Rabello wrote:

> Thanks, I know about E coli and your continuing patronizing tone of your posts

> is quite unnecessary.

I disagree - I generally match my tone to that of the person I'm conversing with, which makes my current tone quite necessary.

> E cole may exist on skin and hair but it's source -- where it propagates and survives is

> in the gut....

E. coli is ubiquitous.  Anywhere there are any animals, there you will find E. coli ... and sometimes even with no animals (as I mentioned) some strains survive and propagate by forming cooperative relationships with other bacteria.  E. coli have been found living in nematodes deep in mines well below the earth's surface.  E. coli have been found living in plant-parasitic nematodes.  I doubt you can find many places on the earth's surface where there *aren't* any E. coli.  The serovars most dangerous to us are often the ones found in the guts of mammals, just because those are the ones best adapted to living in us - but its tendency to recombine its genes freely can change that very quickly.

> which is why the ultimate source of an E coli contamination is fecal contamination

> from animals and humans, including OF COURSE vegetarians.

Sometimes, but not always.  And it's certainly not *always* from "livestock, of course" as you claimed.

> this vigorous attempt to discredit a no meat perspective is breathtaking...

I'm just pointing out the inaccuracies as they come up.  I don't blame your various inaccuracies on vegetarianism - they are purely your own.

> Livestock production systems that disperse stock in pastures so the wastes

> are not concentrated and do not overwhelm natural nutrient cycling

> processes have become a subject of renewed interest.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with that approach?  I agree with it.

> Granted, it doesn't specifically say "E coli" for the absolute literalists out there.

That particular article part of the website had nothing to do with E. coli at all - it was talking about nutrient cycling and E. coli is not a nutrient.  Nutrients are substances like nitrates, phosphates, etc. that are present in animal manure.  Handled reasonably, animal manure can be useful as a soil supplement, returning those nutrients to the ecosystem.  Handled irresponsibly, it can overload the natural nutrient cycles, resulting in pollution in the soil and in water runoff.  The same happens when farmers growing plants use too much fertilizers on a field ...  huge amounts of agricultural runoff from conventional agriculture of both plants and animals is responsible for large dead zones at the bottom of many rivers.

> Still waiting for just one source from you, Abner, to back up your claims that anybody

> who doesn't have the same perspective as you is just plain wrong

> -- an easy enough assertion to make.

That's an assertion I never made (as I have mentioned with some of your other misrepresentations, feel free to quote me saying that if you can - but you can't, because I never said it).  Interesting how you have no problem lying about others.

Erey wrote:

> They all start out with issues like the sensitivity of M. Obama but really the whole

> conversation is just about do good people eat meat.

I agree.  I think the environmentalism aspect and health aspect is really just a smoke-screen for the ideological aspects.  If sustainable agriculture proves able to produce animal products with no more environmental impact than its producing plant products, if eating a low-meat diet proves to be just as healthy as eating a vegetarian diet ...  I don't think it would change a thing in the arguments being presented here.  Indeed, if eating a high-fish diet proves healthy (as Solfeggio's recent article asserted), I doubt she would suddenly be in favor of eating fish ... because it's not really about the environmental aspects or the health aspects.  Those are just attempts to slide in the ideology under the radar, so to speak.

Jul 17, 2011 -- 8:42PM, Abner1 wrote:

I disagree - I generally match my tone to that of the person I'm conversing with, which makes my current tone quite necessary.

You think so, do you? 

My only question about your aggressiveness is if it is due to a topic that you are passionate about or due to the posters you're trying to discredit.  Hard to believe you'd be so passionate about a patty of meat, but who knows?   One thing we can say for sure is political/ethical vegetarianism is a "hot topic" afterall -- for some, anyway.  This is just a debate, my biggest reason for participating is to lend some support to solfeggio in that what she's presented isn't "just wrong" as repeatedly asserted.

Jul 17, 2011 -- 8:42PM, Abner1 wrote:

E. coli is ubiquitous.  Anywhere there are any animals, there you will find E. coli ... and sometimes even with no animals (as I mentioned) some strains survive and propagate by forming cooperative relationships with other bacteria.  E. coli have been found living in nematodes deep in mines well below the earth's surface.  E. coli have been found living in plant-parasitic nematodes.  I doubt you can find many places on the earth's surface where there *aren't* any E. coli.  The serovars most dangerous to us are often the ones found in the guts of mammals, just because those are the ones best adapted to living in us - but its tendency to recombine its genes freely can change that very quickly.

The ultimate source of any E coli infection remains fecal, and if it's contaminated produce we're talking about, the most likely source of that contamination is waste from livestock.   The following is from the Mayo Clinic, but the same information can be found on other, reputable, health-related websites.

Definition

Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria live in the intestines of people and animals. Most varieties of E. coli are harmless or cause relatively brief diarrhea, such as occurs in travelers to developing countries.

But a few particularly nasty strains, such as E. coli O157:H7, can cause severe, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps, followed by serious organ system damage such as kidney failure. You may be exposed to E. coli from contaminated water or food — especially raw vegetables and undercooked ground beef.

Causes

Among the many strains of E. coli, only a few trigger diarrhea. One group of E. coli — which includes O157:H7 — produces a powerful toxin that damages the lining of the small intestine, which can cause bloody diarrhea.

You develop an E. coli infection when you accidentally ingest the bacteria. Potential sources of exposure include contaminated food or water, and person-to-person contact.

Contaminated food

-- Ground beef.  When cattle are slaughtered and processed, E. coli bacteria in their intestines can get on the meat. Ground beef combines meat from many different animals, increasing the risk of contamination. Contaminated ground beef often has bacteria spread throughout the mixture — not just on the surfaces (such as on a steak), where cooking is more likely to destroy bacteria.

-- Unpasteurized milk.    E. coli bacteria on a cow's udder or on milking equipment can get into raw milk.

-- Fresh produce.  Runoff from cattle farms can contaminate fields where fresh produce is grown. Vegetables such as spinach and lettuce are particularly vulnerable to this type of contamination.

Source

Jul 17, 2011 -- 8:42PM, Abner1 wrote:

I'm just pointing out the inaccuracies as they come up.  I don't blame your various inaccuracies on vegetarianism - they are purely your own.

Actually, besides asserting that anybody else is just plain wrong, you haven't said much of anything about vegetarianism in order to prove or disprove anybody else's sourced opinions.

Jul 17, 2011 -- 8:42PM, Abner1 wrote:

That particular article part of the website had nothing to do with E. coli at all - it was talking about nutrient cycling and E. coli is not a nutrient.  Nutrients are substances like nitrates, phosphates, etc. that are present in animal manure.  Handled reasonably, animal manure can be useful as a soil supplement, returning those nutrients to the ecosystem.  Handled irresponsibly, it can overload the natural nutrient cycles, resulting in pollution in the soil and in water runoff.  The same happens when farmers growing plants use too much fertilizers on a field ...  huge amounts of agricultural runoff from conventional agriculture of both plants and animals is responsible for large dead zones at the bottom of many rivers.

Actually, neither it nor I said anything about E coli being a "nutrient."  I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your continued offensiveness is due to defensiveness about eating hamburgers.   The 2 paragraphs brought here were about preventing contamination from livestock waste.   All that verbage in the above paragraph, with all the buzz words and the patronizing "lessons" do not obscure what the two paragraphs in the UC-Davis publication SAID.  You , of course, are free to read into it anything you so desire, but I am not required to accept your editorialization of plainly worded paragraphs.

That's an assertion I never made (as I have mentioned with some of your other misrepresentations, feel free to quote me saying that if you can - but you can't, because I never said it).  Interesting how you have no problem lying about others.

As I've said before, that is a two way street if I've ever read one.   Your response to Erey, saying that expressed opinions that can be backed by science are "smokescreens" just proves it, beyond a shadow of a doubt.   It appears your own ideology has blinded you. Generally, when someone isn't being understood, it's because they aren't being clear in their exposition to begin with, not because their listeners/readers are "liars"

Your ad hom technique in debating has run its course.

Jul 17, 2011 -- 9:45PM, Abner1 wrote:

Yes, I do.

Yeah, well, whatever.  Goes with the rest of it.

Jul 17, 2011 -- 9:45PM, Abner1 wrote:

I never asserted any such thing, but your repeated lying is getting tiresome.  As I said before, if you think I asserted any such thing ... quote me.  You can't, because I didn't.  You're just lying.

No, I am telling you what I have been understanding from your posts, which are primarily hostile in nature. 

Jul 17, 2011 -- 9:45PM, Abner1 wrote:

It referred to nutrient cycling, not to E. coli.

Except for the last, very general sentence, it was about having to manage the increasing incidence of contamination from livestock waste.  The paragraphs are clearly written, here they are, again:

Confined Livestock Production. Animal health and waste management are key issues in confined livestock operations. The moral and ethical debate taking place today regarding animal welfare is particularly intense for confined livestock production systems. The issues raised in this debate need to be addressed.

Confinement livestock production is increasingly a source of surface and ground water pollutants, particularly where there are large numbers of animals per unit area. Expensive waste management facilities are now a necessary cost of confined production systems. Waste is a problem of almost all operations and must be managed with respect to both the environment and the quality of life in nearby communities. Livestock production systems that disperse stock in pastures so the wastes are not concentrated and do not overwhelm natural nutrient cycling processes have become a subject of renewed interest.

What your interest is in discrediting posters and the reference they've brought here is quite unfathomable.  You act as if somebody is trying to steal all your money or something.  On the other hand, this debate was more interesting than "hamburgers taste good" or "solfeggio is anti-Amerian" or whatever slam that gets tossed around.   Have a good night, Abner, nobody's going to take away your burgers and fries, I promise.  They are not in any danger.

Rabello wrote:

> The paragraphs are clearly written, here they are, again:

And again there was not a single word there about E. coli.  It did, however, mention nutrient cycling, which is a major problem for all conventional agriculture.  Conventional agriculture does a very poor job of managing nutrients.

> What your interest is in discrediting posters and the reference they've brought here

> is quite unfathomable.

I disagree with some of the points raised, and express my disagreement and why I disagree.  If people wished to address the reasons why I disagree they are welcome to do so - so far, no one has done so.

I can't fathom why you think your current approach is going to do your cause any good.  IMO it is far more likely to turn people away from veganism than towards it.