On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:00:43 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


I thought that the boast of mankind is that they are more intelligent than
any other creature in the world? Cue the HHGTTG dolphins. :-)

You might boast that, I don't. HHGTTG was fiction.

In your world Mary but not ours ;-)

I've read the book, listened to it on the radio, seen the TV series
and watched the film .. therefore it exists .. (QED?)

All the best ..

Zaphod.

On 8 Jul 2005 11:29:20 GMT, wrote:

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I 'generally' protect animals (even usher wasps
out of the window g) and am very upset by the treatment some animals
'enjoy' in the hands of some folk / cultures / countries.

It truly sickens me. Animal behaviour can be excused, but humans are
supposed to know better.

Why? We're animals just like the rest of the animals out there.

Ah (indeed) but we *are* intelligent animals, meaning we don't chase
our food round the countryside before we eat it alive .. ;-)

Mind you, there are many animals that 'cultivate' their (live) food so
are we that 'unnatural'?

Always the $100 question .. "is it better to have some life (all be it
short) or no life at all?" sigh

All the best ..

T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...

Why can't it just be a bowl of green gloop?

Because fungi aren't green. Well, I've never had any which were. White,
grey, brown, black, yellow, blue but never green. No chlorophyll, you see,
that's one of the characeristics of fungi.

Tsk, trust me not to know that .. but then you can't fix a PC can you
Mary (interesting though) ;-)

I can fixsomethings,not everything.

But I have a son who can do the rest :-)

In an ideal world though, I'm with you in principal (I'm still waiting
for tablet-space-food as don't rate food as a hobby in any case).

Oh, you really ARE a philistine! What dreadful experiences have you had
which could make you say that?

Brussels?

One brussel doesn't make a feast!

Food- good food - is one of my passions!

We have have been all though this on alt.food.snobs .. and I think we
came to the conclusion that most basic 'food' is bland and they way
the food fans 'fix' that fact is to smother everything with garlic and
herbs?

Not in this house.

I 'enjoy' a curry because (to me) it has a nice and noticable taste
(flavour?. Spuds taste of nothing / dirt (and I'm not talking about
muddy raw ones now g) as do most vegeatables (remember, 'to me').

We grow several kinds of potatoes, they all taste diffeent and none of
dirt - but I bow to your greater experience in the dirt tasting event! There
are very many different curries too...

I'm currently growing some runner beans (given to me by a gardener
friend, supposedly 'good ones') and some toms. I 'like' runner beans
(in so far as I don't 'like' any veg .. like I never 'fancy' them) so
we will see if they taste any different to me than the 'factory' ones
(without garlic). ;-) Toms I can also live without (but maybe live
longer with?)

Runner beans are my favourite fruit. Tomatoes come a close second. We've
grown both even before I started to grow vegetables in anger, as it were!

Favourite meal .. 'her' breakfasts .. fried (free range) egg on 1
slice of toast, baked beans on one slice of toast, crispy bacon, fried
mushrooms, brown sauce and a mug of tea slobber .. ;-)

I feel sick - it sounds like part of the plateful on Irish ferries -
intended for truckers. I honestly can't face something like that in the
morning.

I couldn't say what my favourite meal is, probably the one I'm eating at the
time. Breakfast, though, is very simple - Grape Nuts and skimmed milk and
China tea, very weak, no milk or sugar.

On Sunday we have cooked breakfast - toast, butter, marmalade, honey and
coffee. Er - that's a different thread isn't it!

Lunch is simple too, a variety of breads and a variety of British cheeses,
tea as before.

Dinner, though, that's the culmination of the day! I'm cooking an 8lb rib of
Traditional Hereford beef tonight, haven't decided how to accompany it, I'll
see what's at its peak in the garden.

Mary


All the best ..

T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:00:43 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


I thought that the boast of mankind is that they are more intelligent
than
any other creature in the world? Cue the HHGTTG dolphins. :-)

You might boast that, I don't. HHGTTG was fiction.

In your world Mary but not ours ;-)

I heard it first time round, before anyone knew about it. Then the repeat.
Then on World Service and the repeat, then it became a cult on Radio 4 and I
heard it again, and the repeat. Our children were teenagers then, they taped
it (shh - looks round).

I saw one episode on tv and they got everything wrong - that is it was
different from the image in my mind. Haven't seen the film. The last radio
series was a great disappointment. I suspect it was not having Peter Jones
:-(

I've read the book, listened to it on the radio, seen the TV series
and watched the film .. therefore it exists .. (QED?)

Oh it exists - but it's still fiction.


Mary

All the best ..

Zaphod.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
With luck you'll end up with better underground and overground links.

Well I suppose we could .. (not that I use them .. I avoid public
transport wherever possible as I can't avoid the cost nor time). Given
the choice I'd rather take the motorcycle, cycle or walk! (possibly a
reaction to 10 years commuting into the City) ;-(

Ok - but better public transport removes traffic from the roads, so
everyone wins.

Well, *some* traffic of course but I can't see us getting such in my
lifetime?

For every new housing estate they build there is more congestion. What
they don't seem to do is put the services / transport in FIRST and
once the buildings are up they are reluctant to knock them down to put
train lines in?

But this is exactly what they'll do for the olympic site. The transport
links will be there for the event.

Most housing developments are basically private money these days, so
they're not going to provide communal services unless forced to.

It is my belief that in other countries if they want to build a train
lkine from A to B they draw a straight line and build it, knocking
down whatever is in the way (within reason). Over here we twist and
turn around a cottage here and farmyard there, forcing the line to be
'poor' for time eternal?

Hardly - most railway lines were built under acts of parliament which
gave pretty extreme powers. But in the old days they tended to link just
about every town they could, so weren't designed for high speed inter city
use. The obvious exception is the east coast route which is pretty
straight for many miles. But then the terrain allowed it.

I must admit I'm not a train 'fan' (never have been), always had my
own transport from 17 and would rather 'endure' driving from say here
(London) to my girlfriend in Crewe by Morry Minor van than all the
cost / aggro of going by train (and we had some transport once we got
there).

It depends. I obviously like my cars, but for travelling around London,
public transport is just so much faster, and of course you don't have to
park. I realise many other cities are not so well off.

For me the only time public transport makes sense is if we (the
family) are on one of our motorcycle / camping / touring holidays and
we wan't to out as tourists for the day then we might get the bus /
train / taxi.

1) Because they are on time
2) Because they are clean
3) Because they are empty
4) It means we don't have to wear leathers ;-)

I would rather go into the City by motorbike in spite of the gear /
traffic / stress / parking because I could start and leave on time
(when I wanted) and could at least sit down for the entire journey ;-)

Of course I don't often commute by PT. So my comments are mainly about off
peak. Although even when I do use it to commute, I'm not travelling into
town like everyone else. ;-)

The only way I see for an improvement on our local line is to

Run more trains (not easy I'm told).

Make the trains longer (some platforms too short)

Get people to work / time shift (spead the load through the day)

Get people to consider working locally?

"Ah but we get a better quality of life and can buy a bigger house if
we live in the sticks" .. yes, if you count 4 hours commuting a day
and the cost of that to you / your family/ the environment 'better' ?

And those tend to be the ones who complain the most about PT. They want a
large house in some quiet village but expect to drive through London to
get to work, because the trains are so crowded and sometimes a couple of
minutes late. But of course would complain long and hard if their village
became a rat run...

I'd rather work locally for 20k than in the 'City' for 30 ..

I consider travelling part of my working day. So since these already are
far too long, prefer to live within a maximum of one hour each way.

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Favourite meal .. 'her' breakfasts .. fried (free range) egg on 1
slice of toast, baked beans on one slice of toast, crispy bacon, fried
mushrooms, brown sauce and a mug of tea slobber .. ;-)

Fried egg(s) on buttered toast with lashings of Worcester sauce. ;-)

--
*The colder the X-ray table, the more of your body is required on it *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
Now we are in the 21st century, isn't it just a little bit primitive to
cage, drug and murder countless millions of animals?

Those animals wouldn't exist if they weren't bred for food. Of course if
they're caged it's not good or fair, but assuming they have a good but
short life - like say lambs - which is the better? Not to exist at all?

--
*Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:01:47 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


Dinner, though, that's the culmination of the day! I'm cooking an 8lb rib of
Traditional Hereford beef tonight, haven't decided how to accompany it,

Hmm, could be tricky .. guitar .. flute ..?

I'll
see what's at its peak in the garden.

That would be nettles for us then ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:23:30 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Favourite meal .. 'her' breakfasts .. fried (free range) egg on 1
slice of toast, baked beans on one slice of toast, crispy bacon, fried
mushrooms, brown sauce and a mug of tea slobber .. ;-)

Fried egg(s) on buttered toast with lashings of Worcester sauce. ;-)

I was offerd lunch round a neighbours recently and when it arrived it
was 3 slices of toast and spagetti with 4 fried eggs on top!

To start with I though this might have been for all of us but it
turned out it was all for me?

I managed to pass one of the eggs on to the man of the house (she had
given one of 'his' to the dog) and managed the other 3 but was unsure
what it my do to my system?

It turns out he has 4 fried eggs 3 times a week (and has done so for
many years) and at the last count (and at 70 odd) his cholestral (sp?)
levels are perfect?

All the best ..

T i m

Just had a fried egg sarnie ... hmmmm ;-)

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:01:47 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


Dinner, though, that's the culmination of the day! I'm cooking an 8lb rib
of
Traditional Hereford beef tonight, haven't decided how to accompany it,

Hmm, could be tricky .. guitar .. flute ..?

Tum ti tum ti tum ti tum ....

I'll
see what's at its peak in the garden.

That would be nettles for us then ;-)

LOL! Too late for nettle soup, you need young leaves.

So I'm told, I haven't tried it yet. Keep intending to ...

Mary

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On 8 Jul 2005 11:29:20 GMT, wrote:


Why? We're animals just like the rest of the animals out there.

Ah (indeed) but we *are* intelligent animals, meaning we don't chase
our food round the countryside before we eat it alive .. ;-)

No, you have to be intelligent to catch animals.You have to be even more
intelligent to train animals to bestill while you lead them away.

Mind you, there are many animals that 'cultivate' their (live) food so
are we that 'unnatural'?

Not all that many.

Always the $100 question .. "is it better to have some life (all be it
short) or no life at all?" sigh

I believe the former - as long as it's a good life. That's why I'm so picky
about what we eat.I wouldn't eat a lettue if it hadn't been grown well.

Mary

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


I must admit I'm not a train 'fan' (never have been), always had my
own transport from 17 and would rather 'endure' driving from say here
(London) to my girlfriend in Crewe by Morry Minor van than all the
cost / aggro of going by train (and we had some transport once we got
there).

It depends. I obviously like my cars, but for travelling around London,
public transport is just so much faster, and of course you don't have to
park. I realise many other cities are not so well off.

But in other cities we CAN travel round in our cars - and park.


Of course I don't often commute by PT. So my comments are mainly about off
peak. Although even when I do use it to commute, I'm not travelling into
town like everyone else. ;-)

You DO generalise! Not everyone else travels into town.

Mary

T i m wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 11:29:20 GMT, wrote:

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I 'generally' protect animals (even usher wasps
out of the window g) and am very upset by the treatment some animals
'enjoy' in the hands of some folk / cultures / countries.

It truly sickens me. Animal behaviour can be excused, but humans are
supposed to know better.

Why? We're animals just like the rest of the animals out there.

Ah (indeed) but we *are* intelligent animals, meaning we don't chase
our food round the countryside before we eat it alive .. ;-)

I don't see the connection between 'intelligent' and the rest.

There are other intelligent animals around (and other unintelligent
ones). However I really don't see why you think we should be so
different from the rest of the animal kingdom simply because we have
more of this stuff we invented ourselves called intelligence.

--
Chris Green

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Those animals wouldn't exist if they weren't bred for food.

Of course they would, but not in the artificially high numbers
that we have now. For some reason, that's seen as a bad thing?

Of course if they're caged it's not good or fair, but assuming they
have a good but short life - like say lambs - which is the better?
Not to exist at all?

I would say the latter.

Now just to expand a little, I would have no problem with meat or animal
products if the creature lived naturally and died of old age etc. It is the
deliberate killing (sanitised "culling") that I greatly object to. I am
astonished that people like Mary can do it with absolutely no shame at all.

I have no time for the fanatic fringe either. Cruelty to any creature is
abhorrent, so how the ALF think violence and attrocity to humans is
justified is well beyond me. I do tend to refuse the business of known
animal abusers though.


--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

T i m wrote:
Assuming we eat meat for a reason (I mean we can't live on
grass, we aren't built for it)
what else could this number of folk easily eat to survive?
Lots of things. The static I remember is that you get more protein
from a field of cabbages than a field of cows. (The energy comparisons
will be even more favourable to vegetables.)

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
Of course I don't often commute by PT. So my comments are mainly about
off peak. Although even when I do use it to commute, I'm not
travelling into town like everyone else. ;-)

You DO generalise! Not everyone else travels into town.

Commuters generally do. Otherwise the trains leaving town in the rush hour
would be just as packed as those entering it.

If I use the tube to go to work - getting on at Tooting Bec and off at
South Wimbledon - it's very quiet and can always get a seat at 0700. The
ones going the other way - into town - are packed solid.

--
*I used up all my sick days so I called in dead

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 8 Jul 2005 13:17:19 GMT, wrote:

T i m wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 11:29:20 GMT, wrote:

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I 'generally' protect animals (even usher wasps
out of the window g) and am very upset by the treatment some animals
'enjoy' in the hands of some folk / cultures / countries.

It truly sickens me. Animal behaviour can be excused, but humans are
supposed to know better.

Why? We're animals just like the rest of the animals out there.

Ah (indeed) but we *are* intelligent animals, meaning we don't chase
our food round the countryside before we eat it alive .. ;-)

I don't see the connection between 'intelligent' and the rest.

There are other intelligent animals around (and other unintelligent
ones). However I really don't see why you think we should be so
different from the rest of the animal kingdom simply because we have
more of this stuff we invented ourselves called intelligence.

I don't Chris?

T i m

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:13:18 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


Of course I don't often commute by PT. So my comments are mainly about off
peak. Although even when I do use it to commute, I'm not travelling into
town like everyone else. ;-)

You DO generalise! Not everyone else travels into town.

They don't? Never tried to get on a train into the City then Mary ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

T i m wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 13:17:19 GMT, wrote:

T i m wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 11:29:20 GMT, wrote:

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I 'generally' protect animals (even usher wasps
out of the window g) and am very upset by the treatment some animals
'enjoy' in the hands of some folk / cultures / countries.

It truly sickens me. Animal behaviour can be excused, but humans are
supposed to know better.

Why? We're animals just like the rest of the animals out there.

Ah (indeed) but we *are* intelligent animals, meaning we don't chase
our food round the countryside before we eat it alive .. ;-)

I don't see the connection between 'intelligent' and the rest.

There are other intelligent animals around (and other unintelligent
ones). However I really don't see why you think we should be so
different from the rest of the animal kingdom simply because we have
more of this stuff we invented ourselves called intelligence.

I don't Chris?

Why the question mark - are you asking me if you don't?

If you mean you don't think we're so different from the rest
of the animal kingdom then why did you imply (at least) that our
intelligence makes us different by saying "... but we *are*
intelligent animals, meaning we don't chase ....."?

--
Chris Green

Martin Bonner wrote:
T i m wrote:
Assuming we eat meat for a reason (I mean we can't live on
grass, we aren't built for it)
what else could this number of folk easily eat to survive?
Lots of things. The static I remember is that you get more protein
from a field of cabbages than a field of cows. (The energy comparisons
will be even more favourable to vegetables.)

But that presupposes we eat the same amount of cabbage as cow - or
more accurately/relevantly that a field of cabbages will feed more
people with enough protein than a field of cows. It doesn't
necessarily follow.

--
Chris Green

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:56:55 +0000, usenet wrote:

Martin Bonner wrote:
T i m wrote:
Assuming we eat meat for a reason (I mean we can't live on
grass, we aren't built for it)
what else could this number of folk easily eat to survive?
Lots of things. The static I remember is that you get more protein
from a field of cabbages than a field of cows. (The energy comparisons
will be even more favourable to vegetables.)

But that presupposes we eat the same amount of cabbage as cow - or
more accurately/relevantly that a field of cabbages will feed more
people with enough protein than a field of cows. It doesn't
necessarily follow.

It doesn't necessarily follow, but in this case he's right. A vegetarian
needs less land area to grow their food than a meat eater needs to raise
theirs. However, not all land is suitable for growing crops, but may be
usefully used to graze sheep for example.

Kieran

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
Now we are in the 21st century, isn't it just a little bit primitive to
cage, drug and murder countless millions of animals?

Those animals wouldn't exist if they weren't bred for food.

Where would they have gone?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
T i m wrote:
Favourite meal .. 'her' breakfasts .. fried (free range) egg on 1
slice of toast, baked beans on one slice of toast, crispy bacon, fried
mushrooms, brown sauce and a mug of tea slobber .. ;-)

Fried egg(s) on buttered toast with lashings of Worcester sauce. ;-)

How disgusting.

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Those animals wouldn't exist if they weren't bred for food.

Of course they would, but not in the artificially high numbers
that we have now. For some reason, that's seen as a bad thing?

Of course if they're caged it's not good or fair, but assuming they
have a good but short life - like say lambs - which is the better?
Not to exist at all?

I would say the latter.

Now just to expand a little, I would have no problem with meat or animal
products if the creature lived naturally and died of old age etc. It is
the
deliberate killing (sanitised "culling")

Culling isn't sanitised killing, it's killing for a particular purpose - to
reduce numbers of animals ('pests') which are eating and destroying
vegetable crops.

The fact that much of the culls can be eaten (such as hare and deer as
opposed to slugs) is a bonus.

that I greatly object to. I am
astonished that people like Mary can do it with absolutely no shame at
all.

I don't cull, I've killed with meat as the only purpose. In fact the animals
I've killed have been fed deliberately so that those birds and animals can
grow, they're not pests.

But "people like Mary"? I wonder what you think I'm like!

I have no time for the fanatic fringe either. Cruelty to any creature is
abhorrent,

I couldn't agree more.

so how the ALF think violence and attrocity to humans is
justified is well beyond me.

I couldn't agree more.

I do tend to refuse the business of known
animal abusers though.

I don't know that I do, but what about the ones we don't know about? My life
has been saved/extended by drugs which perhaps have been tested on animals.
It's uncomfortable.

But if you wash yourself, your hair, your clothes, your dishes, the products
you use (unless you make them yourself) have also been tested on animals.

It's uncomfortable.

Sadly, all life is a compromise.

Mary

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:13:18 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


Of course I don't often commute by PT. So my comments are mainly about
off
peak. Although even when I do use it to commute, I'm not travelling into
town like everyone else. ;-)

You DO generalise! Not everyone else travels into town.

They don't?

No. Some stay at home or work out of town.

Never tried to get on a train into the City then Mary ;-)

I've done it. It's Hell. People smell and are rude and anti-social.

Mary

In article , Mary Fisher
wrote:

Culling isn't sanitised killing, it's killing for a particular purpose - to
reduce numbers of animals


The word "culling" is used to disguise the real term of killing for
convenience. It is deliberately intended to make it sound like something
other than murder.


('pests') which are eating and destroying
vegetable crops.

No living creature is a pest, with the possible exception of Man. If your
crops are being eaten, then either put up with it, grow extra, or protect it
better.

But "people like Mary"? I wonder what you think I'm like!

The sort of person I'm not. You appear to condone the killing of any
creature that you find inconvenient. You're not unique of course. To read
this group, is to see the people who say "I have rabbits / pidgeons / ants /
mice / whatever, in my house / garden. I don't like it, how can I kill
them?" So sad that some refuse to live in harmony.


I don't know that I do, but what about the ones we don't know about? My life
has been saved/extended by drugs which perhaps have been tested on animals.
It's uncomfortable.

My list would include anyone involved in the blood "sports" activity,
transport of live animals, butchers and those who kill or injure animals for
an occupation or hobby. This would of course include vivisectionists. Let
me say once again though that I would be just as much against any harm
coming to these 'people', but I prefer not to do business with them.


But if you wash yourself, your hair, your clothes, your dishes, the products
you use (unless you make them yourself) have also been tested on animals.

Not the products that I use, I check for aminal test labels. I will even
refuse medication and haven't taken any drug for as long as I can remember,
because of the animal testing.

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote:

('pests') which are eating and destroying
vegetable crops.

No living creature is a pest, with the possible exception of Man. If your
crops are being eaten, then either put up with it, grow extra, or protect it
better.

So you disable your white cells so that they don't kill bacteria do
you?


--
Chris Green

Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
Now just to expand a little, I would have no problem with meat or animal
products if the creature lived naturally and died of old age etc.

Unfortunately most 'natural' deaths from old age etc are slow and
unpleasant for the animal.

Owain

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Mary Fisher
wrote:

Culling isn't sanitised killing, it's killing for a particular purpose -
to
reduce numbers of animals


The word "culling" is used to disguise the real term of killing for
convenience. It is deliberately intended to make it sound like something
other than murder.

No it isn't. Well, it might be in your imagination but not in fact. You
don't 'cull' animals which go to the slaughterhouse/abbatoir.


('pests') which are eating and destroying
vegetable crops.

No living creature is a pest, with the possible exception of Man. If your
crops are being eaten, then either put up with it, grow extra, or protect
it
better.

And if it's your vegetables which are being eaten so that you starve?

But "people like Mary"? I wonder what you think I'm like!

The sort of person I'm not. You appear to condone the killing of any
creature that you find inconvenient.

Not at all. I don't kill slugs or insects in my garden - including wasps.
Lots of people hereabouts think I'm odd for that. I don't kill mice in the
house. I don't kill any rat I see or birds in the garden. I only kill for
food.

You're not unique of course. To read
this group, is to see the people who say "I have rabbits / pidgeons / ants
/
mice / whatever, in my house / garden. I don't like it, how can I kill
them?" So sad that some refuse to live in harmony.

But I'm not one of those.


I don't know that I do, but what about the ones we don't know about? My
life
has been saved/extended by drugs which perhaps have been tested on
animals.
It's uncomfortable.

My list would include anyone involved in the blood "sports" activity,
transport of live animals, butchers and those who kill or injure animals
for
an occupation or hobby. This would of course include vivisectionists. Let
me say once again though that I would be just as much against any harm
coming to these 'people', but I prefer not to do business with them.


But if you wash yourself, your hair, your clothes, your dishes, the
products
you use (unless you make them yourself) have also been tested on animals.

Not the products that I use, I check for aminal test labels.

I think that you'd be very surprised at the products which are tested on
animals and don't bear labels. For instance, shampoos which claim not to
have been tested on animals probably haven't. But way back in the past some
of their ingredients will have been.

I'm sorry, Andy, you simply can't live in C21st Britain and escape it.

I will even
refuse medication and haven't taken any drug for as long as I can
remember,
because of the animal testing.

Well, perhaps if/when you develop a life threatening condition you just
might change your mind. I wasn't happy about taking drugs developed and made
by Zeneca because of their involvement in genetic modification. But when you
have cancer you tend to change your attitude.

It's uncomfortable.

Martin Bonner wrote:

Lots of things. The static I remember is that you get more protein
from a field of cabbages than a field of cows. (The energy comparisons
will be even more favourable to vegetables.)

Yup, just think of the methane you could produce eating a field of cabbages!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Andy wrote;
Man was originally a vegetarian apparently, only changing to an omnivore
when it was found to be a more efficient way of survival.

We eat meat & cook our food to support the huge energy requirements of (a)
walking upright and (b) our enormous brains.

Human brain takes about 25% of the bodies total energy, around 25 watts.

Waiting for the jokes ....................................

Dave

In article ,
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
Those animals wouldn't exist if they weren't bred for food.

Of course they would,

I doubt they would at all. Most land would be given over to producing the
vegetable matter needed for humans. So wild pigs, sheep and cows would be
a nuisance.

but not in the artificially high numbers
that we have now. For some reason, that's seen as a bad thing?

I dunno.

Of course if they're caged it's not good or fair, but assuming they
have a good but short life - like say lambs - which is the better?
Not to exist at all?

I would say the latter.

Your prerogative.

Now just to expand a little, I would have no problem with meat or animal
products if the creature lived naturally and died of old age etc. It is
the deliberate killing (sanitised "culling") that I greatly object to. I
am astonished that people like Mary can do it with absolutely no shame
at all.

So we're all to be carrion crows? ;-)

I have no time for the fanatic fringe either. Cruelty to any creature is
abhorrent, so how the ALF think violence and attrocity to humans is
justified is well beyond me. I do tend to refuse the business of known
animal abusers though.

You'll not like cats either, then?


--
*Half the people in the world are below average.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:42:00 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


Never tried to get on a train into the City then Mary ;-)

I've done it. It's Hell. People smell and are rude and anti-social.

Well at least on here we can't tell if people smell ... ;-)

T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:42:00 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


Never tried to get on a train into the City then Mary ;-)

I've done it. It's Hell. People smell and are rude and anti-social.

Well at least on here we can't tell if people smell ... ;-)

Oy! I had a bath this morning, just so that I'd be fragrant for you :-)

Mary

T i m

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
Never tried to get on a train into the City then Mary ;-)

I've done it. It's Hell. People smell and are rude and anti-social.

For that you really want a London night bus. ;-)

But yours is the standard comment about why not to use PT. But why would
people smell more on there - or be rude and anti-social - than anywhere
else you come into contact with them? Like the local shop or pub, etc?

--
*A hangover is the wrath of grapes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 8 Jul 2005 13:54:27 GMT, wrote:


I don't Chris?

Why the question mark - are you asking me if you don't?

Retorical I suppose .. I wondered if you got me confused with someone
else .. or maybe I hadn't put my thoughts down well enough (probably
the latter) ;-(

If you mean you don't think we're so different from the rest
of the animal kingdom then why did you imply (at least) that our
intelligence makes us different by saying "... but we *are*
intelligent animals, meaning we don't chase ....."?

Well, I was sort of saying we *are* just animals (we hunt / kill / eat
other animals) but our intelligence has meant that we can breed / keep
our animals within range for when we need them?

I think ..?

All the best

T i m

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:05:20 +0100, Kieran Mansley
wrote:

snip However, not all land is suitable for growing crops, but may be
usefully used to graze sheep for example.

Like Wales .. ;-)

T i m

Mike wrote:
"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
news.net...

.....because Tone and Ken made all the difference. Isn't that great.




Actually I'd put it 60% down to Seb Coe for a great presentation and 40%
down to Bob Geldof for reminding the world that London might be worth
visiting.


So we now know who really to blame ..

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
Never tried to get on a train into the City then Mary ;-)

I've done it. It's Hell. People smell and are rude and anti-social.

For that you really want a London night bus. ;-)

But yours is the standard comment about why not to use PT.

I didn't know it was a standard comment. I must try to be more original :-)
.... although if I'm not alone there must be an iota of truth in it ...

But why would
people smell more on there - or be rude and anti-social - than anywhere
else you come into contact with them? Like the local shop or pub, etc?

I don't know. Don't go to pubs either and shop rarely.

Perhaps it's because I've been crammed up close to them so I notice the
smells more and have more time to observe the rude and anti social
behaviour.

Mary

T i m wrote:

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:01:47 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:



Dinner, though, that's the culmination of the day! I'm cooking an 8lb rib of
Traditional Hereford beef tonight, haven't decided how to accompany it,


Hmm, could be tricky .. guitar .. flute ..?

I'll

see what's at its peak in the garden.


That would be nettles for us then ;-)


Quite palatable actually: Try a soup with sour cream.

All the best ..

T i m