On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:24:49 GMT, Greylock wrote:


I went back through 3000 posts and read your other contributions to this
group under this name.

You have nothing to say that I care to listen to.

The rest deleted unseen and this name killfiled.


AC

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:41:55 +1100, Fran wrote:


"Alan Connor" wrote in message

I know you want to believe that you will be able to go on living much as
you
do after TEOTWAWKI, but that just isn't going to happen.
(snip)
Food -- (snip)
An addiction to animal foods will probably do you in faster than anything
else.

It is just too much work and there will be too many people competing for
what animals there are.


You need to get out into rural surroundings more often



The RATIO of people to large game or domestic animals across the continent
is the important figure here.

Obviously, most of the animals are in rural areas.

And when any one of those areas is flooded with refugees from the cities large
and small, you will see what I am getting at in short order.

It will probably be the last thing you see on Earth.



AC

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:24:49 GMT, Greylock wrote:


I went back through 3000 posts and read your other contributions to this
group under this name.

You have nothing to say that I care to listen to.

The rest deleted unseen and this name killfiled.


AC

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:41:55 +1100, Fran wrote:


"Alan Connor" wrote in message

I know you want to believe that you will be able to go on living much as
you
do after TEOTWAWKI, but that just isn't going to happen.
(snip)
Food -- (snip)
An addiction to animal foods will probably do you in faster than anything
else.

It is just too much work and there will be too many people competing for
what animals there are.


You need to get out into rural surroundings more often



The RATIO of people to large game or domestic animals across the continent
is the important figure here.

Obviously, most of the animals are in rural areas.

And when any one of those areas is flooded with refugees from the cities large
and small, you will see what I am getting at in short order.

It will probably be the last thing you see on Earth.



AC

Alan Connor wrote:


We can digest parched grass SEEDS, though, commonly known as "grain",

Seeds & plants are two different classes of edibles.

and
the roots are not only nutritious and tasty,

Some are nutritious, some are not, some are toxic, and none are "tasty"
other than plants such as beets, carrots, yams, etc. which are developed
for their roots or other underground edible parts; in a goodly number of
these cases the above-ground portion of the plant is toxic,
non-digestible, and often a combination of the two.

but contain essential B vitamins.

(this is where B12 comes from:

So we short-circuit the agricultural world & eat just nitrogen-fixing
bacteria as a source of B-vitamins? Not apt to catch on.

Soil bacteria that are found in Nature around
and on the roots of grass, NOT from cows or deer, except indirectly.)

But it's in a readily digestible form for carnivores & omnivores. And
cooked meat, for at least 100,000 years, TASTES GOOD.


grain=protein

We can also chew the grass stems and leaves obtaining sustenance without
swallowing all that cellulose,

Miniscule quantities at best

and cooking releases even more.

Cooking breaks down the cell structure; digestive processes do also -
for some materials.


(A downed American airmen in the Balkans survived a grueling cross-country
escape from enemy-held territory by chewing on grass...)

Hardly what one would call a subsistence diet. Shipwreck survivors have
made do with boots & belts but no sane person would suggest such a diet
other than in extremis.


I'd be willing to bet that some simple treatment with vinegar or perhaps
a weak lye solution would make the entire plant digestible. Worth looking
into....

Did you ever take chemistry in high school? This suggestion seems far
more like wishful thinking than nutrition.


But then, there are approximately 1800 known wild edible plants in the U.S.,
so why bother with anything but the seeds and roots of grass?

See your doctor. Soon.

It's the seeds the Bears go after...

Bears are omnivores. Although they eat acorns, beechnuts, hazlenuts,
they prefer berries, which are not simple seeds, because they're easy to
gather & a variety come into season one species after another giving the
bears a moderately continuous food supply. But they also eat ants,
beetles, sow bugs & other insects found in stumps & rotting timber. They
will also eat birds, eggs, fish, reptiles, small mammals & their own
young. And bears are great for cleaning up carrion that the
ravens/vultures can be scared away from.

(that's what they use to stoke up for
winter: grass seeds. Which is one of the reasons Cattle grazing on public
lands is so hard on the Bears.)

16# of grain to produce 1# of meat, and that pound of meat will have one
heck of a lot less protein in a form that is much harder for the Human
body to digest.

The human digestive tract is designed to handle both vegetable and meat.
So long as it's presented with a generalized mixture of the two, the
only conflict is in the minds of those who think they know more than
Mother Nature.


Then there's all that work and water that meat requires.

So you go on an all-vegetable diet (without work? if you patent that,
your fortune's made no matter what you eat) and if you don't drink water
your experiment will end rather quickly. Humans are not kangaroo rats
that can get all their liquid requirements from their food items.

About the only thing in your post I can agree with is that the world
contains food. Your notions about what can/should be eaten need serious
& deep examination.

Pete H

--
When eating an elephant
take one bite at a time.
C. Abrams

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:51:37 -0500, Peter H wrote:


Alan Connor wrote:


We can digest parched grass SEEDS, though, commonly known as "grain",

Seeds & plants are two different classes of edibles.

and
the roots are not only nutritious and tasty,

Some are nutritious, some are not, some are toxic, and none are "tasty"
other than plants such as beets, carrots, yams, etc. which are developed
for their roots or other underground edible parts; in a goodly number of
these cases the above-ground portion of the plant is toxic,
non-digestible, and often a combination of the two.


None of the grasses in our locale are like that.

None that we've tried, anyway, and grasses commonly grow in rather large
and obvious patches.

So we need to deal with this before proceeding.

EXACTLY which wild grasses found commonly in North America have poisonous
roots and above-ground parts.

We ARE talking about GRASSES here, and not the other 1800+ species of
wild edible plants found in the U.S. Survival situations.

As for "tasty", that is a purely subjective affair, and no one but a fool
would claim to speak for all of humanity on such matters. The method of
preparation is often the determining factor, obviously.

The rest deleted unseen.

Time to backup your claims above with some real data.


AC

Alan Connor wrote:

None of the grasses in our locale are like that.




I overspoke to the extent of broadening 'grasses' to vegetation in
general. In northern Maine, very little of the vegetation is true
grasses. Much of what ordinary folk would call grass is sedge instead.
Some of their fruiting bodies (seeds) do funny/harmful things to human
innnards. Along with offering a very dull manner of starvation by
malnutrition.

Pete H

--
When eating an elephant
take one bite at a time.
C. Abrams

Fine by me, but your record indicates you're or either lying or
incompetent, because your "killfile" doesn't seem to be very
effective.


On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:28:36 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:24:49 GMT, Greylock wrote:


I went back through 3000 posts and read your other contributions to this
group under this name.

You have nothing to say that I care to listen to.

The rest deleted unseen and this name killfiled.


AC

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:40:13 -0500, Peter H wrote:


Alan Connor wrote:

None of the grasses in our locale are like that.




I overspoke to the extent of broadening 'grasses' to vegetation in
general. In northern Maine, very little of the vegetation is true
grasses. Much of what ordinary folk would call grass is sedge instead.
Some of their fruiting bodies (seeds) do funny/harmful things to human
innnards. Along with offering a very dull manner of starvation by
malnutrition.

Pete H


Okay. But the roots of SOME sedges are listed in various books on wild
edible plants of North America as edible and "nutty in flavor".

I don't keep up with these plants, there being few marshes in the area,
but DO remembering reading that in more than one book.

The seeds could very well be poisonous, but sedges have no joints in the
stem and are thus very easy to distinguish from grasses.

As for your last statement about "malnutrition", it just doesn't make any
sense to me at all.

I have never even HEARD of a person practicing an herbivorous diet-style
that limited themselves to only one plant.

Who would do that when there are THOUSANDS available, which is considerably
more than the selection to be found in the average market.

You sound like an animal-product addict that is trying to convince yourself
and others that people can't be healthy and have tasty food if they eat only
plants, which is just nonsense.

I REALLY recommend checking out madcowboy.com and the various studies and
links found there.

Particularly the China Project of Dr. T. Colin Campbell


AC

--
When eating an elephant
take one bite at a time.
C. Abrams



--
Don't eat elephants. They are an endangered species.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:55:32 -0500, Peter H wrote:


Alan Connor wrote:

You sound like an animal-product addict that is trying to convince

Actually, I eat *everything* to the chagrin of my waistline - 38 &
should be 35. Don't dislike vegetable material at all - some of my best
friends are turnips & peas, not to mention fiddlehead greens & spinach
tossed w/ mushrooms, oil & garlic. I just think those who rabidly try to
remove the cow from the grass-cow-omnivore chain are fooling themselves
& missing out on some nutritious eating.

Pete H

--
When eating an elephant
take one bite at a time.
C. Abrams



The above being a statement that only an animal-food addict would make.

I rest my case :-)

I know a LOT of 'vegans' who have been herbivores for decades, and I'll
bet we are a LOT healthier as a group than you and your animal-food addict
friends.

The last time I went to a doctor was about 1973, and I don't take any
non-recreational drugs EVER.

We are 'vegans' because it is a lot less work and a lot easier on the
environment. The personal health aspect is just a nice bonus.

You didn't go to madcowboy.com, did you?

Wouldn't want to read any science from people not in the pockets of animal-
food addicts, I guess....

I wouldn't tell anyone that a person couldn't be healthy eating just animal
products, so why do you feel the need to tell people that they can't be
healthy eating just plants?

Our teeth and digestive tracts bear a much greater resemblence to those of
herbivores than those of carnivores, so I would actually be able to make a
better case for that falsehood than you for yours....



AC

"Alan Connor" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:55:32 -0500, Peter H wrote:


Alan Connor wrote:

You sound like an animal-product addict that is trying to convince

Actually, I eat *everything* to the chagrin of my waistline - 38 &
should be 35. Don't dislike vegetable material at all - some of my best
friends are turnips & peas, not to mention fiddlehead greens & spinach
tossed w/ mushrooms, oil & garlic. I just think those who rabidly try to
remove the cow from the grass-cow-omnivore chain are fooling themselves
& missing out on some nutritious eating.

Pete H

--
When eating an elephant
take one bite at a time.
C. Abrams



The above being a statement that only an animal-food addict would make.

I rest my case :-)

I know a LOT of 'vegans' who have been herbivores for decades, and I'll
bet we are a LOT healthier as a group than you and your animal-food addict
friends.

The last time I went to a doctor was about 1973, and I don't take any
non-recreational drugs EVER.
=====================
Well that explains your terminal ignorance, you've recreated away all but
about 2 braincells..



We are 'vegans' because it is a lot less work and a lot easier on the
environment.
=======================
LIAR...


Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and
pesticides. Animals die.
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...feFactSheet.pd
f
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/


http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm




http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm



Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/


To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html


To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html





The personal health aspect is just a nice bonus.

You didn't go to madcowboy.com, did you?

Wouldn't want to read any science from people not in the pockets of
animal-
food addicts, I guess....

I wouldn't tell anyone that a person couldn't be healthy eating just
animal
products, so why do you feel the need to tell people that they can't be
healthy eating just plants?

Our teeth and digestive tracts bear a much greater resemblence to those of
herbivores than those of carnivores, so I would actually be able to make a
better case for that falsehood than you for yours....



AC

Alan Connor wrote:

-
When eating an elephant
take one bite at a time.
C. Abrams





The above being a statement that only an animal-food addict would make.




The "above statement" is one of a set of 45-50 tag lines that get
changed every week or so; just happens to be up this week. It's a quote
from (then General) Clayton Abrams, upon being asked to describe his
technique for dealing with a massive problem such as the Viet-Cong in
Viet Nam. Thus the "animal" you thought you found in the "above
statement" is only a metaphor and has neither tusks nor substance. The
conincidence of the statement's showing up just during the time when I
happend to respond to a thread concerning food items is so tenuous that
trying to draw any conclusions, such as you seem to have done, is
roughly akin to eating soup with a fork.

Pete H

--
When eating an elephant
take one bite at a time.
C. Abrams

rick etter wrote:



A valiant effort, but trying to take the first step of offering a
variety of sources to such a discussion is bound to result in refusal,
nay, denial. Rather like teaching Mikey how to ride a bicycle.

Pete H

P.s., I'm due to change my tag line any day now & who knows what will
come out. Mebbe fish. Mebbe thin air.

--
When eating an elephant
take one bite at a time.
C. Abrams

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:05:58 -0500, Peter H wrote:


Alan Connor wrote:

-
When eating an elephant
take one bite at a time.
C. Abrams





The above being a statement that only an animal-food addict would make.




The "above statement" is one of a set of 45-50 tag lines that get
changed every week or so; just happens to be up this week. It's a quote
from (then General) Clayton Abrams, upon being asked to describe his
technique for dealing with a massive problem such as the Viet-Cong in
Viet Nam. Thus the "animal" you thought you found in the "above
statement" is only a metaphor and has neither tusks nor substance. The
conincidence of the statement's showing up just during the time when I
happend to respond to a thread concerning food items is so tenuous that
trying to draw any conclusions, such as you seem to have done, is
roughly akin to eating soup with a fork.

Pete H

--
When eating an elephant
take one bite at a time.
C. Abrams




I was referring to the statement you made in your post:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:55:32 -0500, Peter H wrote:


Alan Connor wrote:

You sound like an animal-product addict that is trying to convince

Actually, I eat *everything* to the chagrin of my waistline - 38 &
should be 35. Don't dislike vegetable material at all - some of my best
friends are turnips & peas, not to mention fiddlehead greens & spinach
tossed w/ mushrooms, oil & garlic. I just think those who rabidly try to
remove the cow from the grass-cow-omnivore chain are fooling themselves
& missing out on some nutritious eating.

Pete H


Which I'm pretty sure you know already.

Don't want to face the fact that your dietstyle is just habit and
has nothing to do with nutrition whatsoever?

That's okay by me. Your loss.

madcowboy.com for those who want to learn.


AC

In article . net,
says...

space saving snip

And above all, don't have anything to do with any of the people that look
upon the gun as their primary survival tool.

Real survivalists look upon their BRAIN as their
primary survival tool...

YMMV

If you even let them know where your Shelter is, you will be sorry, because
they will be forced by their own stupidity and ignorance to become brigands
in no time, if they even live that long.

That doesn't pharse well.

I think you're saying that letting people know where you live might result
in
unfriendly visits.

Not letting them know where you are will prevent friendly visits, too. Or
people being able to find you if you need help...

The other group of people here to avoid, and the two often overlap, are
the ones that seem to think that they can live just like the American
Pioneers did in the MOVIES.

PBS had a series a while ago - sort of their answer to SURVIVOR -
where they took three modern families, gave them only the tools
and supplies that pioneers would have had, and plopped them down
in the wilderness to build cabins, raise animals, etc.

They did OK. Even though they weren't allowed to hunt.

Now, if - like certain people I could name - you seem to be
basing your survival plans on some sort of fantasy of living
in perfect synch with nature like American Indians do in
historically inaccurate fiction and American mythology...

Then you are in DEEP doo-doo.

Sorry. But the North American continent is just not what it was back then.
There are 100X as many people and 1/100th of the unspoiled wilderness.

More rats, squirrels, dogs, cats, and birds, though.

And PLENTY of insects.

And most of them have guns but no other survival skills.

Actually, most people who have guns have considerable survival
skills. Whether it's being able to hunt in the wilderness, or avoid
being snuffed on mean city streets, or enforce the law, or defend
this country from enemies foreign and domestic; being a gun
owner HARDLY is a sign of lack of learning ability.

Which leaves competing for the rapidly dwindling populations of large
game animals and piracy their only means of survival.

Farming, gathering of wild edible plants, fishing, foraging
for small animals / insects / worms, all being impossible,
I take it.

When they run out of canned goods they are going to be dangerous as ****,
or sooner if they don't have any stores.

alanc...

The End of the World as We Know It is not going to happen. It's
an intellectual exercise to imagine what things will be like afterwards.
It is NOT a reason not to prepare for other, more limited but MUCH
more probable dangers like fire, flood, hazmat spill, massive snow-
storm / freezing temperatures / prolonged power outage, etc. And it
is foolish to castigate and insult people because they don't subscribe
to your view of things but instead actually PREPARE for disaster instead
of just talking about it.

FW. Who thinks you might be happier moving over to the Patriot
Network website and checking out the GUNkid forum. You and GK
are each other's worst nightmare AND opposite sides of the same
coin, and I'm sure the two of you would be very agitated together...