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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Ah, JHC. Could one of you (Bob or Jon) start trimming at least the:








R,
Tom Q.

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.

"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

"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

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/

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?

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.

"Bob Peterson" wrote in message
...

Junk science is junk science.

Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as
saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely
conclusory, content-free statement you're making.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 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.

"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.