atkinsdietalert.org

"Saffire" wrote in message
.. .
In article , says...
Steve wrote:

http://www.atkinsdietalert.org/

Why do I inherently distrust an organization called "Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine"?

Because the name sounds like one a coalition of cigarette companies might
come up
with before an election in an attempt to thwart anti-smoking legislation,
or
perhaps a religious fundamentalist group might come up with in an attempt
to
censor any and all media (for our own good of course). I just saw a
crawling
blurb on Court TV about a branch or branches of the catholic church trying
to
keep some employers from offering insurance coverage for contraceptives
because contraception is a sin -- dollars to donuts THEY have a group with
a similar
name.


The interesting that about that case, (California, I beleive) is that state
law demands that the employer provide it. The Catholic church says that
since they don't believe in it, they should be excused from following the
law. (I wonder if anybody would pay attention to me if I used that argument,
LOL)

And the folks they hire for thier charities do not have to be a member of
their religion. So the logic is, you don't have to be catholic to work for
us, as long as we inflict catholic law on you (and deny you the same health
coverage that .everybody else gets)

What a bizzare line of logic. Regardles of their position on ANYTHING, they
are NOT above the law.

They just remember the good ald days when they were the law. And they could
have church trials and inquisitions. Or maybe they are just ****ed off at
being held accountable for their resident pedophiles.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGR93DE191.DTL

Quote from the main page (i didn't get any deeper in their nonsense):
Studies show that meat-heavy, *high-protein* eating patterns are, over
the long run, linked to osteoporosis, heart disease, colon cancer, and
renal disease, and pose particular dangers for people with diabetes.

Given the seriousness of these health risks, and the strength of the
scientific evidence currently available, PCRM hopes this Web site will
encourage people to be wary of *high-protein* diets and to choose
healthier options.

Did anyone else notice that they use the high protein effects as their
main standpoint against our community? Who *did* say to eat only low-fat
meat with high protein? It's just some old fashioned idiotic idea that
eating fat is bad for you, so if it's not carbs it must be... hmm...
fat? Nooo... can't be... so let's just say Atkins = Protein-only-diet.

Absurd? Yes. Idiotic statement? Yes. Explain that to them? Not possible.

--
B-D_
Atkins since 11/24/03
199/194/165

(Steve) wrote in message . com...
http://www.atkinsdietalert.org/

This website is run by a PETA-affiliated vegan/animal-rights group.

"John M. Williams" wrote in message ...
"Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
Steve wrote:

http://www.atkinsdietalert.org/

Why do I inherently distrust an organization called "Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine"?

Here's a hint:

"A Guide to Healthy Weight Loss, which shows you how
three weeks on a low-fat vegan diet can get you on the
road to your healthy weight goal."

I think they also prescribe aromatherapy. Beware if your
doctor smells like patchouli.

Perhaps a little crystal therapy with your alfalfa sprouts?


maybe some fung shui with your pork rinds?



jen

red meat isn't bad for you... fuzzy blue-green meat is bad for you

"Lexin" wrote in message ...
A gang of strange vegans masquerading as medicos. Read at peril of your
synapses.

Never mind that to get their B12, vegans have to take supplements.
That alone proves that their diet has no basis in biology. People are
omnivores, it's the way we are designed to survive. Therefore,
veganism is immoral. People who promote veganism are immoral.

Don't let anyone tell you that killing animals for food is wrong.
When they tell you "meat is murder", turn to them and say "kill and
eat". Do not deny yourself flesh, and do not feel guilty when you
kill. I am a predator, and I am unashamed.

Proton Soup

"Lexin" wrote in message ...
A gang of strange vegans masquerading as medicos. Read at peril of your
synapses.

I think the PCRM is in trouble. People are starting to get wise to
them. As late as last year, you could find long threads on USENET in response
to one of their press releases where not a single poster knew they were
a vegan front group. Now almost everyone seems to know it.

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:04:15 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:

And the folks they hire for thier charities do not have to be a member of
their religion. So the logic is, you don't have to be catholic to work for
us, as long as we inflict catholic law on you (and deny you the same health
coverage that .everybody else gets)

What a bizzare line of logic. Regardles of their position on ANYTHING, they
are NOT above the law.

I believe that may fall under "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's."

Karen Rodgers

**********
Windbourne, folk singers of the future
http://www.windbourne.com/
remove "_rice_" from my email address
**********

On 1 Dec 2003 16:44:53 -0800, (Tony Lew) wrote:

(Steve) wrote in message . com...
http://www.atkinsdietalert.org/

This website is run by a PETA-affiliated vegan/animal-rights group.

And we all know how intelligent and responsible they are

(wait for it...)

*NOT!*

Karen Rodgers

**********
Windbourne, folk singers of the future
http://www.windbourne.com/
remove "_rice_" from my email address
**********

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
news:e1Oyb.383056$Tr4.1120591@attbi_s03...
The interesting that about that case, (California, I beleive) is that
state
law demands that the employer provide it. The Catholic church says that
since they don't believe in it, they should be excused from following the
law. (I wonder if anybody would pay attention to me if I used that
argument,
LOL)

And the folks they hire for thier charities do not have to be a member of
their religion. So the logic is, you don't have to be catholic to work for
us, as long as we inflict catholic law on you (and deny you the same
health
coverage that .everybody else gets)

They're not inflicting Catholic law on or denying anything to anyone.
They're offering medical coverage as part of their compensation package, and
anyone who isn't happy with it is perfectly free to work elsewhere.

What a bizzare line of logic. Regardles of their position on ANYTHING,
they
are NOT above the law.

To be fair, it is an incredibly bad law, for a few reasons. First and
foremost, it's none of the government's business what medical coverage, if
any, an employer and its employees agree upon as part of the compensation
package. On top of that, it doesn't make sense for medical insurance to
cover contraceptives. That's just not what insurance is for. The purpose of
insurance is to allow people to share the costs of unexpected medical
expenses. It isn't--or rather, shouldn't be--just be an excuse to force
someone else to pay your routine medical costs, especially elective ones.
Fertility isn't a disease, and even if it were, it would be a preexisting
condition. This sort of thing just drives up the cost of insurance and
employment, which is one of many reasons why California's economy has gone
to hell.

By the way, if insurance companies should pay for birth control pills so
that women can have sex, then why shouldn't they pay for plastic surgery so
that I can have sex?

Brandon Berg wrote in message
news:f7Wyb.276867$9E1.1458571@attbi_s52...

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
news:e1Oyb.383056$Tr4.1120591@attbi_s03...
The interesting that about that case, (California, I beleive) is that
state
law demands that the employer provide it. The Catholic church says that
since they don't believe in it, they should be excused from following
the
law. (I wonder if anybody would pay attention to me if I used that
argument,
LOL)

And the folks they hire for thier charities do not have to be a member
of
their religion. So the logic is, you don't have to be catholic to work
for
us, as long as we inflict catholic law on you (and deny you the same
health
coverage that .everybody else gets)

They're not inflicting Catholic law on or denying anything to anyone.
They're offering medical coverage as part of their compensation package,
and
anyone who isn't happy with it is perfectly free to work elsewhere.

What a bizzare line of logic. Regardles of their position on ANYTHING,
they
are NOT above the law.

To be fair, it is an incredibly bad law, for a few reasons. First and
foremost, it's none of the government's business what medical coverage, if
any, an employer and its employees agree upon as part of the compensation
package. On top of that, it doesn't make sense for medical insurance to
cover contraceptives. That's just not what insurance is for. The purpose
of
insurance is to allow people to share the costs of unexpected medical
expenses. It isn't--or rather, shouldn't be--just be an excuse to force
someone else to pay your routine medical costs, especially elective ones.
Fertility isn't a disease, and even if it were, it would be a preexisting
condition. This sort of thing just drives up the cost of insurance and
employment, which is one of many reasons why California's economy has gone
to hell.

By the way, if insurance companies should pay for birth control pills so
that women can have sex, then why shouldn't they pay for plastic surgery
so
that I can have sex?



well put.

kind of like the college campuses that claim(ed) that they could ban ROTC
from recruiting on campus, because the US military violates their
anti-discrimination clause. and then, otoh, they take federal money.
sorry, can't have it both ways. and the courts have so decreed.

whit