Bill wrote:
In article , kT
wrote:

Bill wrote:
In article , kT
wrote:

RichD wrote:
On Jul 30, dejure wrote:
Is it really
superior to petrochemical fertilizer, or is it
guilty conscience liberal feelgoodism?
No, the petrochemical producs are better. They sell better
and the market doesn't lie.
In support of your smile: When farming, we would dump around seven
hundred tons of compost on a single one hundred acre unit. This
reduced our dependence on [incomplete] chemical fertilizers (heck, it
was winter, we had nothing else to do). The biggest "upside" was we
were not growing nutritionally hollow food. People often commented on
the better taste of things grown with compost and mineral
supplements. For example, try a garden fresh tomato with good soil,
then try one from a hot house supplier. The only reason we turned to
chemical (e.g., thousands of gallons of nitrogen pumped through the
irrigations circles) was to survive/compete on the market and, in the
end, the corn looked damn good. Still, just like us humans, plants
are more than just a little nitrogen, potassium, and ....... On a
side note, go look at the soil on many of the farms. It's dead.
FungiCIDES, pestiCIDES and so forth kill everything. Everything works
together, but we have a better way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/sc...v.html?_r=1&em

"If everyone switched to organic farming, we couldn't
support the earth's current population - maybe half."
Tough shit for the mammals, breeding uncontrollably.
Other side of the coin.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/200/story/49121.html
I guess you missed the class in elementary school where they explained
to you that Hispanics are not the only mammals in the world, and the
United States of America is only a small fraction of the planet Earth.

Ya and i guess you did not read the whole article. Industrial a key
word.

I did read it. All I saw was a continuous phasing of US and Hispanic,
which in no way related to mammals and the entire world.

The United States isn't the entire world. You are glued to the surface
of the planet by the immense force of gravity, with a whole lot of other
mammals of different colors, stripes and fur. You'll get used to it.

In article , Jangchub
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:02:11 -0700 (PDT), RichD
wrote:

On Jul 30, dejure wrote:
Is it really
superior to petrochemical fertilizer, or is it
guilty conscience liberal feelgoodism?

No, the petrochemical producs are better. They sell better
and the market doesn't lie.

In support of your smile: *When farming, we would dump around seven
hundred tons of compost on a single one hundred acre unit. *This
reduced our dependence on [incomplete] chemical fertilizers (heck, it
was winter, we had nothing else to do). *The biggest "upside" was we
were not growing nutritionally hollow food. *People often commented on
the better taste of things grown with compost and mineral
supplements. *For example, try a garden fresh tomato with good soil,
then try one from a hot house supplier. *The only reason we turned to
chemical (e.g., thousands of gallons of nitrogen pumped through the
irrigations circles) was to survive/compete on the market and, in the
end, the corn looked damn good. *Still, just like us humans, plants
are more than just a little nitrogen, potassium, and ....... *On a
side note, go look at the soil on many of the farms. It's dead.
FungiCIDES, pestiCIDES and so forth kill everything. *Everything works
together, but we have a better way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/sc...v.html?_r=1&em

"If everyone switched to organic farming, we couldn't
support the earth's current population - maybe half."

What do you base this on? Don't you think drought, overpopulation,
weather related crop failures and ignorance about how to farm to
produce foods as being harder to come by?


It was a politically motivated false statement that places like Monsanto
propogandize. In reality "modern" methods are directly responsible for a
lot of starvation & loss of once-farmable land.

A University of Michigan study (outcomes published by Ivette Perfecto &
Catherine Badgley) established that organic farming in developed countries
produced yields equal to those of non-organic conventional agricultural
methods. But more importantly they established that in developing or third
world countries, organic farming can result in double or triple crop
yields. One of the key discoveries was that a single "green manure" cover
crop between crops produces enough nitrogen to equal synthetic
fertilizers; organic methods preserve soil, conventional methods deplete
soil so that increasingly expensive fixes are required.

Professor Perfecto said, "My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the
coffin of the idea that you can¹t produce enough food through organic
agriculture." But the propoganda of industrialists is hard to counter with
mere scientific facts. "Corporate interest in agriculture and the way
agriculture research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a
lot of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as well
as fertilizer companies‹all have been playing an important role in
convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to produce food."


The reality, as Professor P. notes, is that the whole idea that half the
world would starve if organic principles were universal, is plainly
"ridiculous."

-paghat the ratgirl
--
visit my temperate gardening website:
http://www.paghat.com
visit my film reviews website:
http://www.weirdwildrealm.com

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:13:51 -0500, kT wrote:

RichD wrote:
On Jul 30, dejure wrote:
Is it really
superior to petrochemical fertilizer, or is it
guilty conscience liberal feelgoodism?
No, the petrochemical producs are better. They sell better
and the market doesn't lie.
In support of your smile: When farming, we would dump around seven
hundred tons of compost on a single one hundred acre unit. This
reduced our dependence on [incomplete] chemical fertilizers (heck, it
was winter, we had nothing else to do). The biggest "upside" was we
were not growing nutritionally hollow food. People often commented on
the better taste of things grown with compost and mineral
supplements. For example, try a garden fresh tomato with good soil,
then try one from a hot house supplier. The only reason we turned to
chemical (e.g., thousands of gallons of nitrogen pumped through the
irrigations circles) was to survive/compete on the market and, in the
end, the corn looked damn good. Still, just like us humans, plants
are more than just a little nitrogen, potassium, and ....... On a
side note, go look at the soil on many of the farms. It's dead.
FungiCIDES, pestiCIDES and so forth kill everything. Everything works
together, but we have a better way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/sc...v.html?_r=1&em

"If everyone switched to organic farming, we couldn't
support the earth's current population - maybe half."

Tough shit for the mammals, breeding uncontrollably.

Until one of the preditors gets hungry enough and comes looking for
long pig and you happen to be available.

Gunner

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those
who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality",
John F. Kennedy.

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:13:51 -0500, kT wrote:

RichD wrote:
On Jul 30, dejure wrote:
Is it really
superior to petrochemical fertilizer, or is it
guilty conscience liberal feelgoodism?
No, the petrochemical producs are better. They sell better
and the market doesn't lie.
In support of your smile: When farming, we would dump around seven
hundred tons of compost on a single one hundred acre unit. This
reduced our dependence on [incomplete] chemical fertilizers (heck, it
was winter, we had nothing else to do). The biggest "upside" was we
were not growing nutritionally hollow food. People often commented on
the better taste of things grown with compost and mineral
supplements. For example, try a garden fresh tomato with good soil,
then try one from a hot house supplier. The only reason we turned to
chemical (e.g., thousands of gallons of nitrogen pumped through the
irrigations circles) was to survive/compete on the market and, in the
end, the corn looked damn good. Still, just like us humans, plants
are more than just a little nitrogen, potassium, and ....... On a
side note, go look at the soil on many of the farms. It's dead.
FungiCIDES, pestiCIDES and so forth kill everything. Everything works
together, but we have a better way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/sc...v.html?_r=1&em

"If everyone switched to organic farming, we couldn't
support the earth's current population - maybe half."
Tough shit for the mammals, breeding uncontrollably.

Until one of the preditors gets hungry enough and comes looking for
long pig and you happen to be available.

A predator that doesn't know how to spell, apparently.

Get yourself an education, become a vegetarian!

Humans taste terrible, trust me.

In article , kT
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:13:51 -0500, kT wrote:

RichD wrote:
On Jul 30, dejure wrote:
Is it really
superior to petrochemical fertilizer, or is it
guilty conscience liberal feelgoodism?
No, the petrochemical producs are better. They sell better
and the market doesn't lie.
In support of your smile: When farming, we would dump around seven
hundred tons of compost on a single one hundred acre unit. This
reduced our dependence on [incomplete] chemical fertilizers (heck, it
was winter, we had nothing else to do). The biggest "upside" was we
were not growing nutritionally hollow food. People often commented on
the better taste of things grown with compost and mineral
supplements. For example, try a garden fresh tomato with good soil,
then try one from a hot house supplier. The only reason we turned to
chemical (e.g., thousands of gallons of nitrogen pumped through the
irrigations circles) was to survive/compete on the market and, in the
end, the corn looked damn good. Still, just like us humans, plants
are more than just a little nitrogen, potassium, and ....... On a
side note, go look at the soil on many of the farms. It's dead.
FungiCIDES, pestiCIDES and so forth kill everything. Everything works
together, but we have a better way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/sc...v.html?_r=1&em

"If everyone switched to organic farming, we couldn't
support the earth's current population - maybe half."
Tough shit for the mammals, breeding uncontrollably.

Until one of the preditors gets hungry enough and comes looking for
long pig and you happen to be available.

A predator that doesn't know how to spell, apparently.

Get yourself an education, become a vegetarian!

Humans taste terrible, trust me.

Off by one letter and you are lost in particulars never mind the
intent. Just find fault a sign of a small mind.

Your posts contribute no thing.

Bill who doesn¹t have to be nice.

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

In article , kT wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:13:51 -0500, kT wrote:

RichD wrote:
On Jul 30, dejure wrote:
Is it really
superior to petrochemical fertilizer, or is it
guilty conscience liberal feelgoodism?
No, the petrochemical producs are better. They sell better
and the market doesn't lie.
In support of your smile: When farming, we would dump around seven
hundred tons of compost on a single one hundred acre unit. This
reduced our dependence on [incomplete] chemical fertilizers (heck, it
was winter, we had nothing else to do). The biggest "upside" was we
were not growing nutritionally hollow food. People often commented on
the better taste of things grown with compost and mineral
supplements. For example, try a garden fresh tomato with good soil,
then try one from a hot house supplier. The only reason we turned to
chemical (e.g., thousands of gallons of nitrogen pumped through the
irrigations circles) was to survive/compete on the market and, in the
end, the corn looked damn good. Still, just like us humans, plants
are more than just a little nitrogen, potassium, and ....... On a
side note, go look at the soil on many of the farms. It's dead.
FungiCIDES, pestiCIDES and so forth kill everything. Everything works
together, but we have a better way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/sc...v.html?_r=1&em

"If everyone switched to organic farming, we couldn't
support the earth's current population - maybe half."
Tough shit for the mammals, breeding uncontrollably.

Until one of the preditors gets hungry enough and comes looking for
long pig and you happen to be available.

A predator that doesn't know how to spell, apparently.

"Who can spell, can't write" -Mark Twain
--
visit my temperate gardening website:
http://www.paghat.com
visit my film reviews website:
http://www.weirdwildrealm.com

In article
,
RichD wrote:

On Jul 30, dejure wrote:
Is it really
superior to petrochemical fertilizer, or is it
guilty conscience liberal feelgoodism?

No, the petrochemical producs are better. They sell better
and the market doesn't lie.

In support of your smile: *When farming, we would dump around seven
hundred tons of compost on a single one hundred acre unit. *This
reduced our dependence on [incomplete] chemical fertilizers (heck, it
was winter, we had nothing else to do). *The biggest "upside" was we
were not growing nutritionally hollow food. *People often commented on
the better taste of things grown with compost and mineral
supplements. *For example, try a garden fresh tomato with good soil,
then try one from a hot house supplier. *The only reason we turned to
chemical (e.g., thousands of gallons of nitrogen pumped through the
irrigations circles) was to survive/compete on the market and, in the
end, the corn looked damn good. *Still, just like us humans, plants
are more than just a little nitrogen, potassium, and ....... *On a
side note, go look at the soil on many of the farms. It's dead.
FungiCIDES, pestiCIDES and so forth kill everything. *Everything works
together, but we have a better way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/sc...v.html?_r=1&em

"If everyone switched to organic farming, we couldn't
support the earth's current population - maybe half."

--
Rich

Nina V. Fedoroff' job is to support her boss, Condi "The Butcher" Rice.
She isn't going to say we could fix the food problem when the
administration won't. GMO crops don't produce more food. Large harvests
were possible with chemical fertilizers but as the top soil is destroyed
by them, more and more chem ferts need to be added to maintain
productivity. Organic farming from what I've been able to find can
produce more food per acre with mixed crops than chemical farming can
producing monocultures. Chem ferts and pesticides are killing the
fertility of our soils, polluting the environment, and they are made
from oil. We are already producing a third more grain crops than we
need and as a result, food processors spend billion$ every year to get
you to eat empty calories, usually with the hot buzz nutrient of the day
added.

Eat local as much as you can because it is fresher and is better for the
environment. Pesticides reduce bioflavonoids. Chem ferts attract insects
and reduce yields, whereas crop rotation doesn't let a pest get
established.

Michael Pollan is a very readable way to get started but there are many,
many authors that have knowledge of this subject. Unfortunately I
haven't the time to respond more fully but I shall try to add to this
response this week-end.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009916.html

Bill wrote:
In article , kT
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:13:51 -0500, kT wrote:

RichD wrote:
On Jul 30, dejure wrote:
Is it really
superior to petrochemical fertilizer, or is it
guilty conscience liberal feelgoodism?
No, the petrochemical producs are better. They sell better
and the market doesn't lie.
In support of your smile: When farming, we would dump around seven
hundred tons of compost on a single one hundred acre unit. This
reduced our dependence on [incomplete] chemical fertilizers (heck, it
was winter, we had nothing else to do). The biggest "upside" was we
were not growing nutritionally hollow food. People often commented on
the better taste of things grown with compost and mineral
supplements. For example, try a garden fresh tomato with good soil,
then try one from a hot house supplier. The only reason we turned to
chemical (e.g., thousands of gallons of nitrogen pumped through the
irrigations circles) was to survive/compete on the market and, in the
end, the corn looked damn good. Still, just like us humans, plants
are more than just a little nitrogen, potassium, and ....... On a
side note, go look at the soil on many of the farms. It's dead.
FungiCIDES, pestiCIDES and so forth kill everything. Everything works
together, but we have a better way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/sc...v.html?_r=1&em

"If everyone switched to organic farming, we couldn't
support the earth's current population - maybe half."
Tough shit for the mammals, breeding uncontrollably.
Until one of the preditors gets hungry enough and comes looking for
long pig and you happen to be available.
A predator that doesn't know how to spell, apparently.

Get yourself an education, become a vegetarian!

Humans taste terrible, trust me.

Off by one letter and you are lost in particulars never mind the
intent. Just find fault a sign of a small mind.

Your posts contribute no thing.

Bill who doesn¹t have to be nice.

There isn't much to contributer here, most of us are literate, competent
and capable of doing our own research, and taking care of our own needs.
What is happening on this planet is fairly straightforward from a purely
scientific perspective, you can spin it any which way you want, but that
won't change a damn thing. We're just along for the ride, that's all.

You are the one who is freaking over the compost thing, or lack thereof.

Compost is the simplest of your problems, and the easiest to deal with.

Nature has provided you with opportunities on this planet, if you choose
to screw it up because of ignorance, greed or lust, it's your problem.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:36:31 -0500, kT wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:13:51 -0500, kT wrote:

RichD wrote:
On Jul 30, dejure wrote:
Is it really
superior to petrochemical fertilizer, or is it
guilty conscience liberal feelgoodism?
No, the petrochemical producs are better. They sell better
and the market doesn't lie.
In support of your smile: When farming, we would dump around seven
hundred tons of compost on a single one hundred acre unit. This
reduced our dependence on [incomplete] chemical fertilizers (heck, it
was winter, we had nothing else to do). The biggest "upside" was we
were not growing nutritionally hollow food. People often commented on
the better taste of things grown with compost and mineral
supplements. For example, try a garden fresh tomato with good soil,
then try one from a hot house supplier. The only reason we turned to
chemical (e.g., thousands of gallons of nitrogen pumped through the
irrigations circles) was to survive/compete on the market and, in the
end, the corn looked damn good. Still, just like us humans, plants
are more than just a little nitrogen, potassium, and ....... On a
side note, go look at the soil on many of the farms. It's dead.
FungiCIDES, pestiCIDES and so forth kill everything. Everything works
together, but we have a better way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/sc...v.html?_r=1&em

"If everyone switched to organic farming, we couldn't
support the earth's current population - maybe half."
Tough shit for the mammals, breeding uncontrollably.

Until one of the preditors gets hungry enough and comes looking for
long pig and you happen to be available.

A predator that doesn't know how to spell, apparently.

Spelling flames, the last resort of the utter buffoon.

Get yourself an education, become a vegetarian!

Why would I want to change the course of 100 million years of
evolution?
Im an omnivore, and nature has so equipped me for that.

Vegitarianism is simply a belief system that runs counter to biologica
imperatives. Its most akin to religion...and in fact, can be a cult.

Humans taste terrible, trust me.

Why would I want to trust a cult member?

Gunner

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those
who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality",
John F. Kennedy.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:39:52 -0700,
(paghat) wrote:


Until one of the preditors gets hungry enough and comes looking for
long pig and you happen to be available.

A predator that doesn't know how to spell, apparently.

"Who can spell, can't write" -Mark Twain

"I respect a man who knows how to spell a word more than one way" -
Mark Twain
--
Mark Twain on SPELLING

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling
words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes
alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing. I have a
correspondent whose letters are always a refreshment to me, there is
such a breezy unfettered originality about his orthography. He always
spells Kow with a large K. Now that is just as good as to spell it
with a small one. It is better. It gives the imagination a broader
field, a wider scope. It suggests to the mind a grand, vague,
impressive new kind of a cow.
- speech at a spelling match, Hartford, Connecticut, May 12, 1875.
Reported in the Hartford Courant, May 13, 1875

Why, there isn't a man who doesn't have to throw out about fifteen
hundred words a day when he writes his letters because he can't spell
them! It's like trying to do a St. Vitus dance with wooden legs.
- The Alphabet and Simplified Spelling speech, December 9, 1907

....simplified spelling is all right, but, like chastity, you can carry
it too far.
- The Alphabet and Simplified Spelling speech, December 9, 1907

I have had an aversion to good spelling for sixty years and more,
merely for the reason that when I was a boy there was not a thing I
could do creditably except spell according to the book. It was a poor
and mean distinction and I early learned to disenjoy it. I suppose
that this is because the ability to spell correctly is a talent, not
an acquirement. There is some dignity about an acquirement, because it
is a product of your own labor. It is wages earned, whereas to be able
to do a thing merely by the grace of God and not by your own effort
transfers the distinction to our heavenly home--where possibly it is a
matter of pride and satisfaction but it leaves you naked and bankrupt.
- Mark Twain's Autobiography

I never had any large respect for good spelling. That is my feeling
yet. Before the spelling-book came with its arbitrary forms, men
unconsciously revealed shades of their characters and also added
enlightening shades of expression to what they wrote by their
spelling, and so it is possible that the spelling-book has been a
doubtful benevolence to us.
- Mark Twain's Autobiography

....ours is a mongrel language which started with a child's vocabulary
of three hundred words, and now consists of two hundred and
twenty-five thousand; the whole lot, with the exception of the
original and legitimate three hundred, borrowed, stolen, smouched from
every unwatched language under the sun, the spelling of each
individual word of the lot locating the source of the theft and
preserving the memory of the revered crime.
- Mark Twain's Autobiography


Point, set and match, buffoon.


Gunner

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those
who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality",
John F. Kennedy.

In article , Billy wrote:
In article
,
RichD wrote:
On Jul 30, dejure wrote:
Is it really
superior to petrochemical fertilizer, or is it
guilty conscience liberal feelgoodism?

No, the petrochemical producs are better. They sell better
and the market doesn't lie.

In support of your smile: *When farming, we would dump around seven
hundred tons of compost on a single one hundred acre unit. *This
reduced our dependence on [incomplete] chemical fertilizers (heck, it
was winter, we had nothing else to do). *The biggest "upside" was we
were not growing nutritionally hollow food. *People often commented on
the better taste of things grown with compost and mineral
supplements. *For example, try a garden fresh tomato with good soil,
then try one from a hot house supplier. *The only reason we turned to
chemical (e.g., thousands of gallons of nitrogen pumped through the
irrigations circles) was to survive/compete on the market and, in the
end, the corn looked damn good. *Still, just like us humans, plants
are more than just a little nitrogen, potassium, and ....... *On a
side note, go look at the soil on many of the farms. It's dead.
FungiCIDES, pestiCIDES and so forth kill everything. *Everything works
together, but we have a better way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/sc...v.html?_r=1&em

"If everyone switched to organic farming, we couldn't
support the earth's current population - maybe half."

Nina V. Fedoroff' job is to support her boss, Condi "The Butcher" Rice.
She isn't going to say we could fix the food problem when the
administration won't. GMO crops don't produce more food. Large harvests
were possible with chemical fertilizers but as the top soil is destroyed
by them, more and more chem ferts need to be added to maintain
productivity. Organic farming from what I've been able to find can
produce more food per acre with mixed crops than chemical farming can
producing monocultures. Chem ferts and pesticides are killing the
fertility of our soils, polluting the environment, and they are made
from oil. We are already producing a third more grain crops than we
need and as a result, food processors spend billion$ every year to get
you to eat empty calories, usually with the hot buzz nutrient of the day
added.

We don't actually have a lack of resources ... we have too many people. This
will sort itself out one way or the other. The question here is not ...
'will the earth survive ?' It will. It has survived catastrophes before.
The real question is, how many people will be left once it has come to a new
equilibrium ?

As to feeding the world ... we ccould now ... if we want to. We don't ...
poor people don't have enough money to pay for it.

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:36:31 -0500, kT wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:13:51 -0500, kT wrote:

RichD wrote:
On Jul 30, dejure wrote:
Is it really
superior to petrochemical fertilizer, or is it
guilty conscience liberal feelgoodism?
No, the petrochemical producs are better. They sell better
and the market doesn't lie.
In support of your smile: When farming, we would dump around seven
hundred tons of compost on a single one hundred acre unit. This
reduced our dependence on [incomplete] chemical fertilizers (heck, it
was winter, we had nothing else to do). The biggest "upside" was we
were not growing nutritionally hollow food. People often commented on
the better taste of things grown with compost and mineral
supplements. For example, try a garden fresh tomato with good soil,
then try one from a hot house supplier. The only reason we turned to
chemical (e.g., thousands of gallons of nitrogen pumped through the
irrigations circles) was to survive/compete on the market and, in the
end, the corn looked damn good. Still, just like us humans, plants
are more than just a little nitrogen, potassium, and ....... On a
side note, go look at the soil on many of the farms. It's dead.
FungiCIDES, pestiCIDES and so forth kill everything. Everything works
together, but we have a better way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/sc...v.html?_r=1&em

"If everyone switched to organic farming, we couldn't
support the earth's current population - maybe half."
Tough shit for the mammals, breeding uncontrollably.
Until one of the preditors gets hungry enough and comes looking for
long pig and you happen to be available.
A predator that doesn't know how to spell, apparently.

Spelling flames, the last resort of the utter buffoon.
Get yourself an education, become a vegetarian!

Why would I want to change the course of 100 million years of
evolution?
Im an omnivore, and nature has so equipped me for that.

Ok, but what happens when all those humans consume all those mammals and
birds, are you prepared for that inevitability? Or do you just intend to
die first? Seriously, you must have some idea of what 10 billion human
blood sucking zombies in tattered clothing wandering around in the woods
is gonna do for the mammal and tree population, do you not?

Vegitarianism is simply a belief system that runs counter to biologica
imperatives. Its most akin to religion...and in fact, can be a cult.

It's better than crawling around on your hands and knees eating grass.

Trust me on that.

Humans taste terrible, trust me.

Why would I want to trust a cult member?

Because I've been there. I survived. I know.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:20:07 -0700, Billy
wrote:

support her boss, Condi "The Butcher" Rice.


Racist bigot ****tard alert!


The hottest places in hell are reserved for those
who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality",
John F. Kennedy.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:20:11 -0500, Jangchub
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:02:46 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


Why would I want to change the course of 100 million years of
evolution?
Im an omnivore, and nature has so equipped me for that.

Vegitarianism is simply a belief system that runs counter to biologica
imperatives. Its most akin to religion...and in fact, can be a cult.

Why would I want to trust a cult member?

Gunner

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those
who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality",
John F. Kennedy.

YOU are an omnivore. I am a vegetarian. What does it have to do with
a cult? I would never try to sell it to you, I've never held my
husband hostage by not cooking an occasional steak for him, etc. Why
does it have to be associated with religion? Can't a vegetarian be so
because they don't want to eat animal flesh? What's wrong with that?


You are an omnivore. YOU have chosen to follow a belief system and
try to deny your biological status.

For whatever reason you have decided that evolution was wrong, and you
are using some personal belief system about animal flesh to live by.

The religious aspect you are subject to..was quite clear in the
comment about being a vegan and becoming intelligent, implying that
anyone who does not follow your personal belief system is stupid.

Oddly enough..thats the common thread that runs through most
religions. You feel that you are superior to any that dont follow your
bleeves...just as any radical fundy does.

Hence your "religious" bigotry is noted with vast amusment at you
putting yourself on a pedistal over most others. Vast amusement.

Its a given that you belong to the Cult of Veganism, despite your
claims of not being a missionary about it. Its bad enough that you are
an elitiist, no different than any fanatical fundy.

Its rather pathetic that you obviously consider your husband to be
stupid.

I wonder if he is aware of the depths of your contempt for him?

Gunner

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those
who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality",
John F. Kennedy.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:10:40 -0500, kT wrote:


Spelling flames, the last resort of the utter buffoon.
Get yourself an education, become a vegetarian!

Why would I want to change the course of 100 million years of
evolution?
Im an omnivore, and nature has so equipped me for that.

Ok, but what happens when all those humans consume all those mammals and
birds, are you prepared for that inevitability? Or do you just intend to
die first? Seriously, you must have some idea of what 10 billion human
blood sucking zombies in tattered clothing wandering around in the woods
is gonna do for the mammal and tree population, do you not?

Of course. They are gonna starve after they have eaten everything
edible, both animal and vegitable.

What are YOU going to do when the crops fail?

Vegitarianism is simply a belief system that runs counter to biologica
imperatives. Its most akin to religion...and in fact, can be a cult.

It's better than crawling around on your hands and knees eating grass.

So is being beaten within an inch of your life, over being shot in the
head point blank range.

And?

Trust me on that.

Humans taste terrible, trust me.

Why would I want to trust a cult member?

Because I've been there. I survived. I know.\

You havent answered the question. Because you claim to have survived a
cult..this makes you somehow credible?

Gunner


The hottest places in hell are reserved for those
who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality",
John F. Kennedy.