Cycling and vegetarianism

On 2004-09-03, DRS wrote:
"Preston Crawford" wrote in message


[...]

I agree. It's something I need to learn better. Walking away.

Or even better you could learn to back off from making pig ignorant
statements on subjects you clearly know next to nothing about and claiming
they represent some kind of establishment orthodoxy.

Yes, that's what I meant to say. There you go again, trying to prove
you're "right". What a jerk.

Preston

On 2004-09-03, DRS wrote:
"Preston Crawford" wrote in message


[...]

I agree. It's something I need to learn better. Walking away.

Or even better you could learn to back off from making pig ignorant
statements on subjects you clearly know next to nothing about and claiming
they represent some kind of establishment orthodoxy.

Yes, that's what I meant to say. There you go again, trying to prove
you're "right". What a jerk.

Preston

"Preston Crawford" wrote in message

On 2004-09-03, DRS wrote:
"Preston Crawford" wrote in message


[...]

I agree. It's something I need to learn better. Walking away.

Or even better you could learn to back off from making pig ignorant
statements on subjects you clearly know next to nothing about and
claiming they represent some kind of establishment orthodoxy.

Yes, that's what I meant to say. There you go again, trying to prove
you're "right". What a jerk.

No, I'm not. I made reasonable, defensible on-topic statements. You made
factual error after factual error on a subject you know sod-all about and
you're still desperately trying to make me out to be the bad guy because I
kept proving you wrong. You're the jerk, buddy.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"Preston Crawford" wrote in message

On 2004-09-03, DRS wrote:
"Preston Crawford" wrote in message


[...]

I agree. It's something I need to learn better. Walking away.

Or even better you could learn to back off from making pig ignorant
statements on subjects you clearly know next to nothing about and
claiming they represent some kind of establishment orthodoxy.

Yes, that's what I meant to say. There you go again, trying to prove
you're "right". What a jerk.

No, I'm not. I made reasonable, defensible on-topic statements. You made
factual error after factual error on a subject you know sod-all about and
you're still desperately trying to make me out to be the bad guy because I
kept proving you wrong. You're the jerk, buddy.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"Roger Zoul" wrote:

Chalo wrote:
||
|| Umm, no offense intended, but have you killed, gutted, and
|| dismembered
|| any critters lately? It's pretty gross.

Gross is a relative thing. Once you've done it is a few times your
sensibilities adjust.

No, sorry; just because you can get used to it doesn't mean it ain't
gross. Gutting and parting out a Labrador retriever or a schoolkid is
the same basic operation without the cultivated indifference, and that
would gross out even you.

|| Meat stinks until you cook it

Not true if the meat is fresh.

Bull. Fresh meat stinks, fresh blood stinks (even mine!) and that
has nothing to do with decay.

|| and transmits all sorts of unpleasant
|| diseases.

Really?

Don't be thick. Trichinosis, e. coli, salmonella, campylobacter, and
bovine spongiform encephalopathy are just a few of the awful bugs you
can contract from meat. You know that.

||You can say the same for eggs, which I eat lots of.
|| I'll not dispute anybody who wishes to call them nasty-- they are!
|| And tasty.

That's silly. Nasty and tasty don't go together.

No? How about oysters? Stinky French cheese? Crawdads? Durian?
Sweetbreads? There are lots of disgusting yet delicious foods out
there.

Chalo Colina

"Roger Zoul" wrote:

Chalo wrote:
||
|| Umm, no offense intended, but have you killed, gutted, and
|| dismembered
|| any critters lately? It's pretty gross.

Gross is a relative thing. Once you've done it is a few times your
sensibilities adjust.

No, sorry; just because you can get used to it doesn't mean it ain't
gross. Gutting and parting out a Labrador retriever or a schoolkid is
the same basic operation without the cultivated indifference, and that
would gross out even you.

|| Meat stinks until you cook it

Not true if the meat is fresh.

Bull. Fresh meat stinks, fresh blood stinks (even mine!) and that
has nothing to do with decay.

|| and transmits all sorts of unpleasant
|| diseases.

Really?

Don't be thick. Trichinosis, e. coli, salmonella, campylobacter, and
bovine spongiform encephalopathy are just a few of the awful bugs you
can contract from meat. You know that.

||You can say the same for eggs, which I eat lots of.
|| I'll not dispute anybody who wishes to call them nasty-- they are!
|| And tasty.

That's silly. Nasty and tasty don't go together.

No? How about oysters? Stinky French cheese? Crawdads? Durian?
Sweetbreads? There are lots of disgusting yet delicious foods out
there.

Chalo Colina

On 2004-09-03, DRS wrote:
Yes, that's what I meant to say. There you go again, trying to prove
you're "right". What a jerk.

No, I'm not. I made reasonable, defensible on-topic statements. You made
factual error after factual error on a subject you know sod-all about and
you're still desperately trying to make me out to be the bad guy because I
kept proving you wrong. You're the jerk, buddy.

"I know you are but what am I?" Do you realize how you sound?

I'm not making you out to be anything. You're making yourself out to be a
malcontent and rude and angry.

I made a few simple assertions. #1 - That there was a general consensus
amongst the medical community on what constitutes a healthy diet and that
those are the guidelines I follow. You asked for "proof" of this, which,
as I said earlier, I wasn't going to take the time to provide. I don't
have to. It's not my job. I read the news. I read magazines. These
articles and studies float by in mass numbers all the time. They've been
written into textbooks since I was a child. They were the bedrock of the
biology classes I took in college. So I don't really care to site anything
to "disprove" you. Not my job.

#2 - I made the assertion that what really makes low fat diets
unsuccessful is that people eat "poor quality carbs". You nit-picked this
and took me to task for using that phrase when everyone with half a brain
knows what I meant. And if they don't they can ask me what I mean rather
than picking a fight like you did. I meant simple carbs, sugars, things
that in a regularly daily diet weren't really good carbs for you to take
in. You wanted to nit pick at terminology and claim that this shows I
don't know science. It just shows that... well... you're a jerk. I'm
talking about the food I eat, not presentation a dissertation on nutrition
for your approval. Thus my use of a term that maybe isn't 100%
scientifically accurate isn't a mistake or ignorance. The way you react to
it, though, shows your personality and your inability to relate to people
in any way other than arguing with them and beating them over the head
until they give up. This makes you a bully too, incidentally.

There are others. But basically what we have here is one person (me) just
trying to talk about his diet and another person (you) who likes to pick
apart language to start fights and win arguments. You hide behind your
supposed amazing knowledge of science and all these articles you can site
when the real problem is that you have the communication skills of
drunken, pcp-addled neanderthal.

Preston

On 2004-09-03, DRS wrote:
Yes, that's what I meant to say. There you go again, trying to prove
you're "right". What a jerk.

No, I'm not. I made reasonable, defensible on-topic statements. You made
factual error after factual error on a subject you know sod-all about and
you're still desperately trying to make me out to be the bad guy because I
kept proving you wrong. You're the jerk, buddy.

"I know you are but what am I?" Do you realize how you sound?

I'm not making you out to be anything. You're making yourself out to be a
malcontent and rude and angry.

I made a few simple assertions. #1 - That there was a general consensus
amongst the medical community on what constitutes a healthy diet and that
those are the guidelines I follow. You asked for "proof" of this, which,
as I said earlier, I wasn't going to take the time to provide. I don't
have to. It's not my job. I read the news. I read magazines. These
articles and studies float by in mass numbers all the time. They've been
written into textbooks since I was a child. They were the bedrock of the
biology classes I took in college. So I don't really care to site anything
to "disprove" you. Not my job.

#2 - I made the assertion that what really makes low fat diets
unsuccessful is that people eat "poor quality carbs". You nit-picked this
and took me to task for using that phrase when everyone with half a brain
knows what I meant. And if they don't they can ask me what I mean rather
than picking a fight like you did. I meant simple carbs, sugars, things
that in a regularly daily diet weren't really good carbs for you to take
in. You wanted to nit pick at terminology and claim that this shows I
don't know science. It just shows that... well... you're a jerk. I'm
talking about the food I eat, not presentation a dissertation on nutrition
for your approval. Thus my use of a term that maybe isn't 100%
scientifically accurate isn't a mistake or ignorance. The way you react to
it, though, shows your personality and your inability to relate to people
in any way other than arguing with them and beating them over the head
until they give up. This makes you a bully too, incidentally.

There are others. But basically what we have here is one person (me) just
trying to talk about his diet and another person (you) who likes to pick
apart language to start fights and win arguments. You hide behind your
supposed amazing knowledge of science and all these articles you can site
when the real problem is that you have the communication skills of
drunken, pcp-addled neanderthal.

Preston

"Preston Crawford" wrote in message

On 2004-09-03, DRS wrote:
Yes, that's what I meant to say. There you go again, trying to prove
you're "right". What a jerk.

No, I'm not. I made reasonable, defensible on-topic statements.
You made factual error after factual error on a subject you know
sod-all about and you're still desperately trying to make me out to
be the bad guy because I kept proving you wrong. You're the jerk,
buddy.

"I know you are but what am I?" Do you realize how you sound?

I'm not making you out to be anything. You're making yourself out to
be a malcontent and rude and angry.

No, I'm not. You keep projecting your pathetic fantasies onto me and I'm
not going to let you get away with it.

I made a few simple assertions. #1 - That there was a general
consensus amongst the medical community on what constitutes a healthy
diet and that those are the guidelines I follow. You asked for
"proof" of this, which, as I said earlier, I wasn't going to take the
time to provide. I don't have to. It's not my job. I read the news. I
read magazines. These articles and studies float by in mass numbers
all the time. They've been written into textbooks since I was a
child. They were the bedrock of the biology classes I took in
college. So I don't really care to site anything to "disprove" you.
Not my job.

Yes, it is. When you make claims in a public forum and someone provides
actual science contradicting you, simply dismissing it out of hand as you
did is not a legitimate response.

#2 - I made the assertion that what really makes low fat diets
unsuccessful is that people eat "poor quality carbs". You nit-picked
this and took me to task for using that phrase when everyone with
half a brain knows what I meant.

You said far more than that and I took issue with each statement you made
that was wrong, not just that one. Your attempts to portray me as
nit-picking when in fact I took you to task for making substantive errors of
fact are wrong and disingenuous.

And if they don't they can ask me
what I mean rather than picking a fight like you did. I meant simple
carbs, sugars, things that in a regularly daily diet weren't really
good carbs for you to take in. You wanted to nit pick at terminology
and claim that this shows I don't know science. It just shows that...
well... you're a jerk.

It shows nothing of the sort. Time and again you dishonestly misrepresent
the facts - like you did just then - and then try to pretend I'm the bad guy
for not accepting your rubbish as gospel. When you persistently make claims
of fact that are wrong when they're been shown to be wrong then you are the
jerk.

I'm talking about the food I eat, not
presentation a dissertation on nutrition for your approval. Thus my
use of a term that maybe isn't 100% scientifically accurate isn't a
mistake or ignorance. The way you react to it, though, shows your
personality and your inability to relate to people in any way other
than arguing with them and beating them over the head until they give
up. This makes you a bully too, incidentally.

You desperately need to get out more. I'm not a bully. I just won't roll
over and let jerks like you get away with making pig ignorant statements on
subjects you know nothing substantive about.

There are others. But basically what we have here is one person (me)
just trying to talk about his diet and another person (you) who likes
to pick apart language to start fights and win arguments.

Bull****. What we have here is one person - you - who is so pathologically
dishonest you not only repeat substantive errors of fact that have been
proven wrong but you desperately persist in trying to portray your opponents
as deranged instead of simply admitting you were wrong.

You hide
behind your supposed amazing knowledge of science and all these
articles you can site when the real problem is that you have the
communication skills of drunken, pcp-addled neanderthal.

I hide behind nothing. Unlike you I back up my statements. You're just a
miserable whiner who can't cope with being proven wrong on matters of fact.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"Preston Crawford" wrote in message

On 2004-09-03, DRS wrote:
Yes, that's what I meant to say. There you go again, trying to prove
you're "right". What a jerk.

No, I'm not. I made reasonable, defensible on-topic statements.
You made factual error after factual error on a subject you know
sod-all about and you're still desperately trying to make me out to
be the bad guy because I kept proving you wrong. You're the jerk,
buddy.

"I know you are but what am I?" Do you realize how you sound?

I'm not making you out to be anything. You're making yourself out to
be a malcontent and rude and angry.

No, I'm not. You keep projecting your pathetic fantasies onto me and I'm
not going to let you get away with it.

I made a few simple assertions. #1 - That there was a general
consensus amongst the medical community on what constitutes a healthy
diet and that those are the guidelines I follow. You asked for
"proof" of this, which, as I said earlier, I wasn't going to take the
time to provide. I don't have to. It's not my job. I read the news. I
read magazines. These articles and studies float by in mass numbers
all the time. They've been written into textbooks since I was a
child. They were the bedrock of the biology classes I took in
college. So I don't really care to site anything to "disprove" you.
Not my job.

Yes, it is. When you make claims in a public forum and someone provides
actual science contradicting you, simply dismissing it out of hand as you
did is not a legitimate response.

#2 - I made the assertion that what really makes low fat diets
unsuccessful is that people eat "poor quality carbs". You nit-picked
this and took me to task for using that phrase when everyone with
half a brain knows what I meant.

You said far more than that and I took issue with each statement you made
that was wrong, not just that one. Your attempts to portray me as
nit-picking when in fact I took you to task for making substantive errors of
fact are wrong and disingenuous.

And if they don't they can ask me
what I mean rather than picking a fight like you did. I meant simple
carbs, sugars, things that in a regularly daily diet weren't really
good carbs for you to take in. You wanted to nit pick at terminology
and claim that this shows I don't know science. It just shows that...
well... you're a jerk.

It shows nothing of the sort. Time and again you dishonestly misrepresent
the facts - like you did just then - and then try to pretend I'm the bad guy
for not accepting your rubbish as gospel. When you persistently make claims
of fact that are wrong when they're been shown to be wrong then you are the
jerk.

I'm talking about the food I eat, not
presentation a dissertation on nutrition for your approval. Thus my
use of a term that maybe isn't 100% scientifically accurate isn't a
mistake or ignorance. The way you react to it, though, shows your
personality and your inability to relate to people in any way other
than arguing with them and beating them over the head until they give
up. This makes you a bully too, incidentally.

You desperately need to get out more. I'm not a bully. I just won't roll
over and let jerks like you get away with making pig ignorant statements on
subjects you know nothing substantive about.

There are others. But basically what we have here is one person (me)
just trying to talk about his diet and another person (you) who likes
to pick apart language to start fights and win arguments.

Bull****. What we have here is one person - you - who is so pathologically
dishonest you not only repeat substantive errors of fact that have been
proven wrong but you desperately persist in trying to portray your opponents
as deranged instead of simply admitting you were wrong.

You hide
behind your supposed amazing knowledge of science and all these
articles you can site when the real problem is that you have the
communication skills of drunken, pcp-addled neanderthal.

I hide behind nothing. Unlike you I back up my statements. You're just a
miserable whiner who can't cope with being proven wrong on matters of fact.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?