Whale meat
Ward Stewart
>Do you have any Whale meat resipies????
I et it in Japan many years ago -- very pleasant and it was grilled
and or stir-fried just like beef -- very tasty!
ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that in any
harmless matter he is FREE to act as he will. He is NOT to be
restricted by prejudices and animosity amongst his neighbors --
if THEY wish to restrain him from his freedom, THEY must
demonstrate the public interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Lynn K Busby
Binni <bi...@hotmail.com> writes
>Do you have any Whale meat resipies????
>Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
>http://www.talkway.com
>
>
Were on earth (apart from Japan) could you buy whale meat anyway?
--
Lynn K Busby
Nexis Robinson
Lynn K Busby wrote in message ...
Alan Boles
Just take your beluga whale, cut fillets &chow down. The fatter bits are the
best...
Lynn K Busby <ly...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kvym4AAL...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk...
:In article <ypCs2.5336$QU6.49...@c01read10.service.talkway.com>,
Jean Lissenden
Jean
Richard
> In Northern Canada Whale meat is eaten raw. So there really isn't a recipe.
> Just take your beluga whale, cut fillets &chow down. The fatter bits are the
> best...
>
> Lynn K Busby <ly...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:kvym4AAL...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk...
> :In article <ypCs2.5336$QU6.49...@c01read10.service.talkway.com>,
> :Binni <bi...@hotmail.com> writes
> :>Do you have any Whale meat resipies????
> :>--
> :>Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
> :>http://www.talkway.com
> :>
> :>
> :Were on earth (apart from Japan) could you buy whale meat anyway?
> :--
> :Lynn K Busby
With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being would
consider eating any variety of whale.
Just my opinion.
Rich Gans
--
Remove the nospam from my address to reply
Miche and Dave
<ly...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Were on earth (apart from Japan) could you buy whale meat anyway?
The Faroe Islands.
Miche
--
DO NOT USE REPLY to send me email!
The address in my From: line is a spam trap.
My real email address is:
dhmec at albatross dot co dot nz
http://www.xenu.net
aem
> With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of
> extinction looming for some species, I find it disgusting that
> any sentient being would consider eating any variety of whale.
> Just my opinion.
> Rich Gans
And is your opinion informed by knowledge of the different
species of whales, which are threatened or not, which are
included in international treaties or not, and which are taken by
whom for food or not? Or do you "just think" that other people
shouldn't eat what you wouldn't?
Lynn K Busby
<rhgans...@earthlink.net> writes
>Alan Boles wrote:
>
>> In Northern Canada Whale meat is eaten raw. So there really isn't a recipe.
>> Just take your beluga whale, cut fillets &chow down. The fatter bits are the
>> best...
>>
>> Lynn K Busby <ly...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:kvym4AAL...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk...
>> :In article <ypCs2.5336$QU6.49...@c01read10.service.talkway.com>,
>> :Binni <bi...@hotmail.com> writes
>> :>Do you have any Whale meat resipies????
>> :>--
>> :>Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
>> :>http://www.talkway.com
>> :>
>> :>
>> :--
>> :Lynn K Busby
>
>With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
>looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being would
>consider eating any variety of whale.
>Just my opinion.
>Rich Gans
>
>
>
>Remove the nospam from my address to reply
>
>
>
Rich!
--
Lynn K Busby
Mimi W. Tzeng
:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being would
:consider eating any variety of whale.
:Just my opinion.
:Rich Gans
That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of fish
for the same reason.
Uh, you first. ;)
--
mtzeng @ indiana . edu | http://php.indiana.edu/~mtzeng
===========================================================================
"You are a fluke of the Universe. | Support the antispam amendment to USC
You have no right to be here. And | Title 47 Sec. 227! Write your Congress
whether you can hear it or not, | critters TODAY in support of HR 1748
the Universe is laughing behind | by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)! Also, join
your back." -- National Lampoon | CAUCE at http://www.cauce.org/
ALZELT
In article <794e4r$7qv$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Mimi W. Tzeng
<nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes:
>
>Richard <rhgans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
>:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being would
>:consider eating any variety of whale.
>:Just my opinion.
>:Rich Gans
>
>That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of fish
>for the same reason.
>
>Uh, you first. ;)
>
not sure that i would go along with that. easy for you to say living in
Indiana, with me in Seattle. i wasn't aware that most species of fish are in
danger of looming extinction. think i will head down to Mutual Fish and pick up
a nice Steelhead. YUM!!!(excellent on the barbie, harry).
Alan
The difference between being diplomatic and undiplomatic is the difference
between saying "when I look at you, time stands still", and saying "your face
would stop a clock". Anon
Remove "FinnFan" to send mail.
Lynn K Busby
<nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes
>Richard <rhgans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
>:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being would
>:consider eating any variety of whale.
>:Just my opinion.
>:Rich Gans
>
>That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of fish
>for the same reason.
>
>Uh, you first. ;)
>
now......that opens a whole new can of worms!
--
Lynn K Busby
S.Dunlap
>
>In article <794e4r$7qv$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Mimi W. Tzeng
><nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes:
>
>>
>>Richard <rhgans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
>>:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being
would
>>:consider eating any variety of whale.
>>:Just my opinion.
>>:Rich Gans
>>
>>That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of fish
>>for the same reason.
>>
>>Uh, you first. ;)
>>
>
>danger of looming extinction. think i will head down to Mutual Fish and
pick up
>a nice Steelhead. YUM
Mmmmm....great idea...was heading out for groceries anyway....will stop for
some steelhead at my local seafood market!
S. Dunlap
ALZELT
In article <tt9HcAAx...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk>, Lynn K Busby
<ly...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <794e4r$7qv$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Mimi W. Tzeng
><nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes
>>Richard <rhgans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
>>:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being
>would
>>:consider eating any variety of whale.
>>:Just my opinion.
>>:Rich Gans
>>
>>That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of fish
>>for the same reason.
>>
>>Uh, you first. ;)
>>
>OK you are probably right. I was a vegetarian for 27 years, but I'm not
>now......that opens a whole new can of worms!
>--
>Lynn K Busby
now would that be fried or broiled worms?
Merissa
!!!!!!!!***********!!!!!!!!!!!!***
Alan Boles
(east coast varities) is causing problems with the west coast varities...
Harry A. Demidavicius <har...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:36b93f22...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net...
:On 01 Feb 1999 17:41:53 GMT, alz...@aol.comFinnFan (ALZELT) wrote:
:
:>
:>In article <794e4r$7qv$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Mimi W. Tzeng
:><nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes:
:>
:>>
:>>Richard <rhgans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>>
:>>:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of
extinction
:>>:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being
would
:>>:consider eating any variety of whale.
:>>:Just my opinion.
:>>:Rich Gans
:>>
:>>That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of fish
:>>for the same reason.
:>>
:>>Uh, you first. ;)
:>>
:>
:>not sure that i would go along with that. easy for you to say living in
:>Indiana, with me in Seattle. i wasn't aware that most species of fish are
in
:>danger of looming extinction. think i will head down to Mutual Fish and
pick up
:>a nice Steelhead. YUM!!!(excellent on the barbie, harry).
:>Alan
:>
:>The difference between being diplomatic and undiplomatic is the difference
:>between saying "when I look at you, time stands still", and saying "your
face
:>would stop a clock". Anon
:>
:>Remove "FinnFan" to send mail.
:There is some concern about sailfish, swordfish and shark. Lobsters
:and crab are getting smaller.
:My personal opinion is that it is long past the time when the world's
:food production people needs to review the need to rely on "wild
:stock" for its fish and meat needs. Fish & shellfish farming has come
:a long way, but not nearly far enough.
:Harry Demidavicius
Harry A. Demidavicius
ALZELT
In article <36b93f22...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net>,
point well taken harry. otoh, we have side by side comparisons with wild and
farmed salmon here. in almost all cases i can taste the difference, as well as
the farm raised version not as firm. also, there have been significant numbers
of farmed Atlantic Salmon getting out of pens here and in Vancouver area. hell
to pay when they breed with wild salmon. it will keep offspring from breeding.
otoh(right hand now), i will agree when it comes to mussels. our wonderful penn
cove mussels, along with our Meditteranean mussels are fantastic. not to
mention, but i will, the oysters. well, come here and find out for yourself.
JUST AN H
>>:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being
>would
>>:consider eating any variety of whale.
>>:Just my opinion.
>>:Rich Gans
>>
>>That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of fish
>>for the same reason.
>>
>>Uh, you first. ;)
>>
>now......that opens a whole new can of worms!
>--
>Lynn K Busby
All of this is such nonsense. The Eskimos (whose diets have always depended
upon whales) have never posed a threat to the whale population. They've always
taken only what they needed.
The reason for horrifying declines in whale populations aren't the Eskimos, but
agressive hunting by Westerners back in the mid-1800s ... when whale oil was
used to light homes, and by agressive hunting today by the Japanese, who
maintain that their destructive whale hunts are needed for "research."
A thousand curses on the Japs. The 100 some odd million (and hungry) people of
that overcrowded island nation have been allowed to hunt all sorts of marine
life to near extinction ... with nary a word of protest from anyone. Yet, now
a small American tribe in the Pacific Northwest wants to reclaim their
tradition of capturing a few whales a year ... and that causes such a hue and
cry?
J.
Harry A. Demidavicius
On 02 Feb 1999 03:51:38 GMT, alz...@aol.comFinnFan (ALZELT) wrote:
>
>In article <36b93f22...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net>,
>har...@telusplanet.net (Harry A. Demidavicius) writes:
>
>>
>>On 01 Feb 1999 17:41:53 GMT, alz...@aol.comFinnFan (ALZELT) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <794e4r$7qv$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Mimi W. Tzeng
>>><nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Richard <rhgans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
>>>>:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being
>>would
>>>>:consider eating any variety of whale.
>>>>:Just my opinion.
>>>>:Rich Gans
>>>>
>>>>That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of fish
>>>>for the same reason.
>>>>
>>>>Uh, you first. ;)
>>>>
>>>
Agree all of the above re taste etc. This needs to be improved upon.
The farmers need to get better at control. There is no way that a
crab raised in an inland pond, will ever reach the sea. That is
exactly my point: Seafood farming needs to progress quickly.
"Wild Stock", *will* disappear soon, as a reliable source of food
supply. We need to get used to it. What we need is a guy with Gates'
vision in our [sea] food industry.
Harry Demidavicius
Harry A. Demidavicius
<bo...@nospam.escape.ca.nospam> wrote:
>Harry Don't forget about the salmon problem...The releasing of farmed salmon
>(east coast varities) is causing problems with the west coast varities...
I believe in curing the problem rather than continuing to rely on
"wild stock". Didn't we learn from the buffalo? What idiot [sorry,
the term previously mentioned, was - sentient human] - would hunt a
whale? Why? Bear? Tiger? Don't get me going.
Harry Demidavicius
Member of the Board
Calgary Zoological Society
>
>Harry A. Demidavicius <har...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:36b93f22...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net...
Tony Ning Lew
jus...@aol.com (JUST AN H) wrote:
>>>:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
>>>:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being
>>would
>>>:consider eating any variety of whale.
>>>:Just my opinion.
>>>:Rich Gans
>>>
>>>That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of fish
>>>for the same reason.
>>>
>>>Uh, you first. ;)
>>>
>>OK you are probably right. I was a vegetarian for 27 years, but I'm not
>>now......that opens a whole new can of worms!
>>--
>>Lynn K Busby
>></PRE></HTML>
>
>All of this is such nonsense. The Eskimos (whose diets have always depended
>upon whales) have never posed a threat to the whale population. They've always
>taken only what they needed.
>
>The reason for horrifying declines in whale populations aren't the Eskimos, but
>agressive hunting by Westerners back in the mid-1800s ... when whale oil was
>used to light homes, and by agressive hunting today by the Japanese, who
>maintain that their destructive whale hunts are needed for "research."
>
>A thousand curses on the Japs. The 100 some odd million (and hungry) people of
A million curses on you, you racist asshole.
Alan Boles
trouble as it takes 3-4 years for a lobster to be large enough to eat.news:36bb8f88...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net...
:
:
:On 02 Feb 1999 03:51:38 GMT, alz...@aol.comFinnFan (ALZELT) wrote:
:
:>
:>In article <36b93f22...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net>,:>
:>>
:>>On 01 Feb 1999 17:41:53 GMT, alz...@aol.comFinnFan (ALZELT) wrote:
:>>
:>>>
:>>>In article <794e4r$7qv$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Mimi W. Tzeng
:>>><nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes:
:>>>
:>>>>
:>>>>
:>>>>:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of
extinction
:>>>>:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being
:>>would
:>>>>:consider eating any variety of whale.
:>>>>:Just my opinion.
:>>>>:Rich Gans
:>>>>
:>>>>That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of
fish
:>>>>for the same reason.
:>>>>
:>>>>Uh, you first. ;)
:>>>
:>>>not sure that i would go along with that. easy for you to say living in
:>>>Indiana, with me in Seattle. i wasn't aware that most species of fish
are in
:>>>danger of looming extinction. think i will head down to Mutual Fish and
pick
:>>up
:>>>a nice Steelhead. YUM!!!(excellent on the barbie, harry).
:>>>Alan
:>>>
:>>>The difference between being diplomatic and undiplomatic is the
difference
:>>>between saying "when I look at you, time stands still", and saying
"your
:>>face
:>>>would stop a clock". Anon
:>>>
:>>>Remove "FinnFan" to send mail.
:>>There is some concern about sailfish, swordfish and shark. Lobsters
:>>and crab are getting smaller.
:>>My personal opinion is that it is long past the time when the world's
:>>food production people needs to review the need to rely on "wild
:>>stock" for its fish and meat needs. Fish & shellfish farming has come
:>>a long way, but not nearly far enough.
:>>Harry Demidavicius
:>point well taken harry. otoh, we have side by side comparisons with wild
and
:>farmed salmon here. in almost all cases i can taste the difference, as
well as
:>the farm raised version not as firm. also, there have been significant
numbers
:>of farmed Atlantic Salmon getting out of pens here and in Vancouver area.
hell
:>to pay when they breed with wild salmon. it will keep offspring from
breeding.
:>otoh(right hand now), i will agree when it comes to mussels. our wonderful
penn
:>cove mussels, along with our Meditteranean mussels are fantastic. not to
:>mention, but i will, the oysters. well, come here and find out for
yourself.
:>
:>The difference between being diplomatic and undiplomatic is the difference
:>between saying "when I look at you, time stands still", and saying "your
face
:>would stop a clock". Anon
:>
:>Remove "FinnFan" to send mail.
:
:Agree all of the above re taste etc. This needs to be improved upon.
Alan Boles
1972.
Tony Ning Lew <kol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7967kq$5...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com...
:In article <19990201232220...@ng101.aol.com>,
: jus...@aol.com (JUST AN H) wrote:
:
:>>>:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of
extinction
:>>>:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being
:>>would
:>>>:consider eating any variety of whale.
:>>>:Just my opinion.
:>>>:Rich Gans
:>>>
:>>>That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of
fish
:>>>for the same reason.
:>>>
:>>>Uh, you first. ;)
:>>>
:>>OK you are probably right. I was a vegetarian for 27 years, but I'm not
:
:
Mimi W. Tzeng
:On 01 Feb 1999 17:41:53 GMT, alz...@aol.comFinnFan (ALZELT) wrote:
:>In article <794e4r$7qv$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Mimi W. Tzeng
:><nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes:
:>>Richard <rhgans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>>
:>>:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
:>>:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being would
:>>:consider eating any variety of whale.
:>>:Just my opinion.
:>>:Rich Gans
:>>That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of fish
:>>for the same reason.
:>>
:>>Uh, you first. ;)
:>not sure that i would go along with that. easy for you to say living in
:>Indiana, with me in Seattle. i wasn't aware that most species of fish are in
:>danger of looming extinction. think i will head down to Mutual Fish and pick
up
:>a nice Steelhead. YUM!!!(excellent on the barbie, harry).
:>Alan
Actually, I'm living on the coast of North Carolina. I was being sarcastic
up there. I do try to eat farmed fish most of the time, and the local
Harris Teeter here at least claims to sell fish from healthy stocks (but
I still admit to being suspicious of their Atlantic cod...).
:There is some concern about sailfish, swordfish and shark. Lobsters
:and crab are getting smaller.
Snappers and groupers, too (snappers being the subject of my masters
thesis ;) ). Atlantic cod, as I mentioned above. To some extent Pacific
cod and hake. Pollock. Lots of other things. Actually, "shark" probably
depends on where you are and what species it is, because the stuff that
is sold as "shark" here I don't think is in too much trouble...
The general trend has been going towards catching and eating fish lower
and lower down the food chain, as we fish out the top predators. Fish
that used to be considered trash are now eaten as delicacies.
:My personal opinion is that it is long past the time when the world's
:food production people needs to review the need to rely on "wild
:stock" for its fish and meat needs. Fish & shellfish farming has come
:a long way, but not nearly far enough.
:Harry Demidavicius
Yep. Aquaculture is still in its infancy for most species. Catfish
and tilapia are fairly well-established around here. Beginning work
is being done on various east coast snappers, flounders, and sea bass
where I am (UNC-Wilmington). The Japanese are actually way ahead of
us in a lot of respects - they aren't all out there killing whales. ;)
For example, I know that for flounder, the people down here are trying
to adapt the methods that the Japanese have worked out.
Hmmm... I'm going to be late for my fisheries class if I don't get
going. I'd love to stay and babble at greater length, but I've got
to run. ;)
Edwin Pawlowski
ALZELT wrote in message
>
>not sure that i would go along with that. easy for you to say living in
>Indiana, with me in Seattle. i wasn't aware that most species of fish are
in
>danger of looming extinction. think i will head down to Mutual Fish and
pick up
>a nice Steelhead
Many, if not most fish are depleted in population from heavy fishing. At
one time, Cod would be for to five times the size we now find them. Same
for lobster, blue crabs, tuna and most every other species.
George's Bank, is one of the best fishing areas of the east coast.
Regulations have curtailed a lot of fishing so stocks can be replenished.
As an example, take a look at the price of lobster and the size available.
Most are just about 1 lb to 1 1/2 lb. A few hundred years ago, the Pilgrims
fed them to their pigs as the beaches were loaded with five pound ones.
Fishing fleets are hurting, the catch has been going down. There has to be
some moderation to keep fish levels that can support us for food.
No, a couple of whales a year will not cause world-wide famine.
Ed
e...@snet.net
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Lynn K Busby
<alz...@aol.comFinnFan> writes
>
>In article <tt9HcAAx...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk>, Lynn K Busby
><ly...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>><nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes
>>>Richard <rhgans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
>>>:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being
>>would
>>>:consider eating any variety of whale.
>>>:Just my opinion.
>>>:Rich Gans
>>>
>>>That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of fish
>>>for the same reason.
>>>
>>>Uh, you first. ;)
>>>
>>now......that opens a whole new can of worms!
>>--
>>Lynn K Busby
>
>
>The difference between being diplomatic and undiplomatic is the difference
>between saying "when I look at you, time stands still", and saying "your face
>would stop a clock". Anon
>
>Remove "FinnFan" to send mail.
--
Lynn K Busby
Harry A. Demidavicius
wrote:
So what's your point, Ed?
A few whales? A little war in Europe? What "is" your point?
Harry Demidavicius
ALZELT
In article <798gtr$j...@news1.snet.net>, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net>
writes:
>
>ALZELT wrote in message
>>
>>not sure that i would go along with that. easy for you to say living in
>>Indiana, with me in Seattle. i wasn't aware that most species of fish are
>in
>>danger of looming extinction. think i will head down to Mutual Fish and
>pick up
>>a nice Steelhead
>>Alan
>
>Many, if not most fish are depleted in population from heavy fishing. At
>one time, Cod would be for to five times the size we now find them. Same
>for lobster, blue crabs, tuna and most every other species.
>
>George's Bank, is one of the best fishing areas of the east coast.
>Regulations have curtailed a lot of fishing so stocks can be replenished.
>
>As an example, take a look at the price of lobster and the size available.
>Most are just about 1 lb to 1 1/2 lb. A few hundred years ago, the Pilgrims
>fed them to their pigs as the beaches were loaded with five pound ones.
>
>Fishing fleets are hurting, the catch has been going down. There has to be
>some moderation to keep fish levels that can support us for food.
>
>No, a couple of whales a year will not cause world-wide famine.
>Ed
i have some commercial fishing friends who seriously dispute your statements.
would suggest you site some sources and facts, please. and when the pilgrims
landed, there was more of everything, except people. othoh, saying that a
couple of whales a year will not cause world wide famine, does miss a real
point. if the makahs go whale hunting, then other tribes in U.S. and Canada
will demand their heritage, too. then, faced with this increasing number, the
Norwegians and Japanese will laugh at attempts to regulate the hunt.
here is some food for thought for you. when there became a loud hue and cry
that eating beef was not good for you, people switched to chicken and seafood.
some rfc'rs have reported escalating chicken prices, not to mention outrageous
prices for seafood. the answer is not in regulating the suppliers, but in
looking at what is driving the quest for seafood. the seafood marketing groups
and health groups are causing a surge in the demand.
ALZELT
In article <36b8f080...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net>,
har...@telusplanet.net (Harry A. Demidavicius) writes:
>
>On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:42:35 -0500, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>ALZELT wrote in message
>>>
>>>not sure that i would go along with that. easy for you to say living in
>>>Indiana, with me in Seattle. i wasn't aware that most species of fish are
>>in
>>>danger of looming extinction. think i will head down to Mutual Fish and
>>pick up
>>>a nice Steelhead
>>>Alan
>>
>>Many, if not most fish are depleted in population from heavy fishing. At
>>one time, Cod would be for to five times the size we now find them. Same
>>for lobster, blue crabs, tuna and most every other species.
>>
>>George's Bank, is one of the best fishing areas of the east coast.
>>Regulations have curtailed a lot of fishing so stocks can be replenished.
>>
>>As an example, take a look at the price of lobster and the size available.
>>Most are just about 1 lb to 1 1/2 lb. A few hundred years ago, the Pilgrims
>>fed them to their pigs as the beaches were loaded with five pound ones.
>>
>>Fishing fleets are hurting, the catch has been going down. There has to be
>>some moderation to keep fish levels that can support us for food.
>>
>>No, a couple of whales a year will not cause world-wide famine.
>>Ed
>>e...@snet.net
>>http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
>>
>>
>So what's your point, Ed?
>A few whales? A little war in Europe? What "is" your point?
>Harry Demidavicius
i think it is about time that to "save" the "diminishing" seafood. we must
start promoting beef/pork barbecues once a week. every sunday should be pull
your pork day.
Alan Boles
Are they really fighting over whales in europe ?
Harry A. Demidavicius <har...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:36b8f080...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net...
:On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:42:35 -0500, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net>
Miche and Dave
alz...@aol.comFinnFan (ALZELT) wrote:
> In article <794e4r$7qv$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Mimi W. Tzeng
> <nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes:
>
> >
> >Richard <rhgans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
> >:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being would
> >:consider eating any variety of whale.
> >:Just my opinion.
> >:Rich Gans
> >
> >That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of fish
> >for the same reason.
> >
> >Uh, you first. ;)
> >
>
> not sure that i would go along with that. easy for you to say living in
> Indiana, with me in Seattle. i wasn't aware that most species of fish are in
> danger of looming extinction.
Some are. Orange Roughy, for instance, is fast becoming a threatened
species. And then there's tuna.
Richard Caley
r> With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
r> looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being would
r> consider eating any variety of whale.
So, if someone can name an endangered species related to the potato,
we should all stop eating spuds?
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
ALZELT
In article <miche_campbell-...@dialup104.albatross.co.nz>,
miche_c...@my-dejanews.com (Miche and Dave) writes:
>
>In article <19990201124154...@ngol03.aol.com>,
>alz...@aol.comFinnFan (ALZELT) wrote:
>
>> In article <794e4r$7qv$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Mimi W. Tzeng
>> <nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes:
>>
>> >
>> >Richard <rhgans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
>> >:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being
>would
>> >:consider eating any variety of whale.
>> >:Just my opinion.
>> >:Rich Gans
>> >
>> >That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of fish
>> >for the same reason.
>> >
>> >Uh, you first. ;)
>> >
>>
>> not sure that i would go along with that. easy for you to say living in
>> Indiana, with me in Seattle. i wasn't aware that most species of fish are
>in
>> danger of looming extinction.
>
>Some are. Orange Roughy, for instance, is fast becoming a threatened
>species. And then there's tuna.
>
>Miche
here in the Pacific NW, Tuna is not becoming a threatened species. also, i
recently learned some interesting facts about bluefin tuna, normally caught off
the East Coast of U.S. these are the species that can go for $25,000 each in
the fish markets in Japan. the U.S. government thought they were becoming
extinct because they were counting fewer of them. then, they found out that
they really didn't understand the migratory nature of the species. seems that
they are still as plentiful, but not where the scientists expected to find
them.
some fish like swordfish(mostly caught by South American fisherman off the
western coast of South America) are becoming endangered because they are
catching the immature ones. not only is the taste not as mature, but they are
catching more to make up for the fact that they are catching the small ones.
U.S. fisherman are not engaging in the same practices. this is a case where
education of the fishermen would go a long way.
Michael Edelman
Miche and Dave wrote:
> ...
> > not sure that i would go along with that. easy for you to say living in
> > Indiana, with me in Seattle. i wasn't aware that most species of fish are in
> > danger of looming extinction.
>
> Some are. Orange Roughy, for instance, is fast becoming a threatened
> species. And then there's tuna.
Overfishing certain species doesn't lower the number of fish, it rather changes the
balance of species. Orange Roughy was once an undesirable "garbage" fish that was
promoted to replace other fish whose stocks were getting lower.
What *does* destroy habitat is the use of huge nets that disrupt the seafloor,
scraping up everything in their path.
Alan Boles
operations there is a chance that the older varities become rare. Wasn't it
just a little while ago that the usa had a corn blight and lost 3 or 4
varities of corn forever? Isn't that why govenments and concerned people
started storing seeds of rarer types of vegies. Also applies to farm
animals.
Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:eyhg18n...@liddell.cstr.ed.ac.uk...
:In article <36B518B9...@earthlink.net>, Richard (r) writes:
:
:r> With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of
extinction
:r> looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being
would
:r> consider eating any variety of whale.
:
:So, if someone can name an endangered species related to the potato,
: |<
:
aem
> As the newer varity of spuds and other vegies are used in
> farming operations there is a chance that the older varities
> become rare. Wasn't it just a little while ago that the usa had
> a corn blight and lost 3 or 4 varities of corn forever? Isn't
> that why govenments and concerned people started storing seeds
> of rarer types of vegies. Also applies to farm animals.
What part of this also applies to farm animals? That they are
becoming rare? That people are storing them or their 'seed'?
Very confusing.
Alan Boles
sperm). Some people in england and canada are raising the older types of
chickens goats and sheep.
aem <aemN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:36B8D69A...@worldnet.att.net...
Alan Boles
:On 03 Feb 1999 07:15:13 GMT, alz...@aol.comFinnFan (ALZELT) wrote:
:
:>
:>In article <36b8f080...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net>,:>
:>>
:>>On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:42:35 -0500, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net>
:>>wrote:
:>>
:>>>
:>>>ALZELT wrote in message
:>>>>
:>>>>Indiana, with me in Seattle. i wasn't aware that most species of fish
are
:>>>in
:>i think it is about time that to "save" the "diminishing" seafood. we must
:>start promoting beef/pork barbecues once a week. every sunday should be
pull
:>your pork day.
:>
:>The difference between being diplomatic and undiplomatic is the difference
:>between saying "when I look at you, time stands still", and saying "your
face
:>would stop a clock". Anon
:>
:>Remove "FinnFan" to send mail.
:
:Yeeehaaah!
:Harry Demidavicius
:who wants to know if it is OK to pull one's duck, Alan?
Harry A. Demidavicius
Harry A. Demidavicius
>
>In article <miche_campbell-...@dialup104.albatross.co.nz>,
>miche_c...@my-dejanews.com (Miche and Dave) writes:
>
>>
>>In article <19990201124154...@ngol03.aol.com>,
>>alz...@aol.comFinnFan (ALZELT) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <794e4r$7qv$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Mimi W. Tzeng
>>> <nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Richard <rhgans...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >:With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
>>> >:looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being
>>would
>>> >:consider eating any variety of whale.
>>> >:Just my opinion.
>>> >:Rich Gans
>>> >
>>> >That's an excellent idea! We should also stop eating most species of fish
>>> >for the same reason.
>>> >
>>> >Uh, you first. ;)
>>> >
>>>
>>> not sure that i would go along with that. easy for you to say living in
>>> Indiana, with me in Seattle. i wasn't aware that most species of fish are
>>in
>>> danger of looming extinction.
>>
>>Some are. Orange Roughy, for instance, is fast becoming a threatened
>>species. And then there's tuna.
>>
>>Miche
>
>here in the Pacific NW, Tuna is not becoming a threatened species. also, i
>recently learned some interesting facts about bluefin tuna, normally caught off
>the East Coast of U.S. these are the species that can go for $25,000 each in
>the fish markets in Japan. the U.S. government thought they were becoming
>extinct because they were counting fewer of them. then, they found out that
>they really didn't understand the migratory nature of the species. seems that
>they are still as plentiful, but not where the scientists expected to find
>them.
>
>some fish like swordfish(mostly caught by South American fisherman off the
>western coast of South America) are becoming endangered because they are
>catching the immature ones. not only is the taste not as mature, but they are
>catching more to make up for the fact that they are catching the small ones.
>U.S. fisherman are not engaging in the same practices. this is a case where
>education of the fishermen would go a long way.
>Alan
>
>The difference between being diplomatic and undiplomatic is the difference
>between saying "when I look at you, time stands still", and saying "your face
>would stop a clock". Anon
>
>Remove "FinnFan" to send mail.
The person comparing potatoes to whales [I have either missed his
"humor" or], he is totally out to lunch.
Alan, i don't believe that American [Canadaian, Portuguese or who
bloody ever] fishermen are any more "high minded" than any of their
peers. Their livelihood involves catching fish. They adhere to as
much "law" as they can be regulated by - and let's not get into the
Portuguese & Spanish "double nets". This is not the issue IMO. The
issue is that we need to stop relying on the "wild" stocks of the sea
and the forest for a steady food supply for the world's food needs.
Harry Demidavicius
aem
> Both. They are becoming rare and people are storing their seed.
> (Eggs & sperm). Some people in england and canada are raising
> the older types of chickens goats and sheep.
It's already very hard to buy in to the argument that more than a
few ocean species are in any way threatened. Now we've got to
consider chickens, goats and sheep, too? No way. And even if
one particular type of goat or chicken were threatened, it
couldn't be because too many had been sold in markets, or eaten.
If a breed of this kind of farm animal dwindles, it's because
other breeds have been found to be better in some way.
ALZELT
In article <36bfee1f...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net>,
har...@telusplanet.net (Harry A. Demidavicius) writes:
>On 03 Feb 1999 07:15:13 GMT, alz...@aol.comFinnFan (ALZELT) wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <36b8f080...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net>,
>>har...@telusplanet.net (Harry A. Demidavicius) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:42:35 -0500, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>ALZELT wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>not sure that i would go along with that. easy for you to say living in
>>>>>Indiana, with me in Seattle. i wasn't aware that most species of fish are
>>>>in
>>Alan
>>
>>The difference between being diplomatic and undiplomatic is the difference
>>between saying "when I look at you, time stands still", and saying "your
>face
>>would stop a clock". Anon
>>
>>Remove "FinnFan" to send mail.
>
>
>Yeeehaaah!
>Harry Demidavicius
>who wants to know if it is OK to pull one's duck, Alan?
>
we are all consenting adults here, harry. if samantha says it is ok for you to
pull your duck, go for it.
Alan Boles
ALZELT <alz...@aol.comFinnFan> wrote in message
news:19990204022102...@ngol03.aol.com...
:
:In article <36bfee1f...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net>,
Miche and Dave
<ly...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <19990201165518...@ngol03.aol.com>, ALZELT
> <alz...@aol.comFinnFan> writes
> >now would that be fried or broiled worms?
> >Alan
> >
> >The difference between being diplomatic and undiplomatic is the difference
> >between saying "when I look at you, time stands still", and saying
"your face
> >would stop a clock". Anon
> >
> >Remove "FinnFan" to send mail.
> Fried, I think, would be more palatable!
Hmmm... Mix them with a beaten egg, maybe a little flour... WormCakes!
:)
Miche and Dave
<s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <36B518B9...@earthlink.net>, Richard (r) writes:
>
> r> With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
> r> looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient
being would
> r> consider eating any variety of whale.
>
> So, if someone can name an endangered species related to the potato,
> we should all stop eating spuds?
Not unless potatoes themselves become endangered. :)
Miche and Dave
> Miche and Dave wrote:
>
> > ...
> > > not sure that i would go along with that. easy for you to say living in
> > > Indiana, with me in Seattle. i wasn't aware that most species of
fish are in
> > > danger of looming extinction.
> >
> > Some are. Orange Roughy, for instance, is fast becoming a threatened
> > species. And then there's tuna.
>
> Overfishing certain species doesn't lower the number of fish, it rather
changes the
> balance of species. Orange Roughy was once an undesirable "garbage" fish
that was
> promoted to replace other fish whose stocks were getting lower.
Orange Roughy are thought to live about one hundred years. AFAIK it's not
known when they start breeding - it may be as late as 30 years after
hatching. Overfishing could very easily lead to the extinction of Orange
Roughy, as there will be no breeding stock left at all.
Miche and Dave
<aemN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Alan Boles wrote:
>
> > As the newer varity of spuds and other vegies are used in
> > farming operations there is a chance that the older varities
> > become rare. Wasn't it just a little while ago that the usa had
> > a corn blight and lost 3 or 4 varities of corn forever? Isn't
> > that why govenments and concerned people started storing seeds
> > of rarer types of vegies. Also applies to farm animals.
>
> What part of this also applies to farm animals? That they are
> becoming rare?
Some varieties of sheep, cattle, pigs etc are becoming very few in numbers
due to their breeds becoming 'out of favour' (don't produce as highly,
generally).
> That people are storing them or their 'seed'?
Either or both. :)
> Very confusing.
Not really.
Mimi W. Tzeng
:It's already very hard to buy in to the argument that more than a
:few ocean species are in any way threatened. Now we've got to
Why is that so hard to believe? Do you think that stuff from the
ocean is limitless? Why do you suppose there are so many fisheries
regulations on size limits, catch limits, types of fishing gear
that can be used, issues of minimizing bycatch (stuff that you catch
which isn't your target species), seasons and areas, etc. etc.?
Why do you suppose that fish which used to be considered "trash"
are now worth eating?
I think aquaculture is the way to go too. The fisheries for "wild"
stock are already pretty much at their maximum yields, so as demand
for seafood continues to increase, fish from aquaculture is going to
be the only new source of supply. But at this point most of it is in
early development, especially for marine species which are a lot more
complicated to raise. The big difference between raising fish and
raising other sources of protein, though, is that fish are mostly
carnivores as well, so you have to raise other organisms to feed them,
which makes it more expensive. Their life cycles are also more complex.
Mimi W. Tzeng
:Miche and Dave wrote:
:> Some are. Orange Roughy, for instance, is fast becoming a threatened
:> species. And then there's tuna.
:Overfishing certain species doesn't lower the number of fish, it rather
changes the
:balance of species. Orange Roughy was once an undesirable "garbage" fish that
was
:promoted to replace other fish whose stocks were getting lower.
:What *does* destroy habitat is the use of huge nets that disrupt the seafloor,
:scraping up everything in their path.
Changing the balance of species isn't a good thing either, because what
you're doing by removing the top predators is disrupting ecosystems.
Also, I'm not sure that the number of fish from other species necessarily
increases, because in some cases it isn't predation or competition that
is limiting their numbers as it is limits on space or stuff that goes on
pre-recruitment.
(Yeah, I know I'm spouting off. I just learned this stuff and I think it's
neat. ;) )
PENMART10
In article <79cccg$qqe$2...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Mimi W. Tzeng
<nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes:
>(Yeah, I know I'm spouting off and I think it's neat. ;) )
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>mtzeng
>"You are a fluke of the Universe.
^^^^^^
Well, you're certainly on topic! ;)
Sheldon
````````````
On a recent Night Court rerun, Judge Harry Stone had a wonderful line:
"I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out."
t r i l l i u m
~Alan Boles wrote:
~
~> Both. They are becoming rare and people are storing their seed.
~> (Eggs & sperm). Some people in england and canada are raising
~> the older types of chickens goats and sheep.
~
~It's already very hard to buy in to the argument that more than a
~few ocean species are in any way threatened. Now we've got to
I disagree. After reviewing the facts, I find it hard to believe they are
*not* threatened. However, I would rather eat wild caught fish much less than
only have farm raised fish available. I think most farm raised fish taste
pretty yucky.
~consider chickens, goats and sheep, too? No way. And even if
~one particular type of goat or chicken were threatened, it
~couldn't be because too many had been sold in markets, or eaten.
~If a breed of this kind of farm animal dwindles, it's because
~other breeds have been found to be better in some way.
Better short term for agriculture, maybe, but not long term. (I'm not even
sure I would let big agriculture be the judge of what is "better".
Better in what sense? Have you tasted a mass produced chicken
next to an old fashioned one? A world of difference). Biodiversity is pretty
important, it's how mother nature works. I'm fairly certain you already know
the argument for it, but I guess I'll rise to the bait. Let us use chickens
as our example...if the strains of chickens used for slaughter is narrowed
down to a very few types, it lessens the chance that chickens will survive a
chicken specific disease. The concern is about chickens as a whole, not
just one variety, but the more variety you have, the better the chance
that one or more of these chickens would be resistant to a specific
disease. This concept is related to concerns about endangered species whose
number may increase, but not their genetic diversity, because they are all
products of 3 or 4 breeding pairs. It's also related to concerns about
agricultural crops. Biodiversity arguments aside, I would be really sad if
all I had to choose from is 2 or 3 types of tomatoes, or none at all.
regards,
trillium
aem
> aem <aemN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> :It's already very hard to buy in to the argument that more
> than a few species are in any way threatened. Now we've got to
>
> Why is that so hard to believe? Do you think that stuff from
> the ocean is limitless? Why do you suppose there are so many
> fisheries regulations on size limits, catch limits, types of
> fishing gear that can be used, issues of minimizing bycatch
> (stuff that you catch which isn't your target species), seasons
> and areas, etc. etc.?
> Why do you suppose that fish which used to be considered
> "trash" are now worth eating?
In discussions of this sort, I use "threatened" in the sense of
the category of species just below "endangered", as scientists
measure survival chances. Sorry if that wasn't clear. In that
sense -- being identified as a species on the brink of becoming
endangered -- there are a handful of fishes out of many
thousands, and they are not primary food fish. The kind of
fishing regulations you cite have to do simply with dealing with
rises and falls in particular populations, which has always
occurred, for many reasons.
> I think aquaculture is the way to go too. [snip]
Yeah, it's pretty interesting, but one doesn't preclude the
other.
aem
> [snip ]
> Better in what sense? Have you tasted a mass produced chicken
> next to an old fashioned one? A world of difference).
That has less to do with the variety of chicken and more to do
with its feed and growing conditions.
> Biodiversity is pretty important, it's how mother nature works.
> I'm fairly certain you already know the argument for it, but I
> guess I'll rise to the bait. Let us use chickens as our
> example...if the strains of chickens used for slaughter is
> narrowed down to a very few types, it lessens the chance that
> chickens will survive a chicken specific disease. The concern
> is about chickens as a whole, not just one variety, but the
> more variety you have, the better the chance that one or more
> of these chickens would be resistant to a specific disease.
> This concept is related to concerns about endangered species
> whose number may increase, but not their genetic diversity,
> because they are all products of 3 or 4 breeding pairs. It's
> also related to concerns about agricultural crops.
Good point, but I think it reinforces my original objection to
the notion that chickens, goats and sheep are threatened. There
have been no facts or research cited to suggest that _any_
strains have actually died out. If some mammoth chicken company
fixes on one strain of chicken to raise commercially, that
doesn't mean that there is not great genetic diversity elsewhere
among these animals.
> Biodiversity arguments aside, I would be really sad if all I
> had to choose from is 2 or 3 types of tomatoes, or none at all.
Absolutely. That's why we share heirloom tomato seeds and pass
them around the country. I'm planning to raise a variety this
year that friends tell me is so tender you can barely get it from
the garden to the kitchen, and so tasty you hardly want to wait
that long.
Richard Caley
>> So, if someone can name an endangered species related to the potato,
>> we should all stop eating spuds?
mad> Not unless potatoes themselves become endangered. :)
I don't think anyone advocated running out to but blue whale.
t r i l l i u m
~t r i l l i u m wrote:
~
~> [snip ]
~> Better in what sense? Have you tasted a mass produced chicken
~> next to an old fashioned one? A world of difference).
~
~That has less to do with the variety of chicken and more to do
~with its feed and growing conditions.
That wasn't my point. My point was, you're letting those companies (the ones
that make chicken taste like wonder bread) be the judge of what's a "better"
variety. I don't think I trust them, given what they've done so far.
~Good point, but I think it reinforces my original objection to
~the notion that chickens, goats and sheep are threatened. There
~have been no facts or research cited to suggest that _any_
~strains have actually died out. If some mammoth chicken company
~fixes on one strain of chicken to raise commercially, that
~doesn't mean that there is not great genetic diversity elsewhere
~among these animals.
Where would this great genetic diversity be? In all those wild chicken
flocks roaming the country? Seriously, though, it's when more than one mammoth
company fixes on one (and the same) type of chicken that I get nervous. I
haven't followed meat ag stuff as closely as I have veggies because I'm not as
interested. It would be interesting to know if historically some strains of
domesticated animals no longer exist, or if the overall levels of biodiversity
in domesticated animals has changed dramatically. I know it has for
vegetables.
~Absolutely. That's why we share heirloom tomato seeds and pass
~them around the country. I'm planning to raise a variety this
~year that friends tell me is so tender you can barely get it from
~the garden to the kitchen, and so tasty you hardly want to wait
~that long.
Sounds intriguing...what's the name? I love torturing my farmers with
requests for heirloom vegetables that they haven't heard of.
regards,
trillium
aem
> aem <aemN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> ~t r i l l i u m wrote:
> Where would this great genetic diversity be? In all those wild
> chicken
> flocks roaming the country?
That's a cute vision, wild chicken flocks. But seriously, there
are many thousands of people who raise chickens for eggs and for
eating, and they (just like gardeners) have their favorite
strains for different purposes and different tastes. Go to a
site where homesteaders share their ideas, for example, and
you'll see a lot of interest in chickens and rabbits and goats.
> That's why we share heirloom tomato seeds and pass
> ~them around the country. I'm planning to raise a variety this
>
> ~year that friends tell me is so tender you can barely get it
> from
> ~the garden to the kitchen, and so tasty you hardly want to
> wait
> ~that long.
>
> Sounds intriguing...what's the name? I love torturing my
> farmers with
> requests for heirloom vegetables that they haven't heard of.
>
> regards,
> trillium
We're going to try a couple. One is an 'oxheart' type and the
other is called Brandywine. If you want more to torture the
farmers with, get a catalog from the Seed Savers Exchange. They
have about fifty pages just of tomatoes!
t r i l l i u m
~That's a cute vision, wild chicken flocks. But seriously, there
~are many thousands of people who raise chickens for eggs and for
~eating, and they (just like gardeners) have their favorite
~strains for different purposes and different tastes. Go to a
~site where homesteaders share their ideas, for example, and
~you'll see a lot of interest in chickens and rabbits and goats.
I do know that...I was just giving you a hard time. And if major chicken
producers get wiped out, we will still have the smaller ones, which are
where I buy mine from anyway, just may have to pay more. My mum's favorite
chickens for eggs are Aracanas (sp?) because of their beautiful shells.
~ We're going to try a couple. One is an 'oxheart' type and the
~other is called Brandywine. If you want more to torture the
Brandywines are good! And very fragile...I've had some not make the trip home
from the farmer's market. The other one I'm really enamoured with is a
brownish/purple tomato with German in the name...I think I posted about them
last summer.
~farmers with, get a catalog from the Seed Savers Exchange. They
~have about fifty pages just of tomatoes!
Sigh. I can't stand to look at their catalog, because then I want to grow my
own...no room in a 1 bedroom apt...
regards,
trillium
Edwin Pawlowski
>:So what's your point, Ed?
>:A few whales? A little war in Europe? What "is" your point?
>:Harry Demidavicius
>
Moderation
Ed
e...@snet.net
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Bob Y.
>t r i l l i u m wrote:
>
>> aem <aemN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> ~t r i l l i u m wrote:
>> Where would this great genetic diversity be? In all those wild
>> chicken
>> flocks roaming the country?
>
>That's a cute vision, wild chicken flocks.
<snip>
Cute? Have you ever been mugged by a flock of wild chickens? I thoght not, or
you wouldn't think those evil beggers are cute.
Bob Y.
Happiness is duplicating your mom's meatloaf.
_For Better or for Worse_
aem
> I do know that...I was just giving you a hard time.
What! How dare you, in such a respectable and respectful ng as
this. I'd call you names, but since I stopped reading Penmart my
vocabulary of appropriate responses has dwindled away..... btw, I
think it was the Brandywines that our friend described as so good
but so fragile. You're fortunate to have a farmers market in the
big city that will bring them to you.OB food: Supper tonight is
hot and sour soup, followed by beef and gai lan (Chinese
broccoli, aka Ch. flowering cabbage) with oyster sauce.
Spuddie
said:
>In article <36B518B9...@earthlink.net>, Richard (r) writes:
>
>r> With all the problems of over hunting and the possibilities of extinction
>r> looming for some species, I find it disgusting that any sentient being would
>r> consider eating any variety of whale.
>
>So, if someone can name an endangered species related to the potato,
>we should all stop eating spuds?
>
>--
>Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
No! No! No! Not spuds! Anything but spuds!! :p
Cheryl
~~~In the long run we are all dead.~~~ (John Maynard Keynes)
Kaari Jae
>
> In article <4hrC$BArww...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk>, Lynn K Busby
> <ly...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <19990201165518...@ngol03.aol.com>, ALZELT
> > <alz...@aol.comFinnFan> writes
> > >now would that be fried or broiled worms?
> > >Alan
> > >
> > >
>
> Hmmm... Mix them with a beaten egg, maybe a little flour... WormCakes!
>
> :)
>
> Miche
Miche,
weren't there a New Food Competition in NZ last year? The competitions
purpose was to utilize "not-normally eaten" food stuffs, like worms,
snakes, roots of trees etc. And the recipe that won the competition was
actually using worms as it's main ingredient???
Kaari
who finally has got her new puter AND a connection to the outside world
and RFC :)
--
======================================================================
Please remove Seattle before you reply. Thank you :)
------------------------------------------------------------
What if you slept? And what if, in your sleep, you dreamed?
And what if, in your dream you went to heaven and there
plucked a strange and beautiful flower? And what if,
when you awoke, you had the flower in your hand?
Ah, what then?
(Coleridge)
=================================================
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
ALZELT
In article <79cccg$qqe$2...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Mimi W. Tzeng
<nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes:
>
>Michael Edelman <m...@mich.com> wrote:
>:Miche and Dave wrote:
>
>:> Some are. Orange Roughy, for instance, is fast becoming a threatened
>:> species. And then there's tuna.
>
>:Overfishing certain species doesn't lower the number of fish, it rather
>changes the
>:balance of species. Orange Roughy was once an undesirable "garbage" fish
>that
>was
>:promoted to replace other fish whose stocks were getting lower.
>
>:What *does* destroy habitat is the use of huge nets that disrupt the
>seafloor,
>:scraping up everything in their path.
>
>Changing the balance of species isn't a good thing either, because what
>you're doing by removing the top predators is disrupting ecosystems.
>Also, I'm not sure that the number of fish from other species necessarily
>increases, because in some cases it isn't predation or competition that
>is limiting their numbers as it is limits on space or stuff that goes on
>pre-recruitment.
>
>(Yeah, I know I'm spouting off. I just learned this stuff and I think it's
>neat. ;) )
and what is neat is copper river salmon in late may, fresh first dungeness
crabs of the season in december, and wonderful halibut, all fresh. their are
many things effecting the viability of seafood, our eating habits being only
one of them. as i mentioned before, many people's decision(rightly or wrongly)
to stop eating beef, has caused an increase in the fish catch. but you can't
just blanket indict, just because of something your are learning in school.
Miche and Dave
<aemN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Good point, but I think it reinforces my original objection to
> the notion that chickens, goats and sheep are threatened. There
> have been no facts or research cited to suggest that _any_
> strains have actually died out.
Enderby Island cattle. There's one left. They're only called that
because for the last hundred years they've been isolated on Enderby Island
in the very southern reaches of the Pacific, south of New Zealand. They
were a breed of cattle from the 19th century which doesn't really exist
any more. When the last cow dies it's gone for good.
Also the Enderby Island Blue rabbit. When they were brought off the
island it was discovered that they are the last remnant of a French breed
raised for meat, called the "Argent du Champagne." Attempts are being
made to renew the numbers from the few dozen that exist now to make a
viable breeding stock.
Miche and Dave
<s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <miche_campbell-...@dialup108.albatross.co.nz>,
Miche and Dave (mad) writes:
>
> >> So, if someone can name an endangered species related to the potato,
> >> we should all stop eating spuds?
>
> mad> Not unless potatoes themselves become endangered. :)
>
> I don't think anyone advocated running out to but blue whale.
Did I say they had? Pardon me for cracking a joke.
Richard Aerni
>
> producers get wiped out, we will still have the smaller ones, which are
> where I buy mine from anyway, just may have to pay more. My mum's favorite
> chickens for eggs are Aracanas (sp?) because of their beautiful shells.
Not wanting to really argue with you, as the mega-chicken farms leave me
with the shivers and the desire to raise my own food, but if you want
eggs all year round, you've got to do something artificial to keep them
laying. Chickens will stop laying when the available sunlight lessens,
and thus farmers (and others) have to put lights in the coops to fool the
chickens into believing it's really another season.
OB cooked chicken: Best chicken meal I ever had the pleasure of
ingesting was an old roadhouse restaurant in Metamora, Indiana. I used
to canoe around there in my teens, and discovered it. They raised their
own chickens and would get their dinners from the flock every day. Great
chicken and biscuits, and made for a great date, too, with the trip.
Richard
Alan Boles
subject (Just a David Suzuki Nature of Things special on CBC in Canada)
several varities of chickens and at least 1 breed of cows are extinct. Plus
1 or 2 types of sheep. These animals were used in the late 18 and 19
centuries and were also used in cross breeding to produce better farm
animals. Which they did so well that people stopped buying and reproducing
them.
Miche and Dave <miche_c...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:miche_campbell-...@dialup079.albatross.co.nz...
:In article <36B9E4CF...@worldnet.att.net>, aem
:<aemN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:
:> Good point, but I think it reinforces my original objection to
:> the notion that chickens, goats and sheep are threatened. There
:> have been no facts or research cited to suggest that _any_
:> strains have actually died out.
:
:Enderby Island cattle. There's one left. They're only called that
:because for the last hundred years they've been isolated on Enderby Island
:in the very southern reaches of the Pacific, south of New Zealand. They
:were a breed of cattle from the 19th century which doesn't really exist
:any more. When the last cow dies it's gone for good.
:
:Also the Enderby Island Blue rabbit. When they were brought off the
:island it was discovered that they are the last remnant of a French breed
:raised for meat, called the "Argent du Champagne." Attempts are being
:made to renew the numbers from the few dozen that exist now to make a
:viable breeding stock.
:
:Miche
aem
Thanks, that's interesting. South of New Zealand, imagine that.
Something neat always pops up eventually if the discussion
meanders around long enough. What were we talking about
originally, I wonder....
ALZELT
In article <79eje0$e...@news1.snet.net>, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net>
writes:
this is not a moderated group.
Miche and Dave
<bo...@nospam.escape.ca.nospam> wrote:
> I don't know where you researched. But to my limited knowledge on the
> subject
As regards the Enderby Island cattle and rabbits, I live in the country
they were brought to when they were taken off the island. There was quite
a bit of discussion in the media about them.
Mimi W. Tzeng
:In article <79cccg$qqe$2...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Mimi W. Tzeng
:<nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> writes:
:>Michael Edelman <m...@mich.com> wrote:
:>:Overfishing certain species doesn't lower the number of fish, it rather
:>changes the
:>:balance of species. Orange Roughy was once an undesirable "garbage" fish
:>that
:>was
:>:promoted to replace other fish whose stocks were getting lower.
:>
:>:What *does* destroy habitat is the use of huge nets that disrupt the
:>seafloor,
:>:scraping up everything in their path.
:>
:>Changing the balance of species isn't a good thing either, because what
:>you're doing by removing the top predators is disrupting ecosystems.
:>Also, I'm not sure that the number of fish from other species necessarily
:>increases, because in some cases it isn't predation or competition that
:>is limiting their numbers as it is limits on space or stuff that goes on
:>pre-recruitment.
:>
:>(Yeah, I know I'm spouting off. I just learned this stuff and I think it's
:>neat. ;) )
:and what is neat is copper river salmon in late may, fresh first dungeness
:crabs of the season in december, and wonderful halibut, all fresh. their are
:many things effecting the viability of seafood, our eating habits being only
:one of them. as i mentioned before, many people's decision(rightly or wrongly)
:to stop eating beef, has caused an increase in the fish catch. but you can't
:just blanket indict, just because of something your are learning in school.
Well, lots of things affect viability of seafood besides whether people
want to eat them, such as dams and water pollution and the bringing in
of exotic species from elsewhere.
I wasn't aware that I'd indicted anything or anyone.
Spuddie
>>That's a cute vision, wild chicken flocks.
><snip>
>
>Cute? Have you ever been mugged by a flock of wild chickens? I thoght not, or
>you wouldn't think those evil beggers are cute.
>
>Bob Y.
No kidding! Those roosters have some NASTY big ole spurs! And they
wonder why "free range" chicken is so expensive! When butcher time
comes, YOU catch the b*stards! LOL
Cheryl
~~~No matter how much the cats fight, there always seem
to be plenty of kittens.~~~ (Abraham Lincoln)
Alan Boles
program. So you modify your e-mail address so it isn't correct. If your
e-mail address is say " fr...@baaa.com " you change it to say
"sn...@nowhere.ville " or something a thinking person could decipher such as
mine is. Then when Somebody wants to mail you they can and when a spammer
mails out hundreds of messages he dosn't bother you.
Daaaisy <daa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990209190440...@ng30.aol.com...
:Please tell me what a spam trap is!!!! I've seen people use it but I don't
:know what it means!!
Daaaisy
Lynn K Busby
.nospam> writes
>Spammer routinely take your address off your postings via a computer
>program. So you modify your e-mail address so it isn't correct. If your
>e-mail address is say " fr...@baaa.com " you change it to say
>"sn...@nowhere.ville " or something a thinking person could decipher such as
>mine is. Then when Somebody wants to mail you they can and when a spammer
>mails out hundreds of messages he dosn't bother you.
>
>Daaaisy <daa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:19990209190440...@ng30.aol.com...
>:know what it means!!
>
Thanks to Daaaisy for asking the question, and Alan for the answer! I
am ashamed to say that I too wondered about this, but thought you would
all think I was stupid for asking! I do seem to get an aweful lot of
junk e-mail. Shouls I start doing this now, or is it too late?
--
Lynn K Busby
Alan Boles
to advertisers usually they are not that well organized. So if you modify
your address it will stopped most of the future spam.
Lynn K Busby <ly...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:21EBKGAg$Uw2...@phoenixcons.demon.co.uk...
:In article <79qoqj$n42$1...@remarQ.com>, Alan Boles <bo...@nospam.escape.ca
C.L. Gifford
Lynn K Busby wrote:
>
> In article <79qoqj$n42$1...@remarQ.com>, Alan Boles <bo...@nospam.escape.ca
> .nospam> writes
> >Spammer routinely take your address off your postings via a computer
> >program. So you modify your e-mail address so it isn't correct. If your
> >e-mail address is say " fr...@baaa.com " you change it to say
> >"sn...@nowhere.ville " or something a thinking person could decipher such as
> >mine is. Then when Somebody wants to mail you they can and when a spammer
> >mails out hundreds of messages he dosn't bother you.
> >
> >Daaaisy <daa...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:19990209190440...@ng30.aol.com...
> >:Please tell me what a spam trap is!!!! I've seen people use it but I don't
> >:know what it means!!
> >
> Thanks to Daaaisy for asking the question, and Alan for the answer! I
> am ashamed to say that I too wondered about this, but thought you would
> all think I was stupid for asking! I do seem to get an aweful lot of
> junk e-mail. Shouls I start doing this now, or is it too late?
> --
> Lynn K Busby
You will also get a lot less mail that you would like to have
because some people will not fight the spam blockers. Sometimes
it isn't worth it.
Charlie
<><
Harry A. Demidavicius
<bo...@nospam.escape.ca.nospam> wrote:
>Spammer routinely take your address off your postings via a computer
>program. So you modify your e-mail address so it isn't correct. If your
>e-mail address is say " fr...@baaa.com " you change it to say
>"sn...@nowhere.ville " or something a thinking person could decipher such as
>mine is. Then when Somebody wants to mail you they can and when a spammer
>mails out hundreds of messages he dosn't bother you.
>
>Daaaisy <daa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:19990209190440...@ng30.aol.com...
>:Please tell me what a spam trap is!!!! I've seen people use it but I don't
>:know what it means!!
I haven't bullet-proofed my address because I receive a lot of stuff
sent by "mindless" programs and which I have requested: news feeds,
price updates for stocks & mutual funds, amazon, etc etc. I also get a
lot of machine generated Spam which I kill filter.
I'm contemplating getting a second addy [I'm allowed 6 plus two Web
sites/Home pages], bullet proofing it, and using it for personal
correspondence. I would just leave this present address "out there",
and let catch all machine generated mail. The premise being that it
will be easier to sort out the stuff I need and delete the rest, than
the present method. I find that some Spammers will hit you several
times at once using a slight variation on their address each time
[spam1@xxx,spam2@xxx,spam3@xxx etc]. It takes time to KF each one.
So what to do? what to do?
Harry Demidavicius
Alan Boles
I use Outlook Express which allows me to bulletproof my NG posts but leaves
my regular e-mail alone. Or you could bulletproof Free Agent for Posting and
use unbulletproofed Pandora for mail.
Harry A. Demidavicius <har...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:36c31b66...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net...
:On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:54:24 -0800, "Alan Boles"
Harry A. Demidavicius
HAD
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:44:09 -0800, "Alan Boles"
Victor Sack
> In article <79qoqj$n42$1...@remarQ.com>, Alan Boles <bo...@nospam.escape.ca
> .nospam> writes
> >Spammer routinely take your address off your postings via a computer
> >program. So you modify your e-mail address so it isn't correct. If your
> >e-mail address is say " fr...@baaa.com " you change it to say
> >"sn...@nowhere.ville " or something a thinking person could decipher such as
> >mine is. Then when Somebody wants to mail you they can and when a spammer
> >mails out hundreds of messages he dosn't bother you.
> >
> >Daaaisy <daa...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:19990209190440...@ng30.aol.com...
> >:Please tell me what a spam trap is!!!! I've seen people use it but I don't
> >:know what it means!!
> >
> Thanks to Daaaisy for asking the question, and Alan for the answer! I
> am ashamed to say that I too wondered about this, but thought you would
> all think I was stupid for asking! I do seem to get an aweful lot of
> junk e-mail. Shouls I start doing this now, or is it too late?
As I posted before in this group, I personally don't approve of address
munging. If you want people to respond to your posts by e-mail (which
sometimes - rarely - can be a good idea), then munging your address
would be an inconvenience or annoyance to your potential correspondents,
who would have to figure out your real address and alter it manually.
Also, a lot of people hit the reply button automatically and their
e-mails get bounced, which is extremely annoying. Moreover, people in
Europe, as you know, have to pay by the minute for their connection
time. Receiving bounced messages and having to resend them actually
costs them money (though admittedly, the amount is probably negligible).
By munging, you would, in effect, be shifting your work to avoid UCEs
onto the shoulders of others.
If you want to avoid UCEs (unsolicited commercial e-mails), there are
better alternatives. First, you can use an e-mail programme that will
let you filter them out. Turnpike, the news and mail reader you are
using, offers news-, but not e-mail filtering, AFAIK. There are free
add-on filtering programmes, however, that will probably work with
Turnpike. By filtering out all bcc-ed messages, for example, you will
get rid of at least 90% of all UCEs (make sure you take into account any
mailing lists you are subscribed to, as they usually bcc their
messages), for example. Another possibility is to get a free e-mail
address and use it for posting to newsgroups only. You will then be
free never to read any mail received at that address.
If you insist on munging, at least make sure that your munged address is
a deliverable one (some ISPs offer such a service with a defined munged
address that routes the incoming messages to dev/null), or, better
still, use an address that ends in ".invalid". That way, any e-mails
sent to your munged address will never leave the sender's system (and
good newsreaders recognize it and warn the sender accordingly). BTW,
address-harvesting bots mostly look for the 'From:' header, it seems.
Munging the address in the 'Reply To:' header only pisses off the
potential correspondents, but does little to protect one from UCEs.
Victor
aem
> As I posted before in this group, I personally don't approve of
> address
> munging. If you want people to respond to your posts by e-mail
> (which
> sometimes - rarely - can be a good idea), then munging your
> address
> would be an inconvenience or annoyance to your potential
> correspondents,
[snip details] But we don't want e-mail responses. Post to a
group, get replies in the group. If we want e-mail, we send
e-mail. In that case, we use the real e-mail address. And we're
not going to get junk e-mail in return.
> If you want to avoid UCEs (unsolicited commercial e-mails),
> there are
> better alternatives. [snip instructions]
Why impose that work on myself, when by altering the return
address I can avoid it in the first place?
> Another possibility is to get a free e-mail address and use it
> for posting to newsgroups only. You will then be free never to
> read any mail received at that address.
Again, why bother?
> If you insist on munging, at least make sure that your munged
> address isa deliverable one Victor [snip description]
I strongly disagree with this. The basic point is that using
your correct address causes junk mail to be sent to you, which
you do not want. Your reasons for using an incorrect, but
deliverable, address are all for the benefit of the junk mail
sender. It's fine with me if they all waste their time and money
on undeliverable addresses. If I use some deliverable address,
but one that is not mine, it means that I have foisted junk mail
off on to some other poor slob. Why should I do that?
>
Richard Caley
vs> Another possibility is to get a free e-mail
vs> address and use it for posting to newsgroups only. You will then be
vs> free never to read any mail received at that address.
This is clearly worse than plain address miunging. People who reply
don't even get a responce to indicate that their message will never
reach you.
vs> If you insist on munging, at least make sure that your munged address is
vs> a deliverable one (some ISPs offer such a service with a defined munged
vs> address that routes the incoming messages to dev/null),
Same as above.
vs> BTW, address-harvesting bots mostly look for the 'From:' header,
vs> it seems.
I recently posted with my real address in teh body of the message and
got a spurt of spam in responce.
TJ
>
> Victor Sack wrote:
>
> > As I posted before in this group, I personally don't approve of
> > address
> > munging. If you want people to respond to your posts by e-mail
> > (which
> > sometimes - rarely - can be a good idea), then munging your
> > address
> > would be an inconvenience or annoyance to your potential
> > correspondents,
>
> [snip details] But we don't want e-mail responses. Post to a
> group, get replies in the group. If we want e-mail, we send
> e-mail. In that case, we use the real e-mail address. And we're
> not going to get junk e-mail in return.
'We' don't want email responses? Do you have any idea how many of us are
out there answering basic questions that have been covered over and over
via email to the querier? I send more email than what I post. I find
this a courtesy to the group.
> I strongly disagree with this. The basic point is that using
> your correct address causes junk mail to be sent to you, which
> you do not want. Your reasons for using an incorrect, but
> deliverable, address are all for the benefit of the junk mail
> sender. It's fine with me if they all waste their time and money
> on undeliverable addresses. If I use some deliverable address,
> but one that is not mine, it means that I have foisted junk mail
> off on to some other poor slob. Why should I do that?
That's the point. There is no poor slob.
<paste the part of Victor's post that was snipped>
If you insist on munging, at least make sure that your munged address is
a deliverable one (some ISPs offer such a service with a defined munged
address that routes the incoming messages to dev/null), or, better
still, use an address that ends in ".invalid". That way, any e-mails
sent to your munged address will never leave the sender's system (and
good newsreaders recognize it and warn the sender accordingly).
<end pasted part>
tj
aem
> >'We' don't want email responses? Do you have any idea how many
> of us are
> out there answering basic questions that have been covered over
> and over
> via email to the querier? I send more email than what I post. I
> find
> this a courtesy to the group.
But what I said was, "If we want e-mail, we send
e-mail...[and]...use the real e-mail address." I do know that
people send helpful responses by email, and I think that is
terrific. And I agree it can be a courtesy to the group. If we
wanted to ask that kind of question we would consider whether it
was worth it to us to endure the inevitable spam as the price to
be paid for getting the helpful response. (Hmmm, maybe we should
consider this question more often when posting....)
> >[aem wrote] I strongly disagree with this. The basic point is
> that using
> > your correct address causes junk mail to be sent to you,
> which
> > you do not want. Your reasons for using an incorrect, but
> > deliverable, address are all for the benefit of the junk mail
>
> > sender. It's fine with me if they all waste their time and
> money
> > on undeliverable addresses. If I use some deliverable
> address,
> > but one that is not mine, it means that I have foisted junk
> mail
> > off on to some other poor slob. Why should I do that?
>
> That's the point. There is no poor slob.
I obvously don't know enough about servers and mail systems,
because I am still missing this point. If you use a false
address that spam is not delivered to, no one but the spammer
loses. If you use a false address which results in spam being
delivered not to you but to some other real person, then you have
helped the spammer harass somebody else. Why do you want to do
that?
> <paste the part of Victor's post that was snipped>
> If you insist on munging, at least make sure that your munged
> address is
> a deliverable one (some ISPs offer such a service with a
> defined munged
> address that routes the incoming messages to dev/null), or,
> better
> still, use an address that ends in ".invalid". That way, any
> e-mails
> sent to your munged address will never leave the sender's
> system (and
> good newsreaders recognize it and warn the sender accordingly).
>
> <end pasted part>
> tj
Is this it? We should put ".invalid" at the end, so that 1)
we don't get spam, and 2) no one else gets inadvertent spam, and
3) the spammer knows it doesn't go through? If you say that's
what happens, okay, but I still don't know why we care to be so
considerate of the spammers.
Victor Sack
> [snip details] But we don't want e-mail responses. Post to a
> group, get replies in the group. If we want e-mail, we send
> e-mail. In that case, we use the real e-mail address. And we're
> not going to get junk e-mail in return.
An invalid email address in your header violates RFC 1036, a de facto
Usenet standard.
Actually, it is only realistic to expect that some people will want to
contact you privately if they happen to be interested in something you
post. Also, there are lurkers out there, who are often too shy or
unwilling to post for various other reasons (English as a foreign
language being a problem, for example). Some of them might want to
e-mail you instead. The fact is, some people may well have a legitimate
reason to reply privately to your article. This usually happens when
you ask a question or wish to participate in a discussion. Also, some
replies are just better done through e-mail. Making people study _both_
your header _and_ your .sig to figure out your real email address is
just a bit arrogant, methinks.
I have to say, though, that, while I disapprove of munging, I don't
really feel very strongly about it. No one way of UCE-avoidance is
perfect. Munging is worse than most, though, because it's not 'nice'.
I do think that there are better ways to avoid junk mail. Filtering is
one. Here are some FAQ pointers:
http://www.best.com/~ii/internet/faqs/launchers/mail/filtering-faq/
http://www.ii.com/internet/faqs/launchers/mail/filtering-faq/
http://www.csn.net/~felbel/jmemail.html (Junk e-mail and spam)
> > If you want to avoid UCEs (unsolicited commercial e-mails),
> > there are
> > better alternatives. [snip instructions]
>
> Why impose that work on myself, when by altering the return
> address I can avoid it in the first place?
Because, as I explained, you are
1. being inconsiderate of your potential legitimate correspondents,
shifting your job of avoiding UCEs onto their shoulders, and
2. by choosing to munge 'incorrectly', you are adding to the load of
your own server. When someone sends mail to aemN...@worldnet.att.net,
worldnet.att.net is forced to take the time to receive the message, look
through its database of users, see that aemNOSPAM is not a valid
address, and generate an error message, which is then sent back to the
sender, adding some load to their server, too.
However, if you're going to munge, you could at least munge 'properly.'
Use an address that ends in '.invalid'. That way, the e-mail sent to it
will never leave the sender's own system. The same will happen if you
use the root@[127.0.0.1] address. Messages sent to it will bounce
locally without tying up any net bandwidth (don't know if it will work
in exactly that way on non-Unix systems, but one way or the other, it
_will_ work). Just try it.
> > Another possibility is to get a free e-mail address and use it
> > for posting to newsgroups only. You will then be free never to
> > read any mail received at that address.
>
> Again, why bother?
Because munging causes more problems than it's worth, and is not even
necessary. See above. And even if you're too lazy to come up with
proper filtering, it might be worth asking your ISP if they already have
a filtering system (procmail or similar) in place. Any self-respecting
ISP probably does. They may be very willing to set it up for you.
> > If you insist on munging, at least make sure that your munged
> > address isa deliverable one Victor [snip description]
>
> I strongly disagree with this. The basic point is that using
> your correct address causes junk mail to be sent to you, which
> you do not want. Your reasons for using an incorrect, but
> deliverable, address are all for the benefit of the junk mail
> sender. It's fine with me if they all waste their time and money
> on undeliverable addresses. If I use some deliverable address,
> but one that is not mine, it means that I have foisted junk mail
> off on to some other poor slob. Why should I do that?
The deliverable address is supposed to be (one of) yours. With the
munging method you employ, the poor slob happens to be your own ISP
which not only gets hit by junk mail and has to reject it, costing it
CPU resources, but also to deal similarly with legit messages sent to
your munged address. If everyone chooses to munge their addresses the
way you do, the increased net traffic will soon be quite comparable to
that engendered by spam and junk e-mails.
Victor
Victor Sack
> In article <1dn1y6i.1k0...@isis14.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de>, Victor
> Sack (vs) writes:
>
> vs> Another possibility is to get a free e-mail
> vs> address and use it for posting to newsgroups only. You will then be
> vs> free never to read any mail received at that address.
>
> This is clearly worse than plain address miunging. People who reply
> don't even get a responce to indicate that their message will never
> reach you.
You are supposed to provide the appropriate warning in your .sig, of
course (if you really do intend to ignore that mailbox contents).
Actually, the idea is to look at that second mailbox once a week or so
and quickly delete obvious spam. It wouldn't take much time, since
you're looking for non-spam on a account intended to get spam. That way
you will still get to see any legit replies.
And if you are going to munge, at least do it 'properly', either by
using an address that ends in '.invalid' or one that is
root@[127.0.0.1]. People will get their notification in both cases.
> vs> BTW, address-harvesting bots mostly look for the 'From:' header,
> vs> it seems.
>
> I recently posted with my real address in teh body of the message and
> got a spurt of spam in responce.
Yes, there are some bots that are more sophisticated. Most are still
rather primitive, though.
You might perhaps also want to see my reply to aem in this thread.
Victor
Richard Caley
a> If you use a false address that spam is not delivered to, no one
a> but the spammer loses. If you use a false address which results in
a> spam being delivered not to you but to some other real person, then
a> you have helped the spammer harass somebody else.
You miss the third option, use an address which results in mail being
delivered but not to somoene else, or to you.
For instance, set up a second address for yourself, via one of the
free email addrss services and use that, but don't read it very
often.
Richard Caley
>> This is clearly worse than plain address miunging. People who reply
>> don't even get a responce to indicate that their message will never
>> reach you.
vs> You are supposed to provide the appropriate warning in your .sig, of
vs> course (if you really do intend to ignore that mailbox contents).
But if they aren't going to notice that the address is munged, they
probably aren't going to notic ethe black hole warning.
(I have a spam target mailbox which sends a polite reply, seems to
work. not an option for everyone, depending on their access, though it
would be relatively easy for an ISP to provide the service to
customers).
Katie Fitz
this was supposed to be a cooking newsgroup - not a tekkie thing.
aem
> Actually, it is only realistic to expect that some people will
> want to
> contact you privately if they happen to be interested in
> something you
> post. Also, there are lurkers out there, who are often too shy
> or
> unwilling to post for various other reasons (English as a
> foreign
> language being a problem, for example). Some of them might
> want to
> e-mail you instead. The fact is, some people may well have a
> legitimate
> reason to reply privately to your article. [snip]
Hadn't thought of this. I suppose we might someday post
something somebody might want to respond to with legitimate
e-mail.
> Making people study _both_ your header _and_ your .sig to
> figure out your real email address is just a bit arrogant,
> methinks.
It's not much of a challenge, nor uncommon enough to reach that
level.
> [snip explanations] However, if you're going to munge, you
> could at least munge 'properly.' Use an address that ends in
> '.invalid'. That way, the e-mail sent to it will never leave
> the sender's own system. The same will happen if you use the
> root@[127.0.0.1] address. Messages sent to it will bounce
> locally without tying up any net bandwidth (don't know if it
> will work
> in exactly that way on non-Unix systems, but one way or the
> other, it
> _will_ work). Just try it.
Okay, this makes sense even if I don't fully understand it.[snip
further explanations]
Thanks for your patience. You must be good at getting through to
stubborn students.
Mimi W. Tzeng
:Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
:> In article <1dn1y6i.1k0...@isis14.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de>, Victor
:> Sack (vs) writes:
:>
:> vs> Another possibility is to get a free e-mail
:> vs> address and use it for posting to newsgroups only. You will then be
:> vs> free never to read any mail received at that address.
:>
:> This is clearly worse than plain address miunging. People who reply
:> don't even get a responce to indicate that their message will never
:> reach you.
:You are supposed to provide the appropriate warning in your .sig, of
:course (if you really do intend to ignore that mailbox contents).
I thought you were arguing in the other subthread that it's arrogant to
make people read both your headers and your .sig?
:And if you are going to munge, at least do it 'properly', either by
:using an address that ends in '.invalid' or one that is
:root@[127.0.0.1]. People will get their notification in both cases.
I concede your point about this part. Wish I could do it, but the way
my current "ISP" has things set up, all addresses I insert have to end
in ".indiana.edu" if I want to post.
And I agree that I am being unbelievably lazy by not wanting to figure
out how procmail works. But setting up the munge was quick and simple
and I didn't have to learn much, and I have other things to do... I
suspect that's how most other people think too.
:> vs> BTW, address-harvesting bots mostly look for the 'From:' header,
:> vs> it seems.
:>
:> I recently posted with my real address in teh body of the message and
:> got a spurt of spam in responce.
:Yes, there are some bots that are more sophisticated. Most are still
:rather primitive, though.
As I understand it, most bots will look for any occurrences of the "@"
symbol in all parts of the post, then grab whatever's around it.
Bob Y.
>What the heck does any of this have to do with "Whale Meat"...? I thought
>this was supposed to be a cooking newsgroup - not a tekkie thing.
>
You must be new, or you would know how fast a subject line can mutate. After the
first five responses, there is little resemblance between the subject line and
what is posted.
Bob Y.
That's the way the Nieman-Marcus cookie crumbles.
TJ
>
> What the heck does any of this have to do with "Whale Meat"...? I thought
> this was supposed to be a cooking newsgroup - not a tekkie thing.
>
> >> vs> address and use it for posting to newsgroups only. You will then be
> >> vs> free never to read any mail received at that address.
Egads, a newbie.
"PULL!"
tj
reeeeeeeeeealy really just joking, folks.
Ob Food
I broke down and made pad thai last night. I love this dish, and have so
long feared it, I just put it off and put it off. Last night it was our
bi-weekly Punjabi friends night over. Mr. K, in the market for marriage,
was late because he had two prospects to talk to. After dinner we made
him watch A New Leaf for pointers (for the unknowing, this is an
extremely funny Elaine May movie with Walter Mathau playing an 'aging
youth without money or prospects' who seeks to marry money. Elaine May
gets more mileage out of a toga than Chaplin did from that ice cream
cone that kept falling into the woman's busom.)
Aaaaanyway, I made sweet and sour veggies, and my Not Dripping With Oil
eggplant dish (recipe below), a chickpea curry the author, V.
Bhumichitr, ate at a rural monestary (recipe below), pad thai, and black
rice pudding (recipes below).
The Punjabis (for those joining late, these are my Hub TJ the Tall, Mr.
K and Mr. M. Mr. K eats or drinks anything, Mr. M won't touch a dog or
eat pork or drink alcohol, and TJ the tall hates fish and isn't crazy
about chicken.), three men who LOVE to eat, are joy to cook for, and
since we are on friendly terms, they often get dishes I've never cooked
before, often ones I haven't even read more than the ingredient list
before I start.
Wokked Grilled Eggplant
(I found this recipe in some Asian cookbook, but as it was all I wanted
from the book, I memorized it, and wrote it down when I got home)
Grill 2 lbs of eggplant (I triple everything). I prefer the thin Chinese
or Japanese over flame or broil. Don't go for broke as one does for
babaganosh. You want SOME backbone left. Let drain, peel and cut into
2/1/2 inch lengths.
In a wok (I use a kardai without a *bit* of sticking) heat 3 T peanut
oil (I make this a bit less). In it fry 8 cloves of whole garlic.
While this is going on, put 2 T rice vinegar 1 T soy and 2 red
chilipeppers (I crumble TeinTsin peppers) and 1 1/2 t sugar in a small
bowl to steep.
When the garlic is golden, add the eggplant and get it steaming hot. I
mash the garlic cloves a bit if they are big.
Add the little bowl of liquids, and cook two minutes. Top with chopped
Asian basil. If you don't have it, I add a teas of Penzey's randy French
basil to soak with the chilis.
Serve with rice.
Despite the soy and rice vinegar, Mr. K, who was shocked to find out
these were in it, swore this was his mother's bhartha.
Next was Chickpea curry, from Thai Vegetarian Cooking
First pound in a morter a clove of chopped garlic (I used large, and
doubled the recipe to boot), 2 (I did 8) coriander roots, chopped, and
1/2 teas black pepper corns (I used green, as these crush easier and I
was in a hurry. Since I've seen instructions on using coriander root
that involve the bulb at the bottom of the stem, and knew green would be
in the final paste, and green peppercorns would go along with it.)
I cruelly had the Hub do this in the TV room with Mr. M who found the
smell siren-like. I think this smelled good enough to be a harrisa-like
addition to a stew. WOW!
Fry this paste in 2 T oil
Then add 1 cup coconut milk
Stir in 1 T curry powder (I used my favourite combo: half Penzey's sweet
curry and half Penzey's Maharajah curry powder which is pregnant with
saffron).
One tater, cubed and peeled
1 cup cooked chick peas
2 tomaters, wedged
10 basil leaves
2 T light soy
1/2 teas salt
1 teas sugar.
Simmer until taters al dente.
This reheats well, and chili pepper can be added.
The Pad Thai I made by soaking broad flat rice noodles in hot hot water,
with two rinses, until al dente+.
In a very large non-stick heavy fry pan, I heated 3 T peanut oil,
browned an large clove of minced garlic,
added 1/2 cup of fried beancurd (I made this eariler...what a chore)
and stirred. I then added a broken egg and stirred more.
Next was 1 big T of minced preserved turnip and then what started out as
4 oz. of dried noodles, and two scallions, med. chop.
Stir. Add 1/3 cup bean sprouts and a T of chopped roasted peanuts.
Stir well, add 1 T lime juice (or lemon), 1 teas sugar, 2 T light soy
and 1/2 teas chilipowder.
SE Asian chili powder is much hotter than average texmex chili powder,
and is paler. I substituted cayenne, and it was fine.
Stir well, turn on to a plate and cap with 1/3 Cup bean sprouts, 1 T
chopped peanuts, some chopped coriander, and a lime or lemon slice.
I used *alot* of heat to make this dish, really kept stirring and
sizzling.
I wouldn't say it's the best I've had, but better than many.
For dessert I made the last of the black rice that juli left me at the
last cookin. The last time I made it, it just wouldn't get tender, and
this time I 1) used a pressure cooker for 20 minutes instead of boiling
for 3 hours and 2) added the sugar AFTER it was soft.
Black rice pudding
One Cup black rice
2 inches of ginger root, peeled and scored.
2 1/2 cup water.
Cook the living daylights out of this until aldente and the dry-ish.
Add 1/2 Cup white rice and about the same amount demarra, or dark brown
or gur. Add a bit more water if needed and dissolve the sugar over heat.
Pull out the ginger, spoon into warm bowl, and put a bit of cold coconut
milk over the top and serve.
In restaurants this ranges from gruelly to stiff. We like it stiff, and
very hot.
tj
Alan Boles
asddress to root @127.0.0.1 and it changed my oranization info. But it seems
to be working no spam.
--
Children are hereditary:
If your parents didn't have any.
You can't!
My real e-mail address is boles(at) escape(dot)ca
My real address is boles(at)escape(dot)ca
Mimi W. Tzeng <nos...@here.ever.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:7a22r9$b6p$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
:Victor Sack <sa...@uni-duesseldorf.de> wrote:
::Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
:
::> In article <1dn1y6i.1k0...@isis14.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de>,
Victor
::> Sack (vs) writes:
::>
::> vs> Another possibility is to get a free e-mail
::> vs> address and use it for posting to newsgroups only. You will then be
::> vs> free never to read any mail received at that address.
::>
::> This is clearly worse than plain address miunging. People who reply
Victor Sack
> Victor Sack <sa...@uni-duesseldorf.de> wrote:
> :Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> :> In article <1dn1y6i.1k0...@isis14.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de>, Victor
> :> Sack (vs) writes:
> :>
> :> vs> Another possibility is to get a free e-mail
> :> vs> address and use it for posting to newsgroups only. You will then be
> :> vs> free never to read any mail received at that address.
> :>
> :> This is clearly worse than plain address miunging. People who reply
> :> don't even get a responce to indicate that their message will never
> :> reach you.
>
> :You are supposed to provide the appropriate warning in your .sig, of
> :course (if you really do intend to ignore that mailbox contents).
>
> I thought you were arguing in the other subthread that it's arrogant to
> make people read both your headers and your .sig?
Yes, because the argument was against munging. But if one is going to
munge anyway or avoid reading any e-mails sent to the address used,
then, of course, the appropriate warning should be in the .sig.
> :And if you are going to munge, at least do it 'properly', either by
> :using an address that ends in '.invalid' or one that is
> :root@[127.0.0.1]. People will get their notification in both cases.
>
> I concede your point about this part. Wish I could do it, but the way
> my current "ISP" has things set up, all addresses I insert have to end
> in ".indiana.edu" if I want to post.
It's no different with my 'ISP', but they at least provide a way to
alter the address in a defined way, so that the incoming mail sent to it
is automatically routed to dev/null.
> And I agree that I am being unbelievably lazy by not wanting to figure
> out how procmail works.
You don't have to figure out a lot. There are any number of procmail
instructions to be found on the net, with all the filters already in
place.
BTW, some free e-mail services, such as bigfoot.com, filter out known
junk mailers.
> But setting up the munge was quick and simple
> and I didn't have to learn much, and I have other things to do... I
> suspect that's how most other people think too.
No doubt they do. And this is inconsiderate, IMHO. Just as it is
inconsiderate to put one's replies before, rather than after the quoted
text, or to include the entire contents of previous posting in one's
reply, rather than trimming it to what one is actually responding to,
making one's posts very hard to read. Yet people will do this, because
it's quick and simple. (This doesn't apply to you, of course.)
Victor
Victor Sack
> What the heck does any of this have to do with "Whale Meat"...? I thought
> this was supposed to be a cooking newsgroup - not a tekkie thing.
You are quite right, it's completely off-topic and doesn't belong here
and I should at least have changed the subject header. Threads do tend
to drift apart, though, but as long as they are sufficiently short, not
much harm is done.
Victor
Victor Sack
> I gave what Victor said some thought and being lazyI changed my munged
> asddress to root @127.0.0.1 and it changed my oranization info. But it seems
> to be working no spam.
Nope, your address header shows bo...@127.0.0.1, not root@[127.0.0.1]
Not that it matters much, as 127.0.0.1 is certainly not a recognized top
level domain.
In your particular case, I'd suggest that you use your real address with
an '.invalid' addition, because it's just easier to delete the
'.invalid' part, rather than copy and paste the spelled-out address in
your .sig and having to replace the 'at' and 'dot' parts.
Victor
Victor Sack
> Victor Sack <sa...@uni-duesseldorf.de> wrote:
> :It's no different with my 'ISP', but they at least provide a way to
> :alter the address in a defined way, so that the incoming mail sent to it
> :is automatically routed to dev/null.
>
> But if it gets routed to dev/null, do legit senders ever know that
> their mail doesn't reach you? I believe that was Richard Caley's
> point.
The point I was making somewhere else in this thread is that there is no
perfect way of avoiding junk mail. There are several problems here that
one would like to avoid, such as: a violation the Usenet convention (RFC
1036) that requires real address in the header; pissed-off people with
legitimate reasons to e-mail one, who get bounces and have to resend
their e-mails; increased unnecessary net traffic; legitimate e-mails
that don't get noticed. What one would like to do is to limit these
problems to the minimum, if one does decide to munge.
I still maintain, that the best thing, apart from filtering, is to use a
second address and check it only infrequently. A savvy news/mail reader
will mark any replies to one's posts automatically, making it a breeze
to find legitimate e-mails. (I understand this is not an option in your
case, as you can't post with a non-indiana.edu header) Or, one can
simply learn to live with junk e-mails - deleting them takes only a few
seconds.
> :No doubt they do. And this is inconsiderate, IMHO. Just as it is
> :inconsiderate to put one's replies before, rather than after the quoted
> :text, or to include the entire contents of previous posting in one's
> :reply, rather than trimming it to what one is actually responding to,
> :making one's posts very hard to read. Yet people will do this, because
> :it's quick and simple. (This doesn't apply to you, of course.)
>
> Actually, the last time this sort of thing came up, someone pointed out
> that putting the replies above the quoted text is useful to users who
> are blind and would otherwise have to wade through the whole thing.
Yes, I remember that argument. I didn't buy it then and I don't now.
This kind of argument could go on ad absurdum. The problem is not the
placement of one's replies, it is, again, one of inconsiderate people
who don't trim the quoted text. It is also a problem which software
could solve very easily - just let it offer an option to read the quoted
text (properly indicated by the standard quoting character '>') after
the new part, if desired. This would be similar to using a different
colour for quoted text (or even several colours to indicate different
levels of quoting), as done by several modern newsreaders. And this,
BTW, is why only '>' should be used as a quoting character.
And, anyway, where would you place new stuff in a post such as this one?
Placing each part before the one you are replying to, would be beyond
ridiculous - it would be grotesque. But one has to be consistent, you
know...
> I
> didn't like it at first either, but I have since found that it can be
> mighty convenient to read the new stuff at the top and then skip the
> quoted part, when I'm just quickly buzzing through a thread I already
> know well. Mostly what I do now is follow whatever the established
> format was before I got into the conversation, so sometimes I will put
> all of my stuff at the top too. That way it at least stays in order,
> even if it's in reverse.
Again, I think there would be no such problems in the first place, if
people just learned to trim quoted text. The would be no problem to
skip the quoted part, if it's short enough - even if it's on top. I
personally don't want to stand on my head when reading a post. It is
just natural to read from top to bottom in English. It's logical. It's
chronological.
> I'm also hoping that enough of the people who like to quote every last
> bit of the post, sigs and all, are reading this... especially the ones
> who put all of their bits at the very end, forcing you to scroll through
> pages of quoted stuff before you get to the new parts. There seems to be
> a fairly sizeable population of such people in rfc, and I'm both pleased
> and annoyed that it's tolerated. Another nitpick is the people who don't
> insert a space between their post and the quoted part, which makes it
> harder to find where one person ends and the next begins.
Very true. And I'm not trimming the above to give still more people a
chance to read it. And I wish they would also read FAQs regularly
posted to news.announce.newusers .
> Another pet peeve of mine that most other people no longer seem to
> have problems with is the use of more than 80 characters per line. I
> know I'm stuck in the Dark Ages, but the VT320 terminal I have in my
> office truncates everything past that, which means that unless I pull
> it into an editor I miss a lot. To the people who will insist I should
> start using something other than a text-based newsreader - I like what
> I'm using and the fact that I can read news with it from any computer.
Very true, again. And it has nothing to do with your particular
newsreader, which is very good, and not much even with your terminal.
This kind of thing is a problem even for the most modern newsreaders in
existence, since there is no standard way of wrapping too long lines
with any number of quoting levels and this makes a mess of the whole
thing. And, in fact, one should use less than 80 characters per line
limit to allow for nested quoting characters. I'm using 72, the default
in my newsreader and this should be the default in every newsreader.
> Then we could start a whole new tangent on HTML and MIME...
Too late... we've been there just over a month ago... Look for the 'MIME
in Usenet' thread on DejaNews. :-)
Victor