"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
 

"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.

"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
 

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

"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
 

"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

"Left wing kookiness"
 

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.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net...
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.
Sorry, maybe I'm living in the wrong country for this but all the vegans
*I* know vote either right (CDU) or just very slightly left from the
center (SPD). None of them would even consider the PDS or any other
leftwing party.
For me your statement is a typical I-don't-like-it-so-it-must-be-commy-stuff
generalisation.
As for "diet for a small planet", that's about defeating world hunger by reducing
food chain related losses. Not much leftwing stuff there except maybe that
hunger is bad. (Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing
to reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now it just
means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my city eats more
meat.)

Greetings!
Volker

"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
 

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.

"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
 

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:

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.

Hey that may be true, but it's accurate. ;-)

"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
 

"Bob Brock" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:56:12 +0100, "Volker Hetzer"
wrote:
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.

Hey that may be true, but it's accurate. ;-)
%-)

Greetings!
Volker

"Left wing kookiness"
 

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.

No, and a stupid comparison. There are people here -
Boob Adkins comes to mind - who would argue, but I'm
not one of them, and I doubt "Strider" is, either.

"Diet for a Small Planet" is not descriptive, you
moron; it's prescriptive, and the prescription is based
on totalitarian leftwing beliefs. Get your head out of
your Aschloch.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65433 rec.gardens:259170 misc.survivalism:500440 misc.rural:115075 rec.backcountry:172088

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

Just as "liberal" has a vastly different meaning today
from what it meant in Mill's time, so does
"conservative". Today's conservatives are the liberals
of Mill's era.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag k.net...
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.

No, and a stupid comparison. There are people here -
Boob Adkins comes to mind - who would argue, but I'm
not one of them, and I doubt "Strider" is, either.
Well, he *said* so. Unless I misunderstood the word "any"
as in "any info from leftwing,...".


"Diet for a Small Planet" is not descriptive, you
moron; it's prescriptive, and the prescription is based
on totalitarian leftwing beliefs. Get your head out of
your Aschloch.
I looked it up, you know? Have a look at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...5666?v=glance.
As for leftwing vegetarians, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around stalin eating
a tofu sausage...
By the way, it's written Arschloch.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

"Left wing kookiness"
 

Volker Hetzer wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag k.net...

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.

No, and a stupid comparison. There are people here -
Boob Adkins comes to mind - who would argue, but I'm
not one of them, and I doubt "Strider" is, either.

Well, he *said* so. Unless I misunderstood the word "any"
as in "any info from leftwing,...".

He was talking about their prescriptions for a "better"
world. It was obvious. I guess you need to enroll in
a remedial English as Second Language course.



"Diet for a Small Planet" is not descriptive, you
moron; it's prescriptive, and the prescription is based
on totalitarian leftwing beliefs. Get your head out of
your Aschloch.

I looked it up, you know? Have a look at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...5666?v=glance.

Thanks for posting that. It helps to confirm that the
author, Frances Lappe, is a leftwing extremist.

As for leftwing vegetarians, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around stalin eating
a tofu sausage...
By the way, it's written Arschloch.

Thanks for the correction. It's been 18 years since I
lived in Germany for a year and a half, and while I got
reasonably conversant in German during that time, I
didn't speak a word of it when I went over, and I have
seldom had the occasion to practice. My French, on the
other hand, is close to fluent.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net...
I looked it up, you know? Have a look at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...5666?v=glance.

Thanks for posting that. It helps to confirm that the
author, Frances Lappe, is a leftwing extremist.
So what exactly makes him that?

Can you imagine Kim Il Sung not eating meat
or what exactly makes someone leftwing and
extremist in your eyes?
Btw, having lived 18 years in east germany I can
happily assure you that vegetarianism didn't play any
role in that system. Nor in Chechoslovakia, Russia
and Poland. I've never visited the other countries.

Greetings!
Volker

"Left wing kookiness"
 

"Volker Hetzer" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...

"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net...
I looked it up, you know? Have a look at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...5666?v=glance.

Thanks for posting that. It helps to confirm that the
author, Frances Lappe, is a leftwing extremist.
So what exactly makes him that?

Can you imagine Kim Il Sung not eating meat
or what exactly makes someone leftwing and
extremist in your eyes?
Btw, having lived 18 years in east germany I can
happily assure you that vegetarianism didn't play any
role in that system. Nor in Chechoslovakia, Russia
and Poland. I've never visited the other countries.
Wait! Hungaria too. Had my first pizza there. With salami.

Greetings!
Volker

"Left wing kookiness"
 

Volker Hetzer wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net...

I looked it up, you know? Have a look at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...5666?v=glance.

Thanks for posting that. It helps to confirm that the
author, Frances Lappe, is a leftwing extremist.

So what exactly makes him that?

It's a she. 'Frances' is a feminine name; 'Francis' is
the masculine spelling.

It's her raging anti-market beliefs.


Can you imagine Kim Il Sung not eating meat
or what exactly makes someone leftwing and
extremist in your eyes?

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

"veganism", which is a highly poltically motivated form
of vegetarianism, is FUNDAMENTALLY an expression of
collectivist/leftist thinking. As I said earlier to
someone else, if someone tells me he's "vegan", I know
EVERYTHING about his politics; you give me a list of 20
or 30 political issues that generally break down on a
left/right political spectrum, and I'll correctly tell
you the "vegan's" beliefs on well over 80% of them.
You may think I'm kidding, but I have conducted some
informal empirical research in usenet newsgroups before
on this very claim, and I was absolutely right.

Btw, having lived 18 years in east germany I can
happily assure you that vegetarianism didn't play any
role in that system. Nor in Chechoslovakia, Russia
and Poland. I've never visited the other countries.

As I said, leftists aren't always "vegan", but "vegans"
are always leftists.

"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
 

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

"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
 

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

"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
 

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/

"Left wing kookiness"
 

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.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

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


Look: less is more.

Right is Wrong.
War is Peace.

"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
 

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.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

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.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

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.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

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

"Left wing kookiness"
 

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!

"Left wing kookiness"
 

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?

"Left wing kookiness"
 

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.

"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
 

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".

"Left wing kookiness"
 

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.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

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.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

"Volker Hetzer" writes:

(Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing to
reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now
it just means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my
city eats more meat.)

From a carbon-emission standpoint, eating less meat is good. For
example, the Canadian government claims not eating meat every other
day saves around a quarter ton of carbon-emissions annually; not sure
if that counts methane with its carbon-equivalence or not...

Cheers,

--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
URL:http://www.mike-warren.com
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD

"Left wing kookiness"
 

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:06:50 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

"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.

My goodness -- a psychic! I am an omnivore (except for lima beans),
but I find there are many reasons behind vegetarian/vegan preferences
ranging widely among the religious, ethical, health, and economic. *I*
sure can't tell anyone's politics from their food preferences.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65468 rec.gardens:259211 misc.survivalism:500549 misc.rural:115168 rec.backcountry:172126

Mike Warren wrote:

"Volker Hetzer" writes:


(Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing to
reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now
it just means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my
city eats more meat.)


From a carbon-emission standpoint, eating less meat is good. For
example, the Canadian government claims not eating meat every other
day saves around a quarter ton of carbon-emissions annually; not sure
if that counts methane with its carbon-equivalence or not...

I'd love to see the support for that claim.

Anyway, it ignores the fact that not all meat is
produced the same way. For example, if you eat
"normal" grain-fattened beef, your contribution to
carbon emissions is going to be much greater than if
you eat grass-fed (only) beef, which is increasingly
available, or if you were to eat some game you hunted
yourself.

Another "anyway" point: the optimal amount of
pollution is not zero. You may wish to reduce the
pollution you cause, but you'll never push it to zero.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

Frogleg wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:06:50 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


"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.


My goodness -- a psychic!

No; an astute observer. No psychic ability is required.

I am an omnivore (except for lima beans),

Ooohh, you're missing out on a truly delicious and
nutritious and versatile food.

but I find there are many reasons behind vegetarian/vegan preferences
ranging widely among the religious, ethical, health, and economic. *I*
sure can't tell anyone's politics from their food preferences.

You could, if you'd study harder.

Lurking behind EVERY "vegan's" - not vegetarian's -
dietary choices is some kind of belief in animal
"rights". People may be vegetarian for a variety of
reasons, but people are "vegan" out of a belief in
leftist/collectivist dogma. Most don't even bother to
deny it; those who do can always quickly be shown to be
liars.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

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.

Learn something new every day.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

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.


Learn something new every day.

No, you haven't learned anything new in a looooooong
time. Pig-headed fools seldom do.

"Left wing kookiness"
 

"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
ink.net...
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.

That's a pretty small platform from which to jump to such large
conclusions. However, it is sadly typical of far-right reactionaries,
Repuppetcans, and others of that ilk.

Sorry, maybe I'm living in the wrong country for this but all the
vegans
*I* know vote either right (CDU) or just very slightly left from the
center (SPD). None of them would even consider the PDS or any other
leftwing party.
For me your statement is a typical
I-don't-like-it-so-it-must-be-commy-stuff
generalisation.
As for "diet for a small planet", that's about defeating world hunger
by reducing
food chain related losses. Not much leftwing stuff there except maybe
that
hunger is bad. (Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm
willing
to reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now
it just
means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my city eats
more
meat.)

Nice try, Herr Hetzer, but apparently Mr. Ball already knows everything
he needs to know. What this actually means is that he is now fully
immune to any further learning, growth or insight. Having a meaningful
discussion with his type is not only unlikely, but also utterly
pointless. All of his beliefs and opinions are burnished with the light
of Truth Revealed, at least in his own mind, and the minds of his
fellow-travelers.

By the way, thank you for participating. I always enjoy reading your
comments.

Jeff

"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
 

"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."

Jeff

"Left wing kookiness"
 

"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
ink.net...
I looked it up, you know? Have a look at

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...5666?v=glance.

Thanks for posting that. It helps to confirm that the
author, Frances Lappe, is a leftwing extremist.
So what exactly makes him that?

Can you imagine Kim Il Sung not eating meat
or what exactly makes someone leftwing and
extremist in your eyes?
[snip]

Mostly just disagreeing with any nonsense he spouts.

Jeff

"Left wing kookiness"
 

Jeff McCann wrote:

"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag

ink.net...

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.


That's a pretty small platform from which to jump to such large
conclusions.

It may appear so to you, but you are wrong. Empirical
observation bears it out: "veganism" is a marker, a
signal, for extreme leftwing sentiment.



Nice try, Herr Hetzer, but apparently Mr. Ball already knows everything
he needs to know.

When someone identifies himself as "vegan", he has
indeed told me all I need to know, in order to know his
overall political stance.