Osteoporosis Prevention Archives

Raw meat

[ Osteoporosis Prevention Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!
 
        

Raw meat

Posted by Willing to experiment on August 28, 2002 at 06:32:24:

Hi, I just read the fascinating posts on raw meat.

How do you guys get beyond the gross texture of raw meat? I tried sushi once, and the mushiness of the raw meat against my teeth almost made me gag. Is this something you force yourself to eat until you get used to it? Or do you do something to the meat to change its consistency?
Thanks.



Re: Raw meat

Posted by labrat on August 28, 2002 at 09:09:10:

In Reply to: Raw meat posted by Willing to experiment on August 28, 2002 at 06:32:24:

I love the texture. Also of sushi. I guess that's why I was attracted to it to begin with - not because it was good or bad for me.

As far as I know you can't change the texture (and I guess most of us wouldn't want to!) but you could try just cooking it more rare than you usually do and start that way. You may learn to appreciate the texture, or decide that it's just not for you.

~~~8>



Re: Raw meat

Posted by Terri-Lynn on August 28, 2002 at 10:29:18:

In Reply to: Re: Raw meat posted by labrat on August 28, 2002 at 09:09:10:

Some just like it! We doctor it up with wassabie, that hot stuff, as far as the fish goes; Raw meat some doctor it up with mustard and the works, and some just like the taste and texture of it; I like some fish raw and the meat cooked a little rare with a little blood-[each to his own;] They say you have a better chance to get parasite with raw meat, i don't know, i suspect using intuition and the freshness plays an important part though;

Follow Ups:


THAT'S DISGUSTING PEOPLE!!!!!! nmi

Posted by NOTTA WOLF on August 28, 2002 at 11:19:37:

In Reply to: Raw meat posted by Willing to experiment on August 28, 2002 at 06:32:24:

nmi



You're just a mentally restricted person, a prisoner of your stereotypes.

Posted by NOTTA WOLF EITHER on August 28, 2002 at 20:31:04:

In Reply to: THAT'S DISGUSTING PEOPLE!!!!!! nmi posted by NOTTA WOLF on August 28, 2002 at 11:19:37:

It's obviously unknown to you how to go beyond a cage that your parents and other people have built for you, to obtain something better that what you already have.

On the other hand, you are on this board, so maybe it's your attempt to stick your nose through the wires of your cage to smell what's out there. Keep trying.



Re: Raw meat, gross texture? Are you SURE?

Posted by
Gregory on August 29, 2002 at 02:49:19:

In Reply to: Raw meat posted by Willing to experiment on August 28, 2002 at 06:32:24:

Damn.

I didn't think it was gross. I always thought cooked meat had a gross texture. Raw meat,
especially ground beef is such interesting stuff texture-wise. When I was a kid, I used
to love modelling the Empire State Building and the Eifel Tower out of ground beef. These
did not make equally interesting hamburgers (structural integrity problems)d but the texture
was perfect. Raw meat, fish, and chicken has a most interesting almost "chewy" texture
which is not at all unpleasant. It hardly made me gag, and every once in a while, I can play
wolf, and share "the kill" with my dogs. Does wonders for human-canine relations. I find
that like me, they prefer the meat with onions lightly sauteed in butter, and served hot.



Lightwalking,


Follow Ups:


Don't be so primitive man.....Try a veggie burger.........

Posted by
NOTTA WOLF on August 29, 2002 at 07:10:25:

In Reply to: You're just a mentally restricted person, a prisoner of your stereotypes. posted by NOTTA WOLF EITHER on August 28, 2002 at 20:31:04:

There blood free,humane, and good for ya.



Re: Don't be so primitive man.....Try a veggie burger...It's also......

Posted by
Gregory on August 29, 2002 at 07:49:17:

In Reply to: Don't be so primitive man.....Try a veggie burger......... posted by NOTTA WOLF on August 29, 2002 at 07:10:25:

meat free, unsatisfying and the jury is still out on how "good" it is for you.

Say, did I mention the ultrasonic screaming of the plants murdered to make that veggie
burger?

Damn. Thought I did. Oh well, good thing you can't hear it, that way you can pretend it's
humane and be "guilt free."



Lightwalking,
Gregory



YOUR RIGHT gre"GORY"......blood and torment are the key....i apologize!...

Posted by NOTTA WOLF on August 29, 2002 at 08:30:08:

In Reply to: Re: Don't be so primitive man.....Try a veggie burger...It's also...... posted by Gregory on August 29, 2002 at 07:49:17:

Excuse me while i go milk my plants and take my soybeans out for a walk.
Yea....pet plants are great....they're very emotional though as compared to animals which have no feelings and experience no pain or scream out loud.



No one need "appologize" for eating meat.

Posted by
Gregory on August 29, 2002 at 09:23:26:

In Reply to: YOUR RIGHT gre"GORY"......blood and torment are the key....i apologize!... posted by NOTTA WOLF on August 29, 2002 at 08:30:08:

Instead of eating "veggie" burgers as if to satisfy the hunger for meat AND be politically
and philosloppilly correct, I think that you need to understand the basic premise that
something has to die for you to live. Plant or animal, it makes no difference. Frankly I've
had it up to my eyeballs with PC that the taking of that life has to be humane and having
to pander to PETA terrorists. It's meat. I eat meat. I don't feel bad about eating meat
because I was designed to eat meat. Other stuff too, but no one comaplains about that. So you
don't like I eat meat, talk to the designer (God). I'm not interested in ersatz meat, no-meat
veggie burgers or any other alternative that doesn't feature meat.
If it bothers you, I mean really bothers you -abstain from meat, and have a veggie burger
for me.



Lightwalking,
Gregory



Re: No one need "appologize" for eating meat.

Posted by Bill on August 29, 2002 at 11:08:27:

In Reply to: No one need "appologize" for eating meat. posted by Gregory on August 29, 2002 at 09:23:26:

I've been a vegetarian for about 15 years. It's a personal choice and I don't require it of my friends :) I believe in Bob McFerran's metabolic diets which suggest that some vegetarians are hurting themselves by not eating meat. If anyone asks me why I'm a vegetarian, I tell them.

A great read is John Robbins' Diet for a New America, which one website claims was nominated for a Pulitzer. He makes a very strong, well-researched, documented, objective and entertaining argument for vegetarianism on a lot of fronts, including human health, abuse of the world's resources, and humane treatment of animals. I really enjoy meat, but this book convinced me to become a vegetarian. I still eat eggs and dairy.

Bill



Re: Don't be so primitive man.....Try a veggie burger.........

Posted by labrat on August 29, 2002 at 16:31:39:

In Reply to: Don't be so primitive man.....Try a veggie burger......... posted by NOTTA WOLF on August 29, 2002 at 07:10:25:

They're NOT good for ME. Sorry. I tried being a vegetarian, I'm an animal lover too. I got fairly ill with that little 8 month experiment. I HATE the way things are as far as our treatment of livestock here in the 21st century. I also need to eat meat every day in order to stay healthy and energetic. What would you recommend that I do?

It's not just black and white, I'm afraid.

~~~8>




Eggs and dairy are not meat. What does that have to do with being a vegetarian?

Posted by
Gregory on August 29, 2002 at 17:50:18:

In Reply to: Re: No one need "appologize" for eating meat. posted by Bill on August 29, 2002 at 11:08:27:

Convincing arguements not withstanding, the body isn't terribly intersted in "convincing
arguements" but IS interested having certain materials to rebuild itself.

Your Soul and your Spirit are NOT your physical body although there is an intimate
connection, so it isn't like it's going to hamper your spiritual development. Your
body has its innate intelligence to guide it and know what it needs to function optimally.



Lightwalking,
Gregory




Re: Eggs and dairy are not meat. What does that have to do with being a vegetarian?

Posted by Donna E. on August 29, 2002 at 18:24:13:

In Reply to: Eggs and dairy are not meat. What does that have to do with being a vegetarian? posted by Gregory on August 29, 2002 at 17:50:18:

Speaking of the integrated MBS, look at this neat course offered at Duke:

I wish I could find something like that around here.

Follow Ups:


Re: Raw meat

Posted by R. on August 29, 2002 at 20:01:36:

In Reply to: Raw meat posted by Willing to experiment on August 28, 2002 at 06:32:24:

I strongly believe it's all in your head.

I didn't like raw meat, at first. So, I tried a small piece and noticed that I was still alive and well. But the taste had much room for improvement. So, I salted and spiced it up. That was better. That's what I've been eating so far. I cut stew meat thinly, add salt with spices, and eat it with butter. Maybe add something esle. Sometimes I eat with a veggie salad.

There are other recipes for making what people say are VERY tasty raw meat dishes, but I haven't gotten to do that yet.

You can also try herring. Herring I buy is pretty large fish (about 10 inch long), preserved in salt. It's also raw, and I find it tasty. I don't always feel like eating it. Same with meat. I have a choice and use it to eat what I feel like.



What's a vegetarian

Posted by R. on August 29, 2002 at 20:16:03:

In Reply to: Re: No one need "appologize" for eating meat. posted by Bill on August 29, 2002 at 11:08:27:

Bill,

Your usage of the word vegetarian is pretty standard; however, I think it's a wrong usage, nevertheless. The word comes from a word that means a plant. You eat eggs and milk, so you are as vegetarian as anyone who loves everybody but one race is a loving person. You may be getting those crucial nutrients from eggs and milk that real vegetarians are thought not to.



Re: Raw meat

Posted by Donna E. on August 29, 2002 at 20:19:55:

In Reply to: Re: Raw meat posted by R. on August 29, 2002 at 20:01:36:

Hi R.,

Could you, would you? Just curious.



You need to do more research, Bill

Posted by R. on August 29, 2002 at 20:36:15:

In Reply to: Re: No one need "appologize" for eating meat. posted by Bill on August 29, 2002 at 11:08:27:

"He makes a very strong, well-researched, documented, objective and entertaining argument for vegetarianism on a lot of fronts..."

Maybe entertaining but not well-researched. I went to that site, clicked on protein link and found this:
"Excessive protein consumption is now strongly linked to bone weakness and osteoporosis."

First of all, what is excessive? This is not scientific but very manipulative because a layperson will not the question I just asked but will immediately think that he/she needs to limit or avoid protein. That's just human phychology.

What does it mean "strongly linked to bone weakness and osteoporosis"? Does it happen concurrently or does consumption of protein cause those conditions?

Since you have studied that "well researched" site, you should be able to answer the following question. If "protein consumption causes bone weakness and osteoporosis, then why Weston Price and others observed natives who ate quite a bit of animal protein (some of them predominantly meat, milk and blood) to have great health, especially skeletal health?



Re: Raw meat

Posted by R. on August 29, 2002 at 21:09:49:

In Reply to: Re: Raw meat posted by Donna E. on August 29, 2002 at 20:19:55:

Hell, no! It's includes pine nuts, and I don't tolerate nuts well. :)

Actually, I've been getting closer and closer to eating raw liver. I've been preparing it more and more rare. I have not tried tripe yet. Maybe some day. People in the native-nutrition, live-food, and primaldiet yahoo groups eat raw liver. Some have to mask it with some other food (e.g. a shake), while others eat it straight.



From one meat eater to another....

Posted by labrat on August 29, 2002 at 21:20:10:

In Reply to: No one need "appologize" for eating meat. posted by Gregory on August 29, 2002 at 09:23:26:

I DO think that animals should be killed humanely, and generally I believe they are. Humane = Quick in my book, because that's the biggest variable factor in dying, no?

My real problem is with the way they are treated while they're alive, like "stock" and without respect to their own basic needs to have room to move around, fresh air and possibly even a sort of happy life to live.

You have dogs, Gregory, so you KNOW there's more to an animal than just a body and a dumb instinctive brain. I believe they feel joy and sorrow and fear as well, and that we, as humans, are WAY off the mark as far as their "intelligence" goes. Being an animal myself, I think I know a little about this.

That being said, I think you know that I DON'T pander to PETA terrorism...and I KNOW you know that I do eat meat, and lots of it. But I do feel bad about our livestock's plight here and wish something could be done about factory farming. I try to buy free-range whenever I can find it and also buy a lot of game meat. In short, though I don't actually feel *guilty*, I do wish things were different.

And don't even get me started on those poor pigs being bred to harvest organs for human transplants.

Just my input from the middle ground...

~~~8>




I would!

Posted by labrat on August 29, 2002 at 21:34:49:

In Reply to: Re: Raw meat posted by Donna E. on August 29, 2002 at 20:19:55:

I can't imagine how anyone could chew through parboiled tripe however. That stuff is like a car tire. My mother used to make soup from it and cooked it for hours to make it soft and, well I call it "silky" but my friend calls it "slimey". I love it!! I can't find it here unfortunately. I also eat rare liver but haven't tried it raw yet...don't know why not. I guess cause spouse eats cooked stuff as a rule, and he does the cooking...

~~~8>



Re: From one meat eater to another....the pendulum swings in the other direction

Posted by
Gregory on August 29, 2002 at 21:52:54:

In Reply to: From one meat eater to another.... posted by labrat on August 29, 2002 at 21:20:10:

I am well aware of the treatment of food animals, and it does bother me. However the solution
is more humane treatment, not becoming a vegetarian, which is what NOTTA Wolf & Company is
suggesting.

My body is smart enough to know the difference between some slimey greasy veggie burger and
my wonderful, healthy raw meat.

What no one seems to want to acknowledge is that something dies for you to live. Cow, Fish, Bird, Plant.

I'm sure out in the wild there is terror galore as nature cheoreographs each dance of death.
There are no "humane" deaths. No animals die in their sleep surround by their children and
grandchildren. Death might be quick depending on how hungry your killer is or slower
depending how slow you go kicking and screaming to the inevitable.

By thge time I get to you, you're alerady dead and all I can do is bless you for
giving up you life so I can live another day. There's not guilt in that package,
and frankly, blessed or not, I'm still going to eat it. It is blessing enough to
eat, and follow the dictates of "mother nature."

Only people who have a steady food supply can have these stupid philosloppily inane discussions.
I wonder if the food supply dried up for any reason, and only staples like meat, eggs, bread,
butter and the like were available, how many vegetarians would starve to death or "adapt"
to eating meat. The converse is already known to produce problems, hence these silly discussions.



Lightwalking
Gregory



Re: I would! Me Too! Tripe is so Yummy!

Posted by Miss Bliss on August 29, 2002 at 23:46:13:

In Reply to: I would! posted by labrat on August 29, 2002 at 21:34:49:

My mum also use to cook it up in stews and soups. I loved it, the texture and how it absorbed the other flavours of the food, until I realized what tripe really was! Sheep intestines! If I dont think of where my food comes from I am OK, but its when I start to think that I become dangerous!!! LOL

Follow Ups:


Re: Raw meat

Posted by Miss Bliss on August 29, 2002 at 23:47:37:

In Reply to: Re: Raw meat posted by R. on August 29, 2002 at 21:09:49:

R.

you could still try just searing the liver on both sides, why does it have to be completely raw? Its real good with browned onions.



Re: I would!

Posted by Miss Bliss on August 30, 2002 at 00:03:01:

In Reply to: I would! posted by labrat on August 29, 2002 at 21:34:49:

Labrat

Do you feel much better doing the "raw" thing? I just cant get past the idea of eating it raw, so I cook it as rare as possible. Reminds me of the days growing up, when dad would cook up the meat at barbecues and he would always somehow cook them underdone. Not on purpose of course, but gosh, it tasted so goooood!

Follow Ups:


Re: Raw meat PMFJI

Posted by Sounder on August 30, 2002 at 00:45:21:

In Reply to: Re: Raw meat posted by Donna E. on August 29, 2002 at 20:19:55:

Hi Donna E,

I wouldn't eat it with your chompers!

Yeeeeeeeeettttttchhhh!

I love meat though.

Sounder

Follow Ups:


Re: Raw meat

Posted by R. on August 30, 2002 at 03:26:13:

In Reply to: Re: Raw meat posted by Miss Bliss on August 29, 2002 at 23:47:37:

That's exactly the way I prepare it now.

Follow Ups:


Re: I would!

Posted by R. on August 30, 2002 at 03:32:28:

In Reply to: I would! posted by labrat on August 29, 2002 at 21:34:49:

Where can you not find it? Are you in the US? I have seen it sold in CA. You could probably special order it.



Re: From one meat eater to another....the pendulum swings in the other direction

Posted by
thessa on August 30, 2002 at 06:10:49:

In Reply to: Re: From one meat eater to another....the pendulum swings in the other direction posted by Gregory on August 29, 2002 at 21:52:54:

Guess what gregory, all veg-heads are non-meat eaters to be PC! Also you're not taking into account the difference in the way plants and animals experience death. Namely the cow in the slaughter house who tries to climb the walls to escape while his brothers look on. If you want to eat meat, just eat it, any way you like. You don't have to defend meat eating or try to prove that vegetarianism is sickly, problem causing, or not the "right" solution. You know as well as I do that if the food supply dried up there would be no meat or cheese! You need to have plants first for production of those items, so they are not staples! My question is how many people would adapt if suddenly there were no more or little meat products (as in times of war for example - just research sickness stats of WWII in europe) or how many people would die because there is no meat. not many i imagine!!
namaste
thessa



Re: Don't be so primitive man.....Try a veggie burger.........

Posted by
NOTTA WOLF on August 30, 2002 at 07:09:31:

In Reply to: Re: Don't be so primitive man.....Try a veggie burger......... posted by labrat on August 29, 2002 at 16:31:39:

Hi everybody.......
Ya know....that's what it all boils down to is that the animals are just treated so inhumane while they await their death. I just can't stand that. I'll admit, i do like meat and i have only been vegetarian for about 2 years. I would like to eat meat again someday but i wish the animals did'nt have to go through such torrment just so we can satisfy are "cravings". I'm vegetarian NOW because it's much easier to be these days than it was say even 10 years ago. Their are alot of different foods that you can eat now that are meatless and still taste very good. I still do eat fish at times though. I just personally feel guilty if i eat any other types of meat because of the fact that there are so many other foods out there to eat that don't involve aniamls. For instance, have you ever seen the way they cram chickens into cages so tight that they can't move and their claws end up growing right around the cage and they end up pecking out each others eyes, or the way they drag cows out of the fields by a rope tide to the back of trucks. It's just very disturbing to me. These are things that "they" don't want you to know about. Maybe someday they will do more to correct this awful problem.
Namaste'
NOTTA WOLF



From one meat eater to a Veg-head....the pendulum swings in the other direction

Posted by
Gregory on August 30, 2002 at 07:56:35:

In Reply to: Re: From one meat eater to another....the pendulum swings in the other direction posted by thessa on August 30, 2002 at 06:10:49:

Tick Tock Thessa.

Why do veg-heads feel they have to convince me that their way is the right way, or more to
the point that my way is the wrong way? Why can't I just eat meat (raw, thanks) and it's OK?

Also, I know animals are treated lousy. My not eating meat is not going to change that. It would
take huge amount of people to change that. Not 1 or 2 or 10 or even 100. It would take thousands,
demonstrations, and that sort of thing. It's a very romantic idea that 1 person makes a
difference, but my eating or not eating meat only affects me.


How Far Up or Down The Food Chain Do You Want To Go?

Those plants you mentioned require insects for polination, which in turn require THEIR food
source right own down the line with ever more diverse and "invisible" food links. There
are no real staples as each staple requires another link and each link is dependent on
something else for survival. The further up you are, the more linkages you depend on.

Humans are omnivores, and as such can eat both meat and plant matter. Vegetarianism,
as far as I'm concerned is a politicized food preference choice. I don't know what it
was originally, but today it has become a PC|spiritual elitist stance. I used to
know plenty of sickly vegetarians, and they had an agenda in promoting their dietary
lifestyle. If you have to promote something like that, then inherently there is something
wrong with it, otherwise your radiant health would speak for itself (all other things
being equal).

Food supplies don't just dry up. Things like wars kill off the food supply. The next real war
(not like this fake "War On Terrorism") will kill off everything. Tactical nukes and biochem
bombs will pretty much see to that, and after the tacnukes aer exhausted, the old-fashioned dirty
nukes that no one got rid of will be used. Odds of survival are not that great (remember the movie
"War Games?") so food is not likely to be a problem.

Ever since 9/11/02

I've been feeling defensive about my country. People from other countries criticize her, and
I feel honor-bound to defend her, even if she isn't perfect.

Too many questions about her and her pecularities, and I'm ready to tell her critics to go
back to where they came from.

Call it pride. That and living in the greatest country in the free world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voices of Unreason >> USA: The Greatest Country in the World
You are here: Home >> Essays >> USA: The Greatest Country in the World
USA: The Greatest Country in the World. By Brian Webber.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lightwalking,
Gregory




I agree with you Greg,

Posted by labrat on August 30, 2002 at 09:33:59:

In Reply to: Re: From one meat eater to another....the pendulum swings in the other direction posted by Gregory on August 29, 2002 at 21:52:54:

Frankly I've
had it up to my eyeballs with PC that the taking of that life has to be humane and having
to pander to PETA terrorists. It's meat.



OOPS! Disregard previous message...read THIS...

Posted by labrat on August 30, 2002 at 09:51:00:

In Reply to: I agree with you Greg, posted by labrat on August 30, 2002 at 09:33:59:

SOrry about that - I hit "enter" by accident!

Greg...I was trying to say that I do agree with you. Yes, things must die so that others live. That's one of the basic rules of nature.


I was responding to what you said in the previous post, or rather, how you said it.... "Frankly I've had it up to my eyeballs with PC that the taking of that life has to be humane and having to pander to PETA terrorists. It's meat."

It's not meat! It's living, breathing, feeling, fellow beings! I just feel that as caretakers of these lives we owe it to them to kill them humanely and treat them with respect and love while they're under our care.

It's a problem for me. I wish I could be a vegetarian, but since I can't, I eat and enjoy meat and like you, am thankful to the animal who gave its life so that I could live in health. I just wanted to address that side of it I guess. I don't sit around feeling guilty that I eat meat, I just wish we could be more respectful of life.

I also don't think that breeding, raising and slaughtering domestic animals falls into quite the same category as wild animals living their lives out to the inevitable outcome, even if their lifes and deaths are more brutal. It's a bit like comparing apples to oranges, but that's a whole new discussion!

~~~8>




To R and Miss Bliss

Posted by labrat on August 30, 2002 at 09:57:45:

In Reply to: Re: I would! posted by R. on August 30, 2002 at 03:32:28:

R.

I tried special ordering it, but the butcher said he could only get it in 40 lb. portions! We don't have a deep freezer so I couldn't possibly manage all that. I need to make a trip to the other side of town to the "ethnic" market to see if they have it I think...I used to be able to get it every so often in Chicago, but I moved to a smaller city and they just don't have all the choices I'm used to. Oddly, I foudn a little outpost type store where I can get goat (I LOVE it), venison, buffalo and elk, and even stuff like alligator and beaver tails (no, I haven't ventured there yet)but no tripe!

MIss Bliss - the only tripe I've ever eaten came from Beef. I would love to try sheep tripe however, since I do enjoy lamb.

~~~8>

Follow Ups:


You didn't read what I wrote...

Posted by labrat on August 30, 2002 at 10:04:38:

In Reply to: Re: Don't be so primitive man.....Try a veggie burger......... posted by NOTTA WOLF on August 30, 2002 at 07:09:31:

I CAN'T be healthy without meat. It's not a craving, it's not because I don't like vegetables. It has nothing to do with taste. I've never met a food I didn't like in fact.

I just don't feel well without animal protein in my diet. There is nothing I can do about that and I had to draw the line there. As much as I hate being part of the process, I won't risk my own health and life to be a vegetarian.

~~~8>

p.s. It really *isn't* any easier to be a vegetarian... you really need to be educated and aware of your nutrient intake and protein intake - be careful!

Follow Ups:


Interesting point. I for one don't want to go back to the old days

Posted by
Gregory on August 30, 2002 at 10:55:33:

In Reply to: OOPS! Disregard previous message...read THIS... posted by labrat on August 30, 2002 at 09:51:00:

the old days of Hunter-Gatherer. What you are confronting is nothing more or less
than "progress" and the effects thereof. I am not sure mind you, but I think that there is not
enough grassy fields around to support the number of cattle needed to support the current
population.
Cattle ranchers may be cruel and inhumane, but not for its own sake. Yes, yes, for profit,
by why does profit dictate these conditions? put another way, could the commercial cattle
ranchers be profitable AND humane or do the laws of economics require otherwise?
It seems entirely possible that like renewable energy, the organics can only exist because
the alternative, the huge not-wasteful-but cruel commercial operation exists.

I am going to look into this some more but this sounds very much like an economy of scale
kind of problem.

"...It's not meat! It's living, breathing, feeling, fellow beings! I just feel that as caretakers of these lives we owe it to them to kill them humanely and treat them with respect and love while they're under our care.

Well labrat, we don't even treat EACH OTHER like that. It's a pretty sure bet that animals are
going to get the shitty end of the stick treatment-wise.

"... It's a problem for me. I wish I could be a vegetarian, but since I can't, I eat and enjoy meat ..."

Unlike yourself, I don't wish to be a vegetarian. I sense a disjoint in your statement, like
you are forced to eat meat and therefore being forced might as well enjoy it, but
you'd really rather not. Sort of like girls who say no, but mean yes...

So let me clarify my position in case it's muddy. I like meat. I like eating it and I'm not
a "closet vegetarian." I am far away from "the kill" or what constitutes it in this day and
age. I went to a slaughterhouse once. I don't intend to go back again. It is a disgusting and
brutal place, although highly educational. I'm not sure how much loving and caring you can do
with a fellow being you intend to eat. I think all that loving and caring would preclude
you from doing any eating at all, and therefore emotionally would stop you from doing any
killing and eating at all. So it seems to me that precisely the attitude cultivated, which is
"you're my next meal" is the one to have. Like a carnivore.

It never hinders to keep in mind that as a human, you are a predetor, a carnivore, even if
you choose not to exhibit the less civicized aspects thereof. I find it amusing that if your distant relatives had this kind of "dialogue" the
human race would have died out long ago.

We are now on top of the food chain, and can afford to have these kind of discussions.
When you are not at the top of the chain, and eating depends on hunting and killing,
then discussions like this are just so much mental masturbation and result in an
empty stomach.



Lightwalking,




Re: You need to do more research, Bill

Posted by Bill on August 30, 2002 at 14:47:16:

In Reply to: You need to do more research, Bill posted by R. on August 29, 2002 at 20:36:15:

Hi R,

It's the book that's well researched, I know nothing about the site. I think I gave away all my copies of the book, but I will check to see if I still have one, and if I do, I will try to answer your questions. If not, I'll buy a few copies (but will take a bit longer to respond).

I went to the site I mentioned, but could not find the quote you reference: Excessive protein consumption is now strongly linked to bone weakness and osteoporosis. Which site did you find it on? This claim was definitely made in the book and I could type in the references if I had the book here :(

I did a google search on Weston Price and found 180,000 links. I tried narrowing it by adding "skeletal health" and found one link. I went to the American Journal of Epidemiology site and found:


Joanne H. E. Promislow, Deborah Goodman-Gruen, Donald J. Slymen, and Elizabeth Barrett-Connor
Protein Consumption and Bone Mineral Density in the Elderly : The Rancho Bernardo Study
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2002 155: 636-644

which unfortunately I cannot view without a subscription to the print version of the Journal. I'd like to read more about this study and also find out who funded it. The above page gives a synopsis of the study but since it ends with the statement:


COMMENT: Of course, this study calls into question the erroneously, but widely, held belief that animal protein causes calcium loss from the bones. How many studies is it going to take before that old myth finally dies?

I am left wondering about the site author's objectivity.

Btw, many of my personal reasons for being vegetarian have nothing to do with nutrition. I will see if I can find a website that represents those reasons without taking up space here.

Bill



There are companies that treat animals much better

Posted by R. on August 30, 2002 at 15:06:52:

In Reply to: Re: Don't be so primitive man.....Try a veggie burger......... posted by NOTTA WOLF on August 30, 2002 at 07:09:31:

There are companies and individual farmers that do none of the things you described. You can get chickens that roam freely on a pasture; same with any other animals. As Gergory has said, the solution is not to stop eating meat (provided you need it to be healthy) but to find farmers that treat animals right. The more people demand this with their money, the sooner what you dislike will end.

Follow Ups:


Re: What's a vegetarian

Posted by Bill on August 30, 2002 at 15:09:11:

In Reply to: What's a vegetarian posted by R. on August 29, 2002 at 20:16:03:

Hi R,

The reason the term "lacto-ovo vegetarian" exists is to make the distinction you raise. To the best of my knowledge of the language, that is what I am.

You write:

You eat eggs and milk, so you are as vegetarian as anyone who loves everybody but one race is a loving person.

Interesting analogy. It suggests that you think I am a hypocrite, claiming to be something I'm not, perhaps in an effort to make myself appear better than I am? I do take pride in being vegetarian because I think it contributes in a small way to the world being a better place. But everyone is free to contribute in their own way, not necessarily mine. They are even free not to contribute as far as I'm concerned.

As for the "crucial nutrients", I don't understand your point. Is it that vegetarians that don't eat eggs/dairy are not getting all the nutrients they need? Or perhaps that people can get all the nutrients they need without eating beef, chicken or fish? I suggest that Bob McFerran is right, that nutritional needs are quite individual, not one size fits all as many evangelical vegetarians, evangelical non-vegetarians, and the government would suggest.

Bill



Articles about farming

Posted by R. on August 30, 2002 at 15:22:39:

In Reply to: Interesting point. I for one don't want to go back to the old days posted by Gregory on August 30, 2002 at 10:55:33:

Gregory, these may be about what you were going to look for:
- http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/wasteland.html
- possibly more here -- http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/farming_and_ranch.html

I remember Sally Fallon talk about raising livestock on lands unfit for crop production, and she said that majority of land on Earth is such.

Follow Ups:


Re: What's a vegetarian

Posted by R. on August 30, 2002 at 15:41:17:

In Reply to: Re: What's a vegetarian posted by Bill on August 30, 2002 at 15:09:11:

No, not a hypocrite. That was still about the wrong usage of the word vegetarian, the way I see it should be.

As for the "crucial nutrients", I guess my point was two-sided, the way you described. At least, some animal foods need to be consumed. However, they are not necessarily sufficient.

Follow Ups:


Re: You need to do more research, Bill

Posted by R. on August 30, 2002 at 16:05:35:

In Reply to: Re: You need to do more research, Bill posted by Bill on August 30, 2002 at 14:47:16:

"I went to the site I mentioned, but could not find the quote you reference: Excessive protein consumption is now strongly linked to bone weakness and osteoporosis. Which site did you find it on?"

http://www.eatveg.com/health/PROTEIN.htm

As far as Dr. Weston Price is concerned, go the source:
- his book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. That's a free (but illegal in the USA) electronic download. You can also buy from Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation (PPNF)

- The Weston A. Price Foundation
The Weston A. Price Foundation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt charity founded in 1999 to disseminate the research of nutrition pioneer Dr. Weston Price, whose studies of isolated nonindustrialized peoples established the parameters of human health and determined the optimum characteristics of human diets. Dr. Price's research demonstrated that humans achieve perfect physical form and perfect health generation after generation only when they consume nutrient-dense whole foods and the vital fat-soluble activators found exclusively in animal fats.


You said "many of my personal reasons for being vegetarian have nothing to do with nutrition."

But we deal with health issues here. And nutrition is a big part of it. Using an analogy (I assume you've watched the Seinfeld show)... one could choose to replace dealing with anger by repeating "Serenity now!", but if it leads to insanity, what good does it do?



Re: You need to do more research, Bill

Posted by Bill on August 30, 2002 at 16:45:48:

In Reply to: Re: You need to do more research, Bill posted by R. on August 30, 2002 at 16:05:35:

Hi R,

Thank you for the links - I plan to study them tomorrow and respond then.

I don't understand the analogy re: anger and "Serenity Now". As I said, I don't plan to use this space to present my non-nutritional reasons for my lifestyle choices - I might present a link if I find an appropriate one. But I am also very interested in the nutritional reasons and I would be very interested and surprised to learn that the reasons I acted upon were based on someone's propaganda.

Certainly both sides are motivated to use any means, including propaganda, to convert people to their point of view. Many people make money from the meat industry, and many vegetarians are very upset by the treatment of the animals. I'm more interested in unbiased research and measurable facts, and I hope anyone following this is of similar mind.

Bill



Re: You need to do more research, Bill

Posted by R. on August 30, 2002 at 20:21:50:

In Reply to: Re: You need to do more research, Bill posted by Bill on August 30, 2002 at 16:45:48:

Bill,

Re: anger and "Serenity Now", it is not about your posting or not posting your reasons to become vegetarian, but it is about the types of reasons why you chose to become one. You said that many of your reasons for being vegetarian have nothing to do with nutrition, and my point is that if the change doesn't lead to better health, then the reasons should be questioned. Just like in the Seinfeld show, someone in it decided to replace dealing with his anger by repeating a phrase "Serenity now!", thinking it would be a better approach. Instead of becoming healthier, he became insane. If it's still not clear, it's OK -- I don't always express my thoughts clearly, sometimes using seemingly disconnected analogies and metaphors.

Now, regarding many people making money from the meat industry, I want to point out that The Weston Price Foundation people promote an idea of small scale, local farming. They are AGAINST the big meat (and milk any other food) industry. They encourage people to grow their own food and support their local small farmers.

On the other side, I can see why the soy industry people might be motivated in promoting their veggie burgers, soy milk, soy xyz as an alternative to the "evil" meat.

Yes, I am also more interested in unbiased research and measurable facts, and the work of Dr. Weston Price (if I am not mistaken, it was done early in the 20th century), George Mann, etc. seem to fit that class.

Price's book is quite long, so it will probably take you longer to study it and reply.

BTW, since you drink milk, you might find this article interesting -- http://realmilk.com/milkcure.html.



milk, Weston Price, John Robbins

Posted by Bill on August 31, 2002 at 10:26:52:

In Reply to: Re: You need to do more research, Bill posted by R. on August 30, 2002 at 20:21:50:

Hi R,

Thanks for explaining the "anger and Serenity Now" - makes perfect sense. When I became lacto-ovo vegetarian in my late 20s, I was not aware of any health problems. Now it's 15 years later, and I'm a lot healthier than my father was at my age. I probably eat too much wheat, since I will sometimes cough for a minute after a meal with too much bread. But my energy and stamina is very good - perhaps I am overcoming a weak diet by playing lots of tennis :)

I have never noticed health changes (positive or negative) from the type of food I was eating, but I have been eating a pretty varied diet for the past ten years. I guess I am lucky that way. It would be interesting to clone myself a couple of times and put one clone on a fast food diet and another on a macrobiotic diet, then compare the three of us in a few months.

While I do eat dairy (cheese and butter almost every day), I don't care for milk. I do get it when it is used in cooking.

Yes I can see that the realmilk.com site, sponsored by Weston Price, calls for some good stuff:


What’s needed today is a return to humane, non-toxic, pasture-based dairying and small-scale traditional processing...

Another link on Weston Price's site gives a good argument for returning to pasture-fed cattle. This solution eliminates many of the economic and health problems caused by America's beef/dairy habit.

However, I wonder if we calculated the amount of land and fresh water required to support the amount of dairy and beef being consumed in America today - is this a practical solution? Weston's site says:


Vegetarians argue that cows and sheep require pasturage that could be better used to raise grains for starving millions in third-world countries. This argument ignores the fact that a large portion of our earth’s land is unsuited to cultivation. The open range, desert and mountainous areas yield their fruits in grazing animals.

This strikes me as a very naive argument. First, the Great Plains may not be usable for grazing or for producing livestock feed if we exhaust the Ogallala Aquifer, as we seem on course to do. Second, I would bet that an incredible amount of land (both in America and around the world) that is suited for cultivation is being used either as pasture or to grow grain that is to be fed to cattle. There are no laws requiring cattle farmers to use land that is unsuited for cultivation, and I would bet the beef industry would lobby hard against any such laws.

According to Lappe in Diet for a Small Planet, it takes sixteen pounds of grain to produce a pound of feedlot beef. According to John Robbins in May All Be Fed, feeding one meat eater for a year requires 3 1/4 acres of land, while feeding one vegetarian for a year requires one half acre of land. John Robbins' book gives several examples of countries that were once self-sufficient but that now import. One example (referenced as being from Wolrdwatch Paper No. 103, Worldwatch Institute, 1991, p.29):


Despite steadily growing harvests, Taiwan could only keep up with the demand for feed by turning to imports from abroad. In 1950, Taewan was a grain exporter; in 1990, the nation imported, mostly for feed, 74 percent of the grain it used.

The annual per capita grain use in Taiwan has increased from 375 pounds to 858 pounds (thanks to 600% increase in meat and eggs consumption). Other areas with similar problems: China, Russia, Middle East, Egypt, Syria, Mexico, Latin America, Brazil... so I think the world cannot afford healthy meat and dairy.


That was an interesting link about using 100% milk diets to treat chronic illness:

The therapy is simple. The patients are put at rest in bed and are given at half hour intervals small quantities of milk, totalling from five to ten quarts of milk a day. Most patients are started on three or four quarts of milk a day and this is usually increased by a pint a day. Diaphoresis [copious perspiration] is stimulated by hot baths and hot packs and heat in other forms. A daily enema is given.

Ten quarts provides quite a bit of calories for someone who is being kept in bed! Either there is an error here or the body is somehow excreting a lot of calories.

The article doesn't mention the concept of "lactose intolerant". I wonder how Dr Crewe handles those folks? Perhaps there is no such thing as "lactose intolerance"; folks with that diagnosis were simply not getting good quality dairy? That is what was implied by other pages on this site, and it is a compelling argument.

I have no doubt that "Raw Milk" as presented on this site is a much more healthy food than the stuff we buy in the supermarket. My dad grew up on a dairy farm and I remember Grandmother bringing in a pot of fresh milk for breakfast from the big stainless steel holding tank. I think I remember it tasting good (unlike the stuff in the milk cartons).

But if you don't know the source, it would seem that drinking Raw Milk puts one at risk for short term illness.

Bill


Follow Ups:


Protein intake vs osteoporosis

Posted by Bill on August 31, 2002 at 11:53:27:

In Reply to: Re: You need to do more research, Bill posted by R. on August 30, 2002 at 16:05:35:

Hi R,

Here are three studies that found that increased protein intake resulted in higher calcium excretion. The studies are interesting but seemed rather small for purposes of drawing conclusions on this topic.

I visited a bodybuilding site. The author is advocating a high protein diet for people doing intense bodybuilding. He admits: In regards to calcium loss, I agree that this could potentially be a problem, especially in sedentary people; yet another reason I don't recommend an extremely high protein level for these people. I would guess he would still recommend at least 50g per day, though John Robbins' Let All Be Fed suggests that 5% of calories from protein per day is sufficient (since that is the amount of protein in Human milk).

The Wadi site reports an eskimo study that John Robbins also reports: Osteoporosis is more severe in people who consume the most protein and is most rampant among the Eskimos (Ref. Mazess R., Bone mineral content of northern Alaskan Eskimos, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 27 (1974); p. 916) These northern natives eat large quantities of fish in their diet - average 150-200 grammes of protein daily - and still lose mineral from their skeleton, despite eating 2,000 milligrammes of calcium each day contained in fish bones

Looks like Tufts has some current projects that will be good fodder for discussion:


- Effect of dietary protein intake on bone remodeling and calcium excretion
- Impact of calcium intake on the association of protein intake with rates of bone loss in the elderly

An interesting Tufts study is interpreted on this page as follows:


The 342 men and women over age 65 each took either a 500 mg calcium-and-vitamin-D supplement or a placebo daily. During the three-year study, researchers kept track of the volunteers' diets, specifically their calcium and protein intake and bone mineral density.

The supplement group -- particularly those who ate a diet high in protein -- had significantly better bone mass density -- an accurate measure of bone loss. Those who took the placebo, however, had less calcium absorbed into their bloodstream when they consumed more protein.

I find it interesting that they report the Bone Mass density for the supplement group, and report the blood calcium for the placebo group. This in tandem with the study we already discussed from the Weston site (more info on it below) suggests that protein and calcium can improve
Bone Mass while making other aspects of calcium use (such as blood retention and calcium levels in the urine) look bad? Another biased article.

A 20 year study reported in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, March 1983 concluded that:


When contrasted against significant differences between bone mineral mass in postmenopausal omnivores and lacto-ovo-vegetarians, the data presented here may be interpreted as indicating that some factor associated with meat consumption is increasing bone mineral losses in postmenopausal females while having no observable effect in males.

There are many many other sites. Most of the ones I read (aside from the Eskimo study) measure calcium excretion levels, deducing that since the body doesn't manufacture calcium :), what goes out has to come from somewhere, hence osteoporosis seems a likely result.

The study cited on the Weston site: Am J Epidemiol 2002;155:636-644, had a good sized pool of participants and measured Bone Mineral Density:


In a prospective study, Dr. Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, of the University of California, San Diego, in La Jolla, California, and colleagues examined the associations of total, animal, and vegetable protein with bone mineral density (BMD) and bone loss in 572 women and 388 men between the ages of 55 and 92 years.

Multiple linear regression analyses adjusted for standard osteoporosis covariates showed a positive association between animal protein consumption, assessed by food frequency questionnaires in 1988-1992, and BMD, measured 4 years later.

The association was significant in women. For them, BMD increased by 0.016 g/cm at the hip (p = 0.005) for every 15-g/day increase in animal protein intake. BMD was also increased at the femoral neck, spine, and total body by 0.012 g/cm (p = 0.02), 0.015 g/cm (p = 0.08), and 0.010 g/cm (p = 0.04), respectively.

Assuming this "prospective" study is unbiased and that the "Multiple linear regression analyses adjusted for standard osteoporosis covariates" (whatever that means - the last part sounds a bit fishy to me) is reasonable, I am curious as to why osteoporosis is epidemic in this country given our high per-capita meat consumption. I am also curious as to what the researchers would say about the Eskimo study.

In summary, the hours spent researching this topic frustrate me - I have to spend most of my time looking for bias on both sides. I think it is interesting that we can find so many studies that support conflicting points of view. Objective truth is very difficult to come by and to recognize as such.

Bill



Re: Protein intake vs osteoporosis

Posted by bing on August 31, 2002 at 14:36:21:

In Reply to: Protein intake vs osteoporosis posted by Bill on August 31, 2002 at 11:53:27:

Wow, Bill, what you have shown here reinforced what I have always felt and believed about high-protein diet. Coming from China where the common diet is low in protein and high in complex carbo, I find it the most balanced diet of all. Even before the existance of science, the Chinese culture had learned that a grain-based diet help nourish a calm mind (the nuero- and psychological aspect of health), a lean body with good endurance, good immune system (grains builds "wei-qi"), and strong bones (osteoporosis was almost unheard of). Also, allergy to grains has been rare/unheard of. I was really surprised when people on this BB say they are ALERGIC TO GRAINS! and SOYBEANS!

Makes me wonder if it's really something genetic in these people, OR, that the true culprit is the GE/GM version of grains and beans that cause the problems. After all, the majority of these products (wheat, corn, soy) sold here ARE genetically engineered.



Re: Protein intake vs osteoporosis

Posted by labrat on August 31, 2002 at 18:05:40:

In Reply to: Re: Protein intake vs osteoporosis posted by bing on August 31, 2002 at 14:36:21:

It's because you are eating foods to which you are adapted that you are healthy, Bing. You might find some of the archives from Robert McFerran very interesting. If you were an Inuit, you would be more healthy eating whale blubber as part of you high protein, high fat diet.

What are the prevalent allergies in China? I assume that not many grains are eaten there on a regular basis...one of the reasons allergies develop is repeated exposure. You can see that the Standard American Diet (SAD) is laden with grains of all kinds and sugars as well.

Because of the genetic mixing in teh US population, it's difficult for us to determine what our ideal diet should be - we are all of different and mixed ancestry. With a pure genetic background, it's much easier to track down what your people's traditional diet was and therefore, what would most likely keep you healthy. It's a very interesting subject for sure!

~~~8>



Re: Protein intake vs osteoporosis

Posted by bing on August 31, 2002 at 18:29:52:

In Reply to: Re: Protein intake vs osteoporosis posted by labrat on August 31, 2002 at 18:05:40:

Hi labrat,

Indeed this is an interesting subject. As far as I know,from 5000 years ago up until 1994, allergy had been rare or unheard of in China, while the whole population's diet was 80% grains (wheat, corn, rice, millet, sorgum,etc). It seems that Chinese live on grains really well with no health problems whatsoever.

BTW, China is far from being "pure" in its genetic background: there is the Han, the Mongolian, the Hui, the Manchurian, and other 50 or so nationalities. Myself, for instance, have Han and Mongolian and Manchurian genes.

I tend to think that all people can do well on a grain-based diet IF and only IF the grains are natural, fresh, and prepared right.


Follow Ups:


Re: Protein intake vs osteoporosis (Archive in osteoporosis.)

Posted by Walt Stoll on September 01, 2002 at 09:07:28:

In Reply to: Protein intake vs osteoporosis posted by Bill on August 31, 2002 at 11:53:27:

Thanks, Bill.

Actually there are many chronic conditions directly related to excess protein intake in this country.

They have been systematically ignored because, as a rich country who likes our rich food, it is not good business to tell people to eat less protein. So, we have more chronic diseases. Go figure.

Walt

Follow Ups:


Re: From one meat eater to a Veg-head....the pendulum swings in the other direction

Posted by
thessa on September 02, 2002 at 05:55:12:

In Reply to: From one meat eater to a Veg-head....the pendulum swings in the other direction posted by Gregory on August 30, 2002 at 07:56:35:

Gregory,
What I really wanted to say is that you are spending *so much* valuable time defending. The country, yourself, meat eating etc. Why? Of course you would know better than I, but I don't really see it accomplishing much for you. As a result you spend thread after thread attacking those that have attacked you. For what? It's a real waste - at least I found it to be. Someone says "Hey America! Maybe you could change a few things to make yourself better!" and you feel compelled to say "Back off you traitor!". As a result we never take a deep look at how we are affecting those around us (and therefore ourselves). I think you take the same approach with your own personal growth. In the end, if you are "right" about everything - who cares? Where does it get you? Have you grown or boxed yourself in? Your J is showing Gregory! Throw a little L(ove) in there, even before someone shows you the same treatment!
Your friend, even in criticism :)
thessa



New York has a bullseye painted on it.

Posted by
Gregory on September 02, 2002 at 07:10:25:

In Reply to: Re: From one meat eater to a Veg-head....the pendulum swings in the other direction posted by thessa on September 02, 2002 at 05:55:12:

Every Middle-Easterner has their car and clothes swathed in Red White, and Blue. Every threat
brings more violence against foreigners. It's kept on the downlow, very hush-hush. There are
bills in congress that would empower utility people to spy on you -to report "suspicious"
activity in your domicile. In fact it already occurs but no one calls it that.

They say paranoia is "perfect awareness" and I am inclined to agree. It's easy when 'they'
they being foreigners really ARE out to get you. Not the military or government officials
but you as in the citizens of this country. *I* didn't do anything to the "goat-herders,"
the Al-Queida terrorist group, but I'm on their hit list anyway, so it does little good
to tell me the government did this that or the other. I am not personally responisible for what
the leaders do -I voted for Gore, but the other guys pulled what amounted to a coup.

Patriotism is not about what changes the country could stand to make, but standing behind
her whether she makes them or not. As for defending, one either takes a stand or gets walked on.

Don't Tread On Me. Nuff said.

Question all you want, the end result is the same. Adjust.
This place isn't going to change
to suit your expectations. Course bing could always move to one of the numerous "Chinatown"
enclaves if s/he misses home. Everyone who goes to a different country expects things
to be different and comes to understand the culture produces the lifestyle and the
elements of it. Personally I fail to see the point in asking questions about something
you can't change, and can easily find out about by visiting the library, the internet, or if
that fails, simple observation. Less to do with "mature intelligence" more to do with
"applied intelligence."

This is a bulletin board, an electronic medium. I doubt very much I am affecting anyone
except at a superficial level. The only one who even remotely can claim to have changed
anyone's life would be Walt, and that might well be because he is a book writer -a far more
intimate relationship between word reader and writer.

I am inclined to "defend" my thoughts, often, and life most "thoughts" posted here, they
are magnified almost out of proportion. If this were a face to face chatroom, first it would
probably 'implode' within a weeks time. second, the regulars would get sick of the
newbies asking the same old question, making believe that had read the archives for the
answer, third, intolerance would keep the really interesting questions from
getting asked, and forth, most people would be to embarrassed to ask what
they need to ask in the first place.

That is why this "place" cannot possibly have that much impact.

I only care about being right to the extent it furthers my agenda and personal growth.
I had hoped to find the missing key to some questions I had regarding health issues,
but mostly I've ended up doing all the searching myself. I doubt I've come in contact
with anyone (on all the boards I frequent) that have even teh remotest idea of what
I'm looking for, or have the same interst in. Not complaining, just to let you
know that all the jeers of "nutty" and "out there" and "weird" are par for the
course. Nothing new. 15 years from now, when it's ho-hum, no one will remember calling
me weird. It will seem obvious and self evident.

And, I am opinionated. Lots of people have friends like me, -except they don't think of them
in the same way because they're friends. They don't think of the opinions that their friends hold
as stupid, infruiating, or paranoid, because they are accepting of their friends. They don't
even think that their friends should change, because they like them just the way they are. They
see their friens through "friend colored" glasses if you will, but the same opinions coming from
a stranger is antagonistic. That about covers the waterfront on that issue Thessa.

Posting will go down because it's time to experiment and apply all the material I've dug up
and posted about. A funny thing will happen. Those who have been aching to see me go will be
happy initially. Then boredom will set in. How many times can you rehash Bracing, LGS, MCS,
Pilondial Cysts and the horrors of Breast Reconstruction?

Like Jerry Springer, it is the contention that keeps interest high. Otherwise people
would just email backand forth. Frankly, that's OK by me. I wanted to post to all interested
in my particualr topics, but I just as well email a the few who really count, and I assume
that when I drop out of site, those who feel the need to contact me can do so easily with
my eamil address plastered on each of my posts.



Lightwalking,
Gregory




Re: New York has a bullseye painted on it.

Posted by
thessa on September 03, 2002 at 07:13:07:

In Reply to: New York has a bullseye painted on it. posted by Gregory on September 02, 2002 at 07:10:25:

'They say paranoia is "perfect awareness" and I am inclined to agree.'

The "they" I subscribed to say that paranoia is the perfect self-consciousness - not self awareness. Because in paranoia YOU are always at the center and everything that happens occurs in relation to YOU. That's an ego builder, not an ego integrator. It's the ultimate separator, a perverted subjectiveness, not a tool which leads to the realization of oneness.

You are opinionated Gregory. But you are not your opinions. There is no need to defend. If someone attacks you (especially in an environment like this board), you have more options than attacking back or being trampled upon. Defending when it is not necessary takes so much energy - energy that you could be using in more productive ways.
"They don't
even think that their friends should change, because they like them just the way they are"
A friend who only likes you if you have what they find as desirable traits is not a friend indeed. A friend who makes an unselfish suggestion about how you might evolve, and therefore be more at peace and aware, based on his or her observations, are the types of friends I like to keep. Whether you take the suggestion and use it or decide that it is useless for your growth is irrelevant to the friendship.
*********************************************
We are not responding to this instant if we are judging any aspect of it.
The ego looks for what to criticize. This always involves comparing with the past.
But love looks upon the world peacefully and accepts.

The ego searches for shortcomings and weaknesses.
Love watches for any sign of strength.
It sees how far each one has come and not how far he has to go.
How simple it is to love, and exhausting it is always to find fault, for every time we see a fault we think something needs to be done about it.
Love knows that nothing is ever needed but more love.

It is what we all do with our hearts that affects others most deeply. It is not the movements of our body or the words within our mind that transmits love.
We love from heart to heart.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

best to you
thessa

Follow Ups:


[ Osteoporosis Prevention Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!