[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[WillyTex]

> > > Tell me where you live and I will come to 
> > > collect... 
> > >
> > I didn't see him in the parking lot, so I asked
> > around if anyone had seen an 'off-world being' -
> > they all looked at me like I was nuts, so I left.
> >
off_world_beings wrote:
> The air in Texas is intolerable, so you have to 
> come here to pay me the money you owe me.
>
Typical Yankee bullshitter. LOL!

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , WillyTex  wrote:
>
> Duveyoung wrote:
> > If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
> > why it must also wear a hat like George Bush!
> >
> I didn't see him in the parking lot, so I asked
> around if anyone had seen an 'off-world being' -
> they all looked at me like I was nuts, so I left.
>
> But around here it's pretty common to see people
> in white, ten-gallon hats, so maybe he just
> missed me - I don't know.>>

The air in Texas is intolerable, so you have to come here to pay me the
money you owe me.

I'll meet you at 1 o'clock tommorrow, outside the "Liberal Pub" on
Democratic Avenue (the pub sits between the abortion clinic and the gay
marriage pride store.)

Its nudist day here, so no-one will be wearing anything, but I'll be
sporting a bright blue mohican haircut.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[WillyTex]

Duveyoung wrote:
> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
> why it must also wear a hat like George Bush!
>
I didn't see him in the parking lot, so I asked
around if anyone had seen an 'off-world being' -
they all looked at me like I was nuts, so I left.

But around here it's pretty common to see people
in white, ten-gallon hats, so maybe he just
missed me - I don't know.

Off needs to get some smarts. Apparently he thinks
I made a wager, but all I was asking was how much
he was willing to bet.

According to Hoyle, if anyone is willing to wager a
claim, then "players can call, raise, or fold when it's
their turn to bet." This is pretty common knowledge
for people who like to post wagers.

Source:

'According to Hoyle'
Official Rules of More Than 200 Popular Games of
Skill and Chance With Expert Advice on Winning Play
by Richard L. Frey
Ballantine Books, 1996
http://tinyurl.com/kogkl9 

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[Duveyoung]

Um, is this the first time we've ever been given the concept of Willy wearing a 
ten gallon white hat?

GAWD why didn't we think of it before?  

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, why it must also wear a hat like 
George Bush!  It's so obvious -- slap my forehead red.

Edg


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex  wrote:
>
> > > > I bet Turq never killed an animal for 
> > > > food in his life.
> > > >
> > > ...the burden of proof is on you, Sir. 
> > >
> off_world_beings wrote:
> > Tell me where you live and I will come to 
> > collect... 
> > 
> So, you don't have any proof - I thought so.
> 
> I'll meet you in the parking lot of Whole Foods
> Market at noon today. Be there and bring cash 
> - I'm not real big on credit. Look for a guy in 
> a white Suburban with a white hat on, parked
> at the front door.
> 
> Whole Foods Market
> San Antonio, Texas, 255 E. Basse Road
> http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[WillyTex]

> > > I bet Turq never killed an animal for 
> > > food in his life.
> > >
> > ...the burden of proof is on you, Sir. 
> >
off_world_beings wrote:
> Tell me where you live and I will come to 
> collect... 
> 
So, you don't have any proof - I thought so.

I'll meet you in the parking lot of Whole Foods
Market at noon today. Be there and bring cash 
- I'm not real big on credit. Look for a guy in 
a white Suburban with a white hat on, parked
at the front door.

Whole Foods Market
San Antonio, Texas, 255 E. Basse Road
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[WillyTex]

> > I bet you $100 that Turq never hunted and
> > killed an animal in his life, and then ate
> > it.
> >
> > It's your claim, now prove it, or pay up.
> >
off_world_beings wrote:
> You owe me 100 bucks Willytex. You lost the 
> bet.
> 
What bet? It's your wager. I don't have to 
prove anything; all I have to do is demonstrate 
doubt in your claim - the burden of proof is on 
you, Sir. 

So, you're saying that I lost the bet, but you 
didn't even show your money, you wouldn't show 
your proof, you tried to change the rules after 
you made the wager, and now you want to see my 
hand before you show yours, but I'm the cheater? 

Go figure.

There's obviously no way you can prove your 
claim that "Turq never killed an animal for 
food in his life".

You can't prove a negative, that's my point, so 
you should not bet money on anything unless you 
you can prove your point - only bet on a sure 
thing.

I've asked at least ten respondents over the
years how much they would be willing to wager, 
but you're the only informant that ever actually 
took me up on it. Now you have made yourself 
look like a stupid moron. 

Texas Hold 'Em Poker Rules:
http://tinyurl.com/2xket

> Cheater.
> 
Ad hominem is the second to last resort of 
someone who is losing a debate and is unable to 
respond with legitimacy. The last resort (most 
difficult for the ego) is to consider that he 
might be wrong.

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , WillyTex  wrote:
>
> > > It's too late to change the rules - you've
> > > already made a wager. Unless you can show proof,
> > > you can send the money today - I'll be waiting
> > > for it.
> > >
> off_world_beings wrote:
> > You owe me 100 bucks Willytex. You lost the bet.
> >
> It's your claim, now prove it, or pay up.
>

You owe me 100 bucks Willytex. You lost the bet.

Cheater.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[WillyTex]

> > It's too late to change the rules - you've
> > already made a wager. Unless you can show proof,
> > you can send the money today - I'll be waiting
> > for it.
> >
off_world_beings wrote:
> You owe me 100 bucks Willytex. You lost the bet.
> 
It's your claim, now prove it, or pay up. 

Otherwise you're a cheater. 

Next time, learn how to make sure bets, or keep 
your pie-hole shut.

off_world_beings wrote:
> > > I bet you $100 that Turq never hunted and
> > > killed an animal in his life, and then ate
> > > it.
> > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , WillyTex  wrote:
>
> off_world_beings wrote:
> > I bet you $100 that Turq never hunted and
> > killed an animal in his life, and then ate
> > it.
> >
> It's too late to change the rules - you've
> already made a wager. Unless you can show proof,
> you can send the money today - I'll be waiting
> for it.>>

You owe me 100 bucks Willytex. You lost the bet.

Loser.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[WillyTex]

off_world_beings wrote:
> I bet you $100 that Turq never hunted and 
> killed an animal in his life, and then ate 
> it.
>
It's too late to change the rules - you've
already made a wager. Unless you can show proof, 
you can send the money today - I'll be waiting 
for it.

PayPal:
rich...@rwilliams.us

> > > > > I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.
> > > > >
> > > > How much would you be willing to wager?
> > > >
> > > How do you propose to prove it?
> > >
> > It doesn't work that way; it's your bet.
> >
> > You specify how much you are willing to
> > wager and I match it or raise you and
> > and call your bet; then you show your
> > proof. How do you propose to prove it?
> >
off_world_beings wrote:
> This is how it works Willytex. 
>
> We agree on how it will be proven.
> We agree on it, And then the bet is on. There 
> is no raising and bullshit...that's for card 
> games. Its a bet. 
> 
> You will now have to prove that he did. And 
> him going out and killing a rabbit now, and 
> then taking a picture of it,  just so that 
> you can win the bet, will not work. It will 
> have to be proven to have been in the
> past. This is how the real world works Willy.

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , WillyTex  wrote:
>
> > > > I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.
> > > >
> > > How much would you be willing to wager?
> > >
> off_world_beings wrote:
> > How do you propose to prove it?
> >
> It doesn't work that way; it's your bet.
>
> You specify how much you are willing to
> wager and I match it or raise you and
> and call your bet; then you show your
> proof. How do you propose to prove it?>

This is how it works Willytex. We agree on how it will be proven. We
agree on it, And then the bet is on. There is no raising and bullshit...
that's for card games. Its a bet. I bet you $100 that Turq never hunted
and killed an animal in his life, and then ate it.

You will now have to prove that he did. And him going out and killing a
rabbit now ,and then taking a picture of it,  just so that you can win
the bet, will not work. It will have to be proven to have been in the
past. This is how the real world works Willy.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Alex Stanley"
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , off_world_beings 
wrote:
> >
> > Yep, even lazy vegetarians have more endurance than athletic
> > meat-eaters:
> >
> > "Of the three groups compared, the... flesh-eaters showed far less
> > endurance than the abstainers (vegetarians), even when the latter
were
> > leading a sedentary life."
> > Overall, the average score of the vegetarians was over double the
> > average score of the meat-eaters, even though half of the
vegetarians
> > were sedentary people, while all of the meat-eaters tested were
> > athletes.
> >
> > A comparable study was done by Dr. J. Ioteyko of the Academie de
> > Medicine of Paris. Dr. Ioteyko compared the endurance of vegetarians
and
> > meat-eaters from all walks of life in a variety of tests. The
> > vegetarians averaged two to three times more stamina than the
> > meat-eaters. Even more remarkably, they took only one-fifth the time
to
> > recover from exhaustion compared to their meat-eating rivals.
> >
> > Wherever and whenever tests of this nature have been done, the
results
> > have been similar. Doctors in Belgium systematically compared the
number
> > of times vegetarians and meat-eaters could squeeze a grip-meter. The
> > vegetarians won handily with an average of 69, whilst the
meat-eaters
> > averaged only 38. As in all other studies which have measured muscle
> > recovery time, here, too the vegetarians bounced back from fatigue
far
> > more rapidly than did the meat-eaters."" --
> > http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/books/dietamerica.html

> >  >
>
> In this day and age, competitive athletes will do just about
*anything* to get an edge up over the next guy, so if vegetarian diets
provide such spectacularly improved athletic performance over diets
containing meat, why aren't most athletes vegetarians? >>

Because they are stupid. They are meat-eaters. Meat-eater=stupid.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:48 PM, bob_brigante wrote:
> > Repeated studies have shown that consuming caffeine
> > and carbohydrates before and duringworkouts
> > improves performance in many cases.  Researchers
> > from Australia have just published a report in  
> > the Journal of Applied Physiology that says these
> > substances quickly replenish the fuel supply to
> > the muscles when consumed after a workout, too.
> 
> Gosh, Bob, and in other news, the grass
> is green, and the sky is blue.
> 
> Caffeine and carbs give extra energy...who woulda thought it?

Gee, it's too bad these researchers didn't have
Stupid Sal around to tell them their studies were
all unnecessary.

(Of course, it's not just "extra energy," as she
would have known if she'd bothered to read Bob's
links.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[seekliberation]

In response to below, it really depends on what you're doing at the gym, or for 
a workout.  If i'm going to the gym to lift weights, I almost always drink 
coffee right before, and during as well.  If i'm going on a 6-7 mile run, i'll 
have a cold energy drink right before(loaded with carbs & caffeine).  But if 
i'm doing a really serious workout, for long periods of time, for example 
anything over 15 miles of hiking with weight on my back, or long sparring 
sessions, i've got no choice, I have to put away all caffeine and all 
stimulants.  Nobody who trains really hard will take much caffeine at all.  I 
think the studies provided by scientists on its effect for people working out, 
it's probably only for people who casually go to the gym to look or feel 
better, not for people who train like actual pro athletes.

> > Repeated studies have shown that consuming caffeine and  
> > carbohydrates before and duringworkouts improves performance in many  
> > cases.  Researchers from Australia have just published a report in  
> > the Journal of Applied Physiology that says these substances quickly  
> > replenish the fuel supply to the muscles when consumed after a  
> > workout, too.
> 
> Gosh, Bob, and in other news, the grass
> is green, and the sky is blue.
> 
> Caffeine and carbs give extra energy...who woulda thought it?
> 
> Sal
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:48 PM, bob_brigante wrote:
Repeated studies have shown that consuming caffeine and  
carbohydrates before and duringworkouts improves performance in many  
cases.  Researchers from Australia have just published a report in  
the Journal of Applied Physiology that says these substances quickly  
replenish the fuel supply to the muscles when consumed after a  
workout, too.


Gosh, Bob, and in other news, the grass
is green, and the sky is blue.

Caffeine and carbs give extra energy...who woulda thought it?

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:

> What's fascinating to me is that this whole
> discussion/argument springs from me posting a
> simple graphic that I found on Digg commenting
> (rather hilariously, I thought) on the perceived
> difference between Vegans and Carnivores, as
> measured by their respective needs for "support."
> (reposted below)
> 
> What followed on FFL was a "pile on fest" of
> people committed to the theoretical benefits of
> vegetarianism "supporting" each other by putting
> down the low-vibe meat eaters. Whereas the meat
> eaters, IMO because they have no such need for
> "props" to shore up their shaky beliefs in diet,
> remained silent.

In fact, Bhairitu and Alex both spoke up in defense
of eating meat.

> As I expected (and was the whole point of sharing
> the graphic), those who were heavily invested in
> and attached to a belief system "banded together"
> into defensive "support groups" to prop up their
> beliefs by agreeing with each other, "preaching to
> the converted," and putting down the beliefs of
> those who don't agree with them. In other words,
> they did exactly the same things they do when any
> of  their other spiritually-related beliefs are ques-
> tioned or challenged on this forum.  :-)

It's interesting to go back and read the thread to
see how well it conforms to Barry's description
above. It appears that he sees in it not what was
actually there but rather what he expected to find.

As it happens, the discussion was evenly divided
between those supporting meat-eating and putting
down vegetarians (including Barry), and those
supporting vegetarianism and putting down meat-
eaters, with a couple of people making neutral posts.


> Bottom line of this thread:
> 
> * I eat what the fuck I want.
> * I feel neither the need to apologize for that
>nor to proselytize its benefits.
> * I don't consider anyone "better" or "worse" or
>"higher" or "lower" than I am because of what they
>choose to eat.

But he *does* consider people "better" or "worse"
or "higher" or "lower" than he is depending on
whether they state their beliefs:

> * If you do, and furthermore feel that you need to
>band together with others to "prove" your superiority,
>I'd say that your "spiritual" diet isn't working
>nearly as well as you think it is.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante  wrote:
>
> > I discussed this with my trainer this morning, and he
> > agreed with me that the logical explanation is that a
> > person eating a vegetarian diet, higher in carbs, would
> > have greater glycogen stores and replenish them more
> > quickly. It would be interesting to see some newer
> > studies of this phenomenon.
>
> **
>
> "The question of whether the multiple benefits of vegetarian
> dietary practices extend to enhanced physical fitness and
> performance has been explored since the early 20th century,
> when a few simple studies reported greater muscular endurance
> in vegetarian than in nonvegetarian subjects, but these results
> were not confirmed in subsequent research
>
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/70/3/570S.pdf

Off will probably refute this by saying that
the athletes involved in these studies hadn't
studied Shotokan Karate long enough, and/or
weren't from Vermont or of Scot heritage, and
thus don't count. That's his idea of "peer-
reviewed science."  :-)

What's fascinating to me is that this whole
discussion/argument springs from me posting a
simple graphic that I found on Digg commenting
(rather hilariously, I thought) on the perceived
difference between Vegans and Carnivores, as
measured by their respective needs for "support."
(reposted below)

What followed on FFL was a "pile on fest" of
people committed to the theoretical benefits of
vegetarianism "supporting" each other by putting
down the low-vibe meat eaters. Whereas the meat
eaters, IMO because they have no such need for
"props" to shore up their shaky beliefs in diet,
remained silent.

As I expected (and was the whole point of sharing
the graphic), those who were heavily invested in
and attached to a belief system "banded together"
into defensive "support groups" to prop up their
beliefs by agreeing with each other, "preaching to
the converted," and putting down the beliefs of
those who don't agree with them. In other words,
they did exactly the same things they do when any
of  their other spiritually-related beliefs are ques-
tioned or challenged on this forum.  :-)

As for Off's hysterical "bet," just in case no
one noticed, I never claimed to be a "shoot-em
and eat-em" type myself. He made that up. For
the record, although I hunted and fished in my
youth, and yes, dined quite happily on the results,
I don't do so these days. But if it helps Willytex
to win the bet, I will be happy to take a photo
of myself in the kitchen next time I am cooking
lobsters.  :-)

Bottom line of this thread:

* I eat what the fuck I want.
* I feel neither the need to apologize for that
   nor to proselytize its benefits.
* I don't consider anyone "better" or "worse" or
   "higher" or "lower" than I am because of what they
   choose to eat.
* If you do, and furthermore feel that you need to
   band together with others to "prove" your superiority,
   I'd say that your "spiritual" diet isn't working
   nearly as well as you think it is.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[bob_brigante]

> I discussed this with my trainer this morning, and he agreed with me that the 
> logical explanation is that a person eating a vegetarian diet, higher in 
> carbs, would have greater glycogen stores and replenish them more quickly. It 
> would be interesting to see some newer studies of this phenomenon.
>

**

"The question of whether the multiple benefits of vegetarian
dietary practices extend to enhanced physical fitness and performance
has been explored since the early 20th century, when a
few simple studies reported greater muscular endurance in vegetarian
than in nonvegetarian subjects, but these results were not
confirmed in subsequent research

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/70/3/570S.pdf

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[bob_brigante]

> I discussed this with my trainer this morning, and he agreed with me
that the logical explanation is that a person eating a vegetarian diet,
higher in carbs, would have greater glycogen stores and replenish them
more quickly. It would be interesting to see some newer studies of this
phenomenon.
>


*



Throw in some caffeine with those cards, too:

http://njfrogman.blogspot.com/2009/03/caffeine-and-carbohydrates-perform\
ance.html


Repeated studies have shown that consuming caffeine and carbohydrates
before and during workouts <#>  improves performance in many cases. 
Researchers from Australia have just published a report in the Journal
of Applied Physiology that says these substances quickly replenish the
fuel supply to the muscles when consumed after a workout, too.

http://medheadlines.com/2008/07/02/caffeine-carbs-quickly-refuel-muscles\
-spent-during-exercise/

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[WillyTex]

> > > I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.
> > >
> > How much would you be willing to wager?
> >
off_world_beings wrote:
> How do you propose to prove it?
> 
It doesn't work that way; it's your bet.

You specify how much you are willing to
wager and I match it or raise you and 
and call your bet; then you show your 
proof. How do you propose to prove it?

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> 
> Yep, even lazy vegetarians have more endurance than athletic
> meat-eaters:
> 
> "Of the three groups compared, the... flesh-eaters showed far less
> endurance than the abstainers (vegetarians), even when the latter were
> leading a sedentary life."
> Overall, the average score of the vegetarians was over double the
> average score of the meat-eaters, even though half of the vegetarians
> were sedentary people, while all of the meat-eaters tested were
> athletes.
> 
> A comparable study was done by Dr. J. Ioteyko of the Academie de
> Medicine of Paris. Dr. Ioteyko compared the endurance of vegetarians and
> meat-eaters from all walks of life in a variety of tests. The
> vegetarians averaged two to three times more stamina than the
> meat-eaters. Even more remarkably, they took only one-fifth the time to
> recover from exhaustion compared to their meat-eating rivals.
> 
> Wherever and whenever tests of this nature have been done, the results
> have been similar. Doctors in Belgium systematically compared the number
> of times vegetarians and meat-eaters could squeeze a grip-meter. The
> vegetarians won handily with an average of 69, whilst the meat-eaters
> averaged only 38. As in all other studies which have measured muscle
> recovery time, here, too the vegetarians bounced back from fatigue far
> more rapidly than did the meat-eaters."" --
> http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/books/dietamerica.html
> 

In this day and age, competitive athletes will do just about *anything* to get 
an edge up over the next guy, so if vegetarian diets provide such spectacularly 
improved athletic performance over diets containing meat, why aren't most 
athletes vegetarians? It doesn't make sense to me. So, I thought I'd look into 
the two studies cited on the michaelbluejay.com page. I found lots of vegan 
sites that mention them, but it took quite a bit of digging to find any 
background on them at all. As it turns out, both studies date back to around 
1907. 

I discussed this with my trainer this morning, and he agreed with me that the 
logical explanation is that a person eating a vegetarian diet, higher in carbs, 
would have greater glycogen stores and replenish them more quickly. It would be 
interesting to see some newer studies of this phenomenon.

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> off_world_beings wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

> >  > , WillyTex  wrote:
> >
> >> off_world_beings wrote:
> >>
> >>> I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> How much would you be willing to wager?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > How do you propose to prove it?
> >
> > In answer to the statement: "I bet Turq never killed an animal for
food
> > in his life." -- I will take his silence on the matter as an
> > affirmative.
> >
> > Do you still want to take the bet Willytex?
> >
> > OffWorld
> Off, ever go fishing as a kid?>

Caught a starfish once by accident. Threw it back alive and well.

Turq never ate a single fish that he caught as a kid. I bet he is off
the coast of Spain in a leaky boat right now trying to catch a fish,
cook it up, and eat it, just so that he can answer this question in the
affirmative.

most meat-eaters are total hypocrits, and totally squeemish about
killing animals.

Do you you still want to take the bet Willytex?

OffWorld

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[Bhairitu]

off_world_beings wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , WillyTex  wrote:
>   
>> off_world_beings wrote:
>> 
>>> I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.
>>>
>>>   
>> How much would you be willing to wager?
>>
>> 
>
> How do you propose to prove it?
>
> In answer to the statement: "I bet Turq never killed an animal for food
> in his life." -- I will take his silence on the matter as an
> affirmative.
>
> Do you still want to take the bet Willytex?
>
> OffWorld
Off, ever go fishing as a kid?

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , WillyTex  wrote:
>
> off_world_beings wrote:
> > I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.
> >
> How much would you be willing to wager?
>

How do you propose to prove it?

In answer to the statement: "I bet Turq never killed an animal for food
in his life." -- I will take his silence on the matter as an
affirmative.

Do you still want to take the bet Willytex?

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[WillyTex]

off_world_beings wrote:
> I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.
> 
How much would you be willing to wager?

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"
 wrote:
>
> I don't always disagree with Turq, but I do disagree with the general
mindset that the individual choice to be a vegetarian means that the
individual lacks basic strength and aggression.
>
> I got into an argument with a Marine one time about eating meat. He
argued that vegetarians were mentally and physically weak. I was not a
devout vegetarian, but did eat a predominantly veggie diet, and I
challenged him to any form of physical contest. Of course he denied, he
wasn't very strong at anything. But I remember in the conversation I
argued that Frank Zane(3 time Mr. Olympia in the 70's and 80's) was a
vegetarian. So the idea that vegetarianism = pacifist is void.
>
> It is true, that most people willing to commit to a vegan lifestyle
have personal avoidance of aggression, but I think it's more due to the
lack of necessity for it rather than the lack of potential for it. >>

Yep, even lazy vegetarians have more endurance than athletic
meat-eaters:

"Of the three groups compared, the... flesh-eaters showed far less
endurance than the abstainers (vegetarians), even when the latter were
leading a sedentary life."
Overall, the average score of the vegetarians was over double the
average score of the meat-eaters, even though half of the vegetarians
were sedentary people, while all of the meat-eaters tested were
athletes.

A comparable study was done by Dr. J. Ioteyko of the Academie de
Medicine of Paris. Dr. Ioteyko compared the endurance of vegetarians and
meat-eaters from all walks of life in a variety of tests. The
vegetarians averaged two to three times more stamina than the
meat-eaters. Even more remarkably, they took only one-fifth the time to
recover from exhaustion compared to their meat-eating rivals.

Wherever and whenever tests of this nature have been done, the results
have been similar. Doctors in Belgium systematically compared the number
of times vegetarians and meat-eaters could squeeze a grip-meter. The
vegetarians won handily with an average of 69, whilst the meat-eaters
averaged only 38. As in all other studies which have measured muscle
recovery time, here, too the vegetarians bounced back from fatigue far
more rapidly than did the meat-eaters."" --
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/books/dietamerica.html



OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.

[seekliberation]

I don't always disagree with Turq, but I do disagree with the general mindset 
that the individual choice to be  a vegetarian means that the individual lacks 
basic strength and aggression.

I got into an argument with a Marine one time about eating meat.  He argued 
that vegetarians were mentally and physically weak.  I was not a devout 
vegetarian, but did eat a predominantly veggie diet, and I challenged him to 
any form of physical contest.  Of course he denied, he wasn't very strong at 
anything.  But I remember in the conversation I argued that Frank Zane(3 time 
Mr. Olympia in the 70's and 80's) was a vegetarian.  So the idea that 
vegetarianism = pacifist is void. 

It is true, that most people willing to commit to a vegan lifestyle have  
personal avoidance of aggression, but I think it's more due to the lack of 
necessity for it rather than the lack of potential for it.  

> I bet Turq never killed an animal for food in his life.
> 
> OffWorld
> 
>