Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 > G. Raw versus Cooked: Which is More Natural? > > " Raw foodist " lifestyle advocates tend to argue that cooking is > unnatural. They often argue that since we evolved eating raw foods > like the rest of the animal kingdom, we are better adapted to eat > that way. In a landmark article just published in the journal of > Comparative Biology and Physiology, however, two Harvard > anthropologists argue just the opposite.[10} > > First, they note that other than the new deliberate " raw foodists, " > there do not seem to be any current or historical populations, small > groups or even individuals living for more than a few days without > access to cooked foods. Then they take on the belief that cooking is > a recent phenomenon for our species. > > Mammalian species like ourselves can evolve adaptations in as few as > 5000 years. Human beings have been cooking for at least 250,000 > years, and maybe as long as 1.9 million years, long before we were > even Homo sapiens. They argue that not only have humans adapted to > eating cooked foods, they argue that human beings have adapted so > much that eating cooked food now seems obligatory for optimum health. > And indeed the medical literature backs them up. > > The only study I know of 100% raw foodists followed for years was > published in 1999.[11] It showed that a third of the raw foodists > were suffering from Chronic Energy Deficiency. Many were just wasting > away. Most of the women suffered menstrual irregularities and half > of the women lost their menstrual periods altogether, which could > lead to devastating osteoporosis. And this was in modern urban people > with relatively low activity levels who had access to high-quality > high-calorie produce from around the world year-round. How might our > nontropical gatherer/hunter ancestors lived through a single winter > without cooking, especially with their extreme energy expenditure? > > There have been major changes in our digestive biology over the past > few hundred thousand years, and the researchers argue that these > changes may have been due to the availability of cooked foods. > 100,000 years ago, for example, the size of our jaws and molar teeth > started to shrink, perhaps as an adaptation to softer, easier-chewed > cooked foods. They also posit that perhaps other differences between > our digestive systems and those of the great apes may also have been > because of our adaptation to cooked foods--our smaller gut volume, > longer small intestine, smaller colon, and faster gut passage rate. > > They conclude that while well-supported individuals in an urban > environment with a relatively sedentary lifestyle may be able to > thrive on a raw food diet, it is neither natural nor necessarily > desirable for optimal health. > > [10] Comparative Biology and Physiology 136(2003):35. > [11] Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 43(1999):69. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 , Paul Russell <prussell@s...> wrote: > > G. Raw versus Cooked: Which is More Natural? OK, this one I could skim through! I just want to make a couple of points: It's based on the theory of evolution - the whole thing. That's not wise. It's never wise to base anything that claims to be truly scientific on theory. Contrary to popular opinion, evolution has never been proven and is just what it says it is: The THEORY of evolution. It may be popular to believe it and many people will bash you for being stupid and unscientific if you don't, but there are an awful lot of people who have rejected it - including some very high level scientists. Just a thought on menstruation. I've read up on this one and there is quite a persuasive argument in favour of the concept that menstruation itself is not natural. To summarise some of the main points of this line of reasoning: The womb lining is a mucous-y stuff, NOT blood. The blood comes from the capillaries in the womb breaking thanks to hormonal fluctation. In others words, it's a haemorrage, (which I don't think I can spell), and, if it happened in the lungs or the brain, it would kill us. All other bodily functions are painless, (under normal circumstances) and there is no loss of vitality attached to them. So, it doesn't make you really ill to go for a poop, for instance and you don't need several days to recover from it. The sheer length of the list of symptoms that go along with menstruation for many women suggests rather strongly that it is, in fact, a pathological condition (ie an illness, a malfunction), and not a normal body function. There are reputed to be whole tribes of women leading a much more natural lifestyle that do not menstruate but still bear children. There is no normal loss of blood. and so on.... As for the low evergy levels. That's an interesting one as representatives from *all* types of diet experience this. Many people are constantly tired and much of it is poor nutrition induced. In the case of raw foodists, there are almost as many schools of thought on that one as there are people 'doing the diet' so it stands to reason that some may be closer to the ideal that others. A Canadian chap recently published a book on why raw foodists fail and how to 'streamline' the diet so as to regain health. On the other hand, there are the majority of high or all raw foodists who experience soaring energy levels. I remember doing a raw diet myself for a few days and it certainly happened to me! Anyway, just some thoughts. Hugs, Elisabeth=) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 Hi, Regarding the theory of evolution just being a theory... Are you serious, or joking here? Yes, it is just a theory. But so is the theory of gravity, and so is the theory that the earth is round...they have just been shown to be correct so many times that people have, over the years, dropped the 'theory' term. Any scientific idea is a theory. That doesn't really mean it is likely to be wrong though, just that science always admits he possibility of error. John - Elisabeth Braun <elisabeth.braun Wednesday, November 19, 2003 5:14 PM Re: Debunking raw food myths I > , Paul Russell <prussell@s...> wrote: > > > G. Raw versus Cooked: Which is More Natural? > OK, this one I could skim through! > > I just want to make a couple of points: > > It's based on the theory of evolution - the whole thing. That's not > wise. It's never wise to base anything that claims to be truly > scientific on theory. Contrary to popular opinion, evolution has > never been proven and is just what it says it is: The THEORY of > evolution. It may be popular to believe it and many people will bash > you for being stupid and unscientific if you don't, but there are an > awful lot of people who have rejected it - including some very high > level scientists. > > Just a thought on menstruation. I've read up on this one and there > is quite a persuasive argument in favour of the concept that > menstruation itself is not natural. To summarise some of the main > points of this line of reasoning: > The womb lining is a mucous-y stuff, NOT blood. The blood comes from > the capillaries in the womb breaking thanks to hormonal fluctation. > In others words, it's a haemorrage, (which I don't think I can > spell), and, if it happened in the lungs or the brain, it would kill > us. > All other bodily functions are painless, (under normal circumstances) > and there is no loss of vitality attached to them. So, it doesn't > make you really ill to go for a poop, for instance and you don't need > several days to recover from it. The sheer length of the list of > symptoms that go along with menstruation for many women suggests > rather strongly that it is, in fact, a pathological condition (ie an > illness, a malfunction), and not a normal body function. > There are reputed to be whole tribes of women leading a much more > natural lifestyle that do not menstruate but still bear children. > There is no normal loss of blood. > and so on.... > > As for the low evergy levels. That's an interesting one as > representatives from *all* types of diet experience this. Many > people are constantly tired and much of it is poor nutrition > induced. In the case of raw foodists, there are almost as many > schools of thought on that one as there are people 'doing the diet' > so it stands to reason that some may be closer to the ideal that > others. A Canadian chap recently published a book on why raw > foodists fail and how to 'streamline' the diet so as to regain > health. On the other hand, there are the majority of high or all raw > foodists who experience soaring energy levels. I remember doing a > raw diet myself for a few days and it certainly happened to me! > > Anyway, just some thoughts. > > Hugs, > > Elisabeth=) > > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 The reason anybody with sense regards theories as theories is because without proof thats all they can be called. ---- Original Message ----- " John Davis " <mcxg46 Friday, November 21, 2003 1:01 PM Re: Re: Debunking raw food myths I > Hi, > > Regarding the theory of evolution just being a theory... > > Are you serious, or joking here? > > Yes, it is just a theory. But so is the theory of gravity, and so is the > theory that the earth is round...they have just been shown to be correct so > many times that people have, over the years, dropped the 'theory' term. Any > scientific idea is a theory. That doesn't really mean it is likely to be > wrong though, just that science always admits he possibility of error. > > John > - > Elisabeth Braun <elisabeth.braun > > Wednesday, November 19, 2003 5:14 PM > Re: Debunking raw food myths I > > > > , Paul Russell <prussell@s...> wrote: > > > > G. Raw versus Cooked: Which is More Natural? > > OK, this one I could skim through! > > > > I just want to make a couple of points: > > > > It's based on the theory of evolution - the whole thing. That's not > > wise. It's never wise to base anything that claims to be truly > > scientific on theory. Contrary to popular opinion, evolution has > > never been proven and is just what it says it is: The THEORY of > > evolution. It may be popular to believe it and many people will bash > > you for being stupid and unscientific if you don't, but there are an > > awful lot of people who have rejected it - including some very high > > level scientists. > > > > Just a thought on menstruation. I've read up on this one and there > > is quite a persuasive argument in favour of the concept that > > menstruation itself is not natural. To summarise some of the main > > points of this line of reasoning: > > The womb lining is a mucous-y stuff, NOT blood. The blood comes from > > the capillaries in the womb breaking thanks to hormonal fluctation. > > In others words, it's a haemorrage, (which I don't think I can > > spell), and, if it happened in the lungs or the brain, it would kill > > us. > > All other bodily functions are painless, (under normal circumstances) > > and there is no loss of vitality attached to them. So, it doesn't > > make you really ill to go for a poop, for instance and you don't need > > several days to recover from it. The sheer length of the list of > > symptoms that go along with menstruation for many women suggests > > rather strongly that it is, in fact, a pathological condition (ie an > > illness, a malfunction), and not a normal body function. > > There are reputed to be whole tribes of women leading a much more > > natural lifestyle that do not menstruate but still bear children. > > There is no normal loss of blood. > > and so on.... > > > > As for the low evergy levels. That's an interesting one as > > representatives from *all* types of diet experience this. Many > > people are constantly tired and much of it is poor nutrition > > induced. In the case of raw foodists, there are almost as many > > schools of thought on that one as there are people 'doing the diet' > > so it stands to reason that some may be closer to the ideal that > > others. A Canadian chap recently published a book on why raw > > foodists fail and how to 'streamline' the diet so as to regain > > health. On the other hand, there are the majority of high or all raw > > foodists who experience soaring energy levels. I remember doing a > > raw diet myself for a few days and it certainly happened to me! > > > > Anyway, just some thoughts. > > > > Hugs, > > > > Elisabeth=) > > > > > > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > > --------------------------- > > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > > Un: send a blank message to - > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 >The reason anybody with sense regards theories as theories is because >without proof thats all they can be called. > Simon - I have to wonder whether you've done too many drugs in the past ? Or maybe not enough ? The only theories which can be proven are mathematical ones (that includes logic and also philosophy to a certain extent). For theories about the real (physical) world we rely on _observations_ aka _evidence_ to establish on balance of probability the likelihood that any given theory may be regarded as true. (Conversely a theory may often be _disproven_ if evidence of a suitable counterexample can be found.) In the case of evolution, as in the case of the world being round rather than flat, there is so much overwhelming evidence to support it that only an irrational person with some kind of dogmatic agenda would fail to be convinced. Sadly, though, this happens all too often, e.g. fundamentalist religious zealots, such as the religious right in America who interpret the old testament as literal " truth " . Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 - " Paul Russell " <prussell Friday, November 21, 2003 3:42 PM Re: Re: Debunking raw food myths I > >The reason anybody with sense regards theories as theories is because > >without proof thats all they can be called. > > > > Simon - > > I have to wonder whether you've done too many drugs in the past ? Or > maybe not enough ? > > The only theories which can be proven are mathematical ones> I wonder whether you understand the meaning of the word theory. If a theory is proven to be right then it is no longer theory but fact. I also wonder if you understand the difference between good and bad yet?.> > _observations_ aka _evidence_ to establish on balance of probability. > the likelihood that any given theory may be regarded as true. > (Conversely a theory may often be _disproven_ if evidence of a > suitable counterexample can be found.) I agree> > > In the case of evolution, as in the case of the world being round > rather than flat, there is so much overwhelming evidence to support . I don't doubt the earth being round..as I don't that believe the phyical evidence has been fabricated. And I like to think that one day I might get to go a space trip.> > it that only an irrational person with some kind of dogmatic agenda > would fail to be convinced. Sadly, though, this happens all too > often, e.g. fundamentalist religious zealots, such as the religious > right in America who interpret the old testament as literal " truth " . So would you regard the old testement as not literal truth but some sort of other truth? Truth can only be Truth. Simon > -- > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 > >I wonder whether you understand the meaning of the word theory. If a theory >is proven to be right then it is no longer theory but fact. Are you just thinking out loud here ? >I also wonder if you understand the difference between good and bad yet?.> Perhaps you'd like to come up with a definition ? I'm certain that any definition you can come up with I can find an exception to. > >I don't doubt the earth being round..as I don't that believe the phyical >evidence has been fabricated. And I like to think that one day I might get >to go a space trip.> I'm sure if we all club together we can come up with the price of a ticket. One way, of course. > >So would you regard the old testement as not literal truth but some sort of >other truth? > FIrstly, the old testament is just a bunch of mythology. Secondly, yes there are truths other than literal truths. Have you ever read a good novel ? >Truth can only be Truth. Dude, like that's so, _profound_, dude. All we are, is dust in the wind, dude. Time to get out those lighters everybody. Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 - " Paul Russell " <prussell Friday, November 21, 2003 6:37 PM Re: Re: Debunking raw food myths I > > > >I wonder whether you understand the meaning of the word theory. If a theory > >is proven to be right then it is no longer theory but fact. > > Are you just thinking out loud here ?> I am as I'm sure your not telepathic. > > >I also wonder if you understand the difference between good and bad yet?.> > > Perhaps you'd like to come up with a definition ? I'm certain that > any definition you can come up with I can find an exception to.> I'm sure you could.. I'm talking about the good that follows on from good that makes more goodness. The good that follows bad can't be misleading as it can make people believe that you need badness in order to get goodness..and that is not true.> > > > > >I don't doubt the earth being round..as I don't that believe the phyical > >evidence has been fabricated. And I like to think that one day I might get > >to go a space trip.> > > I'm sure if we all club together we can come up with the price of a > ticket. One way, of course.> You are a very kind-hearted bloke..let me know when you have the ticket..or you can give me the cash and I'll get it myself. > > > >So would you regard the old testement as not literal truth but some sort of > >other truth? > > > > FIrstly, the old testament is just a bunch of mythology.> Like a novel ..have you read anything that you have found interesting in the old testement? > Secondly, yes there are truths other than literal truths. Have you > ever read a good novel ? Yes I have ..as apposed to lies... a novel of a fictitious nature might relate to what is real/truth. > >Truth can only be Truth. > > Dude, like that's so, _profound_, dude.> Not sure if that is your way of calling me a dandy.> > > All we are, is dust in the wind, dude. I'd like to think we're a little more than that. Maybe dust with a little bit of ocean mixed in with a mindful soul made up of every part of infinate space, capable of......Whoops I'm getting carried away here..time to stop. I 've no real axe to grind especially with vegans as there is more then one way to stroke a cat. > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 At 15:19 +0000 11/22/03, simon wrote: > >I'm sure you could.. I'm talking about the good that follows on from good >that makes more goodness. >The good that follows bad can't be misleading as it can make people believe >that you need badness in order to get goodness..and that is not true.> Simon what the *hell* are you talking about ? I think you either need to increase the dose on your current meds or ask your doctor to try something new. Care in the Community - pah ! Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 - " Paul Russell " <prussell Saturday, November 22, 2003 5:39 PM Re: Re: Debunking raw food myths I > At 15:19 +0000 11/22/03, simon wrote: > > > >I'm sure you could.. I'm talking about the good that follows on from good > >that makes more goodness. > >The good that follows bad can't be misleading as it can make people believe > >that you need badness in order to get goodness..and that is not true.> > > Simon what the *hell* are you talking about ? I think you either need > to increase the dose on your current meds or ask your doctor to try > something new.> and I see you like the word 'hell'. You like to make ass-umptions don't you Paul?. and do you really not have any clue of what I mean?? Good is an exteral force not an interal force. Children have to be taught whats good and bad a lot of the time. If two people are in love and they stay in love all their lives..that is good..they pass that on to their children who in turn say become vegan say from reading Genesis 1...they in turn pass that on to their children... so being vegan and committent to each other is past on..things are getter better and better now..good is leading to more good. Second example...Someone punches you in your face and does stop until someone stops that person from doing it. When that person stops punching you ..it is good..because we know punching people is a bad thing to do. So good has come from bad!. Not the best examples. I hope the general points are made fairly clear. Simon > > > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 >Good is an exteral force not an interal force. Good is not a " force " of any kind. The concept of good is just a fairly arbitrary human emotional judgement. It has no intrinsic meaning or value outside of the human mind. It's a " meme " , if you like. Try choosing something other than Genesis as your bedtime reading and see if you can expand your horizons a little. Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2003 Report Share Posted November 23, 2003 > >Good is an exteral force not an interal force. > > Good is not a " force " of any kind. The concept of good is just a > fairly arbitrary human emotional judgement. It has no intrinsic > meaning or value outside of the human mind. It's a " meme " ,.> I do not know your reading but if it's convincing you that goodness is not a force outside human concept as has you believing it doesn't even exist.. then your just too far away from my understanding. I'd say trying not to harm any non-harming thing.. is a good way to live, not because I decide it is,but because I have discovered it is through observing the enviroment around me. With the concept that everything is only what we preceive it to be... is not that correct.. as our minds try to make sense of what we are really seeing,hearing sensing etc, we instinctly are searching for what is good joyous etc..even though sometimes we are misled in the ways of finding it. Happy searching. Simon > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 the earth isn't quite that round ... it's a bit squashed ... and bumpy ... in fact the surface area of the earth if calculated according to the 'earth being round' is inaccurate ... and is likely to be two or three times smaller than the 'real' surface area of the earth ... simply due to the roughness of the surface... so the theory of the earth being round ... is in fact misleading and can lead to very erroneous calculations .... there is a theory of gravity ... but noone knows how it works ... it's just there... and so is open still to being debunked by a wider particle or field theory in the future... i agree tho ... they are just theories ... and all theories can be modified... (even this one) John Davis [mcxg46] Hi,Regarding the theory of evolution just being a theory...Are you serious, or joking here?Yes, it is just a theory. But so is the theory of gravity, and so is thetheory that the earth is round...they have just been shown to be correct somany times that people have, over the years, dropped the 'theory' term. Anyscientific idea is a theory. That doesn't really mean it is likely to bewrong though, just that science always admits he possibility of error.John ** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 Paul, Play fair once in a while will you? You seem to enjoy not only looking for the worst in people,and criticising their beliefs if they differ from yours, but insulting them at every chance! Insinuating that they are on drugs, offering a one way ticket to space etc..... BE NICE Most of the vegans in this group seem more tolerant of others beliefs, and have that rare ability to make fun of themselves more than others...Join in.You amy enjoy it? It may be a jungle out there, but in this vegan cyber world its a bit nicer,and big cats are not allowed to prey on the smaller prey.. I am waffling again......Come back Fraggle, hows the rock? The Valley Vegan.... Good is an exteral force not an interal force. Good is not a " force " of any kind. The concept of good is just a fairly arbitrary human emotional judgement. It has no intrinsic meaning or value outside of the human mind. It's a " meme " , if you like. Try choosing something other than Genesis as your bedtime reading and see if you can expand your horizons a little. Paul > Peter H -------------------- talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 >Paul, >Play fair once in a while will you? You seem to enjoy not only >looking for the worst in people,and criticising their beliefs if >they differ from yours, but insulting them at every chance! >Insinuating that they are on drugs, offering a one way ticket to >pace etc..... >BE NICE >Most of the vegans in this group seem more tolerant of others >beliefs, and have that rare ability to make fun of themselves more >than others...Join in.You amy enjoy it? It may be a jungle out >there, but in this vegan cyber world its a bit nicer,and big cats >are not allowed to prey on the smaller prey.. >I am waffling again......Come back Fraggle, hows the rock? > VV - I didn't realise you were the new moderator of Vegan UK - you're probably right - the rough and tumble belongs on Vegans Uncensored, not Vegan UK. Simon - if you want to keep arguing the fundie creationist line can you take it to YU ? Thanks. Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 - " Paul Russell " <prussell Tuesday, November 25, 2003 6:51 PM Re: Re: Debunking raw food myths I > >Paul, > >Play fair once in a while will you? You seem to enjoy not only > >looking for the worst in people,and criticising their beliefs if > >they differ from yours, but insulting them at every chance! > >Insinuating that they are on drugs, offering a one way ticket to > >pace etc..... > >BE NICE > >Most of the vegans in this group seem more tolerant of others > >beliefs, and have that rare ability to make fun of themselves more > >than others...Join in.You amy enjoy it? It may be a jungle out > >there, but in this vegan cyber world its a bit nicer,and big cats > >are not allowed to prey on the smaller prey.. > >I am waffling again......Come back Fraggle, hows the rock? > > > > VV - I didn't realise you were the new moderator of Vegan UK - you're > probably right - the rough and tumble belongs on Vegans Uncensored, > not Vegan UK. > > Simon - if you want to keep arguing the fundie creationist line can > you take it to YU ? Thanks.> I like others here have been giving my opinion on subjects that have been discussed on this group..that have been mostly with veganism in mind. If you don't like my point thats up to you. Can't you argue your points else? Cheers Simon > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 > >I like others here have been giving my opinion on subjects that have been >discussed on this group..that have been mostly with veganism in mind. > >If you don't like my point thats up to you. > >Can't you argue your points else? > We're not allowed to disagree here and more apparently, so if you are genuinely interested in explaining why Genesis is right and science is wrong then we'll have to take it to a group where disagreement is still permitted, e.g. Vegans Uncensored. Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.