View Single Post
  #10   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 06:42 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65433 rec.gardens:259170 misc.survivalism:500440 misc.rural:115075 rec.backcountry:172088

George Cleveland wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:36:33 GMT, Strider wrote:


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:19:51 -0800, "Rico X. Partay"
wrote:


"Bob Peterson" wrote in message
...


Diet for a Small Planet is hardly evidence
of anything other than left wing kookiness.
If you want to trust your life to something
that nutty then do so, otherwise have some
animal products in your diet.


When you use adjectives like "left wing" in a technical
discussion about nutrition you tend to show you have an adgenda
that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument, and you
thereby lower the credibility of anything useful you may have to
say.

To paraphrase Al Franken, arguing about whether a diet is
"left wing" or "right wing" is like arguing whether al-Qaeda uses
too much vinegar in its salad dressing. It may be true, but it's
completely beside the point.

Hope this helps.


The source of any information is relevant to the value of that
information. Any info from leftwing, tofu sucking, liberals is rife
with their philosophy, is based on fantasy, and is suspect from the
outset.

Strider



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill


Just as "liberal" has a vastly different meaning today
from what it meant in Mill's time, so does
"conservative". Today's conservatives are the liberals
of Mill's era.