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

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

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/

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.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


Look: less is more.

Right is Wrong.
War is Peace.

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.

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.

You really are a stupid ****.

A quote I've seen attributed to Pascal, Montaigne and
Mark Twain - I'm sorry to be confusing you with those
two foreigners, of whom you undoubtedly have never
heard - runs something like, "If I'd had more time, I'd
have written a shorter letter."

Brevity is the soul of wit.

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.


You really are a stupid ****.

But don't take that the wrong way...


A quote I've seen attributed to Pascal, Montaigne and Mark Twain - I'm
sorry to be confusing you with those two foreigners, of whom you
undoubtedly have never heard - runs something like, "If I'd had more
time, I'd have written a shorter letter."

Brevity is the soul of wit.

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?


--
For good laugh at computer security, go to
http://www.vseasy.com/Security_Humor.html

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.


You really are a stupid ****.

But don't take that the wrong way...

Hey....I'm not the one resorting to profanity and stuttering.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wind you up and watch you go!

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 and watching him go round and round. I
need to go Christmas shopping and finish cleaning up around the house
anyway.

No hard feelings....eh?

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?

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.

He wrote at a time when the previously revolutionary
thinking of the Enlightenment of the 18th century was
finding practical expression in Great Britain.
Conservatives, in Mill's day, were those who opposed
the basic principle of the Enlightenment philosophers:
that man is a rational being, and able to make
choices for himself without direction from higher
authority. Those who accepted the premise of man's
rationality and choice-making ability were the
liberals, and to this day in Europe, "liberal" largely
still has this meaning.

In the U.S., however, "liberal" has come to have the
antithesis of its original meaning. Liberal, in 20th
and 21st century U.S., means a belief that man is NOT
competent to make his own choices. He needs
self-styled enlightened elitists - Democrats, usually -
to decide what is good for him, what he should have,
what he should do, how he should talk and think.
Today's principled conservatives - the late Barry
Goldwater was an exemplar - believe that a powerful
central government is a dangerous threat to individual
liberty, and want to curtail it. They believe that man
ought to be free to decide most things for himself;
contemporary liberals are opposed.

People like John Ashcroft and Rush Limbaugh are not
conservatives; they are reactionaries, and would have
opposed the liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Someone like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan
combined elements of classical liberalism and its
contemporary mutant derivative.


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.

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".

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65463 rec.gardens:259206 misc.survivalism:500543 misc.rural:115161 rec.backcountry:172121

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.

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, of whom you undoubtedly have
never heard - runs something like, "If I'd had more
time, I'd have written a shorter letter."

Brevity is the soul of wit.


Pity you've never heard of Pascal or Montaigne.




You really are a stupid ****.

But don't take that the wrong way...


Hey....I'm not the one resorting to profanity and stuttering.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wind you up and watch you go!

You?! You couldn't wind up a kid's wris****ch.