"Jeff McCann" wrote in message
...
"Strider" wrote in message
...
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.

But even a stopped clock is correct twice every day. Also "[a]ny info
from leftwing, tofu sucking, liberals is rife with their philosophy, is
based on fantasy, and is suspect from the outset" reads awfully close to
"I am uncomfortable with anything that challenges my present
preconceptions and beliefs, so I prefer to argue more about the source
than the content."

Junk science is junk science. its hard to take anything seriously that has
such a radical poltical position.


Jeff