> >> >> as
> >> >> wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
> >> >> not a disease created by farming.
> >> >
> >> > It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
> >> > disease much faster.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do these arseholes think that everybody who expresses a contrary view
> >> >> is
> >> >> in the pay of the meat industry? Paranoid losers.
> >> >
> >> > You asshole sund very much like a meat industry shill.
> >>
> >> You sound very much like a half-wit.
> >
> > A clueless
>
> No really, you sound like a moron.

A clueless meat industry forgerer shill like you (rick==Dutch) would be
happy
with half a wit.

pearl wrote:
> "S. Maizlich" >
>
> Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.

What else did you expect from meat industry shills?

> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

S. Maizlich wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > S. Maizlich wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Martin Willett wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>More garbage from meat industry shills.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> >>>>>concerning bird flu and BSE.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
> >>>>in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
> >>>>obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
> >>>>wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
> >>>>not a disease created by farming.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
> >>>disease much faster.
> >>
> >>Bullshit.
> >>
> >>You're an ignorant ****.
> >
> >
> > You are an ignorant shit eating asshole.
>
> You're an ignorant lying fat ****. You don't know
> *ANYTHING* about the origination or propagation of bird
> flu or BSE or any other animal disease. Shut your
> ****ing mouth.

Such wisdom from S. Maizlich the shit eating meat industry shill!

S. Maizlich wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > S. Maizlich wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Martin Willett wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>More garbage from meat industry shills.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> >>>>>concerning bird flu and BSE.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
> >>>>in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
> >>>>obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
> >>>>wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
> >>>>not a disease created by farming.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
> >>>disease much faster.
> >>
> >>Bullshit.
> >>
> >>You're an ignorant ****.
> >
> >
> > You are an ignorant shit eating asshole.
>
> You're an ignorant lying fat ****. You don't know
> *ANYTHING* about the origination or propagation of bird
> flu or BSE or any other animal disease. Shut your
> ****ing mouth.

Such wisdom from S. Maizlich the shit eating meat industry shill!

Leif Erikson wrote:
> wrote:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Martin Willett wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>More garbage from meat industry shills.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> >>>>>concerning bird flu and BSE.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
> >>>>in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
> >>>>obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
> >>>>wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
> >>>>not a disease created by farming.
> >>>
> >>>It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
> >>>disease much faster.
> >>
> >>Prove it.
> >
> >
> > It is elementary to anyone who is not a meat industry shill.
>
> That isn't a proof, you fat ****; it's a whiff-off.

Such wisdom from Erikson the shit eating meat industry shill!
>
>
>
> >>>>Do these arseholes think that everybody who expresses a contrary view is
> >>>>in the pay of the meat industry? Paranoid losers.
> >>>
> >>>You asshole sund very much like a meat industry shill.
> >
> >

pearl wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>
> <..>
>
>>>You 'don't want to', because you are addicted to animal fat.
>>>
>>>'The Longest River: Denial
>>>
>>>Denial is a hallmark of someone who is engaging in this addiction
>>>pattern but has not accepted that his or her behavior is out of
>>>control. This denial is a psychological defense mechanism that
>>>enables a person to continue to engage in a behavior in spite of
>>>relatively obvious negative consequences on his or her life. It's
>>>a way to protect oneself from seeing or feeling things that are
>>>unpleasant.
>>>
>>>.. denial permits one to distort reality, a very powerful psychological
>>>defense; it can have devastating consequences on our lives, and the
>>>ability to disregard such negative consequences while continuing the
>>>behavior is a hallmark of denial.
>>>...'
>>>http://www.addictionrecov.org/paradi...greenfield.htm.
>>>
>>
>>You are denying the simple and obvious fact that most people on this
>>planet enjoy eating meat and animal based foods and are not interested
>>in your attempts to make them feel guilty, or small, or stupid or cruel.
>
>
> I am aware of the simple and obvious fact that many people on this
> planet falsely believe that they require meat and animal based foods
> to maintain or enjoy good health, and need an urgent wake-up call.
>
> You are denying the simple and obvious fact that you are addicted
> to eating meat and animal based foods; and as part of your denial
> you attempt to make others feel guilty, or small, or stupid or cruel.
>
>

Yes I do deny it. I'm a bloke. I don't do diets, nutrition and eating
plans. I eat food I enjoy eating.

Not everything that people do often or more than other people do is an
addiction, or a problem. Going to church is not an addiction, neither is
riding a motorbike, or watching Arsenal play football or listening to
Hip-hop or playing bingo once a week. I don't do any of those things but
I don't regard them as addictions. They are choices. By all means point
out that there are other options, or better options, but calling options
you don't take up addictions does not make it so.

Billions of people are living long and healthy lives eating foods they
enjoy. There is no crisis, there is no need for any urgent wake up call,
the sky is not falling in Ms Tofu Little. And if it was any good reason
to eat less animal food the last thing any meat eater is going to do is
to take any lecture or evidence from a vegan. Vegans make their diet
choice based on their interpretation of morality, not on rational
evidence. Vegans blathering on about the health risks or environmental
impact of meat is as convincing as hearing the Pope blathering on about
sexually transmitted diseases or your dad telling you that cannabis
sends you crazy. You're wasting your time, no non-vegan takes you
seriously and they never will.

If you want more converts *look like you are actually enjoying your food*.

>>>>Do you support freedom of choice and democracy or do you
>>>>think your morality and your diet should be imposed on humanity for its
>>>>own good?
>>>
>>>You don't support animals' freedom of choice; you think your 'morality'
>>>and your diet should be imposed on other creatures for your own good.
>>
>>Yes, you're seem to be implying that is some kind of bad thing. Why?
>
>
> Why should you be treated any differently to how you treat others?
>

Animals impose themselves on other species, that's pretty much the basic
definition. Herbivores don't eat other animals, that is not a moral
choice it is a strategy of dietary specialism, and it has no benefits to
them in the form of making them immune from being eaten. Life is not a
contract with the universe.

>
>>No
>>other animals give a shit about other species, we care far more than any
>>other species cares.
>
>
> Other species tend to avoid humans, and won't attack without good
> reason. You don't give a shit about other species. -You- don't care.
>
>

Other species avoid us because they are rightly scared by us. Species
that don't know to be wary of us tend to go extinct within a couple
centuries of our species making landfall where they live. On small
islands that may be only a couple of years.

I do care about other species, I care a lot.

http://www.mwillett.org/Politics/cedars1.htm

I just don't express that care in the form of a self-flagellating
puritan dietary restriction that I wear on my sleeve in the hope of
making people to look up to me.

>>>Do unto others as you would that others should do unto you.
>>
>>Why?
>
>
> You are aware of how actions affect you, and therefore others.
>

Correct. I am also aware of how people can reciprocate, and animals
can't, and therefore how a social contract with animals in general is
both meaningless and incapable of being rewarding.

>
>>What's in it for us?
>
>
> Even if there's nothing in it for you.
>

If you're happy making sacrifices for no benefit feel free to carry on
but don't expect to be able to win round everybody to that way of
thinking. It isn't going to happen.

>
>>It makes sense to do that with intelligent
>>beings who have some chance of reciprocating, it makes sense to be nice
>>to people and intelligent aliens, it does not make sense to do it to
>>things that cannot possibly reciprocate.
>
>
> Even if they can't, they can suffer.

Correct. Animals can and do suffer. Life for animals is usually rather
nasty brutish and short.

>
>>Me not eating a lamb isn't
>>going to change the odds of me being eaten by a lamb. Kow towing to a
>>veal calf makes no more sense than making a sacrifice to the volcano god
>>or beating your car with a stick. Animals cannot reciprocate with us. If
>>we don't eat them they don't get eaten. That's it. The world is not
>>improved and we don't reduce the number of people getting eaten by
>>tigers or sharks or the the chances of getting hurricanes or
>>earthquakes. Making deals with dumb animals is like throwing money into
>>a wishing well: it might feel like some kind of a contract to you
>>because it costs you something, but it does not pay you back with
>>anything. If you have a puritan mindset it might make you feel good,
>>like self-flagellation might make you feel good. But I don't have a
>>puritan mindset and I don't want one thanks very much.
>
>
> You talk of reciprocation, but torture and kill creatures
> who have never, and would never, do you any harm.
>

You've lost it. Torture is the deliberate inflicting of pain and
suffering for the purpose of inflicting pain and suffering. Carnivores
don't torture animals, they quickly bring down, immobilize and kill
their prey. Anything else is simply stupid, dangerous and a waste of effort.

A week ago I heard a shriek of alarm and I turned around, there in the
road beside me three metres away a small bird of prey had just caught a
thrush in mid air, the prey was about 60% of the size of hawk, there was
no way it could fly with a struggling payload of that size. It must have
been no more than three seconds from first contact to death, and the
hawk flew off again carrying its prize inert between its talons.

A quick kill is in the best interests of any carnivore. Prolonged agony
only occurs when they prey is too big or strong to be killed quickly,
e.g hyaenas taking down wildebeste or man tackling whales.

People don't torture their food. People sometimes torture prisoners or
slaves and sickos sometimes torture cats and the like but it is very
rare to see any combination of deliberate inflicting of suffering with
eating. People sometimes torture what they hate but they don't eat what
they hate or torture what they eat.

>
>>Your "fundamental moral principle" is screwing up your life because you
>>are trying to apply it where it does not work.
>
>
> Your lack of any moral principles is screwing up your life
> in many more ways than one, and you don't even know it.
>

Shove it Puritan bitch.

I mean that in a nice way.


>
>>>>The perpetual cry of the woman, the natural belittler of meat in the
>>>>diet, the woman who traditionally has supplied the bulk of the calories
>>>>through drudgery.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's called cooperation and sharing.
>>
>>>
>>>>No herbivorous species would ever cooperate for
>>>>precicely this reason: providing food from vegetable matter is drudgery
>>>>and shirking is bitterly resented.
>>>
>>>
>>>That makes no sense. What's "shirking", if not not cooperating?
>>
>>Shirking is behaving naturally, in your own interest. Cows do not chew
>>each others' cud. A system of cooperation is always likely to collapse
>>because of shirking, it can never develop in a herbivorous species
>>without a highly peculiar reproductive method (e.g. naked mole rats and
>>termites) and that is why it hasn't. Herbivores never share any food or
>>cooperate over food after they have weaned. There's a massive animal
>>kingdom out there, show me the counter example.
>
>
> Humans are frugivores, not grazers.
>
>

There are no frugivores in Britain. You can only live as a frugivore in
a tropical or sub-tropical forest environment. Anywhere else and there
are too many days with no fruit to survive on such a specialized diet.

We are not monkeys anymore. Besides, monkeys do not share their fruit,
do they? Monkeys are frugivores. Most frugivores are selfish and
uncaring little buggers who would bite your finger off and spit it out.


>>>>Hunting contributes very high quality food to the diet.
>>>
>>>
>>>'High quality' to carnivorous species- which we are not.
>>>
>>>Life-saving calories in times of scarcity.
>>
>>
>>The world's vegans could throw away all their special nutritional
>>supplements and all their diet books, their scales and measures and
>>forget about all their dietary concerns (and the idea of eating dirt or
>>shit) completely if they just ate one portion of meat or fish per week.
>>That is an extremely healthy human diet.
>


>>Women are attracted to fit men? Yeah right.
>
> <snip>
>
> Of course.
>

Other things being equal yes. But they're not, are they?

>>>>Belittling meat is simply
>>>> part of the strategy to try to get women's contributions valued
>>>>more highly.
>>>
>>>
>>>Strategy? Oh dear. Maybe you should.
>>
>>In any trade it helps to make out that what you are bringing to the deal
>>is worth more than that which you are taking away, despite the rather
>>obvious point that your willingness to make the trade proves that the
>>exact opposite is true. Of course men will make out that meat is highly
>>valuable and women will make out that it is totally trivial and so
>>hardly any vegetable food or sex needs to be offered in exchange, but
>>the exchange is made, which reveals the true value that both parties
>>actually put on their commodities.
>
>
> 'Men may seek large game not because they can trade the meat
> for prestige and other benefits, but because it requires a
> particular skill that is a reliable indicator of other characteristics.'
> http://www.stanford.edu/~rbird/files/dol.pdf
>

If that is the case belittling meat is belittling skill, judgement, and
intelligence. Or in biological terms fitness.

If you prefer to be guilty of that then so be it.


>>>>>>Cooperation begins to make a lot more
>>>>>>sense. If you bring down an animal too big for you to eat alone you
>>>>>>share it, and convert the calories you couldn't eat into social debts
>>>>>>and obligations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>One large animal every thirty hunter days between everyone won't go far.
>>>>
>>>>It is quite sufficient for most tribes to ensure they don't routinely
>>>>resort to cannibalism.
>>>
>>>
>>>If there's a real need for it smaller animals would also be hunted.
>>
>>Of course, but eating smaller animals is a sign of poverty, desperation
>>or lack of true prowess at food provision that is why British roast beef
>>eaters disdained the frog and snail-eating French. The rich eat turbot
>>and beef steak, the poor eat winkles and rabbit. The really poor eat
>>rats and beetles.
>
>
> 'Wealthy Romans ate delicacies like flamingos, snails and stuffed dormice.'
> http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/wallnet/ant/cooking.htm
>
> 'At the occasion of Henry IV of England´s coronation in 1399 almost forty
> dishes came to the table, almost all of them meat dishes: wild boars, baby
> swans, capons, cranes, herons, curlews, partridges, quail and meat balls.'
> http://www.animalfreedom.org/english...able_meat.html
>
> Quit BSing.

It is you who are bullshitting. I note you didn't use the full word,
more evidence of Puritan tendencies perhaps.

I didn't notice rats, cockroaches and weasels on those lists. Snails
were distained by many Europeans along with all other small animals as
food. In general eating small animals or offal as a regular part of the
diet indicates poverty.

However...

Delicacies such as lark's tongues, songbirds, dormice and caviar are
eaten as a form of conspicuous consumption because they are small and
fiddly and not really worth the bother of preparing and eating yourself
but providing such food at a banquet demonstrates the size of your
kitchen staff (a substitute for your own phallus perhaps) and a sign of
your refined tastes, demonstrating that you are not new to riches and
are treating your guests to the very best that is available without
regard to cost.

>
>
>>Not to mention of course it is also a sign that vegan diets don't work
>>unless there is a large variety of vegetable food available, which is
>>not the case in many environments that man can live in quite comfortably
>>by making use of animal food.
>
>
> These days there is nothing to prevent most people from being vegan.
>
>

Quite so. Apart from their choice.

It is possible to have a healthy diet that is vegan. However it is much
easier to have a healthy diet that is not vegan.

>>>>>>That kind of society makes sense but it requires a
>>>>>>further boost in brains and social skills. Meat helped us to become
>>>>>>sharers and carers. Without meat we would never have become human.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You're wrong. Compassion is supposedly a human trait. Where's yours?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ah. Now why did I find this AFTER I was looking for evidence that vegans
>>>>made out they were morally superior?
>>>
>>>NORMAL human beings.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Argue your own case or don't bother.
>
>
> This appears to apply to you.
>
> -restore-

<restore snip>

Argue your own case or don't bother.


> The silence is deafening.
>
>


That's because I don't reply to stuff I don't read and I don't read
stuff that's clearly been pasted.

That's not a rule for all debates but I find it helps with people who
paste stuff to excess.

The bigger the quoted chunk the more of a pleasure it is to delete unread.

>
>>Which herbivorous species share food? The rule of the herbivore is eat
>>what you collect. Watch squirrels, they bury nuts. They don't gather all
>>the nuts together in a big pile and share them out collectively to get
>>them through the long winter, despite the fact that this might be a more
>>efficient way to operate.
>
>
> 'Squirrels are notorious because of their habit of buying nuts
> in the ground. Stored nuts have no particular ownership, and
> the members of a squirrel community share each other's efforts.
> The general position of stored food probably is located slightly
> by a sense of memory, but the actual position of individual nuts
> is found by a keen sense of smell. Many buried nuts are not
> recovered, and a large percentage of them sprout and eventually
> become trees.
> http://www.animals-b-gone.com/Squirr...rrel_info.html
>
>

Pathetic. Squirrels bury their nuts and often other squirrels smell them
out and dig them up. That is not co-operation any more than having money
available in poor parts of American cities in the tills of liquor stores
is part of the social services to the armed poor.

Squirrels bury nuts out of the way of birds. The fact that they bury
nuts rapidly and singly is evidence that they do not trust other
squirrels. It is not a cooperative strategy, it is the opposite.
Squirrels do not take more than five seconds to bury a nut because any
more effort is likely to be wasted if another squirrel takes the nut and
a nut is not worth fighting over. Bury rapidly to hide from visual-based
competitors. Don't get too annoyed if it is stolen. Don't waste more
energy on a nut than the nut offers in the form of food. That is a
strategy that makes sense all ways around.

Herbivores do not co-operate in gathering food. It is a simple
statement. I am standing here with my legs wide open and asking you to
take a running kick. But you can't come up with any evidence.

>>If any herbivore tried to do that the system
>>would collapse before it began to evolve as the smarter and/or stronger
>>squirrels would not waste their energy collecting food but would make
>>sure they got all they needed from the collective store. Collective
>>farming does not work for man or any other species that breeds in a
>>similar way.
>
>
> 'Clutton-Brock (2002) recently provided evidence that the
> benefits of cooperation in vertebrate societies, generally, may
> show parallels to those in human societies, where cooperation
> between unrelated individuals is frequent and social institutions
> are often maintained by generalized cooperation and reciprocity.
> Cooperation and affiliation represent behavioral tactics that can
> be used by group members to obtain resources, provide comfort,
> maintain or enhance their social position, or increase reproductive
> opportunities (Brown, 1983; Sapolsky et al., 1997; Taylor et al.,
> 2000; Clutton-Brock et al., 2001; Clutton-Brock, 2002; Cheverud,
> 2004).
> ..'
> http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/beg/su...et_al_2005.pdf
>
>

Food sharing and co-operative food gathering among herbivores? No.

You're full of waffle, you are not addressing the issue you are just
making spurious quotations. It is not convincing me of anything other
than your inability to make your own case.

>>>>That would not have happened without a change in diet
>>>>that had meat eating as a vital component of it for the simple reason
>>>>that no vegetable based food requires elaborate cooperation to exploit.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wrong. You'd have foraging parties, just as you'd go looking for
>>>animals. In fact, knowing where to find plant-foods is essential;
>>>when on a hunt, you'd do a fairly random search over the terrain.
>>>
>>
>>Foraging parties collect food alongside each other, into separate
>>baskets. They don't collect food collectively, unless they physically
>>can't do it any other way.
>
>
> 'cooperative food searching and harvesting.'
> http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/beg/su...et_al_2005.pdf
>

You don't understand how this works, do you? I am not going to read
through a 171 KB pdf to find evidence to support your case and neither
am I going to conclude that that there must be some evidence in it
otherwise you wouldn't have posted the link.

Make your case. Use your own words. Use quotes sparingly. I am not an
examiner, you do not have to impress me with correctly formatted
citations and you do not have to use felt tipped pens neatly. Just make
your ****ing case, OK?

>
>>>>Digging up a yam or picking a mango does not take a lot of cooperation,
>>>>language or plans drawn up in the sand with a stick but gathering honey
>>>>or hunting a buffalo does.
>>>
>>>
>>>The gathering, preparation and provisioning of plant-foods
>>>involves a lot of cooperation. Your argument is flawed.
>>
>>Yeah, cows are forever holding strategy meetings, aren't they?
>
>
> Humans are not grazers- we are frugivorous primates.
>

No we are not. We are omnivores. Monkeys are frugivorous primates.
Monkeys live in tropical forests. Man lives in almost all habitats on
the planet, that is only possible because we are naturally, comfortably,
healthily and FREELY omnivorous.


>
>>Gorillas move from one area to another, and help themselves to food.
>>That's it. That is the strategy. The silverback moves off thataway and
>>the rest follow or he cuffs them one.
>
>
> Gorillas are primarily folivore.
>

Right. So never mention them again as any form of a lesson in human
diets. Can you do that?

>>You are simply making a statement. You haven't even quoted chapter and
>>verse. Plant food does not require cooperation and exploiting it is not
>>conducive to developing cooperation.
>
>
> Groups of people search for food and forage together; they eat some
> and take the rest back to the place of habitation to share it with others.
>

To share with their families, not to share with unrelated individuals,
except where the sharing of meat has already catalysed new social
relationships unseen in herbivorous species.

>
>>>>>>Of course that does not mean we ate a lot of meat or ate more meat than
>>>>>>vegetable-derived calories or even protein, only that meat eating was a
>>>>>>vitally important part of our behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I helped us survive in times of need. Be grateful.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>*You* did? That seems like a very strange claim to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>Typo, of course. Animals have. Be thankful.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What do you mean by be thankful?
>
>
> Aware and appreciative of benefit toward those who allowed that.
>

Painting a dairy cow on my cave wall isn't actually going to help me
very much. I can understand why those hippies Ben and Jerry might do it
though.

>
>>I do not believe in anything that needs
>>to be thanked or appeased for the survival of my species.
>
>
> That's very ungracious of you, but expected.
>

Grace? Meaningless Puritan piffle.

If I thank something that is dead or does not exist and does not have
the capacity to know or care about that thanks how is my future improved?


<willett opinion snipped>

Sorry, should that have been somebody else's opinion before you decide
it is worth reading?

Why be Thankful? M. Willett BA, 2006, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,
alt.food.vegan,

What do you mean by be thankful? I do not believe in anything that needs
to be thanked or appeased for the survival of my species. If I am not
grateful or thankful the reality is the same. Mankind has survived. Not
eating animals is not paying back any debt. Not eating animals earns us
no credit. There is no balance sheet. There is no avenging god or alien
butcher from hell going to make us pay for our sins. If you don't eat
meat all that happens is you don't eat meat.

I don't believe in gods or karma or some Earth Spirit, and if you do
believe in such things that belief does not make it so, for you or for
anybody.

If you don't want to eat animals that is a choice you are free to make
but don't expect to be treated as a heroine for trying to impose your
morality and your reasoning on the rest of humanity.

Treating others as you would like to be treated makes sense when you are
dealing with agents capable of understanding your behaviour and
reciprocating. Animals don't understand and cannot reciprocate. The
universe does not understand and cannot reciprocate either.

What goes around goes around and what comes around comes around. You
can't make your life better by propitious sacrifices to an uncaring
universe. Sacrificing eating animal products doesn't buy you any favours
except with the minority of people who think like you do. If you don't
eat meat you are just as likely to have your carrots nibbled by rabbits
and your lettuces chewed by slugs.

Lifestyles truly worth emulating don't need to be promoted. If your
lifestyle was truly superior people would notice.



There, a proper citation. That should be convincing eh?


You just want people to beat themselves up about food. Guilt is
unhealthy. If you feel guilt about eating meat don't eat it. But to
force that guilt onto other people is an aggressive act, for want of a
better term I would call it an act of evil.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

S. Maizlich wrote:
> lesley lied:
>
> > "Autymn D. C." > wrote in message oups.com...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>>Another ignorant troll.
> >>
> >>Yes you are.
> >
> >
> > Not I.
>
> Yes, you are. You're a whore, too.
>
>
>
> >>No, half-arsing of meat is associate with disease:
> >>http://www.ajcn.org/content/vol70/is...ge/052502.jpeg.
> >>(And a period is an interval of time.) The body doesn't do well with
> >>wavering or jumbling of foods: bran and wheat kill; greens kill; or
> >>those who were already near death who ate only these died more. As for
> >>fat from meat, come back when you get the details I wanted.
> >
> >
> > NS - Statistical significance was tested for, but not found.
> > Statistically significant, p <0.05
> > Statistically highly significant, p <0.01.
> >
> > Look again.
>
> You don't know what *any* of that means. You've never
> studied statistics in your life.
>
> ****ing halfwitted foot-rubbing whore.

Wisdom of S. Maizlich the shit eating meat industry shill.

wrote:
> S. Maizlich wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Martin Willett wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>More garbage from meat industry shills.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
>>>>>concerning bird flu and BSE.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
>>>>in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
>>>>obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
>>>>wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
>>>>not a disease created by farming.
>>>
>>>
>>>It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
>>>disease much faster.
>>
>>Bullshit.
>>
>>You're an ignorant ****.
>
>
> Be carefull with dirt you asshole unless you are ready to eat some.

YOu're an ignorant ****. You don't know what the ****
you're talking about concerning the origin and
propagation of bird flu or BSE. You're spouting
ideology, not science.

pearl wrote:

> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>
> <..>
>
>>>You 'don't want to', because you are addicted to animal fat.
>>>
>>>'The Longest River: Denial
>>>
>>>Denial is a hallmark of someone who is engaging in this addiction
>>>pattern but has not accepted that his or her behavior is out of
>>>control. This denial is a psychological defense mechanism that
>>>enables a person to continue to engage in a behavior in spite of
>>>relatively obvious negative consequences on his or her life. It's
>>>a way to protect oneself from seeing or feeling things that are
>>>unpleasant.
>>>
>>>.. denial permits one to distort reality, a very powerful psychological
>>>defense; it can have devastating consequences on our lives, and the
>>>ability to disregard such negative consequences while continuing the
>>>behavior is a hallmark of denial.
>>>...'
>>>http://www.addictionrecov.org/paradi...greenfield.htm.
>>>
>>
>>You are denying the simple and obvious fact that most people on this
>>planet enjoy eating meat and animal based foods and are not interested
>>in your attempts to make them feel guilty, or small, or stupid or cruel.
>
>
> I am aware of the simple and obvious fact that many people on this
> planet falsely believe that they require meat and animal based foods
> to maintain or enjoy good health, and need an urgent wake-up call.
>
> You are denying the simple and obvious fact

Not a fact.


> that you are addicted
> to eating meat and animal based foods; and as part of your denial
> you attempt to make others feel guilty, or small, or stupid or cruel.

No. He merely shows that there is no science behind
your claim.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> wrote:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Martin Willett wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>More garbage from meat industry shills.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> >>>>>concerning bird flu and BSE.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
> >>>>in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
> >>>>obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
> >>>>wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
> >>>>not a disease created by farming.
> >>>
> >>>It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
> >>>disease much faster.
> >>
> >>Prove it.
> >
> >
> > It is elementary to anyone who is not a meat industry shill.
>
> That isn't a proof, you fat ****; it's a whiff-off.

Sure it is, you shit eating meat industry shill asshole.

>
>
>
> >>>>Do these arseholes think that everybody who expresses a contrary view is
> >>>>in the pay of the meat industry? Paranoid losers.
> >>>
> >>>You asshole sund very much like a meat industry shill.
> >
> >

"S. Maizlich" > wrote in message nk.net...

> > No. He merely shows that there is no science behind
> your claim.

Willett rejects scientific research and posits his opinion.

There's something I have to be getting on with now,
so, sorry, willett, ball. Maybe someone else will play.

pearl wrote:
> "S. Maizlich" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
>
>>>No. He merely shows that there is no science behind
>>
>>your claim.
>
>
> Willett rejects scientific research and posits his opinion.

No. YOU are the archtypical anti-science religious
fanatic.

"S. Maizlich" >

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

..

pearl wrote:
> "S. Maizlich" >
>
> Faking quotes,

Faking nothing, you liar: "There's something I have to
be getting on with now, so, sorry, willett, ball.
Maybe someone else will play."

I guess the guy couldn't come up with the 50p for the
blowjob so here you are again.

You have ZERO background in any legitimate science, you
LYING charlatan. The pseudo-anatomy (and ZERO
physiology) required to become a "certified" foot
rubber is horseshit.

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > ant and dec wrote:
> >> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
> >
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/********#Talking_********

You say from no understanding of English but muttspeak and doltspeak.

S. Maizlich wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > "S. Maizlich" >
> >
> > Faking quotes,
>
> Faking nothing, you liar: "There's something I have to

Of course you are faking and forging while posting under a bunch of
aliases. That is what shit eating meat industry shills do.

> be getting on with now, so, sorry, willett, ball.
> Maybe someone else will play."
>
> I guess the guy couldn't come up with the 50p for the
> blowjob so here you are again.
>
> You have ZERO background in any legitimate science, you
> LYING charlatan. The pseudo-anatomy (and ZERO
> physiology) required to become a "certified" foot
> rubber is horseshit.

"S. Maizlich" >

I have NO time for clueless psychos.

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://tinyurl.com/92d7k

S. Maizlich wrote:
> lesley lied:
>
> > "Autymn D. C." > wrote in message oups.com...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>>Another ignorant troll.
> >>
> >>Yes you are.
> >
> >
> > Not I.
>
> Yes, you are. You're a whore, too.
>
>
>
> >>No, half-arsing of meat is associate with disease:
> >>http://www.ajcn.org/content/vol70/is...ge/052502.jpeg.
> >>(And a period is an interval of time.) The body doesn't do well with
> >>wavering or jumbling of foods: bran and wheat kill; greens kill; or
> >>those who were already near death who ate only these died more. As for
> >>fat from meat, come back when you get the details I wanted.
> >
> >
> > NS - Statistical significance was tested for, but not found.
> > Statistically significant, p <0.05
> > Statistically highly significant, p <0.01.
> >
> > Look again.
>
> You don't know what *any* of that means. You've never
> studied statistics in your life.
>
> ****ing halfwitted foot-rubbing whore.

Just because you said it, you shit eating, mother ****ing, meat
industry shill asshole?

S. Maizlich wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > S. Maizlich wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Martin Willett wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>More garbage from meat industry shills.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> >>>>>concerning bird flu and BSE.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
> >>>>in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
> >>>>obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
> >>>>wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
> >>>>not a disease created by farming.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
> >>>disease much faster.
> >>
> >>Bullshit.
> >>
> >>You're an ignorant ****.
> >
> >
> > You are an ignorant shit eating asshole.
>
> You're an ignorant lying fat ****. You don't know
> *ANYTHING* about the origination or propagation of bird
> flu or BSE or any other animal disease. Shut your
> ****ing mouth.

Just because you said it, you shit eating, mother ****ing, meat
industry shill asshole?

S. Maizlich wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > S. Maizlich wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Martin Willett wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>More garbage from meat industry shills.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
> >>>>>concerning bird flu and BSE.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Bird flu is a naturally occurring (and erratically evolving) virus found
> >>>>in ducks. It has nothing to do with keeping poultry other than the
> >>>>obvious point that farmed birds are just as capable of contracting it as
> >>>>wild birds but more likely to pass it on to each other or to us. It is
> >>>>not a disease created by farming.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It is the terrible and cruel overcrowding that makes them pass on any
> >>>disease much faster.
> >>
> >>Bullshit.
> >>
> >>You're an ignorant ****.
> >
> >
> > You are an ignorant shit eating asshole.
>
> You're an ignorant lying fat ****. You don't know
> *ANYTHING* about the origination or propagation of bird
> flu or BSE or any other animal disease. Shut your
> ****ing mouth.

Just because you said it, you shit eating, mother ****ing, meat
industry shill asshole?