Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 9 Jan 2007 08:58 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. I have problems with real sugar. Thank heavens for alternatives.
From: MassiveProng on 9 Jan 2007 08:58 On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 04:54:51 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <oop5q296ar51h8rgahllt1jn532fqj8sb0(a)4ax.com>, >MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: >>On Mon, 08 Jan 07 11:34:28 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >>us: >> >>>No harm if one of them is being tailed by the police who overhear it either. >>>That's a public street. If they are talking in their home, it's illegal for >>>the police to do it. >> >> >> It's a public phone service, dumbfuck. > >It doesn't start the clock on a patent, does it. > You likely do not even know who invented the telephone. Hint: initials were not AGB. AGB was a thief, and collaborated with thieves.
From: unsettled on 9 Jan 2007 08:58 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. Like diamonds are coal.
From: Ken Smith on 9 Jan 2007 09:18 In article <1164b$45a3872b$cdd0856d$16796(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [....] >> 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. > >We've been discussing access to written knowledge. I had assumed she was extending the argument to cover all external knowledge sources. > >>> 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. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 9 Jan 2007 09:32
In article <d47f7$45a39df4$cdd08551$17354(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [...] >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. The misunderstandings are, sort of, normal on the usenet. They are a good reason to try not to get too emotional about the arguments. In most cases, you can backfill the ideas in a followup post and the readers will sort it out. [....] >But since we're here, the lesson only needs to be learned >once as a child with a rock or some hard toy. That is not completely true. The lesson often needs to be reinforced a few times over the period of a couple of years. You can often see by the expression on their face that the child has suddenly remembeered by that action was a bad idea. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |