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/