Guest guest Posted November 24, 2001 Report Share Posted November 24, 2001 I didn't think about forwarding it to you off-list,as moderator, Leo . Thanks for letting me know of this possibility. Abutilon on 11/23/01 11:16 AM, leoelfie@... at leoelfie@... wrote: I agree with the concerns expressed below. I find Jim's post is abusive, and particularly of concern because it was sent privately in response to a general post. This is like seeing a person's name in the newspaper, then calling them at home and harassing them about some public statement they made. That can be terrifying. Members should feel safe about the tone of private posts they receive. Any member suffering such abuse is welcome to forward it to me off-list for necessary action. List members may also refer to my previous posts entitled " civility " . Thanks for your help in drawing this to my attention. Leo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2001 Report Share Posted November 24, 2001 I don't understand why some people feel the need to insult those who have a different opinion, instead of expressing their point of view in a civil and rational manner. As Rick said, we are here to learn. Let's keep this forum informative and friendly Vivian ------- > > > > > > why don't everyone get off of the > borax > > BS, i > > > am tired of reading about it. > > > --- Jim > > > --- jimf7@e... > > > --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet. >>> > > > > Sorry Jim, Some of us are here to learn. I use Borax all the time & > > would like to learn more. You lose....Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 Boy will I second (or third) that! LOL!!! Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 First you sed sum of us wuz fashists or faseshus or something like that, now your calling us civil. Shesh watts next??? ;-)))))) > A couple people have pointed out the unique character of this list and the > people on it recently, 's recent post, and DMM and Idol's posts > about the uniqueness of the civility on this list. > > Just thought I'd point out that Price found the folks to be eating the > traditional diet to be much better behaved, in addition to all the rest. Maybe > that's showing up here :-) > > Chris > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 PS - before you're sure you want to use such flattering terminology you might want to look up a little faseshus and moderately civilized thread called; OREOS ;-P DMM > First you sed sum of us wuz fashists or faseshus or something like > that, now your calling us civil. Shesh watts next??? > > ;-)))))) > > > > --- In , ChrisMasterjohn@a... wrote: > > A couple people have pointed out the unique character of this list > and the > > people on it recently, 's recent post, and DMM and > Idol's posts > > about the uniqueness of the civility on this list. > > > > Just thought I'd point out that Price found the folks to be eating > the > > traditional diet to be much better behaved, in addition to all the > rest. Maybe > > that's showing up here :-) > > > > Chris > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Quoting " Dr. Marasco " <mmarasco@...>: > First you sed sum of us wuz fashists or faseshus or something like > that, now your calling us civil. Shesh watts next??? Who says fascists can't be civil? -- Berg bberg@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 well, primative people, just like wild animals, come to blows in rare cicumstances. Usually lack of territory, food, or women. In other words their very survival is at risk. Price talked about this or that group being good wariors i think. Fighting is a part of life/nature in extreme circumstances. But I do think poor physical/emotional development can lead to excessive/unnatural conflict. But the largest cause of excessive/unnatural conflict is of course, uh oh, excessive government. The life blood of governments is conflict and war. The system justifies its existance by keeping us fighting. Peace and order is natural, chaos and conflict is created. I just had to say it -joe > > > A couple people have pointed out the unique character of this > list > > and the > > > people on it recently, 's recent post, and DMM and > > Idol's posts > > > about the uniqueness of the civility on this list. > > > > > > Just thought I'd point out that Price found the folks to be > eating > > the > > > traditional diet to be much better behaved, in addition to all > the > > rest. Maybe > > > that's showing up here :-) > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 ---Hey Joe. In , " Joe " <jzbozzi@y...> wrote: > well, primative people, just like wild animals, come to blows in > rare cicumstances. Usually lack of territory, food, or women. > by keeping us fighting. Peace and order is natural, chaos and > conflict is created. I just had to say it -joe > > Hey Joe with or without the women? I just had to ask. Dennis > > > > > > A couple people have pointed out the unique character of this > > list > > > and the > > > > people on it recently, 's recent post, and DMM and > > > Idol's posts > > > > about the uniqueness of the civility on this list. > > > > > > > > Just thought I'd point out that Price found the folks to be > > eating > > > the > > > > traditional diet to be much better behaved, in addition to all > > the > > > rest. Maybe > > > > that's showing up here :-) > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 When I've been on the diet forums the people who talk the loudest against eating meat are the most argumentative and vituperative people on the lists. Makes sense. Enjoy! ;-) Judith Alta -----Original Message----- A couple people have pointed out the unique character of this list and the people on it recently, 's recent post, and DMM and Idol's posts about the uniqueness of the civility on this list. Just thought I'd point out that Price found the folks to be eating the traditional diet to be much better behaved, in addition to all the rest. Maybe that's showing up here :-) Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Quoting Judith A <judith@...>: > When I've been on the diet forums the people who talk the loudest against > eating meat are the most argumentative and vituperative people on the > lists. To be fair, I'm not sure that this is due so much to malnutrition (although that may well play a part) as to the fact that for them it's more about politics than about science. If they want to malnourish themselves, it's no skin off my nose, but they believe that murder is on the menu at my house. -- Berg bberg@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 >well, primative people, just like wild animals, come to blows in >rare cicumstances. Usually lack of territory, food, or women. The woman who wrote the " Continuum Concept " mentioned that the people she lived with were very, very kind with one another and amazingly happy and well-adjusted, which she felt had to do with their very good babyhoods (being carried around by their Moms and others, constantly, among other things). However, she also made the point that they didn't have qualms about killing men in other tribes ... because the other tribes were not considered " human " . I've read about that attitude a lot in tribal cultures. There is no doubt that they were and probably still are less neurotic than we are, but that didn't necessarily translate into " peace on earth " . In the studies that have studied violence and lack thereof, a key factor seems to be " how big is the group you consider 'your group' " . " Your group " can be just YOU (in the extreme case of a sociopath) or your family, or your tribe, or your country, or your species or in the other extreme case, all living creatures. New Scientist had a great article about that a few months ago, by a guy who grew up in some country that was very war-torn on ethnic lines. That said, since we've changed our diet, MY family is a LOT more well adjusted and peaceful! I suspect that is one reason this group is more peaceful. The other reasons may have to do with the fact we feel like " a group " (we share an identity) and also that this group is more intelligent than average. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 >> Just thought I'd point out that Price found the folks to be eating the traditional diet to be much better behaved, in addition to all the rest. Maybe that's showing up here :-) << This is true of dogs, too, when they are switched to a more appropriate diet - I often notice hyperness and some other behavior problems simply disappear. Christie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 What I love about this list is that we are concerned about the science AND politics of food and eating. My choice to buy very expensive raw grassfed dairy from a small family farmer is, first and foremost, a health decision. However, the fact that he treats his animals humanely, doesn't use nasty chemicals that pollute the environment, and isn't part of the agribusiness I detest all figure into this choice. If the vegans knew how soy is ravaging the earth and our bodies all over the globe, they might think twice about what constitutes truly compassionate food choices. ----- Original Message ----- To be fair, I'm not sure that this is due so much to malnutrition (although that may well play a part) as to the fact that for them it's more about politics than about science. If they want to malnourish themselves, it's no skin off my nose, but they believe that murder is on the menu at my house. -- Berg bberg@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 I didn't mean to imply that primitive people were without violence or that everyone (or anyone) on this list (or among " primitives " )is a perfect person. I think you can safely separate, for some purposes at least, rational and purposeful violence, from, say, neuroticism. Tribal warfare and political peace are more about ideology than the mental competence and integrity of the individual. Whereas the ability to carry on a respectful conversation, or the ability to operate functionally within a group, are matters of the mental/emotional/psychological integrity of the individual which can, in my view, be impacted to a very large extent through nutritional means. As to Price's observation, I was speaking to his observation of how people acted within their group, which did correlate to their diet. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 , destruction of the rain forest rose 40% last year from soy farming! Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Well said. I agree! -- Heidi >I think you can safely separate, for some purposes at least, rational >and purposeful violence, from, say, neuroticism. Tribal warfare and >political peace are more about ideology than the mental competence and >integrity of the individual. Whereas the ability to carry on a >respectful conversation, or the ability to operate functionally within >a group, are matters of the mental/emotional/psychological integrity >of the individual which can, in my view, be impacted to a very large >extent through nutritional means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 I am catching up on posts. > If they want to malnourish themselves, it's no > skin off my nose, but they believe that murder is on the menu at my house. This cracked me up because of our recent goose dealings. When the goose attacked my daughter, it was penned up until we could deal with it. Later we went out and marked it with a " D " for Dinner on its forehead and let it out to join the other geese. As the day progressed we came up with all sorts of meaning for that D... Doomed Death at Dawn Disassemble Dispatch Delicious : ) Rhea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 In a message dated 11/1/03 6:13:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, liberty@... writes: > >What attack and what veil? > > Well like when you implied that he, though not necessarily > only he, might be suffering from P.M.S. :-D See below. That's not an attack. PMS is a at worst a physiological problem, not a character trait. Chris ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 In a message dated 11/1/03 10:06:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > ---->the " oh she must have PMS " thing is also a standard sexist remark to > " keep women in their place " ie; out of positions of power where the big bad > PMS might make them irrational raving lunatics rendering them unable to make > logical or rational decisions. but i'm sure chris didn't mean it that way. > and i believe it IS a physiological problem, most likely suffered by women > who are not in optimal health (myself included). i'm guessing WAP's > primitives didn't have it. Right but within the context the interpretation of a sexist remark against women is rather unreasonable. (trying to get his tongue out of his cheek) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 > > If you're having monthly problems or forgot to drink your > raw milk this morning, it shouldn't be taken out on other > people on the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Suze- Yes, it is, but the stereotype didn't come out of nowhere. Luckily it's just a product of modern diets, though, so if we can get people eating right (and fix our soil) both the actual phenomenon of PMS and the ill-used and perhaps overstated conception of it should be a thing of the past. >the " oh she must have PMS " thing is also a standard sexist remark to > " keep women in their place " ie; out of positions of power where the big bad >PMS might make them irrational raving lunatics rendering them unable to make >logical or rational decisions. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 > Well like when you implied that he, though not necessarily > only he, might be suffering from P.M.S. :-D See below. >>>>That's not an attack. PMS is a at worst a physiological problem, not a character trait. ---->the " oh she must have PMS " thing is also a standard sexist remark to " keep women in their place " ie; out of positions of power where the big bad PMS might make them irrational raving lunatics rendering them unable to make logical or rational decisions. but i'm sure chris didn't mean it that way. and i believe it IS a physiological problem, most likely suffered by women who are not in optimal health (myself included). i'm guessing WAP's primitives didn't have it. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 >>>Yes, it is, but the stereotype didn't come out of nowhere. Luckily it's just a product of modern diets, ---->right, similar to other phsyiological disorders, and also mental disorders for that matter. >>>>though, so if we can get people eating right (and fix our soil) both the actual phenomenon of PMS and the ill-used and perhaps overstated conception of it should be a thing of the past. ---->the only people i've ever seen overuse it are men who are afraid of powerful women (and in some instances, women who are afraid of powerful women). Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Suze- I've seen it used sometimes when it obviously didn't apply, but I've also seen many, many people (mostly women, but more and more men too) insist there's no such thing as PMS, which is plainly absurd. >the only people i've ever seen overuse it are men who are afraid of >powerful women (and in some instances, women who are afraid of powerful >women). - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 >>>>>Right but within the context the interpretation of a sexist remark against women is rather unreasonable. ----->well, i said i didn't think you meant it like that, but frankly whenever a man says that, i can hear a collective groan from women who've heard it all too often in that context (myself included). >>>>(trying to get his tongue out of his cheek) ---->that's what you get for overexercising your mouth. LOL Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.