|
"Left wing kookiness"
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. In other words, an infinitesimally small and, thus, meaningless slice of time. It figures you'd make much of a trite, hackneyed expression like that. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Jeff McCann wrote:
"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message ... "Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net... I looked it up, you know? Have a look at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...5666?v=glance. Thanks for posting that. It helps to confirm that the author, Frances Lappe, is a leftwing extremist. So what exactly makes him that? Can you imagine Kim Il Sung not eating meat or what exactly makes someone leftwing and extremist in your eyes? [snip] Mostly just disagreeing with any nonsense he spouts. No, that's not it. It's a belief in anti-market, anti-liberty collectivism that is approached from the political left. |
"Left wing kookiness"
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, including Narendra Modi, the far-right "saffronist" bigot & leader of bigots in India, he's totally vegan, but maybe he's only pretending to be such a bad rightwing ****** to make the right look bad. And Mussalini's ulcer drove him to vegetarianism therefore he must've been more of a progressive than a fascist. Hitler some believe was a vegan at least until 1931, maybe he should've stayed one, no doubt it was when he started up the meat again he went bad & needed the yummy aroma of cooked people. Leonardo de Vinci was a lefty whiz at designing war machinery. Shakespeare who noticed that meat-eating lowered intelligence was therefore a lefty. FBI serial killer profiler John Douglas, who identified killing animals as one of the three key early warning-behaviors of a psychopath, is a lefty. Whoremongering technocrat H. G. Wells was a lefty. Both Immanuel Kant & Fredrich Nietzsche were lefties (what a flash!) cuz neither would eat meat. Carmen Electra & Tippi Hedrin, great leaders among lefties cuz of their diet. Dwight Yoakum, all his lefty country tunes make me sick. Elvira Mistress of the Night & Chester on Gunsmoke, great lefty philosophers first & foremost. Faggoty ol' Ninjinski, total lefty, couldn't even pirhouette to the right. Plato, bigtime lefty promoting utopiuan vegan politics. The Reverand Fred "Wonderful Day in the Neighborhood" Rogers baiting strangers' children into his pad with toys as he rips off his clothes at the door, complete lefty spaz. William Shatner, I can tell you as a lefty vegetarian myself, what a great leader of lefty thinking he is to have on my side! Not to mention Sy Sperling, what a good lefty gent, fighting for the love-lives of all fellow outcast baldheaded geeks of the world but only if they're lefties, he would NEVER staple a rug on the shiny pate of a rightwinger. Michael Jackson, not so much a buggerer of chimps & small boys as merely a misunderstood lefty. Weird Al Yankovitch, all those silly songs have hidden messages for the Left to take over the world. When Bobcat Goldthwait screams a joke like "I'll have your daughter home by midnight -- in pieces in a bag!" it's cuz as a vegan, this makes him such a funny lefty. And when Bruce Springsteen sings of patriotism, well maybe it is indeed because he's a big lefty, therefore no one ever went to hear him sing but a bunch of working class lefties & dont-ask-don't-tell soldierboys who likewise refuse to eat meat. Oh! Oh! And Carmen Miranda, ever notice how her fruitbowl hat always leaned a little LEFT ... it's cuz she was a vegan (or was that fruitarian). Johnny Cash too, all his songs stink to high heaven because of his progressiveness & vegetarianism. And Leonard Cohen, good lord, you may have thought his "giving me head at the foot of the bed" was his chief obsession, but leaving his politics out of his tunes is a TRICK to bait you into his leftwing buddhahood & living in the back of a van, oh those sneaky lefties. But stranger still is Meatloaf -- should change his name to Nutloaf since he's a vegan, surely so far left he's about to fall off the planet, not that he ever makes his opinions known one way or t'other. If the greater point is that rightwingers hate the planet & want to kill & eat everything & everyone, therefore only bleedingheart lefties won't bludgeon cattle, well, I'm not yet willing to believe that, even if percentage-wise such an argument could be made. I've just never noticed being rightwing OR eating meat COMPLETELY annihilated the possibility of decency. And wouldn't this also make fat boozy meat-eaters like Ted Kennedy right wingers? Also definitely NOT vegetarians are Saddam Hussein, Presidente Marcos & his ugly wife Imelda -- maybe they'd've been good people if only they'd stopped eating meat. I begin to see how an unreasoning sod could come to the conclusion that veggies = lefties! Since the Alberts -- Einstein & Schweitzer -- deplored meat-eating as much as did Hans Christian Anderson, Ben Franklin, Charles Darwin, Frank Zappa, Ghandi & Sir Isaac Newton, THEREFORE only decently progressive super-geniuses are vegetarians, & that leaves out everyone on the right! But golly, rightwingers should get over such self-loathing. Plenty of people who decided not to eat meat are totally down with the rightwing agenda. Many a "right to lifer" DOES extend that to being vegetarian & not shooting doctors. -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/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
God DAMN it, you are such a windbag!
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. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote: Bob Brock wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:10:59 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: Bob Brock wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:51:16 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: Jonathan Ball wrote: Bob Brock wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: Look: less is more. Right is Wrong. War is Peace. It figures, in your pig-headedness and stupidity, that you'd snip out and ignore what I wrote about concise writing being better than wheezy, droning rants; you're a droner yourself. Here, in case you want to have another try at it, fat ****: A quote I've seen attributed to Pascal, Montaigne and Mark Twain - I'm sorry to be confusing you with those two foreigners, Gosh, you got me there. All this time, I thought Mark Twain was an American. You can't count, either, can you? You fat ****. Twain was the third one listed. In your pig-headedness and stupidity, you're still missing the essential point: saying the same thing in fewer words is a more powerful way of expressing yourself. Grammar counts too. Look up comma usage and multiple subjects. Get back to me. You simply can't communicate and I don't think being less verbose is going to help you. Learn something new every day. No, you haven't learned anything new in a looooooong time. Pig-headed fools seldom do. Yawn.... |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:08:33 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote: Bob Brock wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:58:36 -0600, Patrick Sonnek wrote: You know, you reall all are bunch of loud mouths. (and by the way, this is not addressed to any one individual, or group, there are several on both sides of the argument who sound like bunch of children.) Can't we discuss things like intelligent adults? or is that asking too much? or is it just too much fun calling your nieghbor a dumb shit and a moron? OK...I'll quit winding him up You never were. You keep comming back. |
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65487 rec.gardens:259231 misc.survivalism:500580 misc.rural:115202 rec.backcountry:172148
Bob Brock wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:08:33 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: Bob Brock wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:58:36 -0600, Patrick Sonnek wrote: You know, you reall all are bunch of loud mouths. (and by the way, this is not addressed to any one individual, or group, there are several on both sides of the argument who sound like bunch of children.) Can't we discuss things like intelligent adults? or is that asking too much? or is it just too much fun calling your nieghbor a dumb shit and a moron? OK...I'll quit winding him up You never were. You keep comming back. You keep needing correction. |
"Left wing kookiness"
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 82 Message-ID: . net Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:52:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.165.17.130 X-Complaints-To: X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1071697958 68.165.17.130 (Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:52:38 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:52:38 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!newsread1.news.pa s.earthlink.net.POSTED!ee405dca!not-for-mail Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65488 rec.gardens:259232 misc.survivalism:500583 misc.rural:115205 rec.backcountry:172150 Bob Brock wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:25:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: Bob Brock wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:10:59 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: Bob Brock wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:51:16 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: Jonathan Ball wrote: Bob Brock wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: Look: less is more. Right is Wrong. War is Peace. It figures, in your pig-headedness and stupidity, that you'd snip out and ignore what I wrote about concise writing being better than wheezy, droning rants; you're a droner yourself. Here, in case you want to have another try at it, fat ****: A quote I've seen attributed to Pascal, Montaigne and Mark Twain - I'm sorry to be confusing you with those two foreigners, Gosh, you got me there. All this time, I thought Mark Twain was an American. You can't count, either, can you? You fat ****. Twain was the third one listed. In your pig-headedness and stupidity, you're still missing the essential point: saying the same thing in fewer words is a more powerful way of expressing yourself. Grammar counts too. As does punctuation: "grammar counts, too." You're ****ing hopeless in addition to being clueless. Look up comma usage and multiple subjects. Get back to me. You simply can't communicate I communicate very well. The problem is with you, fatso. You can't read. |
"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. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Ah, JHC. Could one of you (Bob or Jon) start trimming at least the:
R, Tom Q. |
"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. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Patrick Sonnek" wrote in message ... You know, you reall all are bunch of loud mouths. (and by the way, this is not addressed to any one individual, or group, there are several on both sides of the argument who sound like bunch of children.) Can't we discuss things like intelligent adults? or is that asking too much? or is it just too much fun calling your nieghbor a dumb shit and a moron? Its hard to take anyone's arguments seriously when their primary source for their beliefs is foolishness like the book cited. -- For good laugh at computer security, go to http://www.vseasy.com/Security_Humor.html |
"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 |
"Left wing kookiness"
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 can at least call his betters names! -- "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/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
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. That didn't fix it? Surely he's not still talking to himself...is he? |
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"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. |
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"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. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"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. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
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 |
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"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. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"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. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"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. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"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. |
"Left wing kookiness"
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" |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
|
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
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. |
"Left wing kookiness"
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/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
I suppose quite a few of them were or are
vegetarian, though; there's a big difference. Yeah.. if they were lousy hunters. GW |
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
"Left wing kookiness"
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 |
"Left wing kookiness"
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? |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
"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 |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter