Todd writes:

On 06/11/2014 10:26 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
You are just frustrated because I am not agreeing with
your argument.


Just in case you are honestly puzzled about why you annoy the shit out
of most people it is because you never actually make a case for your
opinions but waffle on as if you have said something meaningful. You
did this with climate change and you started doing it with T2D. I
called a halt in both of these because you flatly refused to produce an
argument or listen to one.

Then foolishly I tried again. My fault, I thought you deserved a
chance, that you might have learned something. I was wrong. Sorry
everybody.

You simply don't understand what it means to produce a reasoned case
supported by evidence. You continually give vague and irrelevant
opinions as if they are useful facts. You studiously ignore any
requests for specifics. You shift the goalposts. You cherry pick your
data. You indulge in wishful thinking and call it explanation. You
have all the arsenal of weapons of the true zealot who is totally immune
to reasoned discourse.

So yes I am frustrated and so is Fran. No, the frustration has nothing
to do with agreeing with your view of the world, I don't get frustrated
with people just because they hold different views, I try to learn from
them.

The problem is your UNWILLNESS TO JUSTIFY your different views, that is
supremely frustrating because nobody can learn anything. But I am
probably wasting my time typing as that distinction will be lost on you
too. Back to gardening. Please.

D

Oh brother David. You are just not use to dealing with others
who disagree with you.

Uh, no.

It's not just David and Fran.
I wonder how you can type and keep your bottom in the chair.

All that hand waving should have you airborne.

--
Dan Espen

On 06/12/2014 06:16 PM, Dan.Espen wrote:
Todd writes:

On 06/11/2014 10:26 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
You are just frustrated because I am not agreeing with
your argument.


Just in case you are honestly puzzled about why you annoy the shit out
of most people it is because you never actually make a case for your
opinions but waffle on as if you have said something meaningful. You
did this with climate change and you started doing it with T2D. I
called a halt in both of these because you flatly refused to produce an
argument or listen to one.

Then foolishly I tried again. My fault, I thought you deserved a
chance, that you might have learned something. I was wrong. Sorry
everybody.

You simply don't understand what it means to produce a reasoned case
supported by evidence. You continually give vague and irrelevant
opinions as if they are useful facts. You studiously ignore any
requests for specifics. You shift the goalposts. You cherry pick your
data. You indulge in wishful thinking and call it explanation. You
have all the arsenal of weapons of the true zealot who is totally immune
to reasoned discourse.

So yes I am frustrated and so is Fran. No, the frustration has nothing
to do with agreeing with your view of the world, I don't get frustrated
with people just because they hold different views, I try to learn from
them.

The problem is your UNWILLNESS TO JUSTIFY your different views, that is
supremely frustrating because nobody can learn anything. But I am
probably wasting my time typing as that distinction will be lost on you
too. Back to gardening. Please.

D

Oh brother David. You are just not use to dealing with others
who disagree with you.

Uh, no.

It's not just David and Fran.
I wonder how you can type and keep your bottom in the chair.

All that hand waving should have you airborne.


Two words: BUNJI CORDS!

Tried duct tape, but it is too hard to remove.

:-)

On 06/12/2014 12:16 AM, Fran Farmer wrote:
Why on earth would you think David might have a Mexican
grocery store near him?

Hmmmmmm.. Maybe because he is from the Peoples Republic
of California. (I may have him mixed up with Higgs.)

You do have mixed him up with Higgs or with David Ross.

Ooops. Sorry David. Honest mistake. No offense
intended. (Calling someone a "Californian" around
these part is considered somewhat of an insult.)

-T

In article
Todd writes:
On 06/12/2014 06:16 PM, Dan.Espen wrote:

It's not just David and Fran.
I wonder how you can type and keep your bottom in the chair.

All that hand waving should have you airborne.


Two words: BUNJI CORDS!

Tried duct tape, but it is too hard to remove.

Glad to have the confirmation that you are a performance art performer.
I was puzzled at how you could be so dense.


--
|Drew Lawson | If you're not part of the solution |
| | you're part of the precipitate. |

In article
Todd writes:

Googling that is like googling the word "it".

Thank you for at least admitting that you do not know anything.

Tons
of hits on how to grow wheat, including in your own
back yard. Not to waste too much time on it, I found
various links. They are not real good, so I wouldn't
spend too much time on them, if at all:

If you need google, then you are just talking out your ass.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/does-...n-non-celiacs/

You have an interesting tendency to post links to one or two sites,
and nothing else. Sounds like a "cult of personality" more with
each iteration.

You grow what you can sell. So, I have to disagree
to an extent. There are obvious limitations of
what you can grow where. But very few soils can
only grow one thing. There is no such thing as
soil that can only grow wheat.

You have been asked what else to grow.

You avoid answering.

By the way, I asked, and that variety of corn is not available
in the United States.

Asked who? Which variety?


I researched it months ago. I came up with the type of corn
they wanted to switch to and called a few seed companies.

And yet, you cannot come up with a name to report.

You, sir (if I have the gender correct) are a liar.

I think Burpee was one, but I don't recall.

Again, it is entertaining that an anti-GMO "person" would be dealing
with Burpee.

Talked to some
very nice people. Sorry for the lack of information. If
you are interesting in growing the stuff, I am sure you
could probably figure it out too.

I am, or was, interested in whether your claims were pulled out of
your ass.

You have confirmed that they were.

David was correct. You aren't worth the bits to send replies.

I had hoped you had details, rather than being a windbag with
assertions (and conspiracies) but no substance.

Much like the political party that I disagree with -- I keep hoping
for a gadfly with substantial claims, to keep my side in-line. But
all I ever get is hand-waving and vacuous claims -- just like you.

Burpee's sweet corns taste like candy they are so sweet.
I mean the ones I grew years ago were so, so sweet!
I think most of Burpee's emphasis is on those varieties
(Diabetes be damned).

-T



--
Drew Lawson What would Brian Boitano do?

On 06/12/2014 08:00 PM, Drew Lawson wrote:
You, sir (if I have the gender correct) are a liar.

Did I call you any names? Manners.

On 06/12/2014 08:00 PM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article
Todd writes:

Googling that is like googling the word "it".

Thank you for at least admitting that you do not know anything.

Tons
of hits on how to grow wheat, including in your own
back yard. Not to waste too much time on it, I found
various links. They are not real good, so I wouldn't
spend too much time on them, if at all:

If you need google, then you are just talking out your ass.

I was looking for links I could share. But I guess the reference
things is not what you do.


http://www.marksdailyapple.com/does-...n-non-celiacs/

You have an interesting tendency to post links to one or two sites,
and nothing else. Sounds like a "cult of personality" more with
each iteration.

There was nothing that I could have written that
would have been good enough for you. You make
fun of what you don't like or don't agree with.


You grow what you can sell. So, I have to disagree
to an extent. There are obvious limitations of
what you can grow where. But very few soils can
only grow one thing. There is no such thing as
soil that can only grow wheat.

You have been asked what else to grow.

You avoid answering.


I answered several times. I gave some links. You
did not like what I answered, so you accused me of
not answering. Interesting debate technique.

By the way, I asked, and that variety of corn is not available
in the United States.

Asked who? Which variety?


I researched it months ago. I came up with the type of corn
they wanted to switch to and called a few seed companies.

And yet, you cannot come up with a name to report.

You, sir (if I have the gender correct) are a liar.

You are not a gentleman. You call me a liar because I
gave you my best recall. This is your problem, not
mine.

By the way, it wasn't that hard to re-locate. It
is "'IPB Var 6' white corn".

https://ph.news.yahoo.com/white-corn...061008950.html

Opps, a link I used Google to find. Must have pulled it
out my ass!

Maybe it is now sold in the USA. Maybe I did not ask for it
correctly when I called around. I have forgotten. I am not
looking it up for you. Do your own homework.

I know you don't like links, but the link also stated that
it produced:

Based on the national corn testing, the IPB Var 6 yields
an average of 5.84 metric tons (MT) per hectare in Luzon;
in Visayas, 5.45 MT per hectare, and in Mindanao, 4.47 MT
per hectare.

I have no idea how to compare that to either the rice that
it replaced or to wheat. Maybe others with more knowledge
on the subject could chime in. It sounds like a pretty good
yield to me.



I think Burpee was one, but I don't recall.

Again, it is entertaining that an anti-GMO "person" would be dealing
with Burpee.

You are really getting nit-picky.

My local grocery store has slot machines, tobacco,
alcohol, conventional meat and produce. Tons and
tons of carbs too. It even has, OMG! *Fat people*
walking the isles!

Guess what, I still shop there. I "avoid" that stuff.
(Not the fat people. I am not a Fat Bigot. Folks is
folks. )

Same with Burpee. I buy the non-gmo. And I can get
heirloom seeds from them too. Plus they are nice on
the phone.

Here in Nevada we have both Whore Houses and Harry
Reid (no he doesn't own one). I still live here.
I avoid the Whore Houses and delight in voting against
Harry every time I can. Under your logic, where would
you have me move? (I refuse to move to the People's
Republic of California.)


Talked to some
very nice people. Sorry for the lack of information. If
you are interesting in growing the stuff, I am sure you
could probably figure it out too.

I am, or was, interested in whether your claims were pulled out of
your ass.

You have confirmed that they were.

No I didn't. That is just your knee jerking. You did not
like what I said. So, you decided to insult me.


David was correct. You aren't worth the bits to send replies.

I had hoped you had details, rather than being a windbag with
assertions (and conspiracies) but no substance.

No detail would have been good enough for you. Rude too. There
was lots of substance. You just did not like it, so you insulted
me. Too much work for you to go over what I said and state
what you did not like about it. So you name called. You are
not a gentleman.


Much like the political party that I disagree with -- I keep hoping
for a gadfly with substantial claims, to keep my side in-line. But
all I ever get is hand-waving and vacuous claims -- just like you.

Oh brother. Aren't use to being disagreed with or debated, are you?
You just name call.


Burpee's sweet corns taste like candy they are so sweet.
I mean the ones I grew years ago were so, so sweet!
I think most of Burpee's emphasis is on those varieties
(Diabetes be damned).

-T

As far as the world starving, how about we stop subsidizing
corn alcohol and let the farmers go back to growing food.
Hell, they might even grow wheat on that land! And give
a bunch of cattle ulcers and humans diabetes! Maybe we
could even blame the ulcers on the cows being fat and lazy!

On 12/06/2014 4:03 PM, Todd wrote:
On 06/11/2014 10:26 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
You are just frustrated because I am not agreeing with
your argument.


Just in case you are honestly puzzled about why you annoy the shit out
of most people it is because you never actually make a case for your
opinions but waffle on as if you have said something meaningful. You
did this with climate change and you started doing it with T2D. I
called a halt in both of these because you flatly refused to produce an
argument or listen to one.

Then foolishly I tried again. My fault, I thought you deserved a
chance, that you might have learned something. I was wrong. Sorry
everybody.

You simply don't understand what it means to produce a reasoned case
supported by evidence. You continually give vague and irrelevant
opinions as if they are useful facts. You studiously ignore any
requests for specifics. You shift the goalposts. You cherry pick your
data. You indulge in wishful thinking and call it explanation. You
have all the arsenal of weapons of the true zealot who is totally immune
to reasoned discourse.

So yes I am frustrated and so is Fran. No, the frustration has nothing
to do with agreeing with your view of the world, I don't get frustrated
with people just because they hold different views, I try to learn from
them.

The problem is your UNWILLNESS TO JUSTIFY your different views, that is
supremely frustrating because nobody can learn anything. But I am
probably wasting my time typing as that distinction will be lost on you
too. Back to gardening. Please.

D

Oh brother David. You are just not use to dealing with others
who disagree with you.

A more idiotic response to what David wrote is hard to imagine.

On 13/06/2014 11:16 AM, Dan.Espen wrote:
Todd writes:

On 06/11/2014 10:26 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
You are just frustrated because I am not agreeing with
your argument.


Just in case you are honestly puzzled about why you annoy the shit out
of most people it is because you never actually make a case for your
opinions but waffle on as if you have said something meaningful. You
did this with climate change and you started doing it with T2D. I
called a halt in both of these because you flatly refused to produce an
argument or listen to one.

Then foolishly I tried again. My fault, I thought you deserved a
chance, that you might have learned something. I was wrong. Sorry
everybody.

You simply don't understand what it means to produce a reasoned case
supported by evidence. You continually give vague and irrelevant
opinions as if they are useful facts. You studiously ignore any
requests for specifics. You shift the goalposts. You cherry pick your
data. You indulge in wishful thinking and call it explanation. You
have all the arsenal of weapons of the true zealot who is totally immune
to reasoned discourse.

So yes I am frustrated and so is Fran. No, the frustration has nothing
to do with agreeing with your view of the world, I don't get frustrated
with people just because they hold different views, I try to learn from
them.

The problem is your UNWILLNESS TO JUSTIFY your different views, that is
supremely frustrating because nobody can learn anything. But I am
probably wasting my time typing as that distinction will be lost on you
too. Back to gardening. Please.

D

Oh brother David. You are just not use to dealing with others
who disagree with you.

Uh, no.

It's not just David and Fran.

:-)) Indeed. He never gets it or seemingly even tries.

His standard response is that it's our fault not his, just as his T2
diabetes is because of a conspiracy that made him and others eat carbs
and he had no responsibility at all for what he put in his mouth over a
lifetime of eating. I beginning to think that a plonk would be the best
solution.

On 13/06/2014 12:48 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article
Fran Farmer writes:
On 12/06/2014 6:33 AM, Todd wrote:

Think of this, the California wine industry has almost
completely switched to organic techniques. The reason being
that the entire vineyard is consistent, one end to the other.
They no longer have one end that is more sour than the
other, etc.. And, they get a higher yield. Cheaper
too.

So basically, if we are to feed more people, this is an
idea that is coming. It is a matter of practicality, not
idealism.

That paragraph makes no sense.

He seems to believe that some recent (alleged) trend in growing
grapes is going to revolutionize crop yields.

I assume that he is ignorant of the factors that brought the increases
since WW2: industrial farming, ammonium nitrate and monocrop
megafarms (mostly crowing the "carbs" he rails against).

I'm not a great fan of the current state of food production, but I
recognize that it is a current necesity. Most current starvation
is caused by economic/political factors. Reverting the methods of
production would bring starvation caused by actual lack of food.

I too am not a fan of agribusiness as it supplies the big supermarkets
and I don't think that many gardeners who grow vegetables for their own
consumption would be.

I note your mention of WWII - I keep wondering why it is that there
would be any need for anyone to 'go Paleo' given the history of food
production and when populations in the first world were doing well due
to access to good food but still had not seen the leap in numbers of
those afflicted with the modern lifestyle diseases that are so abundant
these days.

I've been debating whith myself whether that would date to between the
wars of earlier. I suspect the timing would vary a bit according to
which nation was under discussion because I know that WWII and it's
rationing lead to better health amongst the general population. There's
some interesting stuff on that around the web - or was last time I
looked..

Fran Farmer wrote:
On 13/06/2014 12:48 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article
Fran Farmer writes:
On 12/06/2014 6:33 AM, Todd wrote:

Think of this, the California wine industry has almost
completely switched to organic techniques. The reason being
that the entire vineyard is consistent, one end to the other.
They no longer have one end that is more sour than the
other, etc.. And, they get a higher yield. Cheaper
too.

So basically, if we are to feed more people, this is an
idea that is coming. It is a matter of practicality, not
idealism.

That paragraph makes no sense.

He seems to believe that some recent (alleged) trend in growing
grapes is going to revolutionize crop yields.

I assume that he is ignorant of the factors that brought the
increases since WW2: industrial farming, ammonium nitrate and
monocrop megafarms (mostly crowing the "carbs" he rails against).

I'm not a great fan of the current state of food production, but I
recognize that it is a current necesity. Most current starvation
is caused by economic/political factors. Reverting the methods of
production would bring starvation caused by actual lack of food.

I too am not a fan of agribusiness as it supplies the big supermarkets
and I don't think that many gardeners who grow vegetables for their
own consumption would be.

I note your mention of WWII - I keep wondering why it is that there
would be any need for anyone to 'go Paleo' given the history of food
production and when populations in the first world were doing well due
to access to good food but still had not seen the leap in numbers of
those afflicted with the modern lifestyle diseases that are so
abundant these days.

I've been debating whith myself whether that would date to between the
wars of earlier. I suspect the timing would vary a bit according to
which nation was under discussion because I know that WWII and it's
rationing lead to better health amongst the general population. There's
some interesting stuff on that around the web - or was last
time I looked..

Part of the problem with zealots is there are no nuances, no details, no
shading, no compromises. You are either with them entirely or agin 'em.

I don't think that a food system based on broad acre farming with big inputs
from fertiliser derived from fossil fuel is ideal in the long run either.
However, the idea of quitting grains altogether for ideological reasons is
mad.

The biggest danger to this world is not diet, climate-change, starvation,
asteroid-strike, Murdock or Godlessness. Its Toddthink.

David

In article
Fran Farmer writes:
On 13/06/2014 12:48 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article

He seems to believe that some recent (alleged) trend in growing
grapes is going to revolutionize crop yields.

I assume that he is ignorant of the factors that brought the increases
since WW2: industrial farming, ammonium nitrate and monocrop
megafarms (mostly crowing the "carbs" he rails against).

I'm not a great fan of the current state of food production, but I
recognize that it is a current necesity. Most current starvation
is caused by economic/political factors. Reverting the methods of
production would bring starvation caused by actual lack of food.

I too am not a fan of agribusiness as it supplies the big supermarkets
and I don't think that many gardeners who grow vegetables for their own
consumption would be.

I note your mention of WWII - I keep wondering why it is that there
would be any need for anyone to 'go Paleo' given the history of food
production and when populations in the first world were doing well due
to access to good food but still had not seen the leap in numbers of
those afflicted with the modern lifestyle diseases that are so abundant
these days.

I'll let those older than me do the stronger comparisons of current
lifestyles with those in the '40s. But even comparing with the
'60s, when there were already grumblings about sedentary lifestyles,
is pretty signifigant.

My memories of the late '60s, in US small cities and suburbs, have
far more people walking. Households often only had a single car,
and days were run accordngly. There was very little shuttling kids
here and there. Kids walked or rode their bikes.

And other details that seem minor probably had a lot of effect. I
don't recall elevators much, except in the taller or fancier
buildings. Anything 2 story just had stairs.

The first shopping mall I dealt with was in 1973. Freshly opened,
there was one escalator, and several sets of stairs. The only
stairs in my local mall now are more for show than anything else.
(They frame a central atrium.)

In my view, a lot of the trend toward obesity came in very small
steps like those. That along with more convenience. I can park
close to things now, so I walk less. Etc.

And, of course, cheaper bulk food helped drive our personal bulk.

I've been debating whith myself whether that would date to between the
wars of earlier. I suspect the timing would vary a bit according to
which nation was under discussion because I know that WWII and it's
rationing lead to better health amongst the general population. There's
some interesting stuff on that around the web - or was last time I
looked..

The reason I referenced WW2 is that it seems to be a standard turning
point, at least for US agriculture. All of the industrial build
up and advancement of the war got turned to post-war use. We took
improvements for tanks and made bigger tractors. The oil demand
of the war drove expanding the supply, and an eventual outcome was
expansion of the petrochemical industry.

I probably have some of that wrong, but that's my general impression.

--
Drew Lawson
"Please understand that we are considerably less interested
in you than you are."
-- Madeleine Page, on the deep truths of alt.folklore.urban

On 06/13/2014 05:08 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Its Toddthink.

Has a nice ring to it.

On 06/12/2014 11:36 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
His standard response is that it's our fault not his, just as his T2
diabetes is because of a conspiracy that made him and others eat carbs
and he had no responsibility at all for what he put in his mouth over a
lifetime of eating.

ToddSpeak

I was following what the special interests said. Whole
grains, healthy carbs, low fat. Did a bunch of walking.
Carbs good; fat bad. I thought I was doing what I was
suppose to do.

I now know, except for the walking part, that it was total
B*** S***. My "fault" was whom I chose to believe.

And apparently you will have to get injured yourself before
you stop with the fat bigotry. Fat and lazy. That would explain
all the skinny, active folks who also get injured. Also
explains the third world, where they eat far less and move far
more. Yup. Fat and Lazy. Nothing to do with carbs. Absolutely
NOTHING! Fat and Lazy.

Excess carbs in are like the "elephant in the living room"
no one wants acknowledge.

And I said "corruption" not "conspiracy".

"Healthy carbs" my ass.

/ToddSpeak

Drew Lawson wrote:
In article
Fran Farmer writes:
On 13/06/2014 12:48 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article

He seems to believe that some recent (alleged) trend in growing
grapes is going to revolutionize crop yields.

I assume that he is ignorant of the factors that brought the
increases since WW2: industrial farming, ammonium nitrate and
monocrop megafarms (mostly crowing the "carbs" he rails against).

I'm not a great fan of the current state of food production, but I
recognize that it is a current necesity. Most current starvation
is caused by economic/political factors. Reverting the methods of
production would bring starvation caused by actual lack of food.

I too am not a fan of agribusiness as it supplies the big
supermarkets and I don't think that many gardeners who grow
vegetables for their own consumption would be.

I note your mention of WWII - I keep wondering why it is that there
would be any need for anyone to 'go Paleo' given the history of food
production and when populations in the first world were doing well
due to access to good food but still had not seen the leap in
numbers of those afflicted with the modern lifestyle diseases that
are so abundant these days.

I'll let those older than me do the stronger comparisons of current
lifestyles with those in the '40s. But even comparing with the
'60s, when there were already grumblings about sedentary lifestyles,
is pretty signifigant.

My memories of the late '60s, in US small cities and suburbs, have
far more people walking. Households often only had a single car,
and days were run accordngly. There was very little shuttling kids
here and there. Kids walked or rode their bikes.

And other details that seem minor probably had a lot of effect. I
don't recall elevators much, except in the taller or fancier
buildings. Anything 2 story just had stairs.

The first shopping mall I dealt with was in 1973. Freshly opened,
there was one escalator, and several sets of stairs. The only
stairs in my local mall now are more for show than anything else.
(They frame a central atrium.)

In my view, a lot of the trend toward obesity came in very small
steps like those. That along with more convenience. I can park
close to things now, so I walk less. Etc.

And, of course, cheaper bulk food helped drive our personal bulk.

I've been debating whith myself whether that would date to between
the wars of earlier. I suspect the timing would vary a bit
according to which nation was under discussion because I know that
WWII and it's rationing lead to better health amongst the general
population. There's some interesting stuff on that around the web -
or was last time I looked..

The reason I referenced WW2 is that it seems to be a standard turning
point, at least for US agriculture. All of the industrial build
up and advancement of the war got turned to post-war use. We took
improvements for tanks and made bigger tractors. The oil demand
of the war drove expanding the supply, and an eventual outcome was
expansion of the petrochemical industry.

I probably have some of that wrong, but that's my general impression.

I think you are on the right track. One of the turning points in Oz was
after WW2 when cars became cheap enough for nearly every family to own one.
People stopped walking and riding bikes. Kids used to be so proud when they
got their first bike now they wait for the car. If I went to visit my
cousins as a boy (say 1960) during school holidays we were not allowed in
the house during the day unless it was raining. We were expected to go out
and run about, play a ball sport, build a fortress, explore the
neighbourhood, ride billycarts. Then such a rule was not exceptional but
reasonable common sense, try imposing that rule today.


D