"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)

"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)

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."

"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.