Re: Just Something I found

[Guest guest]

Too bad the hundreds of thousands of folks who drank raw milk before our government stepped in to "save" us didn't have a chance to read these articles.

GreatHealthToYou.com

Kefir & Kombucha

Garden of Life Hormone Creams Stabilized Aloe Goats Milk Soap

Hair & Skin Care

[Guest guest]

Hi Mr. Movie,

This article is old news and you can forward this email to whoever

wrote it.

First of all, of course, early in this century, of course there were

horrid diseases found in raw milk because a.) the cows were trucked in

from the country, kept in confinement and fed distillery waste and b.)

there was very little understanding of sanitation in those days, much

less refrigeration. The cows were fed absolute junk and the diseases

were widespread in the populations of big cities anyway. When cows

aren't fed grass their milk is low quality and lacking in lactoferrin,

nisin, lactoperoxidase and TiO2, the anti-bacterial agents found in

healthy, strong grass fed milk. There are also lower levels of good

bacteria such as lactobacillus and acidophillus in the milk of grain

fed, confined cows. people had crowded into the cities during the

indiustrial revolution but were still demanding their milk. So the

cows were trucked in as well and what happened is no surprise. They

didn;t understand sanitation and had no refrigeration. So the outcry

for pasteurization began. But many doctors and farmers saw the harm

in that and formed the " Medical Milk Commission " . For a better

understanding of this history, I would refer you to The Untold Story of

Milk by Dr. Ron Schmid. Grassfed milk from happy healthy cows is

nothing to be afraid of at all! I should know as I am always drinking

milk from different farms around the state of TN and if it were that

bad as this article describes, I would be dead by now. So many scare

tactics out there, and the root of them all is....MONEY!

And there have been lots of outbreaks of food borne illness from

pasteurized milk and dairy products. For references on this I would

refer you to the " Supplemental Report in Favor of Raw Milk " to the Los

Angeles County Board of Supervisors. This document is one of the

reasons raw milk is legally for sale now in Los Angeles. The link for

it is http://www.karlloren.com/aajonus/p15.htm . Happy reading!

Early in

this century, milk was discovered to transmit

tuberculosis,

brucellosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, and Q fever to

humans.

Fortunately, over the decades, the threat of these

diseases and the

incidence of outbreaks involving milk and milk

products have been

greatly reduced due to improved sanitary milk

production practices and

pasteurization.

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@

Re: Just Something I found

To: rawdairy

YOUR POINT IS ?

@@@@@@@

I think his point was to share an interesting document relevant to raw

dairy for our convenient reference. That seems to be a primary

function of an email group.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you for neatly debunking that piece of trash. There's way too much of that sort of ignorantly and maliciously generated crap circulating out there.

Viva la revomoooootion!

Tonio

Re: Just Something I found

Hi Mr. Movie,This article is old news and you can forward this email to whoever wrote it.

[Guest guest]

Further Mr. Movie,

In regard to the risk of contracting rabies from raw milk, most people would be more likely to get Rabies from being bitten by an infected animal than drinking milk from an infected cow. Cows that have Rabies stop producing milk. A conscientious farmer would detect this if he/she did not happen to see a pastured cow's skin broken and bleeding through their short hair from an animal bite. If there were any kind of rabies going around in the animal kingdom we all ought just stop living and hide out in our basements instead of stopping drinking raw milk...your neighbor's wandering cat could come after you with teeth bared!

,

Thanks for telling it like it is.

Tony R."At this time, it is not as necessary to prepare our kids for the world; so much as it is to prepare the world for our kids."~Tony RustMinneapolis, MNRaw milk sales permitted at the farm.

[Guest guest]

This counterargument to that anti-raw milk text shouldn't be addressed

to " Mr Movie " ( if memory serves me correctly), because he

didn't write it. He just *found* it (see original subject line) and

posted it because obviously it's the kind of stuff we talk about and

deal with in the raw dairy underworld; he didn't endorse the content

in any way or suggest it was his viewpoint. Note the word " just " in

the subject line!

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Further Mr. Movie,

In regard to the risk of contracting rabies from raw milk, most people

would be more likely to get Rabies from being bitten by an infected

animal than drinking milk from an infected cow. Cows that have Rabies

stop producing milk. A conscientious farmer would detect this if

he/she did not happen to see a pastured cow's skin broken and bleeding

through their short hair from an animal bite. If there were any kind

of rabies going around in the animal kingdom we all ought just stop

living and hide out in our basements instead of stopping drinking raw

milk...your neighbor's wandering cat could come after you with teeth

bared!

,

Thanks for telling it like it is.

Tony R.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

[Guest guest]

Mike,

I apologize that you found the addressing of the counterargument to Mr. Movie's post to be unfounded...however, I fully disagree. If one is posting the same misinformation and scare tactics that the media is continually shoving at us (whether it was "found" and shared as in links or thrust upon us as entire articles copied and pasted), A) either that person does not know any better, or that person is not here to serve the interest of the RAW DAIRY news group...either way that person should be addressed and straightened out on the facts as soon as possible so that any leery new members who have read that post will not be instantly turned off to the group or Raw Milk itself by any future posts of the same nature, from the same member, for the same reason. Most of the posts I read on this group do not suggest any of us feel we are in any sort of underworld. There was no link above the following header:

I have several friends who raise dairy cows. They buytheir milk atthe store. When I asked them why they didn't drinktheir own milkthey cited health risks associated with drinkingunpastureized milkand would not consider sell me any. A number ofdiseases can bepassed along from cows that appear to be healthy. Ifthe people whoraise and milk the cows won't drink it and are afraidto sell itbecause of potential liability, I'm inclined to agreewith them. Iwould drink it if that were all that was availiable,but it's not.However, even then, I would probably treat it in somefashion beforedrinking it.

I imagine this was Mr. Movies' own paragraph (endorsement?) he typed and the misinformation that followed was his support for what it looks like is his reason for not trusting the farmers (his friends) who wouldn't drink their own "raw milk". The one major piece of information missing from this post, and that sometimes we all forget to address, is that it is necessary to check out your source for Raw Milk before you consume it. I think this is because common sense tells us that a farmer who does not drink his own raw milk and/or will not sell it for liability reasons, is probably not a good source for Raw Milk (Factory Farm).

Tony R.Not really sorry and hoping Mike isn't one of the aforementioned person's not here to serve the interest of the RAW DAIRY news group. Minneapolis, MNRaw milk sales permitted at the farm.

Re: Re: Just Something I found

This counterargument to that anti-raw milk text shouldn't be addressedto "Mr Movie" ( if memory serves me correctly), because hedidn't write it. He just *found* it (see original subject line) andposted it because obviously it's the kind of stuff we talk about anddeal with in the raw dairy underworld; he didn't endorse the contentin any way or suggest it was his viewpoint. Note the word "just" inthe subject line!Mike SE PennsylvaniaThe best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Further Mr. Movie,In regard to the risk of contracting rabies from raw milk, most peoplewould be more likely to get Rabies from being bitten by an infectedanimal than drinking milk from an infected cow. Cows that have Rabiesstop producing milk. A conscientious farmer would detect this ifhe/she did not happen to see a pastured cow's skin broken and bleedingthrough their short hair from an animal bite. If there were any kindof rabies going around in the animal kingdom we all ought just stopliving and hide out in our basements instead of stopping drinking rawmilk...your neighbor's wandering cat could come after you with teethbared!,Thanks for telling it like it is.Tony R.@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@PLEASE BE KIND AND TRIM YOUR POSTS WHEN REPLYING!Visit our Raw Dairy Files for a wealth of information!http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RawDairy/files/

[Guest guest]

I hadn't been going to post this, which I wrote a couple of nights

ago, but since the controversy seems to be continuing I think I will.

----------

At 8:28 PM -0400 8/16/04, Anton wrote:

>>

>>Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:38:55 -0700 (PDT)

>>Subject: Re: Just Something I found

>>To: rawdairy

>>

>>

>>YOUR POINT IS ?

>

>I think his point was to share an interesting document relevant to raw

>dairy for our convenient reference. That seems to be a primary

>function of an email group.

Very true. However, although I don't want to put words in Cari's

mouth, I believe she may have feared the post was intended to stir up

dissension... a concern which, I admit, came to my mind, as well. If

y'all will humour me with a brief digression -- it becomes relevant,

I promise! :-) Here 'tis:

I hunt. Not very often, or very successfully, but I hunt. I mention

this, not to generate yet another off-topic discussion, enjoyable

though those often are! *grin* But merely to make a point: namely,

that hunters (and related outdoorsmen and -women, including,

increasingly, anglers) frequently have to endure attacks by various

individuals and groups collectively known as " antis " (short for

" anti-hunters, " etc.).

One of the favorite tactics of these groups is to infiltrate e-mail

lists and lob potentially frightening (to the ill-informed) or

dissension- and doubt-sowing bombshells in the form of allegedly

authoritative (at least authoritative-sounding) " reports, " " studies, "

and the like. I have no doubt that raw-milkians like us will have to

deal with our share of our own " antis, " especially as word starts to

get out and we begin to be perceived as a serious threat to the

status quo, and not just a " lunatic fringe. "

And I will freely admit, when I saw this post, my initial response

was, " oh gawd, we've been infiltrated by an anti! " All the moreso

since I didn't initially recognize the e-mail address or name... It

wasn't until I checked back in my archives of RawDairy posts that I

realized that this fellow was a previous (if infrequent) poster, had

sent along one really neat post on goats and seaweed, and overall

appeared to be pretty innocuous. I shall hope and trust that this is

indeed the case! But I suspect that was Cari's concern, and why she

reacted in a somewhat heated fashion.

FWIW,

Tom

----------

To which I will only add further that I second Tony's concern that "

any leery new members who have read that post will not be instantly

turned off to the group or Raw Milk itself by any future posts of the

same nature, from the same member, for the same reason. " That is

indeed a concern; if we do indeed choose to forward posts of a

negative or " anti " posture towards raw milk on this list (which can

be helpful, as one needs to know what the opposition is up to), we

ought at least to be very careful how we do it, provide " interpretive

comments, " etc. N'est-ce pas...?

All best,

Tom

--

" Should we give up the kind of farming that has been proven to

preserve communities and land and is ecologically and spiritually

sound for a way that is culturally and environmentally harmful? "

-- Kline, _Great Possessions: An Amish Farmer's Journal_

-------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Harbold P.O. Box 1537

tharbold@... Westminster, MD 21158

tom_in_md@... http://www.geocities.com/Tom_in_MD

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

I agree but on most lists they are referred to as trolls, at least in my

experience.

Bright Blessings,

Kim

At 06:48 PM 8/18/2004, you wrote:

>xOne of the favorite tactics of these groups is to infiltrate e-mail

>lists and lob potentially frightening (to the ill-informed) or

>dissension- and doubt-sowing bombshells in the form of allegedly

>authoritative (at least authoritative-sounding) " reports, " " studies, "

>and the like. I have no doubt that raw-milkians like us will have to

>deal with our share of our own " antis, " especially as word starts to

>get out and we begin to be perceived as a serious threat to the

>status quo, and not just a " lunatic fringe. "

[Guest guest]

I agree but on most lists they are referred to as trolls, at least in my

experience.

Bright Blessings,

Kim

At 06:48 PM 8/18/2004, you wrote:

>xOne of the favorite tactics of these groups is to infiltrate e-mail

>lists and lob potentially frightening (to the ill-informed) or

>dissension- and doubt-sowing bombshells in the form of allegedly

>authoritative (at least authoritative-sounding) " reports, " " studies, "

>and the like. I have no doubt that raw-milkians like us will have to

>deal with our share of our own " antis, " especially as word starts to

>get out and we begin to be perceived as a serious threat to the

>status quo, and not just a " lunatic fringe. "

[Guest guest]

You know what I must have really missed something or else I just didn't care about it. I am getting weary as a newbie reading about this...............can we just put it to rest. I want to get back to the interesting stuff. I think most people just overlooked this anyway because it isn't a belief we share or atleast I don't think it is. Can somebody tell me how much 400g is in cups or something like english....................

Brittany Anton wrote:

Whoa! Hold on you guys! There is a *major* misunderstandinghappening here. I'm frankly in a state of total shock and disbeliefat these bizarre responses. I can't believe I'm in the absurdposition of defending Mr. Movie for making a perfectly ordinary andvaluable post that shouldn't stir up any controversy whatsoever! I'mgonna go through and try to carefully clarify things below.@@@ : I apologize that you found the addressing of the counterargument toMr. Movie's post to be unfounded...however, I fully disagree. If oneis posting the same misinformation and scare tactics that the media iscontinually shoving at us (whether it was "found" and shared as inlinks or thrust upon us as entire articles copied and pasted),@@@@@@1. That document was clearly *not* posted with any

suggestion ofauthorship by the poster. It was clearly a document authored byseveral other parties totally unrelated to the poster.2. That document was clearly *not* posted with any endorsement orcommentary on the content by the poster.3. The phrase "posting the same misinformation and scare tactics..."is ambiguous with respect to the poster's stance towards the contentof the post. (In the technical terminology of linguistics andphilosophy, this is essentially the concept often called"propositional attitude", a speaker/writer's relationship towards aproposition in terms of belief, hope, desire, etc.)One interpretation of that phrase is that you believe the poster issomehow authoring or endorsing the content. By points #1 and #2,that implication is false.The other interpretation of the phrase in point #3 is that you areaware of points #1 and #2, yet disapprove of raw

dairy advocates beingexposed to opposing viewpoints. That would be very sad, butunfortunately your comments below suggest that you do harbor suchdisapproval. See below for elaboration.4. The use of the phrase "thrust upon us" suggests the poster hassomehow done something negative towards other groupmembers, and thatthe use of the inline pasting method of sharing information is morenegative than sharing the same information with the external linkmethod. I cannot understand why this would be the case, and I disputethat there's anything negative in the first place about the act ofinformation sharing in question.Please note that I coincidentally made an almost identical post as Mr.Movie the next day or so, sharing an anti- raw milk document, butusing the external link method instead of pasting the article. I wasgoogling on a different topic and accidentally came across an anti-raw milk document, and

realized that such things are idealcontributions to the Raw Dairy group, so I took a moment to share it. I'm guessing that Mr. Movie's post was the result of a very similarexperience, but even if it wasn't the net effect of the posts are verysimilar (see below for the matter of Mr. Movie's personal intentions). I cannot see why there should be any difference in how peoplerespond to the two posts. The choice between the two methods isdeterming by inconsequential factors of convenience, documentformatting, arbitrary disposition, etc.Note also that there are anti- raw milk documents in the "files"section of the group's homepage, uploaded by key members. These arevaluable resources for reference and they are about exactly the sametopic as pro- raw milk documents, the topic of raw milk.@@@ :A) either that person does not know any better, @@@@This presumes there is a negative

effect of posting documentsexpressing a viewpoint different than most groupmembers.@@@ :or that person is not here to serve the interest of the RAW DAIRY news group@@@@The poster was very clearly serving the interests of the Raw Dairyemail group by posting a document that discusses raw dairy. Whatcould be more appropriate? Especially since the document expresses aviewpoint that is very common and one we must deal with as holders ofan opposing minority viewpoint.Now, there was nothing especially new or interesting about the contentof that post, but it is still valuable as an example of anti- raw milkdiscourse that can offer insights into the reasoning behind suchdiscourse, the contextual conditions of such discourse, etc, andstimulate and refine our own viewpoints by presenting a concreteexample of such discourse.The post was appropriate and valuable for the Raw Dairy

group. I'mnot attempting to inflate its value (it wasn't really that interestingto me at all personally--I skimmed it and moved on), but uponencountering the document, the poster had the opportunity to share thedocument and make it conveniently accessible in the currentattentional window and archives of this list, where it will eitherhave a neutral or positive impact on the members. I cannot conceiveof any negative impact from a document that expresses a viewpoint mostor all of us disagree with.Generating, collecting, organizing, processing, archiving, andexpressing our relationships towards texts that deal with raw dairy isobviously the purpose of the Raw Dairy email group.@@@ :...either way that person should be addressed and straightened out onthe facts as soon as possible so that any leery new members who haveread that post will not be instantly turned off to the group or RawMilk

itself by any future posts of the same nature, from the samemember, for the same reason.@@@By assuming responsibility for the content that new members areexposed to, you assume that new members will have less powers ofdiscernment than yourself. Theoretically this could be true, but it'sunlikely any of us could make such judgements about unspecifiedindividuals.Further, it's frankly ridiculous to think that someone interested inraw dairy who joins a group explicitly presented as a pro- raw dairygroup will be turned off because of a post that neutrally transmits adocument expressing a viewpoint that they are probably not onlyalready familiar with, but very interested in better understanding andpossibly refuting. Your scenario is even more ridiculous consideringthat a document like that presents an opportunity for one of the groupMVPs to offer a savvy rebuttal, which is precisely what happened

inthe form of and 's replies.If a new member, or even an old member, is turned off to raw milk bysuch a document, then what's the problem with that? That meansthey've come to a personal conclusion different than some of the restof us, and as such they would be very grateful to the poster forsharing it. Any conclusion a person reaches with x + 1 sources ofinformation is equally or more valid than a conclusion the same personreaches with x of those sources. [This makes certain uncontroversialassumptions about the person's reasoning, ala monotonicity,etc--please ignore this comment if you're not a math/philosophy type]. We can only blame a person's personal utilization of information,not the information itself. Further, they would be able to undergotheir reasoning process in an ideal context, in which they canconveniently study other people's viewpoints and even solicit

theirspecific responses to the same document that is influencing them. That's an absolutely beautiful situation. There are plenty of peoplewho will study the raw milk literature to varying extents yet stilladopt an anti- raw milk stance for themselves. Not only is that validand typical of human cognitive variation, but pro- raw milk people canbenefit by interacting with such people.That raises a fundamental point. By discussing a pro- raw milkviewpoint, we are automatically including anti- raw milk viewpoints inthe domain of our discourse. You can't discuss one without discussingthe other. This a trivial observation about divisive disourse ingeneral. @@@ :Most of the posts I read on this group do not suggest any of us feelwe are in any sort of underworld.@@@Well, I hate to break the news, but we *are* in an underworld, and ifyou feel a need to be

sheltered from this fact, then that suggests youlack confidence in filling this societal role. There are farmers andconsumers who suffer in very tangible and serious ways because rawdairy is an underworld at the fringes of legality.@@@ :There was no link above the following header:@@@@@If you go back and look at the original post, you will see that theprovenance of the text is clearly indicated by Mr. Movie via the emailheader at the top of the text he pasted.@@@ :I imagine this was Mr. Movies' own paragraph (endorsement?) he typedand the misinformation that followed was his support for what it lookslike is his reason for not trusting the farmers (his friends) whowouldn't drink their own "raw milk".@@@, this is simply incorrect and if you re-examine the postyou'll discover that you totally misread it.@@@ :The one major piece of information

missing from this post, and thatsometimes we all forget to address, is that it is necessary to checkout your source for Raw Milk before you consume it. I think this isbecause common sense tells us that a farmer who does not drink his ownraw milk and/or will not sell it for liability reasons, is probablynot a good source for Raw Milk (Factory Farm).@@@Well, your statement above is example of an interesting and meaningfulresponse to that document. By provoking interesting and meaningfulresponses the posting of that document clearly can have a positiveeffect. Why not just make this point instead of condemning thediscourse context that facilitated it?@@ @ :> Not really sorry and hoping Mike isn't one of the aforementioned person's not here to serve the interest of the RAW DAIRY news group. @@@@Anyone who participates in the Raw Dairy group and posts about rawdairy is probably

serving the interests of the group, regardless ofwhether they personally harbor pro- or anti- raw milk viewpoints.@@@ Cari/Mike/Tom:>>YOUR POINT IS ?>>I think his point was to share an interesting document relevant to raw>dairy for our convenient reference. That seems to be a primary>function of an email group.Very true. However, although I don't want to put words in Cari's mouth, I believe she may have feared the post was intended to stir up dissension... a concern which, I admit, came to my mind, as well. @@@@@@@@@Why is this a concern? What's wrong with dissension? If someone inthe group wished to provoke a debate about the wisdom of consuming rawmilk, perhaps feeling compelled by some anti- raw milk document oranother, wouldn't that be... A GOOD THING?! Wouldn't that be...ON-TOPIC?! Wouldn't that be... A COLLECTIVELY BENEFICIAL

LEARNINGEXPERIENCE?!@@@ Tom:One of the favorite tactics of these groups is to infiltrate e-mail lists and lob potentially frightening (to the ill-informed) or dissension- and doubt-sowing bombshells in the form of allegedly authoritative (at least authoritative-sounding) "reports," "studies," and the like. I have no doubt that raw-milkians like us will have to deal with our share of our own "antis," especially as word starts to get out and we begin to be perceived as a serious threat to the status quo, and not just a "lunatic fringe."@@@@@@@@@@What's wrong with someone posting challenges to the prevailing viewsof an email community? Wouldn't they simply be met with intelligentand incisive rebuttals that would enrich all participants? If someoneviolates the community's formal discourse conventions (e.g. socialmanners) or something, then they can be ignored or banned or whatever,but if it's just

dissenting content, then that can only be neutral orpositive, not negative, in its effect. Your talk of "antis" is justa basic and inevitable feature of the human condition--every humanalive right now represents things that others oppose; it could betheir dietary ideology, religion, governmental ideology, sexualhabits, aesthetic preferences, ecological impact via lifestylechoices, etc ad inf.We all have to take responsibility for our utilization of texts,whether they are in an authoritative style or not; humantruth-assigning behavior is inevitably non-uniform.@@@ Tom:And I will freely admit, when I saw this post, my initial response was, "oh gawd, we've been infiltrated by an anti!" All the moreso since I didn't initially recognize the e-mail address or name... It wasn't until I checked back in my archives of RawDairy posts that I realized that this fellow was a previous (if infrequent) poster, had

sent along one really neat post on goats and seaweed, and overall appeared to be pretty innocuous. I shall hope and trust that this is indeed the case! @@@@@@@The world "infiltrate" seems ill-chosen here, following the logic ofmy previous paragraph. Why should it matter at all who the posterwas or what he has posted in the past? If I were Mr. Movie readingyour post, I might be insulted that people were dragging in irrelevantpersonal information about my past participation in the list andmaking judgements about the salubrity of my contributions, all just inresponse to a simple and inconsequential post of something I found onthe web. How would you feel if Mr. Movie said he hopes and trust youare not a threat to the well-being of our email community? Such asentiment implies there is some reasons to doubt whether this is infact true. In this case, there simply is none.For that

matter, why should it even matter whether he personallyadvocates raw milk? I could easily imagine there being groupmemberswho oppose raw milk or are on the fence, and I think they should bejust as welcome to participate as long as they are pursuing an honestinquiry into personal truth and not harboring a fixed prejudgement ofthe issue and simply attempting to undermine our subculture somehow(e.g. spying). Such members would be interested in precisely thesame topic as pro- raw milk members, namely raw milk, and we can onlystand to benefit from their contributions. I mean, what better forumcould there be for those rare folks who have an interest in the topic,yet whose thoughts occupy a different region in the space of possiblereasoning?So, ultimately it shouldn't matter whether or not Mr. Movie intendedto promote an anti- raw milk viewpoint. I seriously doubt he did, butI wish to emphasize

that it would've been totally valid. If that wasindeed the case, there was nothing objectionable about the way it wasdone, and there is nothing objectionable or inappropriate about theintention itself. The post should be taken for what it is as anindependent entity, and speculating and commenting about the posterhimself (a topic not mentioned in the post) is irrelevant and evenrude.I hope my thorough comments have definitively clarified and resolvedthe philosophical dilemma unexpectedly fabricated by several members'responses to Mr. Movie's post, such that we won't have to wade throughthis unpleasant territory again in the future!Mike SE PennsylvaniaThe best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan KayPLEASE BE KIND AND TRIM YOUR POSTS WHEN REPLYING!Visit our Raw Dairy Files for a wealth of information!http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RawDairy/files/

[Guest guest]

G'day Brittany,

Grams to ounces:

375g is 12ozs

500g is 16ozs (1lb)

Or for liquids:

1 cup is 250mls or 8 fluid ozs

NB. These are metric & imperial measurements, and some of yours do differ

to ours (eg, we get fuel in 44gal drums which are exactly the same as your

55gal drums!)

Does that help?

.

>

>Reply-To: RawDairy

>To: RawDairy

>Subject: Re: Re: Just Something I found

>Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:20:37 -0700 (PDT)

>

>You know what I must have really missed something or else I just didn't

>care about it. I am getting weary as a newbie reading about

>this...............can we just put it to rest. I want to get back to the

>interesting stuff. I think most people just overlooked this anyway because

>it isn't a belief we share or atleast I don't think it is. Can somebody

>tell me how much 400g is in cups or something like

>english....................

>

>Brittany

_________________________________________________________________

In the market for a car? Buy, sell or browse at CarPoint:

http://server-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/b?cg=link & ci=ninemsn & tu=http://carpoin\

t.ninemsn.com.au?refid=hotmail_tagline

[Guest guest]

Yes ty very much.

Brittany Balcombe wrote:

G'day Brittany,Grams to ounces:375g is 12ozs500g is 16ozs (1lb)Or for liquids:1 cup is 250mls or 8 fluid ozsNB. These are metric & imperial measurements, and some of yours do differ to ours (eg, we get fuel in 44gal drums which are exactly the same as your 55gal drums!)Does that help?.>>Reply-To: RawDairy >To: RawDairy >Subject: Re: Re: Just Something I found>Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:20:37 -0700 (PDT)>>You know what I must have really missed something or else I just didn't >care about it. I am getting weary as a newbie reading about >this...............can we just put it to rest. I want to get back to the >interesting stuff. I

think most people just overlooked this anyway because >it isn't a belief we share or atleast I don't think it is. Can somebody >tell me how much 400g is in cups or something like >english....................>>Brittany_________________________________________________________________In the market for a car? Buy, sell or browse at CarPoint: http://server-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/b?cg=link & ci=ninemsn & tu=http://carpoint.ninemsn.com.au?refid=hotmail_taglinePLEASE BE KIND AND TRIM YOUR POSTS WHEN REPLYING!Visit our Raw Dairy Files for a wealth of information!http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RawDairy/files/

[Guest guest]

Mr. ,

Isn’t it a common method of manipulation, to get the people to trust you and than go about your sinister agenda. When your words speak louder than your actions, you can’t hide from your intentions. My reason for addressing you and Mr. Movie are completely unselfish and have nothing to do with the greater good for the greater number as your rhetoric is very bent on addressing. Rather I am replying because I have come to respect the raw dairy group for their desire of peaceful posts and realization that many of us have been duped. It is completely opposite of your description of our “underworld” activity. The people of the Raw Dairy group openly discuss their knowledge and wisdom in regard to the raw milk experience with very little mention of any “dissension”, and that is because we know that it is no longer a “point-of-view” as you suggest. Any opposition to Raw milk, as we know it, is complete and total propaganda. It is not my intention to suggest that many people cannot think for themselves. My own, very intelligent, mother is worried about the obsession I had (thank you Sara. I am greatful to you every time I take a swig) with getting raw milk and it weakens the ties considerably. That is due to the very propaganda (you call it dissension) that you invite into this group.

At this time, I would like to thank Sara, the moderator, for her very fair intervention and apologize for dragging this out further. I want it to be known that the matter is not, that “cat got my tongue”, but rather, I care very much about this group and its members, particularly the new ones for obvious reasons. Like myself, new members come in to this group with psychological damage caused by the realization that they have been misled by a government that they are supposed to trust. This government is supposed to be in place to serve the people not the corporation. Not all people will react the same to disinformation, but many newcomers will consider the group (as Tom appropriately put it) infiltrated, and will find sifting through the many posts to be futile because they see the same programming that they finally overcame, being replayed. Since the reply, by one of our member’s (Cari’s) relevant question, which was very appropriately addressed to Mr. Movie, has not been answered, I adamantly question the intentions of this “Mr. Movie” in regard to his “ambiguous” post as well as your intentions in your ambivalence in answering for him. Your explanation that you are in disbelief that you need to respond, reveals that while you may be highly educated, you haven’t got a clue about the fragility of the human psyche or the concept of trust. I can't believe I am defending such a simple question as "What's your Point?"

Tony R."At this time, it is not as necessary to prepare our kids for the world; so much as it is to prepare the world for our kids."~Tony RustMinneapolis, MNRaw milk sales permitted at the farm.

[Guest guest]

Just a note to say, I ain't gettin' involved in this subject line no

more. Not no way, not no how. I've said what I've said and meant

every word of it, but I don't see any benefit in belabouring the

issue. So for what it's worth (which, like most advice, may be every

cent you're paying for it), I suggest that we all just let it drop,

unless or until there's an urgent reason to take it back up again.

Let's just give our fellow listmembers the benefit of the doubt (Mike

at least certainly seems to have earned it -- if you're a " mole, "

Mike, you've missed your calling and really should go work for the

CIA tracking down bin Laden! *grin*), relax, and take a nice long

swig of raw milk... :-)

Charitably,

Tom

--

" Good company and good discourse are the very sinews of virtue. "

~ Isaak Walton, The Compleat Angler, 1653

-------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Harbold P.O. Box 1537

tharbold@... Westminster, MD 21158

tom_in_md@... http://www.geocities.com/Tom_in_MD

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

@@@ :

Isn't it a common method of manipulation, to get the people to trust

you and than go about your sinister agenda. When your words speak

louder than your actions, you can't hide from your intentions. My

reason for addressing you and Mr. Movie are completely unselfish and

have nothing to do with the greater good for the greater number as

your rhetoric is very bent on addressing.

@@@@

Dude, what are you talking about? I have no idea where you're coming

from here, and the content of your post suggests you didn't read my

long clarificational email at all. If that email didn't clear things

up, I think there's no hope and I'm wasting my time, but I'll be a

good sport and give a thorough and straightforward reply again below.

@@@ :

Rather I am replying because I have come to respect the raw dairy

group for their desire of peaceful posts and realization that many of

us have been duped. It is completely opposite of your description of

our " underworld " activity.

@@@@@

, you seem to be totally misunderstanding the meaning of

" underworld " here, and I don't understand what two things you're

referring to as " opposite " . I'm just not following you here, and my

brain's starting to hurt... It is patently obvious that raw dairy is

an underworld activity and I don't how to clarify something so simple

and transparent... That fact has nothing whatsoever to do with the

peacefulness of this emal group, etc.

@@@ :

The people of the Raw Dairy group openly discuss their knowledge and

wisdom in regard to the raw milk experience with very little mention

of any " dissension " , and that is because we know that it is no longer

a " point-of-view " as you suggest. Any opposition to Raw milk, as we

know it, is complete and total propaganda.

@@@@@

Dude, are you serious? There are plenty of intelligent and

well-informed people who disagree with our advocacy of raw milk for

various reasons. Of course some anti- raw milk folks are ignorant

relay stations for misinformation, but " complete and total propaganda "

is not at all an accurate description of all anti- raw milk positions,

and possibly none of them. Ultimately we may be able to deconstruct

and subsume all anti- raw milk positions with superior analyses that

defend and promote raw milk, but it's not as simple as a sloppy,

broad-brushed dismissal of anyone who disagrees with us. It's sad

that your perception of this complex issue is a black-and-white

caricature. In fact, uncritically dismissive views like yours are a

disservice to the pro- raw milk community. Sorry, but nobody is going

to take your viewpoint seriously if you display no understanding of

different viewpoints.

" very little mention of 'dissension' " ???? How about the constant

references to the illegality of raw milk sales under most conditions?

Sorry, but it's not viable to pretend we live in some idyllic happy

raw milk paradise where everyone agrees with each other. We live in

the real world where raw milk is controversial and a source of

profound practical and theoretical challenges for many people,

including most people on this list.

And a point of view is a point of view, regardless of its

truthfulness. How can someone's thoughts (pro-, anti-, etc) on raw

milk not be a " point of view " ? It's as if you're denying basic

English semantics. I don't understand what you're saying here.

Sorry, but your statements are reckless and inaccurate.

@@@ :

It is not my intention to suggest that many people cannot think for

themselves. My own, very intelligent, mother is worried about the

obsession I had (thank you Sara. I am greatful to you every time I

take a swig) with getting raw milk and it weakens the ties

considerably. That is due to the very propaganda (you call it

dissension) that you invite into this group.

@@@@

To refer to the *divergent viewpoints* I expressed a receptive

attitude towards as " propaganda " is a ridiculous misrepresentation of

my statements. The world " propaganda " refers to a certain kind of

discourse relationship (communicative intentions, mode of information

exchange, etc) that bears no resemblance to the ideals I opined for

this email group. You don't seem to understand that encounters with

opposing viewpoints can be profitable, not damaging, and it is a

choice we make to respond to them appropriately.

@@@ :

Not all people will react the same to disinformation, but many

newcomers will consider the group (as Tom appropriately put it)

infiltrated, and will find sifting through the many posts to be futile

because they see the same programming that they finally overcame,

being replayed.

@@@

" infiltrated " ??? First of all, as a long-time member of this list I

have yet to see a single example of anything remotely like an

" infiltration " by anti- raw milk people. In fact, I can hardly think

of an example of anyone expressing anti- raw milk viewpoints at all,

which reflects the self-selecting nature of the group demographic.

Why are you expressing such grave concern about a problem that doesn't

exist, shows no hint of surfacing, and is probably not even a problem

in the first place?

@@@

Since the reply, by one of our member's (Cari's) relevant question,

which was very appropriately addressed to Mr. Movie, has not been

answered,

@@@

Actually, if you read the previous posts (all of which are archived on

the group's webpage if you don't have them in your personal email

account), you'll find that, in fact, that flippant question was

answered very lucidly and succinctly. Perhaps you missed that post.

Here's a link to it:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/RawDairy/message/7462

@@@ :

I adamantly question the intentions of this " Mr. Movie " in regard to

his " ambiguous " post as well as your intentions in your ambivalence in

answering for him.

@@@@@@

His post was not ambiguous, as I very clearly pointed out in my last

post. I'm not sure why you're using scare-quotes for " ambiguous "

here; scare-quotes would typically either mean that you're referring

to someone else's statement or that you're introducing a hedge about

the accuracy of a phrase. I don't recall anyone else using the word

" ambiguous " in reference to that post, so I'm assuming it's the latter

meaning of scare-quotes. However, since you would be the only one

even suggesting any ambiguity exists, why would you hedge on this?

To me it's a very odd and illogical use of scare-quotes.

Since you adamantly question my intentions about something or another,

I'd like to offer my assistance in finding an answer for you. I

believe I would be a good person to consult on the matter of my

intentions. Please ask away, but your sentence presupposes the

existence of something I'm not aware of, my " ambivalence " in posting

in this thread. I cannot recall expressing any ambivalence about

anything in this thread. Please specify what I was ambivalent about

and what you'd like to know about my intentions, and I'll see if I

can't help you out. But please note that if you read my lengthy,

very clear, and very thorough recent post about this topic, you will

find an abundance of data that can be used to reach conclusions about

my intentions. I'm guessing that you'll find all you need there.

@@@ :

Your explanation that you are in disbelief that you need to respond,

reveals that while you may be highly educated, you haven't got a clue

about the fragility of the human psyche or the concept of trust. I

can't believe I am defending such a simple question as " What's your

Point? "

@@@@@@

I have absolutely no idea why " the fragility of the human psyche " or

" the concept of trust " is relevant to this topic. You lost me here.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

writes:

>, you seem to be totally misunderstanding the meaning of

> " underworld " here... It is patently obvious that raw dairy is

>an underworld activity

Um, I can see how you got misunderstood. Yes, you are being very unclear

here at best...

The primary meaning of " underworld " (outside of religion) is the meaning of

" organized crime " with its assumption of violent enforcement of extortion

and similar activities.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=underworld

You would have caused much less emotion is you had simply used the phrase

" underground economy " which more accurately describes a significant part of

obtaining raw dairy products (without strongly implying that WAPF are a

mafia organization plotting the assasination of the pasteurizers). Sorry,

but you were being very lax in your use of terms here.

>I don't understand what you're saying here.

So just look into more dictionaries as to the difference between

" underworld " and " underground " .

(This is a situation of people being in " violent agreement " .)

Tom

St. Louis