"Don" wrote:

*Probably*? LOL
Get a clue.....

It's hard to say "definitely" when you're talking about "all of
history", idiot.

ral

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:66163 rec.gardens:260497 misc.survivalism:505580 misc.rural:117345 rec.backcountry:173743

Sue wrote:

It's been my experience with him that your second suggestion is
correct.
Sue

Sorry to say it Sue, but I am beginning to believe so, too.

I mean, an idiot suggests that *I* should go out and buy a .35 cal
rifle with no explanations given, I ask "why should I", and this idiot
goes off on some tangent about how he can buy anything he wants. Like
anyone has suggested that he can't?

I mean, sheeesh, it was asking why someone suggested that *I* need it
that got it started and he says "buy it anyway, you don't have the
right to ask why you need it".

Hey, Sue, Merry Christmas!

ral

ral

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 03:00:19 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:

Sue wrote:

It's been my experience with him that your second suggestion is
correct.
Sue

Sorry to say it Sue, but I am beginning to believe so, too.

I mean, an idiot suggests that *I* should go out and buy a .35 cal
rifle with no explanations given, I ask "why should I", and this idiot
goes off on some tangent about how he can buy anything he wants. Like
anyone has suggested that he can't?

I mean, sheeesh, it was asking why someone suggested that *I* need it
that got it started and he says "buy it anyway, you don't have the
right to ask why you need it".

Hey, Sue, Merry Christmas!

Thanks. Happy New Year to you. I killfiled don a long time ago. He
is the worst debater ever. Gets really confused, writes dumb stuff
and then ignores any comment about the stupidity of what he wrote.
Sue

ral

ral

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 03:00:19 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:

Sue wrote:

It's been my experience with him that your second suggestion is
correct.
Sue

Sorry to say it Sue, but I am beginning to believe so, too.

I mean, an idiot suggests that *I* should go out and buy a .35 cal
rifle with no explanations given, I ask "why should I", and this idiot
goes off on some tangent about how he can buy anything he wants. Like
anyone has suggested that he can't?

I mean, sheeesh, it was asking why someone suggested that *I* need it
that got it started and he says "buy it anyway, you don't have the
right to ask why you need it".

Hey, Sue, Merry Christmas!

Thanks. Happy New Year to you. I killfiled don a long time ago. He
is the worst debater ever. Gets really confused, writes dumb stuff
and then ignores any comment about the stupidity of what he wrote.
Sue

ral

ral

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:21:13 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:17:47 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


=======================
Because dolt, you can only get that 20x if the land is suitable and the
farmer is doing it. have a hard time with this, don't you?


No, it all seems very clear to me. But you apparently are still
talking about comercial production, while I am still talking about the
possibility of becoming self-sufficient.
===================
So am I.
Have you been reading your own posts? "if the land is suitable and
the farmer is doing it" suggests you are not on the same topic as I.
If the farmer is doing it, he ain't asking the question to begin with.
Since he professed a desire to stay meat-free, my posts seem more
helpful to him than yours. Since I don't know much about New Zealand,
I could be wrong. But certainly I have not been telling "lys" or
failing to grasp the salient points.
You, on the other hand have a knee-jerk response to meat it seems.
That's your proble.
no, i've very patiently tried to explain why a single person on a
subsistence farm might get more protein from soy than from cattle. I
could not care less what you eat. Have a mad cow burger right now if
you want. But if you want to make a legitimate point, stop trying to
make me look bad and just tell us what you have to say that proves I'm
wrong.


Not to mention you are still
ignoring the fact that factory farms are raising cattle on grain, soy
and other feed in intensive operations that bear no resemblance to the
ranches you see around you in NM. Open your eyes; there's a whole
wide world beyond your narrow little horizon.
========================
No, again you fail to understand. It's your horizon that seems limited.
There are more places that meat animals can survive than you can grow your
veggies. I'm talking about small scale meat production. For many places it
requires very litttle input in labor, crops, time. Nothing near the labor,
inputs, and time for crop production.
No argument there. for many others, it is virtually impossible. But
for someone who doesn't have the vast rangeland of NM at their
disposal, it may prove difficult to support many animals without
supplemental feeding.
If you don't want a more varied diet,
so be it, just don't think you're going to convince everybody else to eat
crap.
You want to eat one or two (maybe even four or five?) kinds of meat; I
have a vast range of vegetables, fruits, grains and nuts to choose
from. Who's got the more varied diet, really? If vegetables are crap
to you, I pity you--you're missing out. not to mention setting
yourself up for a host of health problems later in life. But that's
your business. Eat whatever you want. I have not tried to convince
you otherwise.
That you refuse to see that just means you have a dogmatic response
you want to keep harping on.

I will stop "harping" if you stop attacking me and declaring I'm wrong
without evidence. All I've done is contradict what I perceive to be
mistaken assumptions on your part.

Keith
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:58:27 -0600, "Susan Kennedy"
wrote:


"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 03:04:34 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


====================
And that would be the case if it really were more profitable. fact is,
it
must not be in very many of the places you're talking about, otherwise,
farmers would switch. They aren't raising cattle for us out the goodness
of
their hearts, and if the land would truly support crops at a greater
profit,
they would change.

Who said anything about a profit? I said you get 20X the protein from
the same acreage.

And if you don't make a profit (ie: more than your expenses), you wind up
without a farm, running around naked while you starve to death. What good
is 20X more protein going to do you then?
Clearly you have not grasped the topic of this thread. Not only is
the OP not trying to make a profit from farming, but he also has a
paying job to help him if and when his attempts at self-sufficiency
fall short.

K



For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:42:26 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:

"Don" wrote:

Here's the deal Richard.
I will have any gun I want, whether I *need* it or not and there isn't a
goddamn thing you can do about it.
Jesus christ you're a ****ing idiot.

Here's the deal, idiot....I don't give a flying **** what gun you want
or need or have and you shouldn't about me, either. The point was
that some idiot above suggested that *I* should have one that he
suggested and I asked why he thinks that *I* need it in his opinion?

Is English not your first language or are you just ****ing stupid?

It's been my experience with him that your second suggestion is
correct.
Sue

You mean he's reproducing?

^_^

FW

Babberney wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:58:27 -0600, "Susan Kennedy"
wrote:


"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 03:04:34 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


====================
And that would be the case if it really were more profitable. fact is,
it
must not be in very many of the places you're talking about, otherwise,
farmers would switch. They aren't raising cattle for us out the goodness
of
their hearts, and if the land would truly support crops at a greater
profit,
they would change.

Who said anything about a profit? I said you get 20X the protein from
the same acreage.

And if you don't make a profit (ie: more than your expenses), you wind up
without a farm, running around naked while you starve to death. What good
is 20X more protein going to do you then?
Clearly you have not grasped the topic of this thread. Not only is
the OP not trying to make a profit from farming, but he also has a
paying job to help him if and when his attempts at self-sufficiency
fall short.

K

Another aspect of the problem is that a lot of the land that is
used to raise cattle is so poor or there is such a lack of water
that cattle raising is about all its good for. There are lots
of place in the west that the carrying capacity is a cow/calf
for every 10 acres.

The Independent

On 29 Dec 2003 04:22:02 GMT, (Frank White)
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:42:26 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:

"Don" wrote:

Here's the deal Richard.
I will have any gun I want, whether I *need* it or not and there isn't a
goddamn thing you can do about it.
Jesus christ you're a ****ing idiot.

Here's the deal, idiot....I don't give a flying **** what gun you want
or need or have and you shouldn't about me, either. The point was
that some idiot above suggested that *I* should have one that he
suggested and I asked why he thinks that *I* need it in his opinion?

Is English not your first language or are you just ****ing stupid?

It's been my experience with him that your second suggestion is
correct.
Sue

You mean he's reproducing?

OMG. I may not be very bright but my name is not Stupid. blushing
with embarrassment and wishing I'd phrased my post better
Sue (not Stupid)

^_^

FW

"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:21:13 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:17:47 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


=======================
Because dolt, you can only get that 20x if the land is suitable and
the
farmer is doing it. have a hard time with this, don't you?


No, it all seems very clear to me. But you apparently are still
talking about comercial production, while I am still talking about the
possibility of becoming self-sufficient.
===================
So am I.
Have you been reading your own posts? "if the land is suitable and
the farmer is doing it" suggests you are not on the same topic as I.
If the farmer is doing it, he ain't asking the question to begin with.
Since he professed a desire to stay meat-free, my posts seem more
helpful to him than yours. Since I don't know much about New Zealand,
I could be wrong. But certainly I have not been telling "lys" or
failing to grasp the salient points.
You, on the other hand have a knee-jerk response to meat it seems.
That's your proble.
no, i've very patiently tried to explain why a single person on a
subsistence farm might get more protein from soy than from cattle. I
could not care less what you eat. Have a mad cow burger right now if
you want. But if you want to make a legitimate point, stop trying to
make me look bad and just tell us what you have to say that proves I'm
wrong.
====================
LOL You're doing quite fine on your own making yourself look bad.




Not to mention you are still
ignoring the fact that factory farms are raising cattle on grain, soy
and other feed in intensive operations that bear no resemblance to the
ranches you see around you in NM. Open your eyes; there's a whole
wide world beyond your narrow little horizon.
========================
No, again you fail to understand. It's your horizon that seems limited.
There are more places that meat animals can survive than you can grow
your
veggies. I'm talking about small scale meat production. For many places
it
requires very litttle input in labor, crops, time. Nothing near the
labor,
inputs, and time for crop production.
No argument there. for many others, it is virtually impossible. But
for someone who doesn't have the vast rangeland of NM at their
disposal, it may prove difficult to support many animals without
supplemental feeding.
===============
Neither do I, but it doesn't take 'vast' areas.


If you don't want a more varied diet,
so be it, just don't think you're going to convince everybody else to eat
crap.
You want to eat one or two (maybe even four or five?) kinds of meat; I
have a vast range of vegetables, fruits, grains and nuts to choose
from. Who's got the more varied diet, really? If vegetables are crap
to you, I pity you--you're missing out.
==================
No stupid, 20 acres of soy is crap. Veggies are fine. I eat far more of
them than meat. Almost all people do, despite the constant lys and
delusions of vegan loons. The point is that crop farming is labor
intensive. Not all meat has to be. Supplement your veggies with that meat
and you save yourself lots of time and effort, and have a more varied diet.
Besides, unless you just don't wash your hands, where are you going to get
the supplements you'll need to remain vegan?


not to mention setting
yourself up for a host of health problems later in life.
====================
Yes, you will have them if you reamin vegan long enough. Unless of course,
like I mentioned, you just don't wash your hands.

But that's
your business. Eat whatever you want. I have not tried to convince
you otherwise.
That you refuse to see that just means you have a dogmatic response
you want to keep harping on.

I will stop "harping" if you stop attacking me and declaring I'm wrong
without evidence. All I've done is contradict what I perceive to be
mistaken assumptions on your part.
=======================
You're wrong, as usual...




Keith
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please
visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

In article ,
says...

On 29 Dec 2003 04:22:02 GMT, (Frank White)
wrote:

In article ,

says...

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:42:26 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:

snip

Is English not your first language or are you just ****ing stupid?

It's been my experience with him that your second suggestion is
correct.
Sue

You mean he's reproducing?

OMG. I may not be very bright but my name is not Stupid. blushing
with embarrassment and wishing I'd phrased my post better
Sue (not Stupid)

Whoop, never meant to imply you were. My sincerest apologies
if it seemed that way.

Mainly I was wondering about the future of the gene pool...

FW

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:32:41 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:

could not care less what you eat. Have a mad cow burger right now if
you want. But if you want to make a legitimate point, stop trying to
make me look bad and just tell us what you have to say that proves I'm
wrong.
====================
LOL You're doing quite fine on your own making yourself look bad.

Ah, I see. If I provide sources, they're "discredited" without proof.
If I don't, I'm [insert insult here]. If you fail to provide evidence
for your claims, it's because I'm not worthy of your efforts. Maybe I
am making myself look bad, but I definitely am not the only one.



Not to mention you are still
ignoring the fact that factory farms are raising cattle on grain, soy
and other feed in intensive operations that bear no resemblance to the
ranches you see around you in NM. Open your eyes; there's a whole
wide world beyond your narrow little horizon.
========================
No, again you fail to understand. It's your horizon that seems limited.
There are more places that meat animals can survive than you can grow
your
veggies. I'm talking about small scale meat production. For many places
it
requires very litttle input in labor, crops, time. Nothing near the
labor,
inputs, and time for crop production.
No argument there. for many others, it is virtually impossible. But
for someone who doesn't have the vast rangeland of NM at their
disposal, it may prove difficult to support many animals without
supplemental feeding.
===============
Neither do I, but it doesn't take 'vast' areas.
It takes more than soybeans.


If you don't want a more varied diet,
so be it, just don't think you're going to convince everybody else to eat
crap.
You want to eat one or two (maybe even four or five?) kinds of meat; I
have a vast range of vegetables, fruits, grains and nuts to choose
from. Who's got the more varied diet, really? If vegetables are crap
to you, I pity you--you're missing out.
==================
No stupid, 20 acres of soy is crap. Veggies are fine. I eat far more of
them than meat.
You have again failed to grasp what I've written. I said "vegetables,
such as soy." You said it's crap. Make up your mind.
Almost all people do, despite the constant lys and
delusions of vegan loons.
Your calling vegans loons adds nothing of substance to this
"discussion." Even when you do it 50 or 100 times.
The point is that crop farming is labor
intensive. Not all meat has to be. Supplement your veggies with that meat
and you save yourself lots of time and effort, and have a more varied diet.
Besides, unless you just don't wash your hands, where are you going to get
the supplements you'll need to remain vegan?
We've been over that already. Who are you trying to convince?


not to mention setting
yourself up for a host of health problems later in life.
====================
Yes, you will have them if you reamin vegan long enough. Unless of course,
like I mentioned, you just don't wash your hands.
We've been over that, too. If you really believe you can stop washing
your hands and not suffer consquences to your health, this whole
exercise has been even more a waste of time than I already suspected.

And if you are unaware of the increases in heart disease and other
health problems attributed to excessive meat intake, you need to read
a book or two. Now that you've changed your story to say you also eat
lots of vegetables, I'm willing to believe you might have a healthy
diet, but your posts still suggest you don't really know one way or
the other, so we'll just have to hope you get lucky. You might also
read about the many healthy vegans in the world so you can stop making
foolish statements about the vegan diet. I realize, of course, that
you probably won't.

But that's
your business. Eat whatever you want. I have not tried to convince
you otherwise.
That you refuse to see that just means you have a dogmatic response
you want to keep harping on.

I will stop "harping" if you stop attacking me and declaring I'm wrong
without evidence. All I've done is contradict what I perceive to be
mistaken assumptions on your part.
=======================
You're wrong, as usual...

You failed to offer any evidence of that, as usual (understandable in
this case, since how can you prove that what I claim are my
perceptions are not?). Insulting me or dismissing my points (many of
which you simply ignore, I notice--is that because you can't even
think of a trite insult to counter them?) does not a debate make. If
you just want to believe what you want to believe regardless of the
facts, leave the rest of us out of it, please.

Keith

For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:32:41 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:

could not care less what you eat. Have a mad cow burger right now if
you want. But if you want to make a legitimate point, stop trying to
make me look bad and just tell us what you have to say that proves I'm
wrong.
====================
LOL You're doing quite fine on your own making yourself look bad.

Ah, I see. If I provide sources, they're "discredited" without proof.
======================
Really, what sources were those?


If I don't, I'm [insert insult here]. If you fail to provide evidence
for your claims, it's because I'm not worthy of your efforts. Maybe I
am making myself look bad, but I definitely am not the only one.



Not to mention you are still
ignoring the fact that factory farms are raising cattle on grain,
soy
and other feed in intensive operations that bear no resemblance to
the
ranches you see around you in NM. Open your eyes; there's a whole
wide world beyond your narrow little horizon.
========================
No, again you fail to understand. It's your horizon that seems
limited.
There are more places that meat animals can survive than you can grow
your
veggies. I'm talking about small scale meat production. For many
places
it
requires very litttle input in labor, crops, time. Nothing near the
labor,
inputs, and time for crop production.
No argument there. for many others, it is virtually impossible. But
for someone who doesn't have the vast rangeland of NM at their
disposal, it may prove difficult to support many animals without
supplemental feeding.
===============
Neither do I, but it doesn't take 'vast' areas.
It takes more than soybeans.
==================
Not always, that's the point. You seem to not understand that.




If you don't want a more varied diet,
so be it, just don't think you're going to convince everybody else to
eat
crap.
You want to eat one or two (maybe even four or five?) kinds of meat; I
have a vast range of vegetables, fruits, grains and nuts to choose
from. Who's got the more varied diet, really? If vegetables are crap
to you, I pity you--you're missing out.
==================
No stupid, 20 acres of soy is crap. Veggies are fine. I eat far more of
them than meat.
You have again failed to grasp what I've written. I said "vegetables,
such as soy." You said it's crap. Make up your mind.
======================
Soy is crap. Period. It's your example, now you don't like it?


Almost all people do, despite the constant lys and
delusions of vegan loons.
Your calling vegans loons adds nothing of substance to this
"discussion." Even when you do it 50 or 100 times.
========================
It takes nothing away either. The fact that vegans are loons is just truth.

The point is that crop farming is labor
intensive. Not all meat has to be. Supplement your veggies with that
meat
and you save yourself lots of time and effort, and have a more varied
diet.
Besides, unless you just don't wash your hands, where are you going to
get
the supplements you'll need to remain vegan?
We've been over that already. Who are you trying to convince?
====================
Just countering your ignorance about meat.



not to mention setting
yourself up for a host of health problems later in life.
====================
Yes, you will have them if you reamin vegan long enough. Unless of
course,
like I mentioned, you just don't wash your hands.
We've been over that, too. If you really believe you can stop washing
your hands and not suffer consquences to your health, this whole
exercise has been even more a waste of time than I already suspected.
======================
It's the only waty you're going to get your b12. that or don't wash your
veggies. Same thing. It's your health, if you don't like it, fine.


And if you are unaware of the increases in heart disease and other
health problems attributed to excessive meat intake, you need to read
a book or two.
=====================
No, you do. "excessive' is always the mantra of the clueless spewer...


Now that you've changed your story to say you also eat
lots of vegetables,
==================
Hey stupid, most people, even that typical american diet vegans like to rail
about has far more veggies than meat in it. I guess you've just bought into
the lys and delusions too, eh?



I'm willing to believe you might have a healthy
diet, but your posts still suggest you don't really know one way or
the other, so we'll just have to hope you get lucky.
=====================
very healthy. In fact, grass fed beef rates right there with fish in
omega3/6 fats ratio.

You might also
read about the many healthy vegans in the world so you can stop making
foolish statements about the vegan diet. I realize, of course, that
you probably won't.
======================
And they take supplements. Where you going to get those if your are
self-sufficient?



But that's
your business. Eat whatever you want. I have not tried to convince
you otherwise.
That you refuse to see that just means you have a dogmatic response
you want to keep harping on.

I will stop "harping" if you stop attacking me and declaring I'm wrong
without evidence. All I've done is contradict what I perceive to be
mistaken assumptions on your part.
=======================
You're wrong, as usual...

You failed to offer any evidence of that, as usual (understandable in
this case, since how can you prove that what I claim are my
perceptions are not?). Insulting me or dismissing my points (many of
which you simply ignore, I notice--is that because you can't even
think of a trite insult to counter them?) does not a debate make. If
you just want to believe what you want to believe regardless of the
facts, leave the rest of us out of it, please.
========================
LOL You're the one that keeps replying, dolt. Guess you just can't get
enough real info, eh?



Keith

For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please
visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

"rick etter" wrote
You're wrong, as usual...

LOL
There's something wrong with that boys circuit board.

I see you know as much about diet as you do about *ownership* of parks, eh
Rick? LOL

"rick etter" wrote in message
...

"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:32:41 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:

could not care less what you eat. Have a mad cow burger right now if
you want. But if you want to make a legitimate point, stop trying to
make me look bad and just tell us what you have to say that proves
I'm
wrong.
====================
LOL You're doing quite fine on your own making yourself look bad.

Ah, I see. If I provide sources, they're "discredited" without proof.
======================
Really, what sources were those?


If I don't, I'm [insert insult here]. If you fail to provide evidence
for your claims, it's because I'm not worthy of your efforts. Maybe I
am making myself look bad, but I definitely am not the only one.



Not to mention you are still
ignoring the fact that factory farms are raising cattle on grain,
soy
and other feed in intensive operations that bear no resemblance to
the
ranches you see around you in NM. Open your eyes; there's a whole
wide world beyond your narrow little horizon.
========================
No, again you fail to understand. It's your horizon that seems
limited.
There are more places that meat animals can survive than you can
grow
your
veggies. I'm talking about small scale meat production. For many
places
it
requires very litttle input in labor, crops, time. Nothing near the
labor,
inputs, and time for crop production.
No argument there. for many others, it is virtually impossible. But
for someone who doesn't have the vast rangeland of NM at their
disposal, it may prove difficult to support many animals without
supplemental feeding.
===============
Neither do I, but it doesn't take 'vast' areas.
It takes more than soybeans.
==================
Not always, that's the point. You seem to not understand that.




If you don't want a more varied diet,
so be it, just don't think you're going to convince everybody else
to
eat
crap.
You want to eat one or two (maybe even four or five?) kinds of meat;
I
have a vast range of vegetables, fruits, grains and nuts to choose
from. Who's got the more varied diet, really? If vegetables are
crap
to you, I pity you--you're missing out.
==================
No stupid, 20 acres of soy is crap. Veggies are fine. I eat far more
of
them than meat.
You have again failed to grasp what I've written. I said "vegetables,
such as soy." You said it's crap. Make up your mind.
======================
Soy is crap. Period. It's your example, now you don't like it?


Almost all people do, despite the constant lys and
delusions of vegan loons.
Your calling vegans loons adds nothing of substance to this
"discussion." Even when you do it 50 or 100 times.
========================
It takes nothing away either. The fact that vegans are loons is just
truth.

The point is that crop farming is labor
intensive. Not all meat has to be. Supplement your veggies with that
meat
and you save yourself lots of time and effort, and have a more varied
diet.
Besides, unless you just don't wash your hands, where are you going to
get
the supplements you'll need to remain vegan?
We've been over that already. Who are you trying to convince?
====================
Just countering your ignorance about meat.



not to mention setting
yourself up for a host of health problems later in life.
====================
Yes, you will have them if you reamin vegan long enough. Unless of
course,
like I mentioned, you just don't wash your hands.
We've been over that, too. If you really believe you can stop washing
your hands and not suffer consquences to your health, this whole
exercise has been even more a waste of time than I already suspected.
======================
It's the only waty you're going to get your b12. that or don't wash your
veggies. Same thing. It's your health, if you don't like it, fine.


And if you are unaware of the increases in heart disease and other
health problems attributed to excessive meat intake, you need to read
a book or two.
=====================
No, you do. "excessive' is always the mantra of the clueless spewer...


Now that you've changed your story to say you also eat
lots of vegetables,
==================
Hey stupid, most people, even that typical american diet vegans like to
rail
about has far more veggies than meat in it. I guess you've just bought
into
the lys and delusions too, eh?



I'm willing to believe you might have a healthy
diet, but your posts still suggest you don't really know one way or
the other, so we'll just have to hope you get lucky.
=====================
very healthy. In fact, grass fed beef rates right there with fish in
omega3/6 fats ratio.

You might also
read about the many healthy vegans in the world so you can stop making
foolish statements about the vegan diet. I realize, of course, that
you probably won't.
======================
And they take supplements. Where you going to get those if your are
self-sufficient?



But that's
your business. Eat whatever you want. I have not tried to convince
you otherwise.
That you refuse to see that just means you have a dogmatic response
you want to keep harping on.

I will stop "harping" if you stop attacking me and declaring I'm
wrong
without evidence. All I've done is contradict what I perceive to be
mistaken assumptions on your part.
=======================
You're wrong, as usual...

You failed to offer any evidence of that, as usual (understandable in
this case, since how can you prove that what I claim are my
perceptions are not?). Insulting me or dismissing my points (many of
which you simply ignore, I notice--is that because you can't even
think of a trite insult to counter them?) does not a debate make. If
you just want to believe what you want to believe regardless of the
facts, leave the rest of us out of it, please.
========================
LOL You're the one that keeps replying, dolt. Guess you just can't get
enough real info, eh?



Keith

For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please
visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/