Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 04:32 PM
Rico X. Partay
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

"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.



  #2   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 04:42 PM
Strider
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

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
  #3   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 05:03 PM
Volker Hetzer
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)


"Strider" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
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.

So, if one of them would describe the cloudless noon sky as blue
you would argue, right? That's what makes people like you so easy
to manipulate.

Greetings!
Volker
  #4   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 05:32 PM
George Cleveland
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

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



g.c.

Hard to argue with the truth.
  #5   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 05:32 PM
Bob Brock
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:56:12 +0100, "Volker Hetzer"
wrote:


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


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.

So, if one of them would describe the cloudless noon sky as blue
you would argue, right? That's what makes people like you so easy
to manipulate.


Hey that may be true, but it's accurate. ;-)


  #6   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 05:32 PM
Volker Hetzer
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)


"Bob Brock" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:56:12 +0100, "Volker Hetzer"
wrote:
So, if one of them would describe the cloudless noon sky as blue
you would argue, right? That's what makes people like you so easy
to manipulate.


Hey that may be true, but it's accurate. ;-)

%-)

Greetings!
Volker
  #7   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 06:43 PM
Strider
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:56:12 +0100, "Volker Hetzer"
wrote:


"Strider" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
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.

So, if one of them would describe the cloudless noon sky as blue
you would argue, right? That's what makes people like you so easy
to manipulate.

Greetings!
Volker


Ah, but they would describe the sky as a darkened haze on a clear
afternoon. They would, in spite of evidence to the contrary, go on to
blame Bush for the darkened sky. They would repeat this lie
continually and people like you would come to believe it.

Strider
  #8   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 06:43 PM
Strider
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:29:21 GMT,
(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



g.c.

Hard to argue with the truth.


That's the problem liberals have. The lie so much they cannot tell the
difference anymore.

Strider
  #9   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 07:04 PM
paghat
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

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.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"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/
  #10   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 08:09 PM
Tom Quackenbush
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

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.


  #11   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 08:09 PM
George Cleveland
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

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. 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.

g.c.

Who, by the way,can think of no American government in history that would
qualify as "leftist".
  #12   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 08:32 PM
Jeff McCann
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

"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."

Jeff


  #13   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 10:35 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)


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

==========================
LOL Which is exactly what the above reference is all about, an agenda,
based on idiocy and delusions...




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.




  #14   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 10:35 PM
Bob Peterson
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

Junk science is junk science, especially when done for political reasons.

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




  #15   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 10:35 PM
Bob Peterson
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)


"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






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Left wing kookiness" Rico X. Partay Gardening 182 22-04-2004 08:02 PM
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) Jonathan Ball Edible Gardening 17 21-12-2003 05:43 PM
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) Jonathan Ball Gardening 17 21-12-2003 05:42 PM
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) Rico X. Partay Gardening 5 19-12-2003 02:32 AM
"Left wing kookiness", and dissembling carpet-munchers Jonathan Ball Gardening 0 18-12-2003 08:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017