"Tinkerbell" wrote in message
...
Rubystars wrote:

"Tinkerbell" wrote in message
snip

And you think craving chocolate means I'm not eating a full and varied
diet? *rolls eyes* Get over yourself.


I think eating a vegan or vegetarian diet is what means you're not
eating a
full and varied diet. Especially vegan.

-Rubystars

What utter rubbish.

by definition it has to be less full and varied than the diet of someone who
can eat everything you can plus meat products etc

Jim Webster

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:38:34 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Tinkerbell" wrote in message
t...
Rubystars wrote:

"Tinkerbell" wrote in message
snip

And you think craving chocolate means I'm not eating a full and varied
diet? *rolls eyes* Get over yourself.


I think eating a vegan or vegetarian diet is what means you're not
eating a
full and varied diet. Especially vegan.

-Rubystars

What utter rubbish.

by definition it has to be less full and varied than the diet of someone who
can eat everything you can plus meat products etc

Jim Webster


Not necessarily. The meat-eater might live on BigMacs and nothing
else, while the vegan scoffs an enormous variety of veg and fruit.

--

Paul


(Watch this space)

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
Health wise meat is completely unnecessary. Most meat eaters are
lardarses.
Can you please provide data for this statement? Can you also please tell me
why supplements need to be taken by vegans? I am an omnivore I eat meat
amongst other things, and at 8 1/2 stone I doubt I could be classed as a
'lard arse'.

On Tuesday, in article

"Paul Rooney" wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:38:34 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Tinkerbell" wrote in message
t...
Rubystars wrote:

"Tinkerbell" wrote in message
snip

And you think craving chocolate means I'm not eating a full and varied
diet? *rolls eyes* Get over yourself.


I think eating a vegan or vegetarian diet is what means you're not
eating a
full and varied diet. Especially vegan.

-Rubystars

What utter rubbish.

by definition it has to be less full and varied than the diet of someone who
can eat everything you can plus meat products etc

Jim Webster


Not necessarily. The meat-eater might live on BigMacs and nothing
else, while the vegan scoffs an enormous variety of veg and fruit.

I know of one or two vegetarians who seem as extreme in that direction
as your example of a Big Mac eater. Either way, what seems like an
insanely unvarying diet, though both might contain adequate nutrition.

And meat production converts vegetable matter we cannot digest into meat
that we can. The current meat production industry does use crops we
could directly, and so is wasteful of resources. That doesn't mean that
a zero-meat diet is the optimum.


--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."

"Paul Rooney" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:38:34 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Tinkerbell" wrote in message
t...
Rubystars wrote:

"Tinkerbell" wrote in message
snip

And you think craving chocolate means I'm not eating a full and
varied
diet? *rolls eyes* Get over yourself.


I think eating a vegan or vegetarian diet is what means you're not
eating a
full and varied diet. Especially vegan.

-Rubystars

What utter rubbish.

by definition it has to be less full and varied than the diet of someone
who
can eat everything you can plus meat products etc

Jim Webster


Not necessarily. The meat-eater might live on BigMacs and nothing
else, while the vegan scoffs an enormous variety of veg and fruit.

so what, a vegan could live of rice and beans.
by definition, a diet that excludes major food stuffs has to be more limited
than one that includes these food stuffs. You will get idiots on any diet,

Jim Webster


--

Paul


(Watch this space)

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:01:42 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

by definition it has to be less full and varied than the diet of someone
who
can eat everything you can plus meat products etc

Jim Webster


Not necessarily. The meat-eater might live on BigMacs and nothing
else, while the vegan scoffs an enormous variety of veg and fruit.

so what, a vegan could live of rice and beans.
by definition, a diet that excludes major food stuffs has to be more limited
than one that includes t

No, Jim, it doesn't, as I've just illustrated. You can have very
limited omnivorous diets, and you can have very varied vegan diets.
The definition 'omnivore' doesn't give you a clue about the variety of
any given omnivore's diet; nor does the definition 'vegan' give any
indication of variety.
I take it you mean *potentially* more varied, but that's another
matter.

--

Paul


(Watch this space)

"Paul Rooney" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:01:42 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

by definition it has to be less full and varied than the diet of
someone
who
can eat everything you can plus meat products etc

Jim Webster


Not necessarily. The meat-eater might live on BigMacs and nothing
else, while the vegan scoffs an enormous variety of veg and fruit.

so what, a vegan could live of rice and beans.
by definition, a diet that excludes major food stuffs has to be more
limited
than one that includes t

No, Jim, it doesn't, as I've just illustrated. You can have very
limited omnivorous diets, and you can have very varied vegan diets.
The definition 'omnivore' doesn't give you a clue about the variety of
any given omnivore's diet; nor does the definition 'vegan' give any
indication of variety.
I take it you mean *potentially* more varied, but that's another
matter.

No I mean more varied. If you start talking about notional potential then
you can pretty well pretend anything you like

Jim Webster


--

Paul


(Watch this space)

"Tinkerbell" wrote in message
...
Rubystars wrote:

snip


It's human flesh! The greatest taboo in our culture, and you see no
problem
with it!


-Rubystars

No, I don't see any problem with it at all. You eat animals, humans are
animals. Where's the difference? If you're willing to have animals
intentionally killed for your consumption why on earth would you have a
problem eating flesh that is a by-product of an animal that hasn't been
killed? It's not logical.



Good job Mrs Bobbitt didn't feel peckish after harvesting hubby's wiener,
then.

In article ,
says...


Good job Mrs Bobbitt didn't feel peckish after harvesting hubby's wiener,
then.



Would that have been whey-hey powder?

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:43:53 +0100, wrote:

Hydro electric power and wind power are by no means anywhere near as
green as solar power.

If you ignore the energy needed to construct the equipment needed to
utilise it.

Let alone the cleaning, purifying chemicals and masking inks and corrosive
etching chemicals used ...

--
Tim C.

In Oz they have become aware of the unsolved problem of wind farms
producing output when it can't be used and not producing output when
it is needed, just as the Danes have after both have invested a vast
amount in wind farms. UK next?
--
Martin

"The Tide regularly Ebbs and Flows, twice in every 24 hours". Can someone
please explain to me why tidal power has not been harnessed?

I can predict with 101% accuracy that the same will be happening in 10
years, 50 years, 1000 years time. Where is the doubt?

Mike

In Oz they have become aware of the unsolved problem of wind farms
producing output when it can't be used and not producing output when
it is needed, just as the Danes have after both have invested a vast
amount in wind farms. UK next?
--
Martin

"The Tide regularly Ebbs and Flows, twice in every 24 hours". Can someone
please explain to me why tidal power has not been harnessed?

I can predict with 101% accuracy that the same will be happening in 10
years, 50 years, 1000 years time. Where is the doubt?

Mike

--
H.M.S.Collingwood Ass. Llandudno 20 - 23 May Trip to Portmeirion
National Service (RAF) Ass. Cosford 24 - 27 June Lanc Bomber Fly Past
H.M.S.Impregnable Ass. Sussex 1 - 4 July Visit to Int. Fest of the Sea
British Pacific Fleet. Derby 2 - 5 Sept. Visit to Denby Pottery

"The Tide regularly Ebbs and Flows, twice in every 24 hours". Can someone
please explain to me why tidal power has not been harnessed?

I can predict with 101% accuracy that the same will be happening in 10
years, 50 years, 1000 years time. Where is the doubt?

Mike


I look forward with great relish, to the 'Keepers', the 'Net Nannies' and
the 'Owners' of this newsgroup proving me wrong on the tidal flow subject
:-)))

Come on Sacha, your the 'cruising queen' having spent some time on the tide,
you are a 'Well' experienced sailor now. Your comments?

:-))

"Mike" wrote in message
...


In Oz they have become aware of the unsolved problem of wind farms
producing output when it can't be used and not producing output when
it is needed, just as the Danes have after both have invested a vast
amount in wind farms. UK next?
--
Martin

"The Tide regularly Ebbs and Flows, twice in every 24 hours". Can someone
please explain to me why tidal power has not been harnessed?


Tidal flow has been used to generate electricity on the Rance estuary in
Northern France, I believe. 'Tide mills' were in use on tidal parts of
rivers back in the middle ages, and electrical generating stations would
work on a similar principal but on a much larger scale.

I don't know why no-one has yet built a tidal flow power station in the UK,
but I'd guess cost has something to do with it, plus concerns about the
effects of damming up major rivers on sewage disposal and the ecologies of
the areas which would be changed by the damming.

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from contains these words:


In Oz they have become aware of the unsolved problem of wind farms
producing output when it can't be used and not producing output when
it is needed, just as the Danes have after both have invested a vast
amount in wind farms. UK next?

The UK has a national power grid and high population density so there
isn't any problem of UK windfarms producing surplus power that can't be
used; they just feed it into the grid.

Just feeding it into the grid doesn't necessarily mean it gets put to any
actual or practical use, though. Distance between point of input to the grid
and point of use is still a factor, because of losses associated with Joule
heating, so generating facilities located re,otely from centres of heavy
demand are relatively inefficient in meeting that demand. Further,
additional power input to the grid at times when supply already exceeds
demand is still wasted.

Granted, those aren't problems to the wind turbine operators as long as the
grid is obliged to accept energy input from them whether or not needed
locally at the time.