In article , the moke monster
wrote:

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 the pseudoscientific urban legend of telepathic plants:
http://www.paghat.com/telepathic.html
The short of it is -- this is science of sort that exists only in the
minds of theosophists & sasquatch hunters.

-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 . 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,

Nope.

maybe the
discounted ritalin your mommy gets for you from a pharmaceuticals spammer
isn't the real deal.

For a self absorbed windbag, you don't even flame worth
a shit, either.

Just out of curiosity...do you correspond with 'Swan',
the fetal alcohol syndrome worse half of 'Rat & Swan'?
You write very much like that garrulous lump of human
wreckage.

In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote:

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)

Everyone under the age of 50 is too young to have been up for the draft.
Does that mean that in your imaginary world every American under 50 is a
lefty or a commy pinko because of the abolition of the draft? But on the
other hand, all Israeli Jews must be rightwingers cuz they have no choice
but to serve in the Israeli armed forces? Thanks so much for clarifying
how you think!

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

True conservatives believe the government should indeed keep its ass out
entertainment & the press; & true liberals believe these liberties should
be darned close to absolute. So a "yes" here means the respondent is
EITHER a righty or a lefty. Unless you're paranoid, then it means what you
"knew" it meant long before anyone answers.

3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.

I see, Goldwater was a lefty. Actual conservatives want government out of
peoples' private personal lives & deeply value privacy protection; actual
progressives agree with conservatives on this. If you thought otherwise,
then you're not talking about left vs right, but sane vs. crazy.

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

Yes, William F. Buckley believe the War On Drugs is the abject failure
that has done more harm than good. No, Buckley is not a vegatarian or a
liberal, nor are Ederkin, Greenspan, . The issue of decriminalization vs
legality are themselves completely separate issues, & the FACT of existing
laws' harmfulness is distinct from the QUESTION whether effective &
constructive laws are possible. So you've raised for distinct issues for
which you want a single yes or no -- this works only in simple minds. The
war on drugs is a failure, period, unless the goal was to disenfranchise
black america while letting the vastly larger drug problem in white
america pass unprosecuted. THINKING Conservatives & liberals alike can
agree a completely different legal attitude toward drug abuse is required.
Only a few fringies (as many fringy conservatives such as the libertarians
as far-out-man retro hippy liberals) want harmful laws supplanted with
drug anarchy. Well, as point of fact Greenspan & Buckley seem to outright
legalization over harmful laws, but a greater number of conservatives
favor decriminalization. The REAL distinction between right & left on this
issue is the right generally wouldn't fund medical treatment of addicts
once imprisonment ceases to be the ineffective response.

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

The actual progressive stance is that people should not have fewer rights
than corporations. A growing percentage of conservative politicians, soon
as all the corporations in their voting districts move across a border,
are saying the same thing.

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

Once again you ask two distinct questions at once that for a great many
require two different answers, but in your scaled down simpleminded world
no two questions have two answers. Commonly (by no means universally)
progressives don't support corporate welfare, but do support small farm
assistance. Conservatives don't support either one when speaking
philosophically; but when they become Elected conservatives they keep
whittling away farm subsidies for the small farmer in order to give bigger
& bigger tax breaks to oil company chums & agribusinesses like Monsanto.

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

Strangely a so-called "liberal" president pushed through that particular
conservative agenda to give corporations more rights than individuals. One
frequently finds conservatives & liberals in agreement that tarrifs are
bad, free trade is good, but disagreements arise only when issues of
protecting the environment or unionization are expected to be included. So
the "left vs right" query here should've been either "Free trade is so
important that all workers should be scabs" or "Free trade is so important
toxic waste dumps across the border should stay legal." But if you're
really positing that either the left or the right prefers a tariff system,
that is considered a poor bandaid by both sides, though in fact tarrifs
have been resorted to more often by right-leaning presidents including our
current far-right unelected one.

8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.

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

The crankier libertarian ideas are rarely supported by either
conservatives or liberals, as both sides would answer that one NOT with a
yes or no, but with a "what the **** are you on, bub?" One COULD however
easily identify a STATISTICAL difference between left-of-center vs
right-leaning presidents: Democrats have historically spent less than
Republican presidents & attempted to cover it with existing taxes;
Republicans have cut taxes & increased spending in order to indebt the
next generation. Reagan was the biggest spender of all time until Bush
arrived on the scene. But out here in the real world most us, left or
right, just want the government to live within its means & not tax us to
death. Apart from the crazier liberatarians who regard themselves as
purist conservatives, nobody advocates a world in which the fire
department only stops fires for citizens who can afford to pay for the
service & police only answer calls from subscribers. The way you phrase
these questions tag you as an amazing loon to even think these are issues.

10. All foreign aid should be privately funded.

Appears you've either mistaken the fringiest conservatives such as
libertarians for conservatives, or more likely you just don't understand
even Politics 101 and have this series of crazy mixed up ideas so fungally
rooted in your mind that you can't form rational yes/no queries. There may
be (in principle, rarely in execution however) different ideas between
left & right as to what foreign aid should consist of, but only crazies
propose isolationism.

THE REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VEGAN & VEGETARIAN:
All vegans are vegetarians, not all vegetarians are vegans. Vegans don't
eat meat, fish, eggs or cheese or meat; vegetarians don't eat AT LEAST red
meat, & vary as to whether their vegetarianism includes chicken, fish,
eggs, or milk products; the airlines like the distinction Lacto-Ovo
Vegetarian and Vegetarian, the latter they assume to be vegans.

Reasons for these choices range from sentimentality toward animals, to
health concerns (you'd be surprised how many men, right or left, are
vegans within a week of open heart surgery), to ancient religious
ideologies. Many moslems traveling in the west become vegans until they
get back to their home countries, because they know meat is not killed
cleanly & sacredly here, unless it's kosher, but in that case a Jew
touched it, yuk -- most of these vegan Muslims seem to be pretty damned
rightwing sad to say. A fringier group may be concerned with parity of
equal rights between chickens & people but these are such a minority that
I've only actually met one or two in a quarter-century of vegetarian
activism -- not counting the newsgroup wackos who're probably chomping on
cheeseburger even as they post what a jerk you are for exploiting your
yorkshire terrier as a companion animal instead of letting it run wild
with the wolves.

-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/

Jonathan Ball, a forger. Amazing. I thought you were just fantastically
stupid & I was even a little impressed you knew how to type, being that
retarded. Now i see you are actually a morally reprehensible criminal who
fakes IDs. If I were to be like you, I'd answer "your" post thus:

Do you sit at your computer with a big plastic penis stuck up your ass?
Jonathan's Balls answered:
I sure do! It's the only time I'm happy!


But thanks for at least making it clear you really don't have honest
questions OR honest arguments for anything.

-paghat the ratgirl



In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote:

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?



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.

--
"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 the lying carpet-muncher dissembled:


In article . net,
Jonathan Ball wrote:


paghat the lying carpet-muncher dissembled:


"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?



I didn't notice when I replied before that you sleazily
and unethically edited out your comment in which you
identified yourself as a vegetarian:

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

The statement is yours, lying slag. You posted it.

Here's a link to another post from when you were using
that posting e-mail address
): http://tinyurl.com/38n4q

It has exactly the same overly precious, LONGWINDED,
self-absorbed style. Yep: it's you, logorrheaic as
ever.

There was no forgery, you lying carpet-munching slag.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:57:41 GMT, Strider wrote:

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
Do you therefore believe that good scientists are apolitical, or that
only conservative scientists are able to keep from injecting their
politics into their work? Either way, you are not convincing me so
far . . . .

Keith

For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:21:05 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

Frogleg wrote:

Lurking behind EVERY "vegan's" - not vegetarian's -
dietary choices is some kind of belief in animal
"rights".
An interesting point to focus on. The obverse, I suppose, must be that
rightists believe the earth is here for people to exploit. We're not
a part of the world; we're the reason for it. In that dichotomy, I
confess I become a vegan (though I still eat cheese and, occasionally,
eggs). Just because someone wrote a book once that says it's true
don't make it so.

K
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:39:31 GMT, the moke monster
wrote:

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


Yeah.. if they were lousy hunters.

GW

Yeah, I saw that bumper sticker, too. REALLY funny!
K
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:00:14 -0800,
(paghat) wrote:


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

Ah, paghat, just when I start to warm up to you, you always seem to
degenerate to this sort of exchange. You're smarter than that, aren't
you?

K
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65582 rec.gardens:259356 misc.survivalism:501075 misc.rural:115429 rec.backcountry:172281

Babberney wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:00:14 -0800,
(paghat) wrote:


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


Ah, paghat, just when I start to warm up to you, you always seem to
degenerate to this sort of exchange. You're smarter than that, aren't
you?

She isn't smart at all, just wordy. You shouldn't be
confused so easily.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:03:56 GMT,
(Babberney) wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:57:41 GMT, Strider wrote:

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
Do you therefore believe that good scientists are apolitical, or that
only conservative scientists are able to keep from injecting their
politics into their work? Either way, you are not convincing me so


Good science is apolitical.

Facts are gathered, a theory is advanced, and if the theory is found
to explain the facts the theory is accepted until further facts
support or contradict it.

Junk science starts with a theory and then selectively accumulates
facts to support the theory. Inconvenient facts are ignored in the
pursuit of proving the theory.

Good scientists are not necessarily apolitical, but proper adherence
to the science and the facts does not allow for the insertion of
political dogma. If you start with the theory, the dogma is built in.

Most of the junk science being promoted these days is coming from the
far left nutballs and the far right religious nutballs. Most of the
press for the junk science goes to the far left nutballs.

far . . . .

Keith

For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

Greylock wrote:



Good science is apolitical.

Facts are gathered, a theory is advanced, and if the theory is found
to explain the facts the theory is accepted until further facts
support or contradict it.

Junk science starts with a theory and then selectively accumulates
facts to support the theory. Inconvenient facts are ignored in the
pursuit of proving the theory.

No, you've omitted an important first step. Junk
science first starts with a conclusion, usually one
beloved for ideological reasons. Then a bogus theory
is formulated that - quelle surprise! - predicts that
conclusion, and the rest is as you laid out.

See any of the (pseudo) scientific crapola posted in
t.p.a. and a.a.e.v. by the irrational Irish blowjob
artist Lesley, posting recently under the pseudonym
'pearl'.


Good scientists are not necessarily apolitical, but proper adherence
to the science and the facts does not allow for the insertion of
political dogma. If you start with the theory, the dogma is built in.

Most of the junk science being promoted these days is coming from the
far left nutballs and the far right religious nutballs. Most of the
press for the junk science goes to the far left nutballs.


far . . . .

Keith

For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT,

*snippage*

The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of
Americans. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained
their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in
eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating
the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American
president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic
assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class
believes it deserves.



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.

Libertarianism=Corporate Fascism.



g.c.

In article , Greylock
wrote:

Good science is apolitical.

If one may define economics as political, the political impact on science
is terrible. At the EPA and FDA for examples, careers have come to sudden
ends because someone or another focused on findings that this or that
product had been proven to be unsafe, & anyone who doesn't want their
careers squelched soon learns to self-censor & give "good" spins to things
that may be profitable if the harm is overlooked. The data itself, bought
& paid for by the interested parties, may more often than not be accurate,
but may well have been designed consciously or subconsciously to NOT
assess the bad with the good, but to only assess the good. When receiving
funds from an "interested party" who will renew grants only if "answers"
please them, these answers tend somehow to be found.

By and large doubleblind studies are apolitical & you can detect, from
most peer reviewed & published data at least, what any bias might have
been, you can tell that though they "proved" such-&-such had a health
benefit they failed to factor in side effects, so some other study would
be required to assess the bad, for which no funding is forthcoming from
the interested parties.

One of my favorite examples was a Davis University study that proved mulch
from recycled tires killed all plantlife within one week because of the
zinc content, but by the time the vendors of rubber mulch got their hands
on the data, it was interpretted as "improves the quality of zinc
deficient soils" & "suppresses weeds." The "spin" amounted to a lie
though narrowly & literally it was true. The Davis research itself was
funded by the rubber industry & was riddled with positive asides, but the
data provided was unambiguous & conclusive: it rapidly killed all the
plants.

Even data presented in peer review publications, and which make it pretty
clear that something very bad is in the making (regarding greenhouse
effect for example), but by speaking statistically rather than in
absolutes, there's always wiggle-room for politicians to claim a finding
is the opposite of what it was. Politicians serving industrial interests
ahead of public health do this as a matter of course -- so while it is
often the case that the actual science was apolitical, by the time the
scientific finding reaches the public in "pop" & "PR" contexts, it is so
thoroughly politicized to "prove" diamatrically opposed conclusions that a
public that rarely goes to MedLine or a Health Science Library for the
original data never know quite what to believe -- & frequently end up
chosing a side on the basis of their own politics instead of the
never-seen complete data.

Occasionally a company like Monsanto generates in-house data that is
completely fabricated or so slanted as to be worthless, but looks real on
the surface. Non peer-review journals & academic vanity presses produce
intentionally fraudulant results that bewilder the public. Even "good"
science tends to be so couched in so many qualifiers or undecipherable
language that it can instantly be turned into "lies, damned lies, &
statistics" by abusers of the findings, even when not by the complete
findings themselves.

The bottomline is that science as it reaches the public is politicized. It
is less so for the extreme minority who rely on peer-reviewed journals,
but for the majority these are awfully hard to track down, & the garbled
versions in magazines or newspapers rarely bare much resemblance to the
original.

-paghat the ratgirl

Facts are gathered, a theory is advanced, and if the theory is found
to explain the facts the theory is accepted until further facts
support or contradict it.

Junk science starts with a theory and then selectively accumulates
facts to support the theory. Inconvenient facts are ignored in the
pursuit of proving the theory.

Good scientists are not necessarily apolitical, but proper adherence
to the science and the facts does not allow for the insertion of
political dogma. If you start with the theory, the dogma is built in.

Most of the junk science being promoted these days is coming from the
far left nutballs and the far right religious nutballs. Most of the
press for the junk science goes to the far left nutballs.

far . . . .

Keith

--
"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/

In article ,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT,

*snippage*

The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of
Americans. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained
their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in
eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating
the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American
president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic
assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class
believes it deserves.

That strikes me as a wise assessment, if a sorry one.

-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/