subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
menu boy wrote:
news:gvDAd.17316$[email]...
personal
flexitarian,
have

Very good.  I don't like to go for sushi at lunch, because when I eat
sushi I like to get a nice big 22 oz. Sapporo beer, and drinking even
very moderately at lunch is no longer professionally or socially
acceptable, so I reserve sushi/sashimi meals for evenings and weekends.

"veganism" is supposedly (but not really) an ethical belief system.
Ethics is prescriptive, and is not merely a personal choice.  When one
declares oneself "vegan", one is doing much more than simply declaring
that one doesn't consume animal parts.  That person is telling everyone
else that *they* ought not consume animal parts, too.


author: usual suspect

subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
Abner Hale wrote:
<...>

No need to worry. She pretty much proved that she's had no contact with
children, much less ever had any herself, in several threads that dealt
with children and meat. She didn't even know babies will pick up stuff
off the ground, including worms, and chew.

http://tinyurl.com/4bf6d


author: menu boy

subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"Jay Santos" <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

And you have no proof of any of your claims whatsoever.  You're just
a common troll.  *plonk*


author: Jay Santos

subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
GregGeorge the cuckolded towelhead wrote:

Fuck yourself up the ass with a burning log,
GregGeorge, you little knotted cunthair.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
GregGeorge the poof lisped

Stick broken glass up your gaping shitter, GregGeorge.


author: pearl

subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"The Ghost" <[email]> wrote in message news:1104365937.4aed7b25122c92fb2be1c7a788e70297@teranews...
<..>

I'm trying to imagine it..

Tex:  Was this fish troll-caught?

Waiter:  Excuse me?

Tex:  um.. line-caught? ....

Waiter looks around, uncomfortably.

Tex: ... er, .. never mind..  a couple of generous helpings will be fine.

Of course, it's a given that he wouldn't even think of inquiring, as he
really doesn't give a damn.

PS. HNT, Z.  ;).


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
Retard wrote:

I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore, you fat cuckold.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
C. James Strutz wrote:

And how ironic that you're the one to offer it.

The last major outbreak of food-borne hepatitis in the US involved GREEN
ONIONS. Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.

Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.

Not related only to meat consumption. More people become ill from
tainted produce, not from tainted meat.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/parasite.htm

Wild rice would be horrible wrapped in seaweed. The wild rice of which
you speak is also not widely available.

Objecting only to 1001st death. Why be so cavalier about the lives of
the first 1000?

Feel the *truth*.


author: Dutch

subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"menu boy" <[email]> wrote

So what?

Meaning?


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
menu boy wrote:

One difference among the three: veganism is religion.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"Jay Santos" <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

That's your opinion.  I never preach veganism.  I could care less what
the rest of humanity does.  I already know most humans are assholes.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:4_lCd.40295$[email]...

You're obsessed.  Loser.

Chew, with what?  And what tall-tale did you tell to 'prove it'?

 "I was a year to a year and a half old. My mother left me in
our backyard on a blanket while she ran in to get our lunch.
When she came back, I was covered in blood and laughing.
I was also holding half a snake. It wasn't exactly a pet (cut
with the PC crap; they're called pets), but I did bite its
fucking head off. I count that as my first hunt."
From: usual suspect   Date: 2003-07-02 11:06:11 PST

"It was a grass snake. I don't know if you've any out that far
west, but they only grow to about 2' as adults. From what
I've been told, it was about a foot long after I took a bite."
From: usual suspect   Date: 2003-07-17 09:26:49 PST

usual suspect is claiming; not only that he bit off a two-foot
long snake's head, but that he ate half of it-- as a toddler.  !

He's a pathological liar, same as ball and some others here.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"menu boy" <[email]> wrote

Wow.. touchï¿½!


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:

Good luck. We know that you're unimaginative and believe in channeled
messages from Adama of Telos from beneath Mount Shasta.

<snip proof of what I said about your utter lack of imagination>


author: Reynard

subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:19:09 GMT, usual suspect <[email]> wrote:

I don't call you anything but a liar. You're all over
the place on every issue raised here, including your
said stance on being a vegan. Remember this (below)?

Since self-confessed vegan, Ususpect's recent
mesalliance with Jonathan after catching Dutch's
nasty cold, I thought it might be in everyone's
interest to refresh their memories on his earlier
views before Jonathan told him how to start
thinking his way. By the end of this post you'll see
that usual suspect, although temporarily misguided
by the Anti's disinformation, is in fact a closet ARA.
Through his attempts to conceal this fact and stay
on Jonathan's good side, he has had to make several
changes in position, and this can be shown by the
quotes I've brought here to demonstrate his many
inconsistencies.

DENYING THE ANTECEDENT

"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and
without serious health problems associated with an
animal-based diet?"
usual suspect  Date: 2002-09-09


author: C. James Strutz

subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message
news:pqEAd.30136$[email]...

Prove it.

Prove it.

Your link does not prove that "more people become ill from tainted produce"
than from tainted meat. In fact, I snipped this from your link: "People get
toxoplasmosis the following ways: - By consuming foods (such as raw or
undercooked meats, especially pork, lamb, or wild game) or drinking
untreated water (from rivers or ponds) that may contain the parasite."

And this from http://www.mass.gov/dph/fpp/retail/pdf/gensus1.pdf

"There are several food safety concerns, which are unique to the preparation
and service of sushi in the retail setting. The rice handles best at
temperatures between 70 and 80 F, which is a favorable temperature range for
pathogen growth."

Enjoy your sushi....

I didn't necessarly mean for sushi. You talked generally of rice
contributing to thousands of animal deaths and I'm telling you it doesn't
have to be that way. Native wild rice IS available - I recently bought some
online.

I'm not being cavalier at all. I know I can't save all 1001 lives so any
life that I save is better than none.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:4oGAd.22240$[email]...

Yeah, I go to vegan church and worship the mighty carrot on the
altar.  Maybe you should skip the Xanax for awhile.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:41:04 GMT, usual suspect <[email]> wrote:

[..]

"Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism
 is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most people."
 usual suspect    11 Jun 2002   http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

When can we expect the truth from you, liar suspect?


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
menu boy wrote:

It's well demonstrated by the literature of vegans and of AR groups like
PeTA.

The "preaching" is an inherent part of veganism. The mere
self-identification of "vegans" is an attempt to preach to others.

Veganism, like animal rights as a whole, is misanthropic. Your contempt
for mankind is the operative reason for your calling yourself a "vegan."
You don't really practice veganism because you love animals, it's solely
because you hate humans. That's evident by some of the prattle by others
(not that you're not immune) against profitability of corporations,
particularly those that sell meat or pharmaceutical products.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:

To whom are you responding?

Gums.

It really happened.

http://www.babycenter.com/expert/baby/babybehavior/6721.html
http://www.new-vis.com/fym/papers/p-feed1.htm
http://www.zerotothree.org/magic/book3/article4.html
http://www.learningpathways.com/toys.html
Etc.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:4qJAd.23572$[email]...

Uhuh.

I'd think believing something like that would require imagination.

You're still projecting.

BTW.  Why aren't you off supporting your poor troops in Iraq?


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
Retard wrote:

And that's as it should be, you fat, self-crippled, undisciplined cuckold.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
C. James Strutz wrote:

	...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
	1993 to 1997 found 2,751 outbreaks. Those outbreaks totaled
	12,537 individual cases involving fruits and vegetables,
	compared with 6,709 cases involving meat.
	http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-01-26-food-cover_x.htm

See also:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/foodsafety/epidemics121103.cfm

	...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
	1993 to 1997 found 2,751 outbreaks. Those outbreaks totaled
	12,537 individual cases involving fruits and vegetables,
	compared with 6,709 cases involving meat.
	http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-01-26-food-cover_x.htm

My point is proven.

That site supports the previous sentence. See the article cited above if
you have any quibble about the number of people who become ill from
tainted produce compared to meat.

You also conveniently left out the fact that nearly every parasite
listed on that site can enter a host through contaminated produce.

That pdf also gives instructions for safe handling. Sushi is quite safe
when safely and conscientiously prepared.
http://www.sushiran.com/etcetera/safe.html
http://www.fehd.gov.hk/safefood/food_safety_plan/industry/making.html

I did. I also enjoy the fact that ninnies like you take exception to it.

Well, dummy, I wanted sushi today.

Was it handpicked? Not stored in any kind of granary or food warehouse?
Hand-delivered? If yes to any of the previous questions, it's NOT CD-free.

Yes, you are.

Your objection is *only* to the one that's eaten.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
menu boy wrote:

I'm not surprised you engage in phallic worship.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
Retard wrote:

*I* was off in the wrong direction. Unlike you, I learn from my mistakes
rather than keep repeating them. That's why you still make the same ones
over and over, you fat unemployed cuckold


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:qvxCd.41486$[email]...

You of course, you obsessed loser.

You mean 'suck on', experimentally.

Human babies don't gorge on worms.

BS.

Why does my baby put everything in her mouth?
'.... oral exploration ..'

-Nothing about *eating* worms (or snakes. lol).

Ditto.

Ditto.

Ditto.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:

You need all the luck in the world.

if you only had a brain.

Belief in something like Adama of Telos would require imagination? It
requires the opposite of imagination. It requires a gullible dolt.

No, love, you still don't understand projection. But what DO you
understand other than rubbing feet?


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:45:44 GMT, usual suspect <[email]> wrote:

I see you're back to snipping away the evidence which
proves you're a liar. How desperate you are, silly boy.

<restore>
Since self-confessed vegan, Ususpect's recent
mesalliance with Jonathan after catching Dutch's
nasty cold, I thought it might be in everyone's
interest to refresh their memories on his earlier
views before Jonathan told him how to start
thinking his way. By the end of this post you'll see
that usual suspect, although temporarily misguided
by the Anti's disinformation, is in fact a closet ARA.
Through his attempts to conceal this fact and stay
on Jonathan's good side, he has had to make several
changes in position, and this can be shown by the
quotes I've brought here to demonstrate his many
inconsistencies.

DENYING THE ANTECEDENT

"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and
without serious health problems associated with an
animal-based diet?"
usual suspect  Date: 2002-09-09


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message
news:IdGAd.22174$[email]...

Okay, good information. Still, my original point was that sushi and other
raw meats offer a greater probability of food borne illness, especially at
room temperatures.

I'm not disputing that. That wasn't the issue. You drew attention to
yourself by claiming to have eaten sushi yesterday for lunch. I pointed out
that there is an increased risk of acquiring intestinal parasites by eating
raw meats, such as in sushi. You then "moved goalposts" by making a big
issue out of the fact that more food-borne illnesses have acquired from
fresh produce than from meats (BTW, the statistics you quoted were from 1993
through 1997 - 10 years ago).

I wasn't trying to be provocative or insulting or demeaning in any way. And
here you start again with the childish name calling. Some "olive branch" you
have offered. I don't care whether you eat sushi or not. I only pointed out
the risks of eating raw meat stored at room temeratures. I don't understand
your problem....

Here's the link to the place where I bought my rice.
http://www.welrp.org/nativeharvest/itemwildrice.html It was harvested and
processed by hand without the use of machines. It is native rice that was
not grown in commercial paddies. It may not be 100% CD-free but it's at
least better than the thousands of CDs that you claim result from
commercialized rice production. Oh, and since it is available on the
internet it IS "widely available" to anyone with internet access and a
credit card, contrary to your previous statement. I have also seen native
wild rice in grocery stores and specialty food stores.

What makes you so sure?


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:IdGAd.22174$[email]...

'Campylobacter:
Low-Profile Bug Is Food Poisoning Leader
by Audrey Hingley

When it comes to food poisoning, big outbreaks make headlines.
E. coli in apple juice and alfalfa sprouts. Listeria in cheese and hot dogs.
Salmonella in eggs and on poultry. But the most frequently diagnosed
food-borne bacterium rarely makes the news. The name of the unsung
bug? Campylobacter.

"Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated with an
outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,"
says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the national
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Federal and state health experts have long recognized that Campylobacter
causes disease in animals. Conclusive proof that the bacteria also causes
human disease emerged in the 1970s, and by 1996, Campylobacter was
sitting atop the bacterial heap as the number one cause of all domestic
food-borne illness. (See "Tracking Down Trouble: Bacteria That Cause
Food-Borne Illness.")

In addition, with the emergence of antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter,
"the true magnitude of the problem is becoming clearer," says Angulo, who
also heads the CDC arm of the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring
System.

Campylobacter is commonly found in the intestinal tracts of people or animals
without causing any symptoms of illness. But eating contaminated or
undercooked poultry or meat, or drinking raw milk or contaminated water,
may cause Campylobacter infection, or campylobacteriosis.

Symptoms of campylobacteriosis usually occur within two to 10 days of
ingesting the bacteria. Children, the elderly, and people with weakened
immune systems are particularly at risk. The most common symptoms include
mild to severe diarrhea, fever, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain.

Most people infected with Campylobacter can get well on their own
without treatment, though antibiotics may be prescribed for severe cases.
But complications can occur, such as urinary tract infections or meningitis.
The bacteria also is now recognized as a major contributing factor to
Guillain-Barrï¿½ syndrome, the most common cause of acute paralysis in
both children and adults.

Concerns About Chicken

Although found in many farm animals, Campylobacter in poultry is causing
experts the most concern. There have been several studies pointing to high
levels of Campylobacter present on poultry at the retail level, including a
recent two-year Minnesota Department of Health study that found that 88
percent of poultry sampled from local supermarkets tested positive for the
bacteria.
..
According to the Minnesota Department of Health study, the number of
Campylobacter infections resistant to a class of antibiotics called
fluoroquinolones has been on the increase since 1992. While most Americans
acquired the resistant infections while on foreign travel, Kirk explains, "we have
been seeing a significant increase in domestically acquired resistant cases as
well." The Food and Drug Administration approved the use of fluoroquinolones
in food animals in 1995. The study concluded that antibiotic use in U.S. poultry
is contributing to antibiotic resistance.
....'
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html

<..>


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:04:28 GMT, usual suspect <[email]> wrote:

In your reply to "Bart" you categorically told him that
veganism is not a religion or a spiritual issue for most
people.

[start - Bart to you]
[you]
Sorry, but you're off in the wrong direction. Veganism is not a
religion or a spiritual issue for most people.
[end]
http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

Why are you lying when Google archives prove it so easily?


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
peril wrote:

Search back through the thread; I wasn't the one who took issue.

<...>


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:MTJAd.23709$[email]...

Why's that?

You're saying I don't have a brain?  Interesting..

Belief that the Iraqis were going to greet you with flowers requires that.

So when are you going to support your troops, suspect?

Yes, I do.  Your posts are highly revealing.

( http://www.reflexology-research.com/controlled_studies_by_syst.htm )

What DO you understand?  Anything at all?


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
C. James Strutz wrote:

Salad bars are much more worthy of your concern. The food is near room
temperature and in an environment in which unwashed hands can contact
food and utensils.

It was the issue you raised.

Sashimi. I've written about my predilection for sushi in the past. Sushi
and fish aren't the same thing. I've also posted links (definitely) and
recipes (iirc) for vegetarian sushi.

And I pointed back that the data shows as much danger linked to
contaminated produce. Refresh my memory, in what state did the Chi-chi's
hepatitis outbreak from green onions occur?

There was no goalpost move. You're the one who raised the issue of
food-borne illness, and you suggested the inclusion of two servings of
fish significantly increased my chances of becoming ill. The risk I took
was *no* greater than if I'd had the standard veggie roll (consisting of
seaweed, rice, and RAW produce).

The article was from this year. And if the leftist food police are to be
believed, nothing has changed in food inspection and safety the last ten
years -- except that we're importing a lot more produce.

Let's also discuss the risks of eating raw produce, especially at room
temperature. Where's your concern about that?

Have a happy, safe, and prosperous 2005, Jim.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:

12,537 individual cases involving fruits and vegetables
  6,709 cases involving meat

Almost 2:1 produce to meat. That's all that matters, Lesley. BTW,why
didn't your beings from inner earth notify the outside world of the
impending earthquake off Indonesia's coast? They're not very helpful
down there, are they.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
Retard wrote:

And I'm telling you now that I was operating under a misunderstanding
that veganism was about food.

And, as Mr Santos posted yesterday:
    Veganism as a secular movement is a MODERN IDEA, as
    a reaction to the exploitation of nature, including
    imposing unnecessary suffering on non-human animals.
    Although it can be seen as a minor and localised
    reaction to the excesses of the developed world, the
    principles behind it can be found in much older
    ethical/religious doctrine of the East, such as
    Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan

You're stirring shit, fatso. I just explained that I learn from my
mistakes; you're a fat fuck who keeps repeating the same ones over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:

You don't seem to have much else going for you.

People with brains tend not to support the following notions:
     "veganism"
     "inner earth beings"
     "hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
     helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
     rain forest destruction
     Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
     Stolen French flying saucers
     Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery
     Foot massage (as cure-all)
     Astrology
     Numerology
     Alien abduction
     bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals)
     Leprechauns
     Channeling
     Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth
     Sun gazing
     Drinking urine as a cure-all
     Chemtrails
     AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
     Crop circles
     she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
     she participates in the skinhead subculture
     she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts)
     crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
     Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news"
     Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence

Most of Iraq is stable and the people get along well with and support
coalition troops. The only area of major concern remains the area
between Tikrit, Baghdad, Fallujah, and Ramadi, which is commonly known
as the Sunni Triangle.

I already am. Why do you object to democracy in Iraq?

Wrong on both points.

Why do they list so many studies that aren't even available in English?

A lot more than you ever will.

I completely understand the following are folly:

     "veganism"
     "inner earth beings"
     "hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
     helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
     rain forest destruction
     Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
     Stolen French flying saucers
     Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery
     Foot massage (as cure-all)
     Astrology
     Numerology
     Alien abduction
     bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals)
     Leprechauns
     Channeling
     Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth
     Sun gazing
     Drinking urine as a cure-all
     Chemtrails
     AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
     Crop circles
     she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
     she participates in the skinhead subculture
     she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts)
     crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
     Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news"
     Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect <[email]> wrote:

No. I shall always be here to show the reader where you
lie, little troll. Snipping the evidence of your lies away only
proves it to be true evidence, so it suits me fine when you
do it. Good luck with your new anti-vegan stance, but what
is this new stance and the arguments you now put forward
on Jon's behalf worth when we consider the efforts you
made while trying to fool people with your earlier pro-vegan
stance? You're asking that we forget your earlier stance
and arguments in favour of your new ones, yet you've never
been able to explain either stance correctly, so how do we
know we're not simply dealing with an imbecile that doesn't
know left from right? You're just a heckler.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message
news:U4UAd.27327$[email]...

True, for that reason I rarely eat at salad bars.

I love vegetable sushi, especially with shitake mushrooms. Even better are
the condiments - there's nothing like a good dose of wasabi to clear out the
nasal passages! Maybe you could repost your recipes for vegetarian sushi if
you find the time...

Western Pennsylvania, the Chi-Chi's at the Beaver Valley Mall to be
specific - maybe 20 miles from my house. Chi-Chi's is now out of business
(no great loss). I'm well aware of this and other cases of produce
contamination. There is a local case pending right now about a woman who
claims to have been sickened by eating roma tomatoes at a Sheetz store.

Which is where the contaminated green onions came from (Mexico). The USA
Today article did a good job bringing awareness to the produce contamination
problem, especially with imported produce.

Look, nowhere have I denied that there is a problem with contaminated
produce. I simply pointed out that there is an increased risk of eating raw
meat/fish that has been stored at room temperature. That's all. You are
pushing this issue far to the other side. This is the exaggeration thing I
talked about before. You make good points but you also exaggerate issues
away from those being discussed - seemingly in defense of meat many times
(undoubtedly because this is a vegan newsgroup). It's like you try to bring
balance to a discussion but you often weigh too heavily on opposing
viewpoints. I dare say that this is one of the issues at hand in our
"extreme" dialogue. :^)

Now this is a a sincere olive branch. Thank you and same to you.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:ZmJAd.19742$[email]...

.. of outbreak, not individual cases of illness.

"Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated with an
outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,"
says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the national
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'

Outbreaks, not cases.

<snip usual ad hominem dribble>


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:21:32 GMT, usual suspect <[email]> wrote:

Then how can you prove you're not suffering under a
different misunderstanding now, if you're so prone to
do so, and why did you lie by trying to assert that it
was you rather than "Bart" who was "off in the wrong
direction" during your exchange with him?

I'm pointing out where you have lied, sonny. That's not
shit stirring.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:PxTAd.24916$[email]...

You don't have a clue!

People with functional brains don't repeatedly claim that somebody
believes something which the list compiler has admitted is partly false.

usual suspect:
pearl:

[False.]  And the rest is what?  You've claimed I 'believe' them all.  Liar.

 http://tinyurl.com/5m3hz

Then you whiffed off, as you always do when held to account.

<snip suspect's fraudulent list>

That's FANTASY LAND gullible dolt thinking, suspect.

article entry value [1][1999]
12/01/2004
7 Retired Mililtary Leaders Tell What Has Gone Wrong in Iraq
Paul Alexander

The nineteen months since the war in Iraq began, some of the most outspoken
critics of President Bush's plan of attack have come from a group that
should have been the most supportive: retired senior military leaders. We
spoke with a group of generals and admirals that included a former supreme
Allied commander and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and they all
agreed on one thing: Bush screwed up.

Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak
Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94
We have a force in Iraq that's much too small to stabilize the situation.
It's about half the size, or maybe even a third, of what we need. As a
consequence, the insurgency seems to be gathering momentum. We are
losing people at a fairly steady rate of about two a day; wounded, about four
or five times that, and perhaps half of these wounds are very serious. And we
are also sustaining gunshot wounds, when, before, we'd mostly been seeing
massive trauma from remotely detonated charges. This means the other side
is standing and fighting in a way that describes a more dangerous phase of
the conflict.

The people in control in the Pentagon and the White House live in a fantasy
world. They actually thought everyone would just line up and vote for a new
democracy and you would have a sort of Denmark with oil. I blame Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the people behind him -- Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary Douglas Feith. The vice
president himself should probably be included; certainly his wife. These
so-called neocons: These people have no real experience in life. They are
utopian thinkers, idealists, very smart, and they have the courage of their
convictions, so it makes them doubly dangerous.

The parallels between Iraq and Vietnam have been overblown, because we
were in Vietnam for a decade and it cost us 58,000 troops. We've been in
Iraq for nineteen months and we're still under 1,200 killed. But there is one
sense in which the parallel with Vietnam is valid. The American people were
told that to win the Cold War we had to win Vietnam. But we now know that
Vietnam was not only a diversion from winning the Cold War but probably
delayed our winning it and made it cost more to win. Iraq is a diversion to
the war on terror in exactly the same way Vietnam was a diversion to the
Cold War.

Adm. Stansfield Turner
NATO Allied commander for Southern Europe, 1975-77; CIA director, 1977-81
I think we are in a real mess. There are eighty-seven attacks on Americans
every day, and our people in Baghdad can't even leave the International
Zone without being heavily armored. I think we are in trouble because we
were so slow in terms of reconstruction and reconstituting the military and
police forces. We have lost the support of the Iraqi people who were glad
to see Saddam go. But they are not glad to see an outside force come in
and replace him without demonstrating we are going to provide them with
security and rebuild their economy. I am very frustrated. Having a
convincing rationale for going in gives our troops a sense of purpose.
Whatever you call it, this is now an insurgency using the techniques of
terrorism. With the borders poorly guarded, the terrorists come in. All in
all, Iraq is a failure of monumental proportions.

Lt. Gen. William Odom
Director of the National Security Agency, 1985-88
It's a huge strategic disaster, and it will only get worse. The sooner we
leave, the less the damage. In the months since the invasion, the U.S.
forces have become involved in trying to repress a number of insurgency
movements. This is the way we were fighting in Vietnam, and if we keep
on fighting this way, this one is going to go on a long time too. The idea of
creating a constitutional state in a short amount of time is a joke. It
will take ten to fifteen years, and that is if we want to kill ten percent
of the population.

Gen. Anthony Zinni
Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000
The first phase of the war in Iraq, the conventional phase, the major
combat phase, was brilliantly done. Tommy Franks' approach to methodically
move up and attack quickly probably saved a great humanitarian disaster.
But the military was unprepared for the aftermath. Rumsfeld and others
thought we would be greeted with roses and flowers.

When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq,
and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to
380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican
Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. We knew that we would find
ourselves in a situation where we had completely uprooted an authoritarian
government and would need to freeze the situation: retain control, retain
order, provide security, seal the borders to keep terrorists from coming in.

When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my
ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had
participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened
between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know,
because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General
Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.

Did we have to do this? I saw the intelligence right up to the day of the
war, and I did not see any imminent threat there. If anything, Saddam was
coming apart. The sanctions were working. The containment was working.
He had a hollow military, as we saw. If he had weapons of mass destruction,
it was leftover stuff -- artillery shells and rocket rounds. He didn't have
the delivery systems. We controlled the skies and seaports. We bombed him
at will. All of this happened under U.N. authority. I mean, we had him by
the throat. But the president was being convinced by the neocons that down
the road we would regret not taking him out.

Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy
Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence, 1997-2000


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
C. James Strutz wrote:

 From the standpoint of food safety and hygiene, deep frying is safer
than raw. That comes in handy when traveling in other countries where
standards aren't as high as they are here.

I couldn't find them, but I did find a thread where we discussed sushi:
http://tinyurl.com/3zk3l

I also found a link to a recipe Kake posted:
http://www.ivu.org/hlsc/recipes/sushi.html

I was only rubbing it in. I knew where it was.

That particular location may be closed, but the chain is still in
business (they did file Chapter 11 bankruptcy). They were recently
purchased by Outback Steakhouse. Outback is converting most of the
locations into their own brands, but some Chi-chi's will remain just as
they were (or possibly with new branding to get away from their
tarnished image).

As the article I posted said, most inspection resources are targeted at
meat despite the fact that more outbreaks are associated with produce,
much of which is imported and never inspected.

Yes, but even domestic produce causes serious health problems. Remember
what happened with Odwalla Juices a few years ago.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9611/01/e.coli.poisoning/

Sashimi isn't stored at room temperature -- health codes forbid that.
The risk isn't "increased."

I think you are. The fact remains that one is just as likely to become
ill from produce as from meat, if not *more* likely. You linked to a
Massachusetts health site about sushi and then pointed to the part about
rice being handled at prime temperatures for bacterial growth. That
information also mentioned the safe handling procedures, including
acidifying the rice -- which is standard practice in sushi bars.

You mean like you did with respect to intestinal parasites? The risks
are about the same if you eat contaminated meat or produce, or if you
drink dirty water.

True.

Explain. I pointed you back to data which shows that the potential
health risks of raw produce exceed those of meat.

I don't see this as an extreme dialogue. I see this as you've made some
points and I've shown that they're relatively trivial (not in a
perjorative sense). The risks you point out are of the same kind and in
the same proportion whether one eats meat or not; the risks are also
insignificant between plant and meat. The question is how the food's
produced, how it's stored, and how it's prepared. The risks increase or
decrease each step along the way whether it's of plant or animal origin.

Thanks.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:

Read the paragraph above (and below, with EMPHASIS) again. Then go get
some sleep, you tired old witch.

	...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
	1993 to 1997 found *2,751 outbreaks*. *Those outbreaks* totaled
	*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables,
	compared with *6,709 cases* involving meat.
	http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-01-26-food-cover_x.htm

Sweet dreams, dummy.

Sweet dreams, dummy.

It wasn't ad hominem. Those inner earth beings aren't even people.

RESTORE:
BTW, why didn't your beings from inner earth notify the outside world of
the impending earthquake off Indonesia's coast? They're not very helpful
down there, are they.
END RESTORE

Why didn't your channelers get any messages about it BEFOREHAND?


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
Retard wrote:

I'm not prone. I learn from my mistakes. You don't, so you keep
repeating the same errors over and over...


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:
<...>

There was NO admission that any part of the list is false, in part or in
whole.

That speaks to your agreeement on most of the points (92%). That *you*
disagree with some of those points, despite the evidence offered
throughout those threads, is your own issue to deal with. I never once
backed away from the list with the exception of a point which *I* did
not add to it but removed from it when you complained.

You do. And you agreed to 92% of the following points:
     "veganism"
     "inner earth beings"
     "hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
     helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
     rain forest destruction
     Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
     Stolen French flying saucers
     Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery
     Foot massage (as cure-all)
     Astrology
     Numerology
     Alien abduction
     bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals)
     Leprechauns
     Channeling
     Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth
     Sun gazing
     Drinking urine as a cure-all
     Chemtrails
     AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
     Crop circles
     she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
     she participates in the skinhead subculture
     she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts)
     crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
     Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news"
     Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:55:35 GMT, usual suspect <[email]> wrote:

If childish remarks are all you have to offer in return
to my criticism of your ever-changing stances and
arguments here, then it doesn't say much for your
request that we accept your current stance and
argument, does it? Snipping the evidence of your
lies away, leaving a childish dodge in place of what
I wrote only proves it to be true evidence, so it suits
me fine when you do it. Good luck with your new
anti-vegan stance, but what is this new stance and
the arguments you now put forward on Jon's behalf
worth when we consider the efforts you made while
trying to fool people with your earlier pro-vegan stance?
You're asking that we forget your earlier stance and
arguments in favour of your new ones, yet you've never
been able to explain either stance correctly, so how do
we know we're not simply dealing with an imbecile that
doesn't know left from right? You're just a heckler.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:zPJAd.19888$[email]...

In that case, the number of individual cases of illness due to an outbreak
involving produce, pales to insignificance compared to the cases of illness
due to just one of the pathogens found in meat, e.g, Campylobacter;
--restore--
"Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated with an
outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,"
says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the national
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html

Glad that's cleared up.

:).


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:29:56 GMT, usual suspect <[email]> wrote:

You are prone to suffer from misunderstanding
every issue that gets raised here, as seen by your
quotes that contradict your ever-changing position
so clearly.

DENYING THE ANTECEDENT

"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and
without serious health problems associated with an
animal-based diet?"
usual suspect  Date: 2002-09-09


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:5oUAd.27383$[email]...

You claim I believe/support/whatever your fraudulent list.  I don't.

Link to this 'agreement'?

You have no evidence on most points, just twisted assumptions.

You backed away from it plenty, when grilled by farrell77 over it.

It was your buddy ball who added the lie 'holocaust denial', wasn't it?

No I don't.  Link to that '92% agreement'?

<snip usual desperate slander>

So when exactly are you going to support your troops in Iraq, suspect?
Let's not forget who supported them going there, after all.  Happy now?


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
Retard wrote:

you keep making were worth 2p, I'd be a billionaire. Answer the
questions, especially the one about DNA.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:

You're welcome.

I mean it. Rest is at least as important as proper diet, and here you
are with your peculiar diet AND staying up all bloody night. No wonder
you believe in inner earth beings.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
Retard wrote:

loathsome dole-srounging shit-stirrers like you. I told you back on 18
Sep 2003:
	My strictly vegetarian diet is often called "vegan." I, though,
	have never identified with the leftist precepts of veganISM.

I learn from my mistakes, you just keep repeating yours. That's why I
know you won't stop repeating the same mistakes in this thread.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:

	That leaves *ONE* issue up in the air, namely her views on the
	Holocaust. If that one item is completely wrong, the list is
	still 96.154% correct. I will *gladly* remove that one from the
	list if the goofy little ditz insists to make sure it's 100%
	correct.
	http://tinyurl.com/5zv56

You can dig through the archives for your first response. You agreed
with nearly every point, even posting links to pics that "prove" inner
earth beings live beneath Mt Shasta. The only points over which you
expressed any disagreement were the ones dealing with your ex-husband
and the thing about Holocaust denial. The latter was immediately removed
from my version of the list. The former parts about your marriage to a
violent skinhead will remain because those are undeniable: you fell in
love with a violent skinhead, shagged him, married him, and so on. It's
time you stop blaming others for your accumulated "baggage."

Plenty of evidence. See the link above.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:10:02 GMT, usual suspect <[email]> wrote:

If childish remarks are all you have to offer in return
to my criticism of your ever-changing stances and
arguments here, then it doesn't say much for your
request that we accept your current stance and
argument, does it? Snipping the evidence of your
lies away, leaving a childish dodge in place of what
I wrote only proves it to be true evidence, so it suits
me fine when you do it. Good luck with your new
anti-vegan stance, but what is this new stance and
the arguments you now put forward on Jon's behalf
worth when we consider the efforts you made while
trying to fool people with your earlier pro-vegan stance?
You're asking that we forget your earlier stance and
arguments in favour of your new ones, yet you've never
been able to explain either stance correctly, so how do
we know we're not simply dealing with an imbecile that
doesn't know left from right? You're just a heckler.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:bZJAd.23758$[email]...
<..>

---restore1---
In that case, the number of individual cases of illness due to an outbreak
involving produce, pales to insignificance compared to the cases of illness
due to just one of the pathogens found in meat, e.g, Campylobacter;
--restore3--
"Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated with an
outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,"
says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the national
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html
---

<..>


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:49:13 GMT, usual suspect <[email]> wrote:

Liar suspect, you simply cannot continue to keep
snipping away my posts in an effort to avoid
answering for the lies you've been telling us about
your ever-changing stances and positions here.
Calling me silly names is not going to solve your
problem or alleviate the burden I've put upon you
to explain yourself.

You are prone to suffer from misunderstanding
every issue that gets raised here, as seen by your
quotes that contradict your ever-changing position
so clearly.

DENYING THE ANTECEDENT

"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and
without serious health problems associated with an
animal-based diet?"
usual suspect  Date: 2002-09-09


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:_zWAd.25983$[email]...

The one your buddy liar ball posted.

 My reply:

"I've no problem with suspect posting the truth, as I've stated it."
http://tinyurl.com/6b4ee .

You want to claim I believe this and that, when you cannot refute the
evidence and want to derail the discussion and attack your opponent?
So post that link.  Your twisted beliefs about my beliefs are just that.

Above.

False.  I elucidated at the time;

valid:
hollow earth
inner-earth beings
chemtrails
9/11 controlled demolition
veganism
Aids and Ebola man-made
astrology
'zappers'
reflexology
crop-circles
telepathy (channelling)
Rense

lied about:
feed:beef ratio
rainforest destruction
holocaust denial
sexually aroused by violent criminals
being a skinhead
leprechauns
sun gazing
stolen craft
alien abduction
[add:
drinking urine
thinks bestiality is ok]

presumed:
numerology

exaggerated errors:
globe patent
mistaking exports
polar fountains

 http://tinyurl.com/59xw3

Of course.  Here it is again:
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/OddPics/Shasta.html

What's your explanation?

<snip incessant prying>


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
Retard wrote:

by Dreck were worth 2p, we'd all be a billionaires. Answer the
questions, especially the one about DNA.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:

You're comparing apples and oranges, Lesley, and in two different
instances. First, the data I provided are concrete taken from *actual*
cases; the data you provide are an estimate. Second, the data I provided
covers what US agencies actually investigated (they investigate
outbreaks, not isolated cases of food poisoning); the data you provided
accounts for only one vector in only one kind of food, when in fact many
people become ill through more than just Campylobacter.

	CDC defines a foodborne-disease outbreak as the occurrence of
	two or more cases of a similar illness resulting from the
	ingestion of a common food. The outbreaks reported by CDC,
	however, represent only a small fraction of the total number of
	foodborne illnesses each year.  The Council for Agriculture and
	Science Technology estimates that microbial pathogens in food
	cause between 6.5 and 33 million cases of human illnesses in the
	United States and up to 9,000 deaths annually (CAST, 1994).

	The CDC data indicate that fruits and vegetables were the
	vehicle of transmission for 64 (6 percent) of the 1,072
	outbreaks for which a specific food was identified (table A-3).
	Five percent of the illnesses from these outbreaks were linked
	with fruits and vegetables, as were 22 percent of the deaths.
	*In over half of the reported outbreaks, however, the food
	carrying the pathogen remains unknown.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/specialty/vgs-bb/1998/vgs274f.asc

See also:
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/ift3-4a.html


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
Retard wrote:

Period. You repeat the same mistakes because you don't learn. You're an
unemployed, self-crippled, undisciplined, morbidly obese ex-greasemonkey
who's managed to find two things at which you can excel: stirring shit
and being a "vegan," neither of which requires intellectual or moral effort.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:
<...>

Liar.

Elucidated, lol? Lucid is about the last adjective I'd apply to you, Les.

There's substantial agreement on the entire list then.

Are you suggesting you NEVER got involved in calculating feed:beef
ratios and that you re-calculated your math (no wonder you flunked out
of engineering school!) multiple times so that you eventually got to an
inflated ratio? Come of Les, you know better than that.

Are you suggesting you NEVER got into a debate with this subject with Mr
Ball or anyone else and claimed that the rainforests were being depleted
because of cattle production?

I removed that from the list almost immediately.

You were married to a violent skinhead. You shagged him. He shagged you.
He claimed that you shaved your head to lure him into your lair, and
that rather than really being a Chelsea you turned out to be a hippy
with some menagerie he disliked a lot. In short, you put a bunch of
animals before your vows to your husband.

You suggested agnocticism when asked if you believed in them. Most
people are able to give a straightforward answer.

You bought into the article about a guy who got his energy by staring
into the sun, even suggesting that it sounded promising. You only backed
off when it was shown that NASA had never heard of the guy even though
the initial articles said NASA was studying him and his "energy collection."

You have (or had) a link about it on your own website. When asked if you
believed that US/allied forces had taken the saucer, you implied that
you did.

Do you or do you not believe that aliens visit earth and occasionally
take drunkards and hillbillies for rides where they're repeatedly
rectally probed?

One of the alternative health sources you cited multiple times advocated
urine therapy. You were asked if you endorsed such practice, and, iirc,
you said you were investigating it.

This goes back to threads in which the paraphile Karen Winter and I were
discussing various paraphilia. You said you had no problem whatsoever
with bestiality as long as it was not forced on an animal.

Do you or do you not believe in numerology?

Those errors were NOT exaggerated. You used each of those to support
your looniest notions.

Such anomalies in photographs are not rare. What's rare is that a few
loons see those anomalies and suggest the presence of ghosts, secret
communities of enlightened beings, etc.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:22:45 GMT, usual suspect <[email]> wrote:

If childish remarks are all you have to offer in return
to my criticism of your ever-changing stances and
arguments here, then it doesn't say much for your
request that we accept your current stance and
argument, does it? Snipping the evidence of your
lies away, leaving a childish dodge in place of what
I wrote only proves it to be true evidence, so it suits
me fine when you do it. Good luck with your new
anti-vegan stance, but what is this new stance and
the arguments you now put forward on Jon's behalf
worth when we consider the efforts you made while
trying to fool people with your earlier pro-vegan stance?
You're asking that we forget your earlier stance and
arguments in favour of your new ones, yet you've never
been able to explain either stance correctly, so how do
we know we're not simply dealing with an imbecile that
doesn't know left from right? You're just a heckler.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:eMTAd.25061$[email]...

Fudge.

suspect:  Most food-borne illnesses in the US are caused by produce.

---restore4---
"Most Campylobacter infections are sporadic and not associated with an
outbreak, but we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,"
says Frederick J. Angulo, D.V.M., an epidemiologist with the national
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.'
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html

To counter that, you need to provide rather more than your
"*12,537 individual cases* involving fruits and vegetables".

Better get busy, suspect.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:%UXBd.43419$[email]...

Liar.

What can you see, blind, dense and in the dark as you are.

Obviously not, liar suspect.

You call it "helium-inflated".  It is not.  You cannot show any error.

What is it doing on a list of things you like (need) to hold up for ridicule?

You posted it not knowing whether it was true or not.

I knew him as a (non-violent) person, not your simplistic stereotype.

You posted / post it as fact that I believe.  I have never stated that.

He claimed to have been studied by NASA.  I "backed off" when he was
shown by another poster to be a fraud.  I initially thought it possible, as I
know something about very lengthy fasting practiced by certain ascetics.

You are posting it in a list of something you claim I support/believe,
without qualification, that is, that I believe that story now.  A lie.

Date: 2003-07-16
usual suspect
US; >Yes, I read that. The presence of l'armï¿½e amï¿½ricaine is coincidental to
pearl

That's still conjecture.

http://tinyurl.com/3jmv6

If anything, the suggestion that the US army stole it is yours, suspect.

I don't know.  ?   I certainly haven't stated that I do believe it.

So?  That's not me.  The entry on your fraudulent list states that I do.

No I didn't, liar.

No I didn't.

 Date: 2004-02-28 05:13:33 PST
....     I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an animals'
instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it.
http://tinyurl.com/5uoz4

Depends what you mean by 'numerology'.

Yes they are exaggerated.  You're that desperate.  It's sad really.

Show us another such image then.  As they're not rare,
you should have no real difficulty finding a similar photo.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
Retard wrote:

by Dreck were worth 2p, we'd all be a billionaires. Answer the
questions, fatso, especially the one about DNA.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:

Apples, oranges, and now fudge.

I'm correct.

I don't need to counter your recitation of an *ESTIMATE* which doesn't
discuss the transmission of Campylobacter from produce, which, though
admittedly rare, can and *does* occur:
	Leafy vegetables and root crops irrigated with untreated water
	or grown in soils contaminated with Campylobacter would be
	expected to contain C. jejuni. The use of C. jejuni-contaminated
	water to wash produce or fruit may lead to depositing the
	organism on the surface of the product.  Thus, the facts that
	waterborne outbreaks of campylobacteriosis occur (17) and that
	C. jejuni is present in sewage and water indicate that produce
	or fruit irrigated or washed with C. jejuni-contaminated water
	will allow the entrance of the organism into the food chain.
	http://www.arserrc.gov/mfs/HotSeat1.htm

 From the same page, mushrooms and produce from farmer's markets are
most likely to be tainted with Campylobacter (again, the qualification
that such incidence is low; but so, too, is the incidence of becoming
ill from undercooked tainted meat).

You better get a brain, Les, and learn to use it.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:

Liar.

I see someone who believes or believed in the following:
     "veganism"
     "inner earth beings"
     "hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
     helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
     rain forest destruction
     Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
     Stolen French flying saucers
     Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery
     Foot massage (as cure-all)
     Astrology
     Numerology
     Alien abduction
     bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals)
     Leprechauns
     Channeling
     Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth
     Sun gazing
     Drinking urine as a cure-all
     Chemtrails
     AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
     Crop circles
     she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
     she participates in the skinhead subculture
     she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts)
     crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
     Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news"
     Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence

Glad you finally admit it.

You yourself have demonstrated the errors involved merely by your
repeated attempts to "correct" your math. Too bad you only compounded
your errors rather than correct them.

It's evidence of your tendency to fall for pseudoscience and alarmist
claims by political activists.

Given the validity of everything else, it seemed only fitting. It's also
congruent with your anti-semitism on the Jewish newsgroups.

Who wanted to batter your mangy critters with a bat. Right?

Why would he accuse you of being a fraudulent Chelsea were he not really
a skinhead?

Do you or do you not believe in leprechauns?

Precisely my point: you don't wait for evidence of the most kooky
notions, but demand even more of it of *well-established facts*.

We all know you're intimately familiar with extremes of pseudoscience.

The fact that you were gullible enough to accept it as a possibility
says a lot about you.

Perhaps tauntingly. It's on your website, not mine.

You're gullible enough to believe it.

You never said you rejected such therapy.

Yes, you did.

Yes, you did.

Don't forget your other quotes:
	I think it's a perversion. Yet if the criteria stipulated above
	are met, and the animal doesn't object, what's the concern from
	an AR or AW viewpoint?....I support personal freedom in all
	areas. Who am I or you to interfere or pass judgement on
	people's sexual preferences?
	26 Feb 2004: http://tinyurl.com/6wuve

	If you support same-sex relations, you may as well go
	the whole hog. *As long as the feelings are mutual*,
	and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
	should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
	problem with people's personal choices *as long as
	they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
	human or animal.

	Now, I could be wrong- maybe zoophiles can harm
	their non-human 'partners', but from what I've read
	(a long time ago), zoophiles really do care about their
	er 'special friends'. I don't like it, but that's not the issue.
	26 Feb 2004: http://tinyurl.com/5kbev

What definition of it do you believe in?

No, not at all. You used them to support your looniest beliefs.

Sad that a grown woman would use a globe patent to support her claim
that the earth is hollow, or that she'd introduce an article which
claimed just the opposite of her beliefs about inner earth, or that
she'd use one country's export data to make a point about another
country altogether. Those weren't trivial mistakes, Lesley, they were
royal fuck ups.

I could show you plenty photos I've taken at family gatherings, sporting
events, etc., in which light anomalies appear. They're not ghosts,
they're not evidence of inner earth beings, they're not evidence of
secret military installations. They're distortions which occur because
of a nexus of flash technology, natural/unnatural lighting, developing
mistakes, impaired film, and a variety of other issues that have more to
do with imperfect technologies and nothing to do with the paranormal.
It's just like the Jesus tortilla: people see exactly what they want
even if it's just a tortilla.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/NMLAKtortilla.html


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:30:44 GMT, usual suspect <[email]> wrote:

If childish remarks are all you have to offer in return
to my criticism of your ever-changing stances and
arguments here, then it doesn't say much for your
request that we accept your current stance and
argument, does it? Snipping the evidence of your
lies away, leaving a childish dodge in place of what
I wrote only proves it to be true evidence, so it suits
me fine when you do it. Good luck with your new
anti-vegan stance, but what is this new stance and
the arguments you now put forward on Jon's behalf
worth when we consider the efforts you made while
trying to fool people with your earlier pro-vegan stance?
You're asking that we forget your earlier stance and
arguments in favour of your new ones, yet you've never
been able to explain either stance correctly, so how do
we know we're not simply dealing with an imbecile that
doesn't know left from right? You're just a heckler.

You don't get to ask me questions like that and expect
a response, sonny. Now, answer the questions I've put
to you and stop trying to dodge them.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:PjWAd.32951$[email]...

Unsupported assertion.

"we know it causes up to 4 million human infections a year,".

There ya go.

Where is most of it coming from?  ..  From your link (*emphasis mine)..

 ' In a study of the survival of pathogens during mesophilic anaerobic
digestion of *animal manure* (i.e. prior to sewage treatment), Kearney et al. (9)
found that C. jejuni was remarkably resistant to treatment.  The organism was
approximately 13-times more resistant to anaerobic digestion than Salmonella
typhimurium.  Thus, C. jejuni represents a paradox (15).  In spite of its
"fragility", the organism can be found in the environment, particularly in water,
and while it may not grow, it can survive. '

'Cattle feedlots are a dangerous source of organic pollutants, accounting
 for more than half the toxic organic pollutants found in fresh water.'
http://puffin.creighton.edu/phil/Stephens/FiveArgumentsforVegetarianism.htm#_edn19

There ya go, again.

Millions a year, is low?

Was that your best effort then?  Guess so..


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:FZkCd.39350$[email]...

Liar.

Still repeating your lies, stupid?

What a fool you are, suspect.

Fraudulently editing my reply, - true to form.

BS.

BS.  Show any error.  You couldn't then, and you can't now.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Calculations feed : beef.

Table 5. Corn grain, medium quality hay and corn silage.

             Average
              Daily                                    Corn      Protein      Lime-
Weight   Gain      Intake   Grain  Hay  Silage  Supplement  stone

800        2.5       30.3       7.5     5.3    14.2        3.1          0.19

1200      2.5       35.5      13.8    1.3    16.7        3.6          0.22

http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ansci/beef/as1163-1.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average daily gain 2.5 pounds (liveweight).
Medium-high concentrate ration grain + corn silage + hay - average 32.5 lbs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Live-weight       900        1040        1146      1258          1403 lb
'harvest'                1    .....    2   ....     3      ....     4     ......   5
Fat  %              17.7 ........22.6  ..... 28.1 .......30.3 ..........34.0
Protein   %       14.5 ........13.9 .......12.6  ......12.0 ..........11.6
Water    %        51.3  ...... 48.0....... 43.9 ...... 42.3.......... 40.1
Bone     %        16.4 ....... 15.4 ...... 15.4 ...... 15.3  .........14.3
carcass weight   450          550         650         750           850 lbs.
http://ars.sdstate.edu/BeefExt/BeefReports/2000/influence_of_body_weight_and_mar.htm

Those ages are near enough to be used to calculate meat gain %.

protein + water = meat
(1) 65.8% of 450lbs carcass,   (4) 54.3% of 750lbs carcass.
                 =  296.1                                  =  407.25
- a gain of 111.15lbs of meat for + 300lbs of carcass weight-
or 37.0% of feedlot carcass gain.

Total increase; carcass + wastage -- 1258-900 = 358lbs.

Meat gain- % of liveweight gain; 111.15/358 * 100 =  31%  .

2.5 lbs liveweight gain x 31% = 0.77 pounds meat.
--------------------------------------------------------------
32.5 pounds intake / 0.77 = 42.2, or 42 :1, feed : meat gain,
on a medium-high grain ration + silage & hay. (not DM)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here we'll add 10% fat..,
---------------------------------------------------------------
Add 10% to 0.77lbs meat for fat content = 0.85 pounds beef.
32.5 pounds intake / 0.85 = 38.23, or 38 :1, feed : beef gain.
---------------------------------------------------------------

...

Evidence of what you claim?

Liar.

It suited your stinking smear of an opponent who's trashed you.

Where?  Provide quotes.

Evidence?

Even I feel like that at times.  (But don't, of course).

He lied.  You believe the lying skinhead because it suits you.

If you don't know, then why are you posting it as fact?

In English?

Ipse dixit.  Most informed people have heard of such practices.

See above.  You're ignorant.

Sure.

So?  I think it's a cool looking object.

Ipse dixit.  You've stated that I do believe it.  A lie.

I've never stated that I believe/support it.  You're a proven liar.

Quote?

False..

The entry on your list states that I think it okay without any
qualification, which is clearly false... another lie, suspect.

Guess.

Get over it.

BS.

Show us another such image then.  As they're not rare,
you should have no real difficulty finding a similar photo.

..


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
Retard wrote:

by Dreck were worth 2p, we'd all be a billionaires.

Snip evasion. Those kids aren't really yours, are they.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:

Supported previously in the thread.

It's an estimate. "Up to" isn't a concrete number. The data I provided
are concrete.

Campylobacter isn't the only pathogen which affects humans. Most
food-borne illnesses, as demonstrated in the information I kindly
posted, are not even tied down to specific foods or contagions. What IS
known about food-borne illness with a great degree of certainty is that
produce is more often the cause of outbreaks because (a) produce isn't
subject to the kinds or amount of scrutiny of meat and (b) produce is
more likely to be served at temperatures consistent with potential risk
of bacterial growth.

<...>

Yes. There are 300 million people in the US. Most of them average three
meals per day. That's 328.5 billion meals per year. The rate of
infection of Campylobacter, from your ESTIMATE, is a very tiny fraction
-- about one in every one-hundred thousand meals at the maximum number
offered of 4 million. Stop being such an alarmist.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:
<...>

	That's why I'm gettin a divorce.Beware of the Chelsea THAT
	SHAVES only to lure a skinhead into her llair. Then she shows
	her true colours. It's a rainbow with cute little furry
	creatures you want to take a bat to.
	http://tinyurl.com/ldgg

It wouldn't hurt you.

You'd have a nice little BBQ if did.

Ipse dixit.

No, I believe him because he repeated the point that you presented
yourself as a Chelsea and later changed.

	I'm about to become single again and I don't want you dashin my
	hopes with a tale of futility.
	I WILL FIND THE PERFECT CHELSEA!!! A bird as dedicated as me(
	and not desiring to turn into a peace and lovey dovey hippy).
	One who'll always love this bald-headed cad as he is. A bird
	that's willin to drink me under the table.
	http://tinyurl.com/4q4ln

Why would he say that you had a desire to turn into something else
completely at odds with who he is and something you hadn't been before?
You knew exactly who and what he is, but you put on a false appearance
for his sake. Why would you marry someone under false pretenses?

<...>


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:w3YBd.43421$[email]...

Absolutely not.  You're lying.

Estimates are based upon available evidence.

Produce can be and is cross-contaminated by animal-derived products.

Quit rambling and provide some verifiable stats.  Estimates will do.

You idiot.

Stop trying to gloss over a major cause of a potentially very serious illness.

Your snipping of evidence implicating the livestock industry is noted.

You disgust me, .. and probably most others reading your hateful tripe.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:h_xCd.40330$[email]...

Your inability to defend your many LIES _is noted_, liar suspect.

<skinhead yadda yadda>

What was that you were saying about *hearsay*, liar suspect?


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
pearl wrote:

:-)

No, estimates are based upon conjecture.

Produce is also cross-contaminated because animals are part of nature,
as are we.

<...>

Numbers are relative. You don't comprehend the scope of large numbers or
appreciate the scale involved.

It's not a gloss. The odds of becoming infected by Campylobacter are
about one in every 100,000 meals. Consider these odds:
	Odds of drowning in your bathtub: 1 in 685,000
	Odds of being struck by lightning this year: 1 in 240,000
	Odds that the pilot of your airliner is a convicted drunk driver: 1 in 117
	Odds that you'll be injured on the job: 1 in 24,000
	Odds of hitting a hole-in-one: 1 in 15,000
	Odds of giving birth to a genius: 1 in 250
	Odds of being audited by the IRS: 1 in 100
	Odds that your next car ride will be your last: 1 in 4 million
	http://origin.bankrate.com/brm/news/advice/20030609b1.asp

Awww, no Christmas card for you again next year.

They deserve it, too.


subject: Re: a big F-U to vegans everywhere :-)

text:
"usual suspect" <[email]> wrote in message news:v6lCd.39846$[email]...

Nonsense.

eh?

Well?

Tell that to a grieving family, you monster.

Yes, we do.

I really and truly hope that you get sick and paralyzed from this pathogen.
Then you can forever sit and construct graphs of the odds in your f* head.

<..>


author: Tang Huyen

subject: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
Lee Rudolph wrote:

I'll go on a tangent on your suggestion of
combining Western mysticism and Eastern
technology. It is the idea of combining
mysticism and technology/technique. I think
that the Buddha makes two major errors.
The first is to talk in the objective, external
mode about what should only be talked in the
subjective, internal mode. The second is to
combine mysticism and technique, more
specifically meditative technique. I have
written much on the first (alleged) error.
Here I'll write on the second (alleged) one.

Mental culture should be an attitude, or lead
to an attitude, most generally of calm and
serenity. In that optic, to teach technique,
presumably to attain to such an attitude, is
misguided. I don't deny that technique,
specifically meditative technique, can lead to
calm and serenity. However, the people who
cannot attain to calm and serenity will then
use technique as an excuse, to replace calm
and serenity. To them, they have succeeded
if they can engage in technique, with prowess,
back and forth, up and down. They forget
that technique is only a means to an end, the
latter being best approximated by calm and
serenity. Of course the end in Buddhism is the
ending of suffering, but for day-to-day
discourse, it can best approximated by calm
and serenity, two commonly used words.

Westerners charge to the far east to study
Japanese Zen, which tends to go for the realist,
literalist and absolutist mindset, much like the
mindset that westerners are familiar with in
Jewish mythology. Ice cream cones are taken as
objective, mind-independent objects that exist in
and of themselves, like Platonic Forms, and
"sitting only" (shikantaza) is also taken in the
same sense, as an objective, mind-independent
object that the meditator adjusts to, whereas the
Buddhist understanding, if I get it aright, is that
technique and method (dharma) are merely
temporary and provisional props that the
practitioner conjures up to facilitate the entry
into purely subjective, strictly sentimental states
that are light and fluffy, and the higher such
states are, the lighter and fluffier they get. In
meditation, the practitioner should not adjust to
anything objective and external, but only to
something subjective and internal, namely
himself. He only has to adjust himself to himself,
align himself with himself, straighten himself up
with himself. Japanese Zen goes for an
objectivist, externalist mindset that glorifies its
technique and objectifies it, and this mindset is
all wrong. If technique fails, the practitioner
(who relies on it) is lost. In a sense, the
practitioner goes by a roundabout, namely
technique, so that he deals with technique,
rather than with himself. More specifically, he
relies on something objective and external,
namely technique, instead of dealing with
something subjective and internal, namely
himself.  By dealing with technique, he thinks
that he deals with himself, but no, he only
deals with technique. He reduces himself to
a zombie who expertly handles technique. To
borrow from Augustine, technique is become
more intimate to him than he is to himself. He
only deals with himself (if at all) by a remote,
technique. He would not touch himself unless
he had a ten-foot pole, technique, in between.

Last year, the New York Times had a long
article about an American who went to
Japan to study with people who talked funny,
looked funny, dressed funny, got ordained in
both Soto and Rinzai branches of Japanese
Zen, went back to benighted USA to teach
Japanese Zen, led Zen retreats by the
truckloads up and down the East coast, was
highly regarded as a master (of Japanese Zen),
then fell apart (had a crash) and went to see a
shrink, more specifically a Freudian
psychoanalyst, etc.

At least he was aware of his problem enough
to seek professional help. Our Jigme, Fu,
Sphere, Takuji, etc. fell apart in a crash and
refused to acknowledge that they had suffered
a crash but insisted year after year that
nothing had happened, never mind anything
bad (like a crash) had happened.

He could not handle himself in a psychological
crisis (a crash) but had to go and see a shrink.
All that he had learnt from Japanese Zen was
useless to him in his psychological crisis (his
crash). All his technical prowess in meditation
as taught to him by Japanese Zen Masters was
useless in dealing with himself. How good was
what he taught to his American students during
all those years and decades?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/magazine/
26zen-t.html?em=&pagewanted=all

If he had learnt to come to peace with himself
and to reconciliation with himself, in the
simplest of Stoic manner, he would have been
able to handle himself in such a treacherous
juncture and even come out on the other side
better off for the experience. That is what
mental culture is for, ahead of time. It would
have made a crash not happen
(ungeschehenmachen), or if it happens, it would
have made it possible for the practitioner to
handle himself in such a treacherous juncture
and even come out on the other side better off
for the experience. If the practitioner knows how
to handle himself directly, rather than dealing
with technique as a roundabout, indirectly, (iow,
rather than dealing with technique, through
which he then handles himself, if at all), he will
know how to handle himself in the turbulence
of a crash. A crash, if it happens, will be a mere
speed bump to him.

Calm and serenity would have served him well,
and he could have taught them to his
(presumably numerous) students, without
recourse to technique. He would not have
needed to go to Japan to bow and scrape to
people who talked funny, looked funny, dressed
funny. He could have stayed home the whole
time and enjoyed calm and serenity, right in his
living room, as would also his students, without
recourse to technique (which last turned out to
be useless to him, and if it turned out to be
useless to him, how useful could it turn out to be
for his students?).

Tang Huyen


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Apr 26, 4:56 pm, niunian <[email]> wrote:

observing what is plainly there to 'see' for all of your senses is
about as real world as it gets.


author: Dr Who Duh

subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Apr 27, 3:01 am, niunian <[email]> wrote:

the human mind can be many things, even some things that don't stink.


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Apr 27, 3:03 am, Dr Who Duh <[email]> wrote:

but the general population maybe does stink.  but if that's a given,
and i mean an almost insurmountable human trait, can it really be to
"blame".  of course i won't let such thinking hold up military
operations.


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Apr 27, 4:56 am, niunian <[email]> wrote:

atom bomb?  ohhh...   yeah.


author: zenworm

subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Apr 26, 5:38 am, niunian <[email]> wrote:

is compassion a crime?

^~


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Apr 26, 7:53 pm, zenworm <[email]> wrote:

are you harboring criminals under the floor?


author: Kitty P

subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Two comments. The first, is that I'm sure you're right in that some people
talk about sitting or try it a few times thinking it is some sort of eastern
mysticism. But I'm also sure that there are many more of us who do sit
regularly who see it only as the means to an end. It is a helpful way to
train the mind to discipline the mind noise. It's sort of like Catholic
statues. Protestants and others think they are worshipping those statues -
which isn't the case. They're just reminders.  Broad generalities are sort
of unskillful don't you think?

The second is more of a question. The same and quite tiresome question that
I always ask you. Why do you care what other people do as their Buddhist
practice? I mean if I wanted Bozo the Clown as my savior and believed he
would forgive of all my sins  - wouldn't that be pretty much my business if
it wasn't harming anyone else.
Kitty


author: Déjà Fu

subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On 4/25/2010 5:40 PM, Tang Huyen wrote:

lol...no Tang-ent at all. Same ol' tuna...


author: niunian

subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:11:53 -0700 (PDT), Awaken21
<[email]> wrote:

Just because you can't see your own mind, doesn't mean your mind does
not exist.


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Apr 28, 3:41 pm, niunian <[email]> wrote:

Just as impossible to point to as a physical you. hehehehehehehe  why
make shit up? It's not there and everything is fine.


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:03:47 -0700 (PDT), Dr Who Duh
<[email]> wrote:

The human mind can be many things both real and unreal, but the
punishment and reward for the human mind are all quite real.


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:16:24 -0700 (PDT), Dr Who Duh
<[email]> wrote:

Exactly. When faced with the real life, all mental imaginations go out
of the window.


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:53:08 -0700 (PDT), zenworm <[email]>
wrote:

Can a criminal have compassion?


author: oxtail

subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:39:49 -0400, niunian wrote:

Do you have a brain
or you just think so?


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:47:24 -0500, Déjà Fu wrote:

You can have it.


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
Déjà Fu wrote:

What makes you think I can have it back
if I didn't have it originally?


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:57:11 -0700 (PDT), Awaken21
<[email]> wrote:

The fact is, it is there and it is real despite your inability to
understand.


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:45:29 -0400, niunian wrote:

Is it ever polite to call people names?
Isn't it just stupid to come to Buddhism newsgroups
to "destroy" Buddhism?
Do you often go to church to blaspheme God?


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On 4/28/2010 7:53 PM, oxtail wrote:

What if I say you do
and you say you don't?


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:53:09 +0000 (UTC), oxtail <[email]>
wrote:

You remain at such level of intellectual poverty, I don't have
anything that can help you.


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On 4/28/2010 9:11 PM, oxtail wrote:

If I already do,
would you want it back?


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:41:36 +0000 (UTC), oxtail <[email]>
wrote:

Why are you capable of such shamelessness is beyond me. No doubt it
must be part of your central practice in your screwed up Buddhism.


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:42:59 -0400, niunian wrote:

How on earth are you going to "destroy" Buddhism
without ever reading a book on Buddhism?
Don't you need to know what it is to "destroy" it?


subject: Re: Technique (was Re: Coattails)

text:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:50:49 +0000 (UTC), oxtail <[email]>
wrote:

I see you the phoney asshole can do the work for me perfectly.


author: osprey

subject: Re: ACLU suit challenges classroom Pledge of Allegiance law

text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

IRONY METER BUSTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh you did it now boy!


author: Ray Fischer

text:
osprey <[email]> wrote:

Oooo!  The little turd thinks he's clever by copying people
smarter than he is!  Is anybody impressed?

Nope.


author: The Chief Instigator

text:
"osprey" <[email]> writes:

Big words coming from a tub of lard who can't even intimidate his own shadow.

chiefinstigator.us.tt/spud.php


author: james g. keegan jr.

text:
In article <43b59929$0$58109$[email]>,
 [email] (Ray Fischer) wrote:

c'mon, is there anyone he could copy who isn't smarter than he is,
except johnny, of course?


author: Mimi Cohen

text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

Not anyone with an IQ of more than 30 :)


author: George Patton

subject: It's the Oil, Stupid

text:
Bush Busta <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

You think that the Saudi Royal family will be in power a whole year
after we take Iraq?  We need to be in place to pick the next ruler of
Saudi Arabia.  Iraq could be the place.  It would be stupid for us to
let a pro-Al Quaida  government take over when the current Saudi
leadership is overthrown.   And, the time may be sooner than later,
that is why the rush to capture Iraq.   Iraq got lots of oil, but Iraq
is small potatoes compared to Saudi Arabia.  For every terrorist in
Iraq there are probably a hundred in Saudi Arabia.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: It's the Oil, Stupid

text:
[email] (George Patton) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

So you think that the US forces will be able to sit pretty in the
region when revolutionary forces are spreating about it. Think again,
i.e. suicide bombers.

Remember that last time USA did try to participate in an occupation of
a country in the region which was in the throes of a civil war, i.e.
Lebanon 1982-84, the US forces left after having sufferd hundreds of
dead among the personnel.

You think that the people of USA will not be schreeming for them to
send the boyes home when the body bags begin to come in tens to
hundreds at a time? The Israelis eventually abandoned Lebanon, and the
Israelis are tough. You think perhaps that Americans are tougher than
Israelis?

Einar


author: Geeman

subject: Re: It's the Oil, Stupid

text:
[email] (George Patton) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

"We?" "Us?"
Nobody in government ever asked for my advice before dropping
bombs on someone.
And I don't think Saddam ever "agreed" to 1441, or to the
"no fly zones" forbidding Iraq from flying their own airplanes
over their own country.

OK, let's talk some more about "inclusiveness."
Iraq is being destroyed by disease and hunger because "We"
keep bombing their power plants and other infrastructure.
They can't run water purification plants.  That causes
disease epidemics.
Hospitals have no supplies and injured and sick men, women
and children die every day in unlighted rooms for lack of
50-cent plastic tubes and simple antibiotics, because
"We" keep bombing pharmaceutical and medical supply
manufacturing plants.
Don't forget the element of food shortages exacerbating
the situation - "Our" military keeps bombing food
producing facilities.
During the last "Gulf War," "We" even bombed a
BABY FOOD FACTORY! (It was a "suspected" bio-weapon plant.)
"We" are responsible for all this suffering and death.

"We" say that the misery in Iraq is Saddam's fault because "he"
won't comply with the UN Resolutions.

Israel ignored countless "UN Resolutions" and refused access
to weapons inspectors while they built a nuclear arsenal.
Israel can now nuke any target in the Mid-East.
Nukes are the ultimate "WMD."
The US has been CENSURED numerous times by the UN and "We"
also disregard resolutions when "We" find them inconvenient."

Countries all over the world disregard UN resolutions, but they
don't get bombed because of it.

Why Iraq?
Maybe it has something to do with...umm...OIL?


author: SKD

subject: Re: It's the Oil, Stupid

text:
[email] wrote in message > You think that the people of USA will not be schreeming for them to

They seem to be doing okay in Afghanistan, but then it's not really a
nation anymore.


author: Heywood Djablome

subject: Re: It's the Oil, Stupid

text:
It is a different time with stronger resolve and technology unlike
anything seen.  We do learn from our mistakes - why do you think we
stayed out of Bahgdad 12 years ago.


author: T. Kosciuszko

subject: Re: It's the Oil, Stupid

text:
[email] wrote in message news:<[email]>...

I think the USA has resources that Isreal can only dream about. Could
Isreal go toe to toe with the USA? Perhaps they might last a few
seconds. Do not fool yourself, there is no comparison. If they are
properly motiviated... well, they don't refer to them as a
"superpower" for nothing.


subject: Re: It's the Oil, Stupid

text:
[email] (Geeman) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Different types of resolutions, i.e. resolutions that are
recommendations only, on the one hand, and resolutions that are firm
demands, on the other.

I guess which type of resolutions have been given to Israel and which
the Iraelis have been ignoring, and for that the states around the
world. No prices for guessing.

Guess also in what manner the resolutions vs. Iraq do differ. No
prices there either.

Einar


author: Truth Spreader

subject: Re: It's the Oil, Stupid

text:
[email] (Geeman) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Yep that is the reason.

Thanks for your accurate info.

Here's a cool link:

http://www.unansweredquestions.org

Here's another great link:

http://whitehouse.org

Thanks for sharing your facts with us.


subject: Re: It's the Oil, Stupid

text:
[email] (SKD) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Never has been. So good so far, too early yet to tell the outcome.

IMO the grace period in Iraq could amount to a year, the bad trends
only starting after that.

Einar


author: iaoua iaoua

subject: Music

text:
I've noticed a nested hierarchy in genres of music.

I can only therefore conclude that music is reproductive and by
mutation evolved from a common ancestor which all the evidence seems
to suggest was a rhythm of simple drum beats.

JC


author: Bob Casanova

subject: Re: Music

text:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:02:27 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua
<[email]>:

Really? Perhaps you could provide the evidence for this
rather remarkable claim.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless


author: Arkalen

subject: Re: Music

text:
(2012/01/20 0:02), iaoua iaoua wrote:

Ooooh, you're warming up ! Genres of music can to some extent be put in
a nested hierarchy. It's only to some extent, and it's not very robust,
and there is too much crossover between genres, but yeah you do have the
sets within sets within sets thing going on.

Have you noticed something ? There is also descent with modification
going on with genres of music - only to some extent, just like the
nested hierarchy is only there to some extent. But there is a pattern of
a genre of music spawning many sub-genres which share many
characteristics with their parent gender, but also have their own
particularities.

So yet again, a nested hierarchy is associated with descent with
modification.

And what evidence would that be ? Personally I'd think singing would
have arisen before musical instruments did, even drums. But there really
isn't much evidence around for how music arose.

It's cute how you treat the phrase "evidence suggests" as if it were a
magical mantra, but that isn't how the rest of us use it. It's very
cargo-culty of you, I might almost call it "cute".

--
Arkalen
Praise be to magic Woody-Allen zombie superhero telepathic vampire
quantum hovercraft Tim! Jesus.


subject: Re: Music

text:
On Jan 19, 3:34ï¿½pm, Arkalen <[email]> wrote:

And yet one would think that most music is the product of intelligent
design of some kind.

No real evidence. I was just imitating the conjectural habits of you
and your bunch.

This has to be the single most funniest statement you've made to date.

JC


subject: Re: Music

text:
(2012/01/20 1:03), iaoua iaoua wrote:

Indeed. Intelligent design and common descent aren't mutually exclusive.
In fact many Christians think life was intelligently designed through
the process of evolution.

Of course the nested hierarchy of life is much more general and robust
that the one you find in music, or literature or films, so descent with
modification was clearly a much more significant factor. And in
particular there is one thing eukaryotic life has that no aspect of
human design does, even the more common-descent-y and nested-hierarchy-y
kinds... and that's a complete lack of crossover between non-adjacent
groups. I would love to hear of a single example of human design where
this is the case.

--
Arkalen
Praise be to magic Woody-Allen zombie superhero telepathic vampire
quantum hovercraft Tim! Jesus.


author: Lisa L Guffy

subject: Re: Abortion: respecting rights of mother and fetus

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Ghostboy) writes:
Actually, in biology, (gee, i knew this class would come in handy
sometime)  there are symbiotes and parasites.  Symbiotes take
from the host and the host benifits from it being there.  Parasites
on the other hand merely take from the host.

I think   parasite is pretty damn accurate.


author: thefriend

subject: Resolution

text:
Calling each other witches, bitches, hoes, nazis, dogs, pigs, rats, all
kinds of stuff gets us no where.

And look at the picture you are painting for an aspiring Buddhist who
might come here to learn about Buddhism.

This group and the people were sober, I thought, unlike the obsessive talk
in the sky god groups of Islam and Christianity with there condemning each
other to eternal damnation and screaming at each other all night and day
and bickering over dogma.

Now you Rama people have been abused by some here, but not all, so you may
have a legit gripe.

Your response therefore may have a degree of justification, but may be
overblown.

I have always respected you and always will, because whatever you believe
you are a human being, and what people donï¿½t see here is that you donï¿½t in
your postings criticize or abuse other people.

On the other hand it may be wise on your part to at least respect people
who donï¿½t like your teacher, or your methods for your own sake. You canï¿½t
believe that being forced to respond to the negative Knuckleheads here is
a good thing for you?

As for those who canï¿½t seem to be able to tolerate the Rama people without
heaping abuse on them, you might consider the possibility that if you
donï¿½t treat these people you donï¿½t like with at least a modicum of respect
then it might be that those who come after the Rama people may in your
eyes be ten times worst than them

I think thatï¿½s called KARMA

Anyway there is something we all can be grateful for
The 12 men in the cave in Virginia have been rescued.

Good night
The friend


subject: Re: Resolution

text:
To whom it may concern:

"Jazzymike, "curlywade" and "American Buddhist Monk" seem to
spam discussion groups under a number of names apparently unhappy that
the Ross Institute database includes a small subsection about Frederick
Lenz aka "Rama" with archived news articles about the dead guru.

See http://www.rickross.com/groups/lenz.html

"Jazzymike" or "curlywade" attacks often rely primarily upon material
posted publicly through the Internet by a Church of Scientology-run Web
site called "Religious Freedom Watch," the Scientology-controlled
"new Cult Awareness Network" or the Scientology publication "Freedom
Magazine."

My published response to this Scientology sponsored attack has been
publicly accessible through the Internet since 1998 and periodically
updated in response to other claims that have been added.

See http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/Scien47.html

If you read through this response with attached supporting documents,
you can see how Lenz fans like "jazzymike" and "curlywade" frequently
and deliberately distort or completely ignore crucial and/or relevant
facts regarding my personal/professional history in an attempt to
mislead the public.

Please excuse the possible repetition of this posted response at
various threads within this discussion group, but it is important to
set the record straight when people posting comments here deliberately
attempt to malign me through misinformation in an effort to mislead the
public.

Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com


author: Julian

subject: Re: Resolution

text:
[email] wrote:

Don't worry Mr. Ross.

It's pretty clear what they are up to
and their ever increasing deperation
shows that they're even crap at that.

http://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/


subject: Re: Resolution

text:
Anraku,
-------------------------------------------------------
How much montly tuition was paid to the
Buddha, that is the question, and nothing else.
These nincompoops paid to Cultmeister Rama
six thousend $ fee, monthly.
They never will admit, that they were duped.
A true Master can accept voluntery donations:
but NEVER can ask for a fee.
And that is the difference betwen a good religious
teacher, and a quack.
-------------------------------------------------------

Anraku,

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU!!!  I dont know how much Rama Charges for its
membership fee, but if's its $1.00 per/month, that is $1.00 too much.

However, for those who want to or feel that you are getting a great
deal out of your spiritual practice with your method or teacher, good
luck to you.

I guess its my turn to do an advertisement :)

I for one, pratice a meditation from a master that charges $0.00 as its
membership fee that is open to all reguardless of your religious
background.  All I pay my master is my 2 and 1/2 hours of meditation on
light and sound.

My 2 Cents!!!