Re: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On May 17, 9:29=A0pm, Laurie <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> sumbeotch at s***bum dot *** wrote:> not all vegans are idealistic
****tar=
ds....ff the spam ng's
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Thanks for proving my point!
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Vulgarity is all you have.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You have no ability to refute anything I said.
>
> > ... do your reading.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Why don't you use your own obviously extensive "reading"
> to provide a polite, intelligent response?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Don't have the ability??
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Why don't you trim off the irrelevant ng's?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Laurie
>
> --
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human
diets:http://ecologos.or=
g/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science


1. Some vegans do, in fact, care nothing for animals; are
vegan only for the better health aspect.

2. Others insist eating meat costs way too much, also
don't care about animals.

3. A small but vocal %age of vegans are bible-based; these
zealots again don't care about the plight of farm animals.

4. Certain small numbers of Hindus avoid meat--
--once again--the reason is not compassion but rather:
 "Look at us--switch to our religion."

5. Some don't like the taste.

6. Still, the larger of all these groups of vegans
are those who hate the cruelty; they don't delude
themselves re. all the ag deaths. They simply feel
guilty about biting into the flesh.