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.

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

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?

"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

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.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:04:05 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

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.


Nope. The Old Regime are the Reaganites and the large corporations. They
have been the peoiple in power for most of the last 150 years.

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").
Nope again. FDR didn't propose anything that hadn't been proposed by the
Progressive Party which was a spin off from the Republican Party. Most of
FDR's reforms were modest compared to the rising leftist popular sentiment
at the time.
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.


g.c.

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
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?
================
To highlight the stupidity and ignorance that is all too common with the
knee-jerk hate-fill leftist idiots that make claims they cannot support.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote
Not all leftists are "vegan", but all "vegans" are
leftists. Get it, now?

Be careful where you paint with that wide brush, you may paint yourself in a
corner.
BTW: Your ASSumption isn't even close.
Bring on your *30 political issues*, I double dog dare ya. LOL

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65541 rec.gardens:259305 misc.survivalism:500893 misc.rural:115324 rec.backcountry:172220

Don wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote

Not all leftists are "vegan", but all "vegans" are
leftists. Get it, now?


Be careful where you paint with that wide brush, you may paint yourself in a
corner.

Nope. One very articulate and obviously intelligent
poster in alt.food.vegan thought he had disproved my
contention, because he is a reflexive defender of
Republican and conservative orthodoxy, and he said he
was "vegan". However, once I induced him to look in on
talk.politics.animals and
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, he realized, and freely
admitted, that he had erroneously conflated following a
"vegan" diet with BEING a "vegan". He no longer calls
himself a "vegan", because he eschews animal products
in his diet entirely for health reasons.

BTW: Your ASSumption isn't even close.

It's spot on.

Bring on your *30 political issues*, I double dog dare ya. LOL

I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10
point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I
posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year
apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently
leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the
problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to
disagree with the statement from either leftwing or
rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to
add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your
yes/no or agree/disagree answer.

State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree
with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no,
or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of
your answer.

1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft)

2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press
or the Internet.

3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.

4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.

5. People should be free to come and go across borders;
to live and work where they choose.

6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt.
subsidies.

7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.

8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.

9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.

10. All foreign aid should be privately funded.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:24:47 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
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?
================
To highlight the stupidity and ignorance that is all too common with the
knee-jerk hate-fill leftist idiots that make claims they cannot support.

Oh come on....surely I can get one more post out of you. You know you
have to do it, if for no other reason, it makes you feel somehow
superiour.

Your turn.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news:egkEb.9234

I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10
point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I
posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year
apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently
leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the
problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to
disagree with the statement from either leftwing or
rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to
add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your
yes/no or agree/disagree answer.

State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree
with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no,
or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of
your answer.
I am not a vegan

1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft)
agree

2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press
or the Internet.
agree

3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.
agree

4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.
agree

5. People should be free to come and go across borders;
to live and work where they choose.
agree

6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt.
subsidies.
agree

7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.
agree

8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.
agree

9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.
sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools,
public health programs, etc?

10. All foreign aid should be privately funded.
disagree

did I pass?

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news:egkEb.9234

I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10
point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I
posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year
apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently
leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the
problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to
disagree with the statement from either leftwing or
rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to
add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your
yes/no or agree/disagree answer.

State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree
with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no,
or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of
your answer.
I am not a vegan

1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft)
agree

2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press
or the Internet.
agree

3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.
agree

4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.
agree

5. People should be free to come and go across borders;
to live and work where they choose.
agree

6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt.
subsidies.
agree

7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.
agree

8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.
agree

9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.
sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools,
public health programs, etc?

10. All foreign aid should be privately funded.
disagree

did I pass?

paghat wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news:egkEb.9234


I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10
point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I
posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year
apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently
leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the
problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to
disagree with the statement from either leftwing or
rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to
add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your
yes/no or agree/disagree answer.

State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree
with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no,
or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of
your answer.

I am not a vegan

1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft)

agree

2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press
or the Internet.

agree

3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.

agree

4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.

agree

5. People should be free to come and go across borders;
to live and work where they choose.

agree

6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt.
subsidies.

agree

7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.

agree

8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.

agree

9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.

sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools,
public health programs, etc?

10. All foreign aid should be privately funded.

disagree

did I pass?

No, you flunked miserably: you didn't explain your
answers, and your statement that you're not a "vegan"
is inadequate if not an outright lie:

As a vegetarian household we're making among other
things baked "nut balls" for which the main
ingredients are eight kinds of chopped nuts (walnut,
filbert, cashew, pecan, &c), bread, spices,
mozerella, grated vegies, & egg to hold it together.
We're additionally making some little tiny ones so
that while we have our pasta & nutball course the
ratties can be running about with their own little
nutballs.

http://tinyurl.com/333cb

You were trying to game my quiz, you stupid bitch, but
you can't get away with it. Someone so stupid she
can't follow basic instructions can't get away with
much of anything.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:04:05 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

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.


Nope. The Old Regime are the Reaganites and the large corporations. They
have been the peoiple in power for most of the last 150 years.

You apparently don't recognize major changes in American
governance. To suggest that Reagan represents the Old
Regime, but the New Deal did not constitute a revolution in
government affairs, is to ignore reality. The "major
corporations" were the most powerful elements of American
society prior to 1933, going back to the War Between the
States. The crash of '29 and the ensuing panic (turned into
the Great Depression by FDR's New Deal) destroyed the
corporations' political power and the security state
replaced the corporations as the basis of government power.
The interesting question is - what is going to replace the
security state? So far, we've had a revolution in
government control about every 72 years (agriculture from
1789 to 1861; industrial corporations from 1861 to 1933; the
security state from 1933 to 2005?), and we're nearly due for
another. Something sure is going to replace the New
Deal/Great Society security state, and soon. You probably
won't like it very much. We might even get rid of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Oh, happy day!

The Democratic Party, the political muscle behind the
security state, no longer has the loyalty of the majority of
voters like it did in the heyday of the New Deal/Great
Society. Its "moderates" are sounding more like Republicans
(see - Zell Miller) and/or not running for re-election (see
- John Breaux). The overwhelmingly Democratic state of
California just recalled its Democratic governor and the
legislature just repealed the illegal aliens' drivers'
license law by a nearly (or was it completely?) unanimous
vote. The leading Democratic candidates for the
presidential nomination are in self-destruct mode, accusing
Bush II of somehow causing the 9-11 attacks, or at least
knowing about them in advance and doing nothing to prevent
them. The whole sad (but curiously enjoyable) spectacle is
pointing to an electoral disaster the likes of which haven't
been seen since 1932.

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").
Nope again. FDR didn't propose anything that hadn't been proposed by the
Progressive Party which was a spin off from the Republican Party. Most of
FDR's reforms were modest compared to the rising leftist popular sentiment
at the time.

I won't dignify FDR's assaults on the Constitution by
calling them reforms, but the fact that FDR's changes didn't
go as far as some other people wanted doesn't mean they
weren't a revolution in American governance and society.

The people who are pushing for another revolution - this
time to return to Constitutional government and personal
freedom - are the "conservatives" and libertarians. The
"liberals" are the defenders of the status quo. "No changes
to Social Security!" "No changes to Medicare!" "No school
vouchers!" "No individual right to keep and bear arms!"
"No tax cuts for the rich!" (or anyone else, for that
matter) The "liberal" Democrats are now the Old Regime,
resisting change as much as they possibly can. For a good
example, just watch any of Ted Kennedy's recent speeches.

The "liberals" are the true conservatives (conserving the
existing political order) and the "conservatives" and
libertarians are the true liberals (supporters of more
personal freedom). The times, they are a-changing.

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

In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote:

paghat wrote:

In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote:


God DAMN it, you are such a windbag!


By gum! A talking nutsack! Any offers from Ringling Bros?

No, but you *are* a windbag. Just on and on and on and
on and on and...

Since you suffer that gravely from an attention span disorder, maybe the
discounted ritalin your mommy gets for you from a pharmaceuticals spammer
isn't the real deal.

-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/