"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball
\
\snippage...



Grammar counts too.
==============
Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing
of
substance to say...


snippage...


No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you
just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with
any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the
time? I hope so. You guys need it.
====================
ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you do, I
will.

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball
\
\snippage...



Grammar counts too.
==============
Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing
of
substance to say...


snippage...


No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you
just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with
any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the
time? I hope so. You guys need it.
====================
ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you do, I
will.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:28:28 -0500, Tom Quackenbush
wrote:

Jonathan Ball wrote:
snip
Tom Quackenbush wrote:

OK, I have to confess ignorance here - I'm not very familiar with
J.S. Mill. When did he write that & did he mean "conservative" in the
same political sense that it's used today?

John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873, was one of the most
important English philosophers and political thinkers
of his age. He is noted as one of the leading
proponents of utilitarianism.

snip
Thank you. I think I need to read up on Mr. Mill.

R,
Tom Q.
Here's his introduction to "On Liberty".

http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html


You'll note he doesn't state an opposition to governmental control of
peoples actions only an opposition to acts that don't spring from
"self-protection". He really was a fairly modern liberal.

Here is a synopsis of his life and work.

http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm

Here you will note he is a strong proponent of environmental protection,
population control and women's rights.

If anything he demonstrates the basic meaninglessness of labels like
"conservative" or "liberal" when applied to an independent thinker.

g.c.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:28:28 -0500, Tom Quackenbush
wrote:

Jonathan Ball wrote:
snip
Tom Quackenbush wrote:

OK, I have to confess ignorance here - I'm not very familiar with
J.S. Mill. When did he write that & did he mean "conservative" in the
same political sense that it's used today?

John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873, was one of the most
important English philosophers and political thinkers
of his age. He is noted as one of the leading
proponents of utilitarianism.

snip
Thank you. I think I need to read up on Mr. Mill.

R,
Tom Q.
Here's his introduction to "On Liberty".

http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html


You'll note he doesn't state an opposition to governmental control of
peoples actions only an opposition to acts that don't spring from
"self-protection". He really was a fairly modern liberal.

Here is a synopsis of his life and work.

http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm

Here you will note he is a strong proponent of environmental protection,
population control and women's rights.

If anything he demonstrates the basic meaninglessness of labels like
"conservative" or "liberal" when applied to an independent thinker.

g.c.

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball
\
\snippage...



Grammar counts too.
==============
Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing
of
substance to say...


snippage...


No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you
just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with
any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the
time? I hope so. You guys need it.
====================
ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you do, I
will.

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball
\
\snippage...



Grammar counts too.
==============
Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing
of
substance to say...


snippage...


No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you
just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with
any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the
time? I hope so. You guys need it.
====================
ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you do, I
will.

In rec.backcountry Rico X. Partay wrote:
"Bob Peterson" wrote in message
...

Junk science is junk science.

Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as
saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely
conclusory, content-free statement you're making.

Quote from John Nash's Nobel prize biography on his recovery from
schizophrenia:

"Then gradually I began to intellectually reject some of the delusionally
influenced lines of thinking which had been characteristic of my
orientation. This began, most recognizably, with the rejection of
politically-oriented thinking as essentially a hopeless waste of
intellectual effort"

In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote:

God DAMN it, you are such a windbag!

By gum! A talking nutbag! Get any offers from Ringling Bros yet?

-paggers

paghat wrote:

In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote:


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.

It only helped to show that you aren't very astute, and
you're probably too contaminated by notions of
political correctness ever to learn.

"Diet for a Small Planet" IS INDEED an expression of
leftist political thinking. So is "veganism". If
someone tells me he's "vegan", I know EVERYTHING about
his politics; there's nothing concealed.


By this chap's comical worldview, two-thirds of the population of India
are lefties,

Nope. Indians are not generally "vegan". You don't
know your ass from your face.

[...]

You have next to no evidence that any of those people,
historical and contemporary, are "vegan". I suppose
quite a few of them were or are vegetarian, though;
there's a big difference.

Try to say what little you have to say in far fewer
words next time, windbag.

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

I suppose quite a few of them were or are
vegetarian, though; there's a big difference.


Yeah.. if they were lousy hunters.

GW

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65521 rec.gardens:259274 misc.survivalism:500742 misc.rural:115277 rec.backcountry:172192

paghat wrote:

In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote:


paghat wrote:


In article , "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.


You know, I just about stopped reading that thread at that point, as some
things are just so ignorant I lose interest in players whose thinking is
SO poor that their perspective ceases to be worth weighing at all -- as
even if I strongly disagree with someone, there should be some core worth
at least passing consideration, & it's less fun to argue about it if the
other side is just nose-pickin' with shit in his shorts gibbering random
nonsense. I've heard some dumbass stuff for why my own vegetarianism is
going to kill me, though I'm healthier than any of 'em after 25+ years of
meatlessness. But the old it's-a-lefty-commy-pinko-conspiracy argument has
never before been on the list of demented reasons for nutritional facts
not being facts; makes as much sense as invoking butt-probing "greys" from
outer space, who do indeed figure into many leftophobics' unusual beliefs.

I retract what I said earlier about your writing
ability being pretty good. You write shit, and you
also are far too verbose in spreading your shit. I've
seen you off and on for a few years now, and what
always shines through brightly and with clarity is your
monstrous ego. You are so taken with yourself and with
your "take" that you can't rein yourself in.

Look: less is more.


A perfect example of how someone utterly devoid of reason

No; not an example of that all.

can at least call his betters names!

No names called; no betters in evidence.

Face it: your writing is lousy. You use far too many
words to say...well, to say not much of anything at
all. You mistake your logorrhea for wit.

In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 23
Message-ID: . net
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:21:56 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.165.17.130
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1071724916 68.165.17.130 (Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:21:56 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:21:56 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!newshosting.com !news-xfer2.atl.newshosting.com!140.99.99.194.MISMATCH!n ewsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthl ink.net!newsread2.news.pa
s.earthlink.net.POSTED!ee405dca!not-for-mail
Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65522 rec.gardens:259275 misc.survivalism:500744 misc.rural:115278 rec.backcountry:172193

Bob Brock wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:15:13 -0500, Tom Quackenbush
wrote:


Ah, JHC. Could one of you (Bob or Jon) start trimming at least the:







R,
Tom Q.


Hey...I filtered him a couple of hours ago.

You continued to respond to me after claiming to have
killfiled me, liar.

paghat wrote:

In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote:


God DAMN it, you are such a windbag!


By gum! A talking nutbag!

No, but you *are* a windbag. Just on and on and on and
on and on and...



paghat wrote:


In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote:



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.

It only helped to show that you aren't very astute, and
you're probably too contaminated by notions of
political correctness ever to learn.

"Diet for a Small Planet" IS INDEED an expression of
leftist political thinking. So is "veganism". If
someone tells me he's "vegan", I know EVERYTHING about
his politics; there's nothing concealed.


By this chap's comical worldview, two-thirds of the population of India
are lefties,

Nope. Indians are not generally "vegan". You don't
know your ass from your face.

[...]

You have next to no evidence that any of those people,
historical and contemporary, are "vegan". I suppose
quite a few of them were or are vegetarian, though;
there's a big difference.

Try to say what little you have to say in far fewer
words next time, windbag.

Tell them veggies exhibit fear if you hook one up to a polygraph and
start dicing up his friends. That should make them stop eating altogether.

GW

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:30:59 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball
\
\snippage...



Grammar counts too.
==============
Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have nothing
of
substance to say...


snippage...


No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you
just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with
any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the
time? I hope so. You guys need it.
====================
ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you do, I
will.

So, why do you keep replying little puppet?

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:30:59 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:23:02 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball
\
\snippage...



Grammar counts too.
==============
Ah yes, the net spell/grammar checker last resort when you have
nothing
of
substance to say...


snippage...


No, those who have nothing so say say nothing. You know, like you
just did. Do you guys always talk this much not saying anything with
any substance? Do you reenforce each other's self esteem all the
time? I hope so. You guys need it.
====================
ROTFLMAO You haven't said anything yet to reply to, stupid. When you
do, I
will.

So, why do you keep replying little puppet?
================
To highlight the stupidity and ignorance that is all too common with the
knee-jerk hate-fill leftist idiots that make claims they cannot support.