From: Mark Probert on
Jan Drew wrote:
> "marcia" <design1(a)insight.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:1147651318.087285.93670(a)y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Jan Drew wrote:
>>> "marcia" <design1(a)insight.rr.com> wrote
>>>
>>> If you find posting the *truth* is obnoxious, you must have a problem.
>>>
>>> Evidently, you prefer to overlook LIES. I don't. That is indeed...
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>> I have not harassed, I have posted the truth.
>>
>> Oh, the bible teaches you to persecute people?
>
> If you want to know what the bible teaches, open it and read and study it.

I prefer to see what those who profess to follow the Bible actually do
with those teachings. I recall Crusades, Inquisitions, Pogroms and a
Holocaust.

>
> Always ask God to lead and guide you to understand it, every time you do
> this.
>
> On a different note, I see from your postings..you have problems and issues.
>
> This is not a religion ng. God Bless you. I wish you every blessing in
> getting those
>
> problems worked out.
>
> You have no history of the happenings here. Therefore, you have no clue.
>
> That's all I wish to say.

Live and let live.
From: marcia on

Mark Probert wrote:
> Jan Drew wrote:
> > "marcia" <design1(a)insight.rr.com> wrote in message
> > If you want to know what the bible teaches, open it and read and study it.
>
> I prefer to see what those who profess to follow the Bible actually do
> with those teachings. I recall Crusades, Inquisitions, Pogroms and a
> Holocaust.

Those are the major infractions, and they are truly horrifying. Equally
horrifying is the fact that these atrocities will occur again and again
because people cannot--or will not--on a daily basis refrain from the
behaviors that lead to such occurrences.

....persecution, ostracization, stigmatization, marginalization,
invalidation, name-calling, labeling, verbal stoning, violence, lack of
compassion, arrogance, willful ignorance, manipulation, gossip,
persecution (oh, did I already mention that?)... and so on, ad nauseum.

When you point this out to certain people, it seems that, rather than
reflect on their own behavior and consider whether it is consistent
with the beliefs and values they PUBLICLY proclaim, they turn the
argument around in an attempt to invalidate not only the comments of
the person addressing them, but that person, as well.

I can only be grateful that a few of the people here seem to live their
entire lives on Usenet and are not out bothering the rest of us in the
real world. :)

From: Max C. on
Well, if all you're going to post is your opinion and not support it
with a single shred of evidence, then we're done here. I hope you
don't think your opinion is going to sway anyone here in the face of
the evidence I've provided.

There are a couple of things I'd like to address, though.

Rich wrote:
> > http://soil.gsfc.nasa.gov/fss/soilquar.htm
> > "The second sign of physical deterioration in the conventionally
> > cultivated soil is in the color of the soil. Darkness in color of a
> > soil usually represents the presence of organic matter, which is good
> > for the soil as it allows the soil to absorb water, improves soil
> > structure, and adds more natural nutrients to the soil which allow for
> > plant growth. In comparison to the composted and the forested soils,
> > the conventionally cultivated soil is the lightest in color- a 10YR4/4,
> > as determined by the Munsell Soil Color Book."
>
> Farmers know all about organic matter. They wade through it every day. The
> supplement pushers want to villianize farmers to promote the idea that foods
> are no good anymore so you have to buy their scam products. In actual fact,
> the modern farmer is not the bumpkin of TV fiction, but is an educated
> businessman, scientist, and engineer rolled into one.

So, everyone here should take your word for it rather than the 2 pages
I've posted showing that conventionally farmed soil is less fertile and
conventionally grown foods are less nutritious... inspite of the fact
that you've yet to post on single shred of evidence supporting
yourself. Riiiiight...

The fact is, conventionally raised crops are grown for maximum crop
yield, NOT maximum nutrition. The 2 do not go hand in hand.

> Once again, why take a "food based" supplement when you can get all the
> nutrients you need directly from real food?

Because most people can't (or won't.) Plain and simple. Most people
are too addicted to their ready to eat meals and on-the-go snacks. For
the rest of us who take the time to prepare good food, supplements are
an insurance policy against poor health. I don't have the time to
make sure I'm getting all the nutrients I need from the food I eat.
It only makes sense to take a supplement to make 100% sure. It's
kept me out of the doctor's office for many years now, so I'll
continue with what I'm doing.

> So? The supplement industry is taking the watch apart, too. Eat your
> vegetables.

Some of them are. I agree. The best ones are not. Companies like
Standard Process and MediHerb simply dehydrate real, organically grown
food and put it into pill form. The foods are processed at room
temperature to insure maximum enzyme and vitamin content. When I take
my Standard Process multi, I actually chew them rather than swallow
them whole. They're food. I wouldn't do that with a Centrum 1 a day.

> All the more reason to get your vitamins from foods.

If you could, I would agree. You're also overlooking the most obvious
problem with your position. MOST modern people DO NOT go out of their
way to get highly nutritious food. MOST people would RATHER continue
to eat the way they eat now. As such, they're NOT getting the
nutrients they need. In such cases, a food based supplement will help
offset any lakc of nutrients in their diet. It's better to spend a
little money on supplements now than a LOT of money on doctors down the
road.

> I'm not making scientific medical claims and then supporting them with
> anecdote. Anecdote is useful for illustration; it's just not good scientific
> evidence, and testimonials are not good reasons to buy products or services.
> Alties' anecdotes are nearly always for the purpose of selling something.

I consider myself an "altie" and have yet to sell one single item of
nutritional interest to anyone. I have shared my personal experiences
many times here, which would be anecdotal.

> >> Science is not perfect, and of course there is a vast unknown. But
> >> science
> >> has proven to be the most effective and efficient way of knowing. Any
> >> "knowledge" you internalize without the benefit of science is suspect,
> >> and
> >> you should be ready to discard it the instant scientific evidence becomes
> >> available. By the way, "double blinded placebo controlled" studies are
> >> not
> >> the only methods of modern science. In fact that modality is generally
> >> only
> >> used to test the effectiveness of medications. There is a lot more to
> >> science than that.
> >
> > Well, I think we can rest assured that we agree 100% on that last
> > paragraph.
> >
> > My problem with science these days is the way it's used to twist the
> > truth. I'll give you a perfect example. You may or may not be
> > familiar with this page:
> >
> > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/ak.html
> >
> > I'll be the first to admit that Applied Kinesiology is one step shy of
> > voodoo. Science may NEVER be able to explain some of the things AKers
> > have been able to accomplish. I have dozens of personal experiences
> > that boggle the mind. However, while Stephen Barrett appears to use
> > scientific means to discredit the entire idea of AK, he lacks the
> > scientific principles to accept a challenge to his position. True
> > science can't explain how AK works, but it can certainly be used to
> > VERIFY it works, and such has already been done. Dozens, if not
> > hundreds of studies have been performed in an attempt to not only prove
> > AK works, but to understand HOW it works. Anyone interested in
> > researching it for themselves can start here:
> >
> > http://icak.com/college/research/icak_compendium_030406.shtml
> >
> > The International College of Applied Kinesiology has written Barrett in
> > a good faith effort to debate him on the claims on his site. To my
> > understanding, Barrett has never replied, much less had the courage to
> > publicly debate the issue. That's not science. That's junk science.
> > At times I feel there's more junk science going around today than real
> > science. After all, someone has to PAY for science.
> >
> > Max.
> >

From: Jan Drew on

"Rich" <joshew(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pbW9g.3260$uM4.2440(a)tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:p3T9g.27097$4L1.21227(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Rich" <joshew(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:s0S9g.3218$uM4.2454(a)tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>>
>>> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:zJR9g.70804$_S7.32816(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> Rich is *making thing up* again..
>>>>
>>>> Such as:
>>>>
>>>> *No farmers water their fields with chlorinated water
>>>>
>>>> Farmers know all about organic matter. They wade through it every day.*
>>>>
>>>> My retired Ph.D (professor of paleobotony) brother is now a farmer.
>>>>
>>>> He does NEITHER of the above.
>>>>
>>>> In Fact, I just called him. He says no farmers anywhere water with
>>>> chlorinated water.
>>>
>>> Isn't that what I just said?
>>
>> Max said:
>>
>> Water one set with tap water
>>> and the other set with filtered water... making sure the chlorine has
>>> been removed. Time after time you will see that the filtered water
>>> plants will grow much better.
>>
>> No farmers water their fields with chlorinated water.
>>
>> Sounds like you were trying to contradict what he said, except there is
>> no comma.
>
> Exactly! There's no comma.

Isn't that just what I said? *;*


The sentence means exactly what it says, that
> farmers do not water their plants with chlorinated water. Thus,
> experiments with chlorinated water and plants have no relevance to
> agricultural practices.
>
>
>>>
>>> You continue to demonstrate that you cannot read for comprehension nor
>>> write with clarity.
>>
>> I did not such thing, as usual you do nothing but insult.
>>
>> He is a farmer he does not wade through organic matter every day.
>>
>> Neither do many farmers.
>
> Any farmer who works with farm animals has an intimate relationship with
> their excrement.

That's not what you said...is it, Rich?

They do, indeed, wade through it every day.

No, they don't...you made that up.


Don't forget
> that you are arguing with an ex-dairy farmer here.

How could I forget when I didn't know it?
It this funny or what? LOL!

>
>
>
>
>>
>> As usual, you were making things up.
>
>
> Making things up?

Which part of that do you not understand?

There are lots of dairy farms near Bloomington.

You don't say?

I suggest you visit one and see for yourself if there isn't a bit of
"organic matter" about.

LOL... I was raised on one....




> --
>
>
> --Rich
>
> Recommended *organic matter* websites:

Deleted....


From: Jan Drew on

"marcia" <design1(a)insight.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1147702420.114788.110100(a)g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jan Drew wrote:
>> On a different note, I see from your postings..you have problems and
>> issues.
>>
>> This is not a religion ng. God Bless you. I wish you every blessing in
>> getting those
>>
>> problems worked out.
>>
>> You have no history of the happenings here. Therefore, you have no clue.
>>
>> That's all I wish to say.
>>
>> Jan
>
> I don't think *I'm* the one with problems and issues, Jan. You might
> want to take a good look in the mirror. That's all I wish to say. :)

Well, I really didn't expect you to LIE.

I am not on SSD.

I am not bipolar 2, have nightmares, nor hypomanic and depressed episodes.

Not in the process of getting off drugs, or weigh gain issues.

I have never made posts like yours:

*Typical right-winged diatribe:

Demonstrates complete inability to tolerate opposing opinions
Hurls insults rather than composing thoughtful rhetoric
Exhibits threatening and vindictive behavior


Dad? Is that you?*