"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 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

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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"

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65512 rec.gardens:259259 misc.survivalism:500645 misc.rural:115247 rec.backcountry:172182

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:12:12 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

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.

Yes, but the Old Regime now is the New Deal setup FDR and
LBJ saddled us with. The so-called "conservatives" aren't.
The so-called "liberals" aren't. The words that we use to
describe the political factions are exactly ass-backwards
from the truth.

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.

Revolutions usually occur when the lot of the ordinary
people is improving. The truly hopeless seldom rebel.

Who, by the way,can think of no American government in history that would
qualify as "leftist".

The New Deal certainly was (unless by "leftist" you mean
"communist").

Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

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.

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/

I suppose quite a few of them were or are
vegetarian, though; there's a big difference.


Yeah.. if they were lousy hunters.

GW

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.

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.