"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.

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

"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

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.

"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

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.

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. ;-)

"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

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.

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.

"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

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.

"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

"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

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.