"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.

"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.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:30:36 -0800, "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.


Adherence to scientific methods do not allow for politics. Insertion
of politics into science will bias the results of any study.

Strider

"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.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:30:36 -0800, "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.


Adherence to scientific methods do not allow for politics. Insertion
of politics into science will bias the results of any study.

Strider

"Rico X. Partay" wrote in message
m...
"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.


I don't recall saying it too political so it must be wrong. The point is
you can make generalizations about information when you know the source. The
information gathered from kooks is not credible. It might even be accurate,
but the fact that it is dispensed by nut cases is good grounds to question
it.

"Rico X. Partay" wrote in message
m...
"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.


I don't recall saying it too political so it must be wrong. The point is
you can make generalizations about information when you know the source. The
information gathered from kooks is not credible. It might even be accurate,
but the fact that it is dispensed by nut cases is good grounds to question
it.

"Rico X. Partay" wrote in message
m...
"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.


I don't recall saying it too political so it must be wrong. The point is
you can make generalizations about information when you know the source. The
information gathered from kooks is not credible. It might even be accurate,
but the fact that it is dispensed by nut cases is good grounds to question
it.

"Rico X. Partay" wrote in message
m...
"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.


I don't recall saying it too political so it must be wrong. The point is
you can make generalizations about information when you know the source. The
information gathered from kooks is not credible. It might even be accurate,
but the fact that it is dispensed by nut cases is good grounds to question
it.

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65512 rec.gardens:259259 misc.survivalism:500645 misc.rural:115247 rec.backcountry:172182

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:12:12 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:46:20 -0500, Tom Quackenbush
wrote:

George Cleveland wrote:

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

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?

I only ask because it seems that being conservative, rather than
innovative, is a good survival strategy for those of us that aren't
brilliant. IOW, reliance on the "tried and true" methods seems to be a
safer bet than risking the unknown, which tends to have a high failure
rate.

FWIW, I'm all in favor of _someone_ risking the unknown, but if I
were responsible for feeding my wife & kids, I'd rather it were
someone _else_.

R,
Tom Q.
These are good points. Obviously he was referring to what was considered
conservative in his own time.
And its not just the intellectually challenged who end up supporting the
"Old Regime", whatever that is at the given time and place.

Yes, but the Old Regime now is the New Deal setup FDR and
LBJ saddled us with. The so-called "conservatives" aren't.
The so-called "liberals" aren't. The words that we use to
describe the political factions are exactly ass-backwards
from the truth.

The powerless
in general receive no favors by sticking their necks out. If you're living
close to the bone, any change can be just enough to send you into personal
and familial disaster. Thats why revolutions against repressive regimes and
economic systems are so rare. The oppressed have to literally reach the
point where they have nothing left to lose.

Revolutions usually occur when the lot of the ordinary
people is improving. The truly hopeless seldom rebel.

Who, by the way,can think of no American government in history that would
qualify as "leftist".

The New Deal certainly was (unless by "leftist" you mean
"communist").

Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:28:03 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"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."

I occasionally come into contact with the couple of outright
lunatics we have in our town. Knowing their mental
condition, I don't believe anything they say. For similar
reasons, I don't believe anything a "leftwing, tofu sucking,
liberal" says either without indepently checking it out
using reliable sources. "Leftwing, tofu sucking, liberals"
simply aren't reliable sources of information, IMHO. And
when it comes to deciding what are reliable sources, MHO is
the only thing that counts - for me.

Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:28:03 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"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."

I occasionally come into contact with the couple of outright
lunatics we have in our town. Knowing their mental
condition, I don't believe anything they say. For similar
reasons, I don't believe anything a "leftwing, tofu sucking,
liberal" says either without indepently checking it out
using reliable sources. "Leftwing, tofu sucking, liberals"
simply aren't reliable sources of information, IMHO. And
when it comes to deciding what are reliable sources, MHO is
the only thing that counts - for me.

Fair enough. But in most cases, I'm sure that cognitive dissonance has
more to do with it than any well-reasoned and objective concern over the
reliability of the source.

Jeff

well... unless you are talking about chicken wings.... I think most chickens are
right winged which makes the right wing larger and more succulent. Ingrid


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.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:04:05 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:12:12 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:46:20 -0500, Tom Quackenbush
wrote:

George Cleveland wrote:

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

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?

I only ask because it seems that being conservative, rather than
innovative, is a good survival strategy for those of us that aren't
brilliant. IOW, reliance on the "tried and true" methods seems to be a
safer bet than risking the unknown, which tends to have a high failure
rate.

FWIW, I'm all in favor of _someone_ risking the unknown, but if I
were responsible for feeding my wife & kids, I'd rather it were
someone _else_.

R,
Tom Q.
These are good points. Obviously he was referring to what was considered
conservative in his own time.
And its not just the intellectually challenged who end up supporting the
"Old Regime", whatever that is at the given time and place.

Yes, but the Old Regime now is the New Deal setup FDR and
LBJ saddled us with. The so-called "conservatives" aren't.
The so-called "liberals" aren't. The words that we use to
describe the political factions are exactly ass-backwards
from the truth.


Nope. The Old Regime are the Reaganites and the large corporations. They
have been the peoiple in power for most of the last 150 years.

The powerless
in general receive no favors by sticking their necks out. If you're living
close to the bone, any change can be just enough to send you into personal
and familial disaster. Thats why revolutions against repressive regimes and
economic systems are so rare. The oppressed have to literally reach the
point where they have nothing left to lose.

Revolutions usually occur when the lot of the ordinary
people is improving. The truly hopeless seldom rebel.

Who, by the way,can think of no American government in history that would
qualify as "leftist".

The New Deal certainly was (unless by "leftist" you mean
"communist").
Nope again. FDR didn't propose anything that hadn't been proposed by the
Progressive Party which was a spin off from the Republican Party. Most of
FDR's reforms were modest compared to the rising leftist popular sentiment
at the time.
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.


g.c.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:04:05 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:12:12 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:46:20 -0500, Tom Quackenbush
wrote:

George Cleveland wrote:

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

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?

I only ask because it seems that being conservative, rather than
innovative, is a good survival strategy for those of us that aren't
brilliant. IOW, reliance on the "tried and true" methods seems to be a
safer bet than risking the unknown, which tends to have a high failure
rate.

FWIW, I'm all in favor of _someone_ risking the unknown, but if I
were responsible for feeding my wife & kids, I'd rather it were
someone _else_.

R,
Tom Q.
These are good points. Obviously he was referring to what was considered
conservative in his own time.
And its not just the intellectually challenged who end up supporting the
"Old Regime", whatever that is at the given time and place.

Yes, but the Old Regime now is the New Deal setup FDR and
LBJ saddled us with. The so-called "conservatives" aren't.
The so-called "liberals" aren't. The words that we use to
describe the political factions are exactly ass-backwards
from the truth.


Nope. The Old Regime are the Reaganites and the large corporations. They
have been the peoiple in power for most of the last 150 years.

You apparently don't recognize major changes in American
governance. To suggest that Reagan represents the Old
Regime, but the New Deal did not constitute a revolution in
government affairs, is to ignore reality. The "major
corporations" were the most powerful elements of American
society prior to 1933, going back to the War Between the
States. The crash of '29 and the ensuing panic (turned into
the Great Depression by FDR's New Deal) destroyed the
corporations' political power and the security state
replaced the corporations as the basis of government power.
The interesting question is - what is going to replace the
security state? So far, we've had a revolution in
government control about every 72 years (agriculture from
1789 to 1861; industrial corporations from 1861 to 1933; the
security state from 1933 to 2005?), and we're nearly due for
another. Something sure is going to replace the New
Deal/Great Society security state, and soon. You probably
won't like it very much. We might even get rid of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Oh, happy day!

The Democratic Party, the political muscle behind the
security state, no longer has the loyalty of the majority of
voters like it did in the heyday of the New Deal/Great
Society. Its "moderates" are sounding more like Republicans
(see - Zell Miller) and/or not running for re-election (see
- John Breaux). The overwhelmingly Democratic state of
California just recalled its Democratic governor and the
legislature just repealed the illegal aliens' drivers'
license law by a nearly (or was it completely?) unanimous
vote. The leading Democratic candidates for the
presidential nomination are in self-destruct mode, accusing
Bush II of somehow causing the 9-11 attacks, or at least
knowing about them in advance and doing nothing to prevent
them. The whole sad (but curiously enjoyable) spectacle is
pointing to an electoral disaster the likes of which haven't
been seen since 1932.

The powerless
in general receive no favors by sticking their necks out. If you're living
close to the bone, any change can be just enough to send you into personal
and familial disaster. Thats why revolutions against repressive regimes and
economic systems are so rare. The oppressed have to literally reach the
point where they have nothing left to lose.

Revolutions usually occur when the lot of the ordinary
people is improving. The truly hopeless seldom rebel.

Who, by the way,can think of no American government in history that would
qualify as "leftist".

The New Deal certainly was (unless by "leftist" you mean
"communist").
Nope again. FDR didn't propose anything that hadn't been proposed by the
Progressive Party which was a spin off from the Republican Party. Most of
FDR's reforms were modest compared to the rising leftist popular sentiment
at the time.

I won't dignify FDR's assaults on the Constitution by
calling them reforms, but the fact that FDR's changes didn't
go as far as some other people wanted doesn't mean they
weren't a revolution in American governance and society.

The people who are pushing for another revolution - this
time to return to Constitutional government and personal
freedom - are the "conservatives" and libertarians. The
"liberals" are the defenders of the status quo. "No changes
to Social Security!" "No changes to Medicare!" "No school
vouchers!" "No individual right to keep and bear arms!"
"No tax cuts for the rich!" (or anyone else, for that
matter) The "liberal" Democrats are now the Old Regime,
resisting change as much as they possibly can. For a good
example, just watch any of Ted Kennedy's recent speeches.

The "liberals" are the true conservatives (conserving the
existing political order) and the "conservatives" and
libertarians are the true liberals (supporters of more
personal freedom). The times, they are a-changing.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.