On 06/06/2021 17:25, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 14:35, T i m wrote:

Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

So in your Post-Truth world, habitat loss and consequent species loss is
to be celebrated just so long as it supports your anti-meat-eating
veganist crusade.

And we don't need the crap land to still be able to feed everyone,
that can be re-wilded.

Not if you've been conditioned to add a thin, cold gruel to your mug of
tea, both of the ingredients of which came by ship.

--
Spike

On 06/06/2021 19:40, T i m wrote:

ALL the medial health practitioners recommend you
cut down on meat and increase the consumption of fruit, veg, nuts etc.

At one time ALL [on T i m ' s scale] medical practitioners recommended
smoking as it had a mild antiseptic effect and so warded off colds and flu.

--
Spike

On 06/06/2021 18:11, T i m wrote:
alan_m wrote:

Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?

[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Before the trees, there was a glacier about a km thick, but 'global
warming' some tens of thousands of years before the Industrial Age, got
rid of it. Shouldn't we go back to those times instead, as interglacial
warm periods are quite short when compared to the glacials?

--
Spike

On 06/06/2021 18:23, Fredxx wrote:

Land used for sheep
farming is usually difficult to grow crops on. It would simple revert to
disused pasture.

Then of course more land would be required to farm plant food. Leading
to more Amazonian rainforest felled for industrial processes making tofu.

No! No!

T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

--
Spike

On 06/06/2021 19:06, T i m wrote:

There is enough arable land to grow enough food to feed the entire
world population 1.5x over.

If we weren't 'wasting space' to grow food for livestock, we could be
using that space for growing other stuff, inc biofuels.

Wrong.

The problem is the inefficient use of land for subsistence farming.

--
Spike

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 08:26:47 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 18:11, T i m wrote:
alan_m wrote:

Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?

[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Before the trees,

snip

Thanks for yet another irrelevant history lesson outside the period of
relevance.

1/10 (you *really* must try harder).

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 08:27:05 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

T i m prefers 'Plant Pioneers', [meat free chicken-style pieces].

Yes, they are pretty good and we had half a bag between us yesterday
in a large salad wraps.

But I don't 'prefer' them over many other alternatives, with different
options providing better solutions in different circumstances.

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 08:25:48 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 17:25, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 14:35, T i m wrote:

Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

So in your Post-Truth world,

Well, I'm just being guided by the scientists and farmers who should
know what they are talking about (and *guaranteed* to have a better
view on it all than you).

habitat loss and consequent species loss is
to be celebrated just so long as it supports your anti-meat-eating
veganist crusade.

You really are stupid aren't you. Have you not taken any notice of the
science and the farmers who are in agreement that we can't keep
destroying the environment and habitats without giving / putting back.

Replacing margins and hedgerows, fewer massive monocultures / more
crop diversity, re-wilding, moving to *plant based* (not animal based)
foods ... ALL likely / targeted to help support / return native
species that are currently being pushed out and make the areas more
*naturally productive and doing so sustainably*.

And we don't need the crap land to still be able to feed everyone,
that can be re-wilded.

Not if you've been conditioned to add a thin, cold gruel to your mug of
tea, both of the ingredients of which came by ship.

WTF are you talking about now? Any chance you could stay on some sort
of logical / linear track or you will further expose yourself as a
lunatic troll!

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 08:26:07 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 19:40, T i m wrote:

ALL the medial health practitioners recommend you
cut down on meat and increase the consumption of fruit, veg, nuts etc.

At one time ALL [on T i m ' s scale] medical practitioners recommended
smoking as it had a mild antiseptic effect and so warded off colds and flu.

Yup, and then we learned better and that's where we are now re meat,
eggs and dairy re human heath and it's negative impact on the
environment.

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 08:27:22 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 19:06, T i m wrote:

There is enough arable land to grow enough food to feed the entire
world population 1.5x over.

If we weren't 'wasting space' to grow food for livestock, we could be
using that space for growing other stuff, inc biofuels.

Wrong.

I'm afraid not mate.

The problem is the inefficient use of land for subsistence farming.

That is *another* problem yes, but not to be conflated with the waste
of resources (land, feed, water) and the pollution involved in keeping
more livestock than people on the same small rock.

Cheers, T i m

On 07/06/2021 09:16, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 17:25, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 14:35, T i m wrote:

Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

So in your Post-Truth world, habitat loss and consequent species loss is
to be celebrated just so long as it supports your anti-meat-eating
veganist crusade.

Well, I'm just being guided by the scientists and farmers who should
know what they are talking about (and *guaranteed* to have a better
view on it all than you).

You're being guided by *some of* the scientists and farmers. I'm mildly
surprised you didn't claim '97% of scientists and farmers', it has some
history.

habitat loss and consequent species loss is
to be celebrated just so long as it supports your anti-meat-eating
veganist crusade.

You really are stupid aren't you. Have you not taken any notice of the
science and the farmers who are in agreement that we can't keep
destroying the environment and habitats without giving / putting back.

*Some* of the farmers an scientists.

Replacing margins and hedgerows, fewer massive monocultures / more
crop diversity, re-wilding, moving to *plant based* (not animal based)
foods ... ALL likely / targeted to help support / return native
species that are currently being pushed out and make the areas more
*naturally productive and doing so sustainably*.

In your dreams.

And we don't need the crap land to still be able to feed everyone,
that can be re-wilded.

Not if you've been conditioned to add a thin, cold gruel to your mug of
tea, both of the ingredients of which came by ship.

WTF are you talking about now? Any chance you could stay on some sort
of logical / linear track or you will further expose yourself as a
lunatic troll!

There's me thinking you were supporting the recent post on the alleged
environmental damage cause by shipping. Was that a different T i m ?


--
Spike

On 07/06/2021 09:21, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 19:06, T i m wrote:

There is enough arable land to grow enough food to feed the entire
world population 1.5x over.

If we weren't 'wasting space' to grow food for livestock, we could be
using that space for growing other stuff, inc biofuels.

Wrong.

I'm afraid not mate.

The problem is the inefficient use of land for subsistence farming.

That is *another* problem yes, but not to be conflated with the waste
of resources (land, feed, water) and the pollution involved in keeping
more livestock than people on the same small rock.

Subsistence farming *is* a waste of resources.


--
Spike

On 07/06/2021 09:04, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 18:11, T i m wrote:
alan_m wrote:

Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?

[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Before the trees, there was a glacier about a km thick, but 'global
warming' some tens of thousands of years before the Industrial Age, got
rid of it. Shouldn't we go back to those times instead, as interglacial
warm periods are quite short when compared to the glacials?

Thanks for yet another irrelevant history lesson outside the period of
relevance.

It's *all* relevant to the land in question.

--
Spike

In article ,
Spike wrote:
On 06/06/2021 19:40, T i m wrote:

ALL the medial health practitioners recommend you
cut down on meat and increase the consumption of fruit, veg, nuts etc.

At one time ALL [on T i m ' s scale] medical practitioners recommended
smoking as it had a mild antiseptic effect and so warded off colds and
flu.

It was also a good appetite suppressant, and, pipe smoking kept midges
away. But, I haven't smoked since 1988.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:26:10 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 09:04, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 18:11, T i m wrote:
alan_m wrote:

Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep.

I wonder what was there before the grass?

[The] Chances are [that the] trees [there] [were]
absorbing [the] CO2, something we are going back to in many places.

Before the trees, there was a glacier about a km thick, but 'global
warming' some tens of thousands of years before the Industrial Age, got
rid of it. Shouldn't we go back to those times instead, as interglacial
warm periods are quite short when compared to the glacials?

Thanks for yet another irrelevant history lesson outside the period of
relevance.

It's *all* relevant to the land in question.

But not to our current use or restoration to a 'realistic' timescale
level of bio-diversity for the purposes of a sensible discussion.

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:23:42 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 09:21, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 19:06, T i m wrote:

There is enough arable land to grow enough food to feed the entire
world population 1.5x over.

If we weren't 'wasting space' to grow food for livestock, we could be
using that space for growing other stuff, inc biofuels.

Wrong.

I'm afraid not mate.

The problem is the inefficient use of land for subsistence farming.

That is *another* problem yes, but not to be conflated with the waste
of resources (land, feed, water) and the pollution involved in keeping
more livestock than people on the same small rock.

Subsistence farming *is* a waste of resources.

Irrelevant when people don't have the choice.

Where they do, moving to a plant based solution is the only way
forward.

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 07 Jun 2021 12:01:39 +0100, charles wrote:

It was also a good appetite suppressant

Yes, SWMBO found that. At least it got her off the cigarettes.

and, pipe smoking kept midges
away. But, I haven't smoked since 1988.

She gave up around 1992. She deliberately went on a 10 day European coach
trip without any of her pipes.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 07/06/2021 12:01, charles wrote:

snip pipe smoking kept midges away.

and a fair few people

--
Robin (Exmoor Hunt, 1970-1995)

reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Mon, 07 Jun 2021 12:01:39 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Spike wrote:
On 06/06/2021 19:40, T i m wrote:

ALL the medial health practitioners recommend you
cut down on meat and increase the consumption of fruit, veg, nuts etc.

At one time ALL [on T i m ' s scale] medical practitioners recommended
smoking as it had a mild antiseptic effect and so warded off colds and
flu.

It was also a good appetite suppressant,

I think that's the reason many (young) girls took up smoking. ;-(

and, pipe smoking kept midges
away.

I should have taken it up when camping at Ft William! We asked one of
the wardens at the site if he was a 'local' and if he had a cure for
the midges ... he said yes and then pulled his sleeve up (displaying a
load of bites) and added if he could find a cure he would make a
fortune! ;-)

But, I haven't smoked since 1988.

I've never smoked (never saw the point ... it stinks, is expensive,
dangerous (fires), anti-social, wasn't affected by peer-pressure etc)
but the Mrs did from quite young and stopped when it looked like we
were going to be 'a couple' (30+ years ago now so a similar period to
you).

Cigarette smoke / fumes used to make my eyes sting, cigar smoke /
fumes used to make me feel sick whilst some pipe smoke could be fairly
aromatic.

Cheers, T i m

On 06/06/2021 18:32, alan_m wrote:
On 06/06/2021 18:25, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 15:15:40 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 14:35, T i m wrote:

Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

But often extensive use of the soil for vegetable crops is destroying
the soil structure. Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep. I wonder what
the state of this environment would be if the land was reallocated to
just growing crops for vegan food.

Traditional crop rotation used to include a year or two laid to grass
and used for livestock grazing. That way they lots of nice organic
fertilizer got deposited on the ground in the process (displacing more
carbon generated as a result of the manufacture of industrial fertilizer
and its transportation), and the livestock converted all that inedible
grass into something nice tasty and nutritious.

A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:23:00 +0100, Robin wrote:

Robin (Exmoor Hunt, 1970-1995)

Ah, that explains quite a lot.

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 18:32, alan_m wrote:
On 06/06/2021 18:25, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 15:15:40 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 14:35, T i m wrote:

Or all the habitat loss leading to species loss, probably 'not your
problem' either (other than you are causing it of course), till some
animal you like to eat goes extinct of course.

You forgot to mention habitat loss due to growing crops for vegans.

Ah yes, thanks, crops that yield more food than using the same land to
feed livestock (directly or indirectly).

But often extensive use of the soil for vegetable crops is destroying
the soil structure. Where I'm currently staying I can see very high
hillsides with fields growing grass and are full of sheep. I wonder what
the state of this environment would be if the land was reallocated to
just growing crops for vegan food.

Traditional crop rotation used to include a year or two laid to grass
and used for livestock grazing.

Traditional in the UK and in some cases more likely.

That way they lots of nice organic
fertilizer got deposited on the ground in the process (displacing more
carbon generated as a result of the manufacture of industrial fertilizer
and its transportation),

Yup, we don't want any of that stuff thanks ...

and the livestock converted all that inedible
grass into something nice tasty and nutritious.

Ah, the 'good old days' (well, unless you were 'livestock' that is).

A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 07/06/2021 14:13, T i m wrote:

snip

I've never smoked

FFS, get back on topic.

On 07/06/2021 15:16, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip


A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.

On 07/06/2021 15:23, Richard wrote:
On 07/06/2021 15:16, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip


A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.


Well I did specify sane :-)



--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2021 12:01:39 +0100, charles wrote:

It was also a good appetite suppressant

Yes, SWMBO found that. At least it got her off the cigarettes.

and, pipe smoking kept midges
away. But, I haven't smoked since 1988.

She gave up around 1992. She deliberately went on a 10 day European coach
trip without any of her pipes.

whereas. I was in hospital with Legionella.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 07/06/2021 11:23, Spike wrote:
On 07/06/2021 09:21, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 06/06/2021 19:06, T i m wrote:

There is enough arable land to grow enough food to feed the entire
world population 1.5x over.

If we weren't 'wasting space' to grow food for livestock, we could be
using that space for growing other stuff, inc biofuels.

Wrong.

I'm afraid not mate.

The problem is the inefficient use of land for subsistence farming.

That is *another* problem yes, but not to be conflated with the waste
of resources (land, feed, water) and the pollution involved in keeping
more livestock than people on the same small rock.

Subsistence farming *is* a waste of resources.



And in Scotland, massively subsidised by the taxpayer.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:58:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 15:23, Richard wrote:
On 07/06/2021 15:16, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip


A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.


Well I did specify sane :-)

The idea is we (those who care about the miss/treatment of animals in
2021) aim high then it's not so much of an issue if we fall short. So,
if we say 'none' we mean 'as few as possible' and whilst a single
unnecessary death is still one too many, we would start with those
creatures who also live the worst 'lives' first and work back from
there.

So, yer stereotypical (2% representative) beef cow raised on grass
(and ignoring the fact that it's killed whilst very young, making the
death particularly 'unkind') would be further down the 'list' than
those who spend their (short) lives in a concrete feed lot (inc in the
UK).

Regarding sanity, I think most people would judge the idea of killing
something when it's death wasn't necessary might put a question mark
on the sanity of such a choice? Well, till you tell them it's for 5
minutes of taste and *specifically* that they don't have to see, let
alone do it themselves ...

History will tell just how sane we have been ... ;-)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04sh6zg

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:21:57 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 14:13, T i m wrote:

snip

I've never smoked

FFS, get back on topic.

I can't think of much 'back on topic' than smoking and the stunted
growth in children but it's good to see you are treating everone here
equally.

Or is it that you only read what *I* type?

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 16:38:52 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

Subsistence farming *is* a waste of resources.



And in Scotland, massively subsidised by the taxpayer.


Acceptable if they are also re-wilding and putting less destructive
demand on the land?

Cheers, T i m

On 07/06/2021 16:56, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 16:38:52 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

Subsistence farming *is* a waste of resources.



And in Scotland, massively subsidised by the taxpayer.


Acceptable if they are also re-wilding and putting less destructive
demand on the land?

Cheers, T i m


Are you joking ?. They are paid by the taxpayer to keep
Highland coos, a few sheep and possibly one or two pigs.
And not for pets because in that part of the world you
cannot grow crops and survive.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:26:44 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

Acceptable if they are also re-wilding and putting less destructive
demand on the land?


Are you joking ?. They are paid by the taxpayer to keep
Highland coos, a few sheep and possibly one or two pigs.

Yes, 'subsistence.

And not for pets because in that part of the world you
cannot grow crops and survive.

But you don't need to if you are getting grants for you to re-wild and
sensitively 'manage' the environment?

And they do have shops in Scotland now you know? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 07/06/2021 16:42, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:58:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 15:23, Richard wrote:
On 07/06/2021 15:16, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip


A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.


Well I did specify sane :-)

The idea is we (those who care about the miss/treatment of animals in
2021) aim high then it's not so much of an issue if we fall short. So,

why not post a link to something from 2017?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04sh6zg

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/phot...E9_460swp.webp

On 07/06/2021 16:44, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:21:57 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 14:13, T i m wrote:

snip

I've never smoked

FFS, get back on topic.

I can't think of much 'back on topic' than smoking and the stunted
growth in children but it's good to see you are treating everone here
equally.

Irony alert - you left out the "vegan" part and have gone into full-on
anti smoking (how quaint). Soon we'll be on the cat improvements to your
humble abode and garden.


Or is it that you only read what *I* type?

I read a lot of other stuff. Your evangelism is what irks me. If you
were a Jehovah's Witness I could live with that because I'd just shut
the door and you'd be gone.
You are much worse, in that you simply cannot take a hint. You cannot
even see that you are alienating people who are much more tolerant of
your crap than I can ever be.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:00:24 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 16:44, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:21:57 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 14:13, T i m wrote:

snip

I've never smoked

FFS, get back on topic.

I can't think of much 'back on topic' than smoking and the stunted
growth in children but it's good to see you are treating everone here
equally.

Irony alert - you left out the "vegan" part and have gone into full-on
anti smoking (how quaint).

What, and I started that did I?

Your bigotry seems to have some bounds at least (it's only me).

Soon we'll be on the cat improvements to your
humble abode and garden.

I will?


Or is it that you only read what *I* type?

I read a lot of other stuff.

Doesn't look like it from here.

Your evangelism is what irks me.

Oh, what, and you think that would bother me?

If you
were a Jehovah's Witness I could live with that because I'd just shut
the door and you'd be gone.

And you don't have the equivalent here with a killfile. If you need
some help with that ...

You are much worse, in that you simply cannot take a hint.

A hint that you don't like the facts I state?

You cannot
even see that you are alienating people who are much more tolerant of
your crap than I can ever be.

Well, if your engagement with me here is anything to go by it's no
loss from this POV and all the rest who actually 'get' someone can
have a different POV seem to still be having grown-up conversations
with me.

So, go on, you have the power (really) ...

Cheers, T i m

On 07/06/2021 18:42, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:00:24 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 16:44, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:21:57 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 14:13, T i m wrote:

snip

I've never smoked

FFS, get back on topic.

I can't think of much 'back on topic' than smoking and the stunted
growth in children but it's good to see you are treating everone here
equally.

Irony alert - you left out the "vegan" part and have gone into full-on
anti smoking (how quaint).

What, and I started that did I?

Your bigotry seems to have some bounds at least (it's only me).

Soon we'll be on the cat improvements to your
humble abode and garden.

I will?


Or is it that you only read what *I* type?

I read a lot of other stuff.

Doesn't look like it from here.

Your evangelism is what irks me.

Oh, what, and you think that would bother me?

If you
were a Jehovah's Witness I could live with that because I'd just shut
the door and you'd be gone.

And you don't have the equivalent here with a killfile. If you need
some help with that ...

You are much worse, in that you simply cannot take a hint.

A hint that you don't like the facts I state?

You cannot
even see that you are alienating people who are much more tolerant of
your crap than I can ever be.

Well, if your engagement with me here is anything to go by it's no
loss from this POV and all the rest who actually 'get' someone can
have a different POV seem to still be having grown-up conversations
with me.

So, go on, you have the power (really) ...

Tad sensitive today Tim? You really should learn to chill at your age.
Of course I can have sensible conversations with people from all walks
of life. There are those however, who I cannot engage without prejudice.
It is the zealot types. You know, the people who are religious fanatics
or openly stupid to the point of not knowing that they are fanatics.
As I said, chill.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 19:34:50 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

Well, if your engagement with me here is anything to go by it's no
loss from this POV and all the rest who actually 'get' someone can
have a different POV seem to still be having grown-up conversations
with me.

So, go on, you have the power (really) ...

Tad sensitive today Tim?

You really (like many of the other trolls) have no idea about people
do you?

You really should learn to chill at your age.

If I was any more laid back I'd fall over. Just did a nice pasta meal
(her fave), had a vegan Magnum chock ice for pudding and I'm about to
start my second beer.

Of course I can have sensible conversations with people from all walks
of life.

Where did I say that you couldn't? Just that you can't do that with me
for your own personal / problem reasons.

There are those however, who I cannot engage without prejudice.

Yes, I've noticed, you ought to chill mate.

It is the zealot types.

Oh?

You know, the people who are religious fanatics

Yeah, don't trust em myself ... I can't trust someone that can't be
seen with my own eyes, like an innocent animal collapsing to it's
knees before having it's throat cut, just for being what some people
consider to be 'food'?

I just did dinner using half a bag of the Plant Pioneers mince and I
really can't say I could tell the difference between that and the
stuff that was from a mined up animal carcase (other than there were
no bits of gristle, bone, eyeballs or aresholes in it).

https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/...ian-mince-500g

or openly stupid

Yup, I've dealt with you remember so I'm used to that. ;-)

to the point of not knowing that they are fanatics.

I guess if you are on the back foot, feeling guilty about your
lifestyle choices then 'of course you would see someone who *doesn't*
want to say cause animals unnecessary suffering, exploitation and
death as some sort of fanatic. Arse backwards or what!

As I said, chill.

As I said, I'm so chilled I don't feel the urge to cause animals
unnecessary pain, suffering and death, just because I like how their
cooked flesh tastes when there are plenty of alternatives.

How about you Richard, could you be that chilled?

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:46:53 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

The idea is we (those who care about the miss/treatment of animals in
2021) aim high then it's not so much of an issue if we fall short. So,

why not post a link to something from 2017?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04sh6zg

Erm, I did, because that was when the film was made? You aren't very
bright are you mate? ;-(

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/phot...E9_460swp.webp

I can't open that on here for some reason but I'm sure it's insightful
/ funny / sad / clever.

Cheers, T i m

On 07/06/2021 16:42, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:58:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 07/06/2021 15:23, Richard wrote:
On 07/06/2021 15:16, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:13:44 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip


A win win, that any sane vegan ought to support.

Erm, I'm not sure you have yet grasped the whole 'not exploiting
animals' (as lawn mowers or fertilisation units even) yet? ;-)

Sorry John, seems like we're stuck with the other version.


Well I did specify sane :-)

The idea is we (those who care about the miss/treatment of animals in
2021) aim high then it's not so much of an issue if we fall short.

The usual technique is bit-wise slow changes. Going for broke tend to
leave you penniless and achieving nothing.

So,
if we say 'none' we mean 'as few as possible' and whilst a single
unnecessary death is still one too many, we would start with those
creatures who also live the worst 'lives' first and work back from
there.

Does this mean you'll going to support initiative that improve animal
welfare? For you that will be a first.

So, yer stereotypical (2% representative) beef cow raised on grass
(and ignoring the fact that it's killed whilst very young, making the
death particularly 'unkind') would be further down the 'list' than
those who spend their (short) lives in a concrete feed lot (inc in the
UK).

I don't think the dead cow is going to be very aware of anything.

Regarding sanity, I think most people would judge the idea of killing
something when it's death wasn't necessary might put a question mark
on the sanity of such a choice? Well, till you tell them it's for 5
minutes of taste and *specifically* that they don't have to see, let
alone do it themselves ...

Not just taste, but all those nutrients we don't get from plant food.
Without which a child's brain development is stunted.

History will tell just how sane we have been ... ;-)

Quite.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04sh6zg

In your dreams.

On 07/06/2021 10:19, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 08:26:07 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 19:40, T i m wrote:

ALL the medial health practitioners recommend you
cut down on meat and increase the consumption of fruit, veg, nuts etc.

At one time ALL [on T i m ' s scale] medical practitioners recommended
smoking as it had a mild antiseptic effect and so warded off colds and flu.

Yup, and then we learned better and that's where we are now re meat,
eggs and dairy re human heath and it's negative impact on the
environment.

That's right, we now know that children are damaged by eating an
exclusively plant food diet.not eating meat and meat products.

It's called progress.