- > I think the point was that kangaroos have a ratio of fat to
 > protein that would require most of the kangaroo meat to be left
 > uneaten unless supplemented with significant amounts of energy
 > from other sources.

 That discussion was an example of Amadeus'  style of
 argument.  He stated there must be the bones of several trillion kangaroos
 lying around.   He went from my statement that aborigines could have lived
 entirely on kangaroo for a substantial length of time [as opposed to
tubers]
 to the conclusion that all aborigines over 40,000 years ate only kangaroo
and
 nothing else.  This is not a logical kind of argument.

 >  Your eventual response was "Howevr, i will
 > resile from my statement that kangaroo is an ideal paelo food. i
 > would imagine emu and goanna would be better."

 Yes, as the fat content in goanna or emu could keep 3 or 4 people going as
 opposed to probably only one with kangaroo. its interesting that i appear
to be able to change my views in the light of new evidence.

 Amadeus, despite his intelligence, appears to engage in several kinds of
'sleights of hands':

 He makes factually wrong and refuses to acknowedge this when others point
out the
 truth [eg the so-called rarity of shellfish and difficulty of fishing]

 he invents ridiculous 'arguments'  that his opponents supposedly made
[kangaroo
 killing fields] and then applies reductio ad absurdo.

 he uses irrelevant points to sound convincing [the shortage of omega 3s in
 modern meats. Has he heard of flax to supplement the very small daily
 requirements of EFAs? (which were formerly known simply as Vit F before the
 need for commercialisation)].

 he uses figures which sound  impressive but on closer analysis prove
 nothing. [Eg  lean meat at 1-3% fat is a bad source of fat. At this rate
any
 medium sized animal will still provide daily fat requirements, let alone
the
 contribution from marrow etc].

 When confronted he will say he expressing his personal view or personal
 choice only.  His motivation is clearly not this, however.


 > In fact, the whole question of racial or ethnic metabolic
 > differences is one that is potentially very important, but we
 > have little information.

 My guess is that different races/tribes may have different profile of liver
 enzymes which entail diferent dietary requirements. One example i can give
 is that 8% of Caucasians are deficient in certain liver enzymes which
 metabolize plant compounds called phenols.   These  people simply have
 trouble eating a wide variety of plant foods, anything with high amounts of
 salicylates or bright colours. For these people the English diet of roast
 beef and cabbage is about as best it comes. Now, what would be interesting
 is to see if these 8% have some sort of remote genetic connection to a part
 of Europe or something.  A ceratin percentage of Asian and negro  peoples
 also have this problem.

 > Yes.  I thought you were making some point about Paavo Airola
 > having died in his early 60s.  Were you?  Also, what is your
 > evidence for lunacy in Kellogg or Shaw?

 I was just giivng you a free hit, to demonstrate the kind of argumentation
that Amadues engages in.  For any lunatic vegetarian I could  use an example
anyone could of course turn up a lunatic meat eater.

 For what its worth, I do believe there is a link between vegetarian diets
 and fanaticism [ie the first causes the second] in people who shuld be
 eating substantial amounts of meat.  I'm not so dishonest as to think   it
 can be proven though - unless someone did some huge study.

 Shaw - an apologist for Lenin, one of history's geatest mass murderers
 Kellog - thought the agony of circumcision on infant babies was helpful to
 their moral development. That all illness came from bowel intoxication.

Andrew