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

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.

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.

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


Look: less is more.

Right is Wrong.
War is Peace.

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.

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.

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

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!