Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Jan 2007 07:46 In article <env7ii$eom$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <45A30FA4.3E2E7377(a)hotmail.com>, >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >Have you see the size of the small print they use for ingredients ? >>> >>> Yes. People bring magnifying glasses with them so they can read >>> the labels. >> >>Do they ? I've never seen that. It seems to be an odd way to go about avoiding >>being poisoned. > >It is effective though. These days, I need my reading glasses to shop. I >can pick out MSG in a product label from 50 paces, I've had so much >practice rejecting food with it in it. > >MSG gives me the worst headache on the planet. I have problems with fake sugar, corn syrup and corn oil. Not many things are made with real sugar anymore. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Jan 2007 07:48 In article <45A31376.E05845A3(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Trans fats are chemically manufactured. >> >> > >> >> >It's not a natural FOOD ! >> >> >> >> Really? >> > >> >" The initial purpose was to create a cheaper substance to make candles than >> >the expensive animal fats in use at the time. Electricity began to diminish >> the >> >candle market, and since the product looked like lard, they began selling it >> >as a food. " >> > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisco >> >> It doesn't look like lard. It doesn't mix like lard. >> It's easier to work with. So what are the ingredients >> used to make Crisco? > >It's vegetable oil ( originally cottonseed ) that's being subjected to a chemical >process called hydrogenation. Thank you. So it did come from the fields. My point is that your distinction that the only good food comes from the fields isn't valid. <snip> /BAH
From: unsettled on 9 Jan 2007 08:51 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <1164b$45a3872b$cdd0856d$16796(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>In article <entn7b$8qk_003(a)s947.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <entkvo$kr2$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>[... access to information ...] >>> >>> >>>>A person can learn without access. >>> >>> >>>No they can't. Without information input there is no learning. >> >>Another of those abbreviated sentence difficulties >>where what she wrote isn't the complete thought. > > > My apologies. I'm trying to work on this lapse. I do keep > assuming that people remember what we've been talking about > two posts ago. You're perhaps more used to face to face conversations. You write as though these were taking place in real time. Some people will have a longer retention time than others. >>We've been discussing access to written knowledge. > > yes. > >>>>However, each person has >>>>to make the same mistakes. >> >>>If I hit my thumb with a hammer, I quickly recieve the information that it >>>is a bad idea. If there is no feedback from actions, you can't identify >>>mistakes. >> >>Picky picky. > > > Not really. It's a good example. If there is no written warning > about hitting the thumb, then every body who picks a hammer > will have to learn the same lesson by experience. This takes time-- > lots of time--w.r.t. technology, manufacturing and science. Now here's an example of not following the conversation by not realizing that I was addressing Ken's failure to continue "We've been discussing access to written knowledge." when I made my "picky picky" comment. I really don't think it is possible to have a reasonable discussion with so much misunderstanding going on so consistently. Here I'm not only about my posts. But since we're here, the lesson only needs to be learned once as a child with a rock or some hard toy. To extend the example to each new iteration, like a hammer held by an adult, is severely flawed unless you're talking about someone who has a problem learning. And yes, every child learns quickly at a very young age that impact hurts. None of my children needed to learn this lesson twice despite their reinforcing experiences that came out of repetitive falls while learning to walk. "How do you know that hitting yourself with a hammer hurts?" "I've always known that, doesn't everyone." The longer this subthread goes on the sillier it gets. Probably the entire thread actually.
From: MassiveProng on 9 Jan 2007 08:56 On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 04:52:59 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <9dp5q2h1eboobfg5rjl4j33tp6cdj699mb(a)4ax.com>, >MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: >[...] >> They do not tap or monitor unwarranted, dumbass. >> >> THE COMPUTER listens for key words and phrases, > >Did you just contradict your self? It sure looks like it to me. In order >to connect "THE COMPUTER", you need a tap. You are playing with the meaning of the word. In listening to private conversations, "tap" refers not to the physical connection, but to the actual conversation monitoring. Computers ALREADY are hooked into EVERY stream that the phone utilities carry. No "physical tap" is required, disphit. No private conversation is individually listened to by a person without a warrant. The computer monitors ALL streams for keywords. The duly appointed officer of the court issues the warrants.
From: unsettled on 9 Jan 2007 08:57
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <45A30FA4.3E2E7377(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Have you see the size of the small print they use for ingredients ? >>> >>>Yes. People bring magnifying glasses with them so they can read >>>the labels. >> >>Do they ? I've never seen that. It seems to be an odd way to go about > > avoiding > >>being poisoned. > > > Perhaps you are not very observant of your environment. People > read the ingredients because they have allergies and wish > to avoid death by asphixiation. I read all labels before buying though I don't read repetitive purchases every time. Despite the fact it hurts my soul to sometimes leave an in-store bakery item on the shelf because they're lousy about their labels I usually won't buy such goods. >>>>I doubt it's possible for say a prepared meal to list every single damn > > thing > >>>>in it anyway. >>> >>>It's the law over here. It's better to list peanuts than to be sued >>>into bankruptcy by a family who has a member who died from eating >>>the product. >> >>Sure we have warnings such as 'may contain traces of nuts' to cover that but > > I've > >>looked at some labels and they clearly can't list ever single damn thing. > Then your country doesn't have the label laws we do. Actually I don't think he reads labels at all. >>>>If tans-fats could be associated with some clear benefit that would be > > fine > >>>>but all I'm aware of is its negatives. >>> >>>Did you examine the science that have, all of a sudden, concluded >>>that transfats are poison? No. You are basing your decisions on >>>the latest dietary fad. A few months ago it was nn-carb. Some months >>>it was low-carb and other months it was high-carb. I no longer >>>what these terms means since they became sound bites. >> >>I don't like fads myself. I've been aware of this business about trans-fat > > for > >>ages though. It's not some fad any more than the connection between smoking > > and > >>heart disease and cancer. > > > Sigh! I've seen fads come and go. This one's got staying power. >>>>>What do you mean by "totally natural product?" >>>> >>>>Something that once grew in a field maybe ? >>> >>>Belladonna grows in a field. So does digitalis sources. >>>Both of these are bad and they grow in a field. Your criteria >>>isn't effective. Do you want to ban all of these poisons? >> >>You're intentionally misinterpreting my words as usual. And no, I don't want > > them > >>in my food either. > You rarely eat anything raw; most of your food has been cooked. > Cooking changes chemistry of the substances. Many of us no longer regularly charcoal grill. |