DM is the emotional one. DM got rather venomous because I posted something that this person does not like.


BTW, too much meat? The average consumer does not eat as much meat as in the 1950's. If we must cut down on our meat then it shows that overpopulation has already forced food rationing.

Hey, if you would like to get into legitimate shooting sports, let me know. I always like bringing newbies into the shooting sports, especialy muzzle-loading firearms which are my favorite.

I have listed some informative websites on shooting in the UK for you.

http://www.trymysport.co.uk/muzzle_loaders.htm

http://www.jt-bullet-moulds.co.uk/

http://www.mlagb.com/

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ppd/oppu/club981.htm

http://www.intred.com/euroarms/

http://www.armisport.com/



BTW, I have yet to view an episode of the Jerry Springer show. I rarely watch TV and its usually the news when I do.

Tor,

Ever been to the Countryside Alliance website?

http://www.countryside-alliance.org/

....They're great!

Is there any basis for that intepretation other than it supports what you'd like to believe?

Plenty, just go back through the threads and read up on your rabid insults.

I was referring to the latter half of your post. If you want to get into who's the emotional compensating idiot though, bring it on.

There is a theory (as made very popular by the atkins no carb diet) that people were thinne rin the past for the followinbg reasons

poorer milled flour

less carbs and sugars

more meat intake and a similar fruit/veg intake.

Now we eat different things and our physiques are suffering. I think we eat less meat now then in the 1950's due to cultural trends more then food rationing.

Neon

This is a rather facetious argument. We ate more meat in the 1950's than any time in human history. We eat only slightly less now. People in Medieval, Classical, and Ancient times ate meat maybe once a week, perhaps a single serving a day if they were royalty and could afford it. That's like saying "There was more pollution in the atmosphere in the 21st Century B.C. when there were no cars than now when there are so therefore cars must be good for the enviroment". You're taking a freak example and using it as if it were a trend; people ate ridiculous amounts of meat in the 50's. The largest volcanic eruption we know of took place in the 21st century that blackened the skies for an entire year. That doesn't mean that having half your diet consisting of meat is healthy or that cars are good for the enviroment.

okay.....the 50's in the U.S. were a good old meaty time,

but if you compare meat consumption in pre-war britain to today you'll notice a severe difference. Admittedly the effects of rationing may have had a huge effect on the U.K. because rationing was still in place in early 1950's Britain.

I've just studied the consumption of meat in the North-East of England during the Dark-ages (as an offshoot to other things)

Meat as such was not consumed, but Massive ammounts of fish were, this seems to be a trend across england at this time with the exceptions of a few landlocked cities were meat was eaten more often. Why? because of price. Fish was cheap.

but predominantly we do eat less meat (as a percentile overall we eat a hell of a lot more in total) now then pre-war England. The drop in protein is matched by a rise in carbs.

In the U.K. the 1950's figures are blown out of preportion due to the effects of rationing.

Neon

The 1930's-50's aren't exactly renowned as times of great physical health. Actually, the funny thing about the richer First World Countries, such as Canada, the UK, and America, is that a reverse trend is developing to the norm; the poor are getting fat and the rich are staying thing. If you're poor, you usually can't afford to buy a whole kitchen set and stove and pans and all like you could back in the day. As such, you're forced to lose money in the long term by dining out. And if you're poor, you're not going to be going to the Ritz, you're going to be going to McDonalds, or if you're really going all out, Burger King or even Popeyes. This is the life of the poor, and why the lowerclass is growing in size horizontally. Contrast this with the rising trends in the upper-class; rich people like to buy big elaborate kitchens, cook all their own food, and eat cous-cous and wheat grass juice to show how sophisticated and healthy they are, spending a fortune on health foods. They buy memberships to gyms and personal fitness gurus while the lower class barely have time to scrape together a living. That's why there's a growth in obesity; because in most societies in history, it was the elite who grew fat and the commoners who were thin. In the richer First World, the opposite is happening- and since there have always been many more commoners than the elite, it seems like people in general are getting much fatter.

http://www.alchemilla.com/realities.html

will give you an idea how much meat is used (admitidly this is taken from 1989). I think the question is not how much meat is being eaten but how much is being thrown away. I know here the amount of unbought food we throw away each year is phenomenal. Over there it must be 4-5 times more? add consumption and refuse together to get an acurate figure. Turn that cattle land to crop land and you feed more people more economically.

Anyway it's fat people lol. They eat 10 peoples share of meat, twinkies, icecream. Just think - if it wasn't for the fat, whole food companies would go bust! Well ok they'd just bump up the price of food (impo all food should be free).

Sixgun I rarely watch TV myself and was j/k. as for your offer, ty. I would like to give it a go but I live in the UK and here we can only carry pee shooters and catapults. Any chance for me to fire a rifle nowadays would be for me to join the army which is something i'm not planning on going back into. It fucks me off as I'd love the chance to fire a PSG or barret (or some other sniper rifle) at a target over 1000m away just to see how i'd do. Now i'll just have to settle with airguns lol.

the populous is getitng fatter as a whole, but I still blame it on the amount of sugars in the diets of people today....

Neon

On the issue of fat people. I think we need to add in the fact that we have machines that do much of the manual labor for us.

Few people today work as hard as people did just one hundred years ago. When we cut down a tree, we grab a chainsaw rather than an axe.

More people today live sedentiary lifestyles and they do not need as many calories as those with more active lifestyles.


Tor,

I know that modern rifles are not available, but you can still own and shoot the muzzle-loading rifles and muskets there. Check out the links I posted, those are gun clubs in the United Kingdom.

The Whitworth rifle is a percussion muzzle-loading target rifle that is accurrate up to 1000yds. They were used by snipers in the American Civil War. You can get more details on one of the links I posted earlier.

More United Kingdom gun club links

http://user.itl.net/~dale/

http://mlagb.com/

http://www.airguns.f9.co.uk/shooting/

http://www.trafalgar-mlc.fsnet.co.uk/

http://www.soft.net.uk/harhat/SHEFFI...%20LOADERS.htm

http://www.bnrpsc.fsnet.co.uk/events.htm

http://www.fdpc.org.uk/

http://www.psa.bizhosting.com/favorite_links.html

http://www.cm007a8086.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

As a cook, I disagree with the idea of food being free because it would send quality down the tubes, just like that idea does to any market. If you want to subsist on gruel and crusty bread, fine, but I'll abstain.

I wonder how long until the masses will be eating "Soylent Green".

Hey, maybe if you say that enough times, it will turn into an effective argument.

DM - whilst I was saying that food should be free I meant for you to take home and prepare yourself. People would still eat out and that they would have to pay for - which they would still do as everybody loves to eat out.

Some of the best food i've eaten I grew myself. Admittidly I bought the seeds but they cost practically nothing.

What's your speciality btw?