HOW CRAP SPREADS

[Andre Jute]

Monkey sees, monkey repeats, crap spreads.

Ocean rise and fall, you thicko. It is a natural event. There is nothing special about humans that should cause nature to stop her cycles because we a few upright apes suddenly take it into their heads that we are so important, our time must be preserved in amber.

[raamman]

On Aug 3, 7:12 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Monkey sees, monkey repeats, crap spreads.
>
> Ocean rise and fall, you thicko. It is a natural event. There is nothing special about humans that should cause nature to stop her cycles because we a few upright apes suddenly take it into their heads that we are so important, our time must be preserved in amber.

earth has been around about 3 billion years; life on earth hundreds of
millions of years; reciently it was reported that evidence of early
man gaining self awareness and fairly sophisticated tool making about
44000 years. It certainly has not taken long for our activities to
possibly cause an irrepairable damage to our eco-system. That said,
while it may be only a possibility, the consequences if it is true,
should be worth a pause for consideration.

[datakoll]

global warming isnot a 'natural' event, itis a terminal event.

I've done everything I can to slow the flow with paranormal energy research and what do I get ? a death sentence from OC. Shit, I am surrounded. I pulled into a random gas station outside Columbia Falls, was sprayed with poison by a teamk effort. So there's teams of OC at each gas station ?

I went to a county park abovbe Lone Pine CA during late spring activationg a flow of mist frommthe Pacific side to the 'desert' east side.

The mist came and described my setup with itsa turning toward ny favorite silver mine. Analyze repeat build a device.

what happens ? local campers with HD pickups, from Bakersfield FLIPOUT start shouting threatening me to go home....neanderthals in the vortex....down down down...

daze wanna die, like lemmings. catastrophic

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 3:37:54 AM UTC+1, raamman wrote:
> On Aug 3, 7:12 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Monkey sees, monkey repeats, crap spreads.
>
> > Ocean rise and fall, you thicko. It is a natural event. There is nothing special about humans that should cause nature to stop her cycles because we a few upright apes suddenly take it into their heads that we are so important, our time must be preserved in amber.
>

[snipped, some pisspoor history]

> It certainly has not taken long for our activities to
>
> possibly cause an irrepairable damage to our eco-system.

Is it "certainly" or is it "possibly"? Which? You can't even construct a sentence to yiel a singular meaning, but you feel qualified to tell everyone else how they should behave.

>That said,
>
> while it may be only a possibility, the consequences if it is true,
>
> should be worth a pause for consideration.

Crap. After half a century of expensive research, what we have is "scientists" who were caught out lying to "protect global warning".

There is no global warming, and thus no damage to the eco-system, no rising sea levels, no catastrophe. There is just a bunch of gullible jerks who want to feel they're important enough to damage the earth.

The hubris of some people, including far too many cyclists, is truly offensive.

And the next clown along, Gene Daniels, isn't just stupid and arrogant, he's certifiable.

Andre Jute

[Dan O]

http://nmp.tamu.edu/content/tools/big-guncalibration.pdf

[thirty-six]

you're probably right but don't get so agiated, cut down your meat
intake.

[datakoll]

eco minded, I have bags of global waming into the landfill. I am overwhelmed by my middle class excess.

I avoided batts for years....mercury will kil off phytoplankton....bought science field equioment and its batts batts batss

imposible.

[datakoll]

one of the delights of touring the american west, over and beyond the human element is the complete and absolute environmental destrcution of all plant and aniumal life. THEY cut down every tree, killed every mammal and ate it, birds ditto, unbbeeeelevable disaster.

and I stand on the observation area wioth people who are thinking ooooooo isnlt this beauuutiful.

so I say EXCUSE ME, DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR LOOOKING AT....

they're puzzled.

then I tellum once upon these hillls were covered by 200' tall trees and they short out.

[James]

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 9:12:57 AM UTC+10, Andre Jute wrote:
> Monkey sees, monkey repeats, crap spreads.
>

And doesn't it stick well?

--
JS.

[datakoll]

and I placed in the science fair with CO2
1964

[davethedave]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 21:44:03 -0700, Dan O wrote:

> http://nmp.tamu.edu/content/tools/big-guncalibration.pdf

Both humourous and enlightening. Not a subject I would particularly read
up on but a nice random link. :)

It is of course very important to only spread the required amount of
shit. Over spreading is wasteful and potentially harmful, as the document
clearly points out. Both with actual physical shit distributed through a
high pressure distribution system onto a field and metaphoric shit
distributed through this thing we call usenet onto the internet.

I must admit to being a bit worried about rising sea levels. I paused,
considered and concluded it's happened before, it'll happen again.

I will of course be making my own personal efforts to save the planet by
riding a bike.

Well...

Err...

No!

Actually not. I ride because it's fun and possibly the most practical
vehicle for my current situation. The planet has been here for a while
and barring the construction of a superhighway by the Vogons,
necessitating the demolition of the planet, it will probably continue to
be so, for longer than I will be needing it.
--
davethedave

[AMuzi]

Spraying poison at you? Really?

As I told a woman who complained that Mexican drug gangs
were moving the order of books on her bookshelf at night,
you can get a person capped for about $100. When the wrong
guys don't like you they don't play games, you just die.


--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Dan O]

On Aug 4, 4:05 am, davethedave <davedfoster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 21:44:03 -0700, Dan O wrote:
> >http://nmp.tamu.edu/content/tools/big-guncalibration.pdf
>
> Both humourous and enlightening. Not a subject I would particularly read
> up on but a nice random link. :)
>

I wasn't presenting it for study; it was just the first link from
google for "big gun manure" - the way shit is spread.

Big gun irrigators have been a seasonal fixture in these parts all my
life, but they didn't used to spray shit in the air until recently.

The ones watering the football field at the high school as I pass by
spray clean water. A few blocks from home on a hot day at the end of
a ~30 mile commute with the seasonal prevailing wind pushing a cool
mist across the road feels *so* good to ride through.

OTOH, I was riding to work one morning a while back, and smelled the
cow barns to my west, as I sometimes will when the wind is from that
direction. Hmm... didn't *think* there was much of wind at all, and
what breezes I'd perceived didn't seem like the kind that usually
carry the scent of that particular source to the road. Rounded the
bend and there was the answer: A big gun sprinkler - close to the
road - squirting brown into the air.

> It is of course very important to only spread the required amount of
> shit. Over spreading is wasteful and potentially harmful, as the document
> clearly points out. Both with actual physical shit distributed through a
> high pressure distribution system onto a field and metaphoric shit
> distributed through this thing we call usenet onto the internet.
>
> I must admit to being a bit worried about rising sea levels. I paused,
> considered and concluded it's happened before, it'll happen again.
>
> I will of course be making my own personal efforts to save the planet by
> riding a bike.
>
> Well...
>
> Err...
>
> No!
>

> Actually not. I ride because it's fun...

I acknowledge the ecological and economical and fitness benefits of
riding bike instead of driving car, but yeah that's my main reason
(fun), too :-)

> ... and possibly the most practical

> vehicle for my current situation.

Not so much for my situation, but I make it so (possibly quite a
stretch).

> The planet has been here for a while
> and barring the construction of a superhighway by the Vogons,
> necessitating the demolition of the planet, it will probably continue to
> be so, for longer than I will be needing it.

Of course nature will out - that's it's business - it's very
definition; but nature doesn't squirt shit into the air, etc. "Been
here" yes, and will continue to *be* here, and may even heal when
we're gone, but you only need to open yur eyes and look around to see
that we're fucking it up big time.

[Wes Groleau]

On 08-04-2012 07:05, davethedave wrote:
> Actually not. I ride because it's fun and possibly the most practical
> vehicle for my current situation. The planet has been here for a while
> and barring the construction of a superhighway by the Vogons,
> necessitating the demolition of the planet, it will probably continue to
> be so, for longer than I will be needing it.

Short distances and good weather, I ride because owning a car is too
expensive.

Medium distances, I ride because if I buy a car for that, I still have
to own it when I don't need it.

Longer distances, or bad weather, I ride because I am entertained by the
people who think it isn't possible.

--
Wes Groleau

The man who says, “I can do it!" may sometimes fail.
The man who says, “Impossible!" will never succeed.

[AMuzi]

On 8/4/2012 1:47 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> considered Fri, 3 Aug 2012 21:31:04

> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 3:37:54 AM UTC+1, raamman wrote:

> Simple solution.
> All the brain dead morons who want to carry on wrecking planets, piss
> off and find another one to wreck.
> Otherwise, shut the fuck up and stop blocking attempts to fix the mess
> we've made of this one.
>
> The science is clear, and even the sceptics are admitting it now (or
> at least those with any integrity).
> Global warming is fact, and it is almost certainly caused by our use
> of fossil fuels.
>
> To deny it is to deny basic science.
>

Do you see yourself here?

http://static.theurbn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/global-forum_biofuels_busy-saving-planet.jpg

If so, please reconsider your position.

[Wes Groleau]

On 08-04-2012 14:47, Phil W Lee wrote:
> All the brain dead morons who want to carry on wrecking planets, piss
> off and find another one to wreck.
> Otherwise, shut the fuck up and stop blocking attempts to fix the mess
> we've made of this one.
>
> The science is clear, and even the sceptics are admitting it now (or
> at least those with any integrity).
> Global warming is fact, and it is almost certainly caused by our use
> of fossil fuels.
>
> To deny it is to deny basic science.

You might be right. I wouldn't know. What I do know is that a lot of
people who are saying that have no clue what basic science is. I also
know what global warming has in common with American politics--there are
too many liarts on both sides for the average guy to do anything but
believe what he wants to believe and pretend that only the other side is
lying.

--
Wes Groleau

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”
— Thomas Jefferson

[Frank Krygowski]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 08-04-2012 14:47, Phil W Lee wrote:
>> All the brain dead morons who want to carry on wrecking planets, piss
>> off and find another one to wreck.
>> Otherwise, shut the fuck up and stop blocking attempts to fix the mess
>> we've made of this one.
>>
>> The science is clear, and even the sceptics are admitting it now (or
>> at least those with any integrity).
>> Global warming is fact, and it is almost certainly caused by our use
>> of fossil fuels.
>>
>> To deny it is to deny basic science.
>
> You might be right. I wouldn't know. What I do know is that a lot of
> people who are saying that have no clue what basic science is. I also
> know what global warming has in common with American politics--there are
> too many liarts on both sides for the average guy to do anything but
> believe what he wants to believe and pretend that only the other side is
> lying.

I think a major part of the problem is that the average guy hears (or
reads) only the politics, and does not read the science. Those who read
and understand the science have very little doubt that human-caused
climate change is occurring.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

Global warming is like all the other global catastrophisms, a religion. The monkey is indifferent to its truth: he just runs mindlessly after the latest trendy thing; notice that he doesn't have the balls to come in here and defend his stupidity. Idiots like Phil really want to believe because it gives them a field in which they can feel superior to everyone else. Fascists like Franki Shavelegs are very keen on these unprovable scientisms (significantly, Aryanism was another "scientific" religion) because it gives them a reason to control everyone else "for the good of the race".

No wonder this global warming shit sticks long after it has it has been exposed as a crock. So many fools have so many petty reasons for wanting it to be true.

Note that not one of the proponents of this sorry, broken doctrine even attempts to argue the facts with me: they just claim it is science, and therefore I should believe it. Poor undereducated sods (including, clearly, Krygowski, a jumped-up welder) clearly don't understand that the very basis of science is healthy scepticism, not believing in Santa Klaus "because scientists say he exists".

Not one of them even tries to claim that the "scientists", on whose lies this entire global warming lie rests, are not liars, proven to be liars, repeatedly caught out and condemned by their own emails.

As the cartoon to which Andrew Muzi refers us to illuminates so pointedly, all this "ecology" crap is just a PC way of doing eugenics, letting the weak starve because we spent the money that could feed them on Kyoto type toilet tube filler. http://static.theurbn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/global-forum_biofuels_busy-saving-planet.jpg It is significant how many of the people behind the big lie of Global Warming are on the public record with estimates of sustainable population ranging from half a billion down to 100m. I wonder if they will be in the 5.9m people killed to make the planet "sustainable". Of course, I'll be one of the living elite; my family has millennia of practice at eating the other guys' livers; look us up in the Britannica. In Lenin's apt phrase, all these "useful idiots" who push global warming will be the first victims of any fix. An outcome with a rather pleasing symmetry!

Andre Jute
Standing up for real science, not scientism

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 10:47:57 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> I think a major part of the problem is that the average guy hears (or
>
> reads) only the politics, and does not read the science. Those who read
>
> and understand the science have very little doubt that human-caused
>
> climate change is occurring.
> --
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Franki Shavelegs tries to draw the mantle of "science" about him. Pity the rest of us have caught Krygowski out so often in crude statistical lies, of the same kind the global warming proponents try to pass off as "science".

Yo, Franki-boy, give us a half a dozen examples where climate change has been proven to happen, and to have been caused by human intervention -- and watch me shoot your lies down in flames. Of course you won't, because you can't. There isn't a single global warming lie that hasn't been exposed as wishful thinking and shoddy politically motivated "science".

We notice how you global warmie faithful no longer use the words "global warming", which only a year ago you capitalised, because that branch of catastrophism is in such dire disarray after its chief disciples were exposed as deliberate liars and scientific thugs of the worst kind in ClimateGage.

Andre Jute

[AMuzi]

Solar energy variance is magnitudes greater than any other
factor:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[David Scheidt]

AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

Solar output has been constant or slightly declining for the last
several decades. Temerature continues to rise. The science is damn
clear, despite what climate change deniers tell you.



--
sig 87

[Dan O]

On Aug 4, 6:10 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> ... global warming... wishful thinking...

Trying to get my mind around this; can't do it; just keeps eluding my
grasp like a slippery potato dumpling.

Andre, you argue with such certainty on this - and such vehemence.
What's the deal? It's not as if the haves gave a shit about the have
nots before Kyoto. Seems like slowing the burning ought to actually
give people a chance to take a look around and rethink priorities.

<snip>

[John B.]

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 19:47:41 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>

wrote:

>Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> considered Fri, 3 Aug 2012 21:31:04
>-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>

>Simple solution.

>All the brain dead morons who want to carry on wrecking planets, piss
>off and find another one to wreck.
>Otherwise, shut the fuck up and stop blocking attempts to fix the mess
>we've made of this one.
>
>The science is clear, and even the sceptics are admitting it now (or
>at least those with any integrity).
>Global warming is fact, and it is almost certainly caused by our use
>of fossil fuels.
>
>To deny it is to deny basic science.

Basic science like the paper entitled

"Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario"

James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, and Valdar Oinas

- Author Affiliations
*National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia
University Earth Institute, and Center for Environmental Prediction,
Rutgers University, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025
Contributed by James Hansen

Which states, in part "A common view is that the current global
warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid
warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse
gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the
products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and
negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The
growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If
sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the
change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could
be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and
plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2
GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing
the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution
has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and
developing countries."
Cheers,
John B.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 8/3/2012 6:12 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> Monkey sees, monkey repeats, crap spreads.
>

This is how crap spreads:
<http://www.hobbyhorseranch.com/equipmentpictures/manurespreader_newholland_example.jpg>.

> Ocean rise and fall, you thicko. It is a natural event. There is nothing special about humans that should cause nature to stop her cycles because we a few upright apes[...]

The more advanced apes are recumbent while cycling.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[John B.]

And the solution is simple. Simply return to the life style of, say
250 ago.

Eliminating manufacturing, power generation and fuel used for
transportation will reduce carbon output by 52% and eliminating
agricultural uses, recovery and transportation of hydro-carbon fuels,
residential and commercial uses, land use and biomass burning and
waste disposal and treatment will bring the number to nearly zero.

This of course will eliminate carbon fiber bikes, purple lycra shorts
and ceramic bearings.

Cheers,
John B.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

Jute likes to fling shit with authority.

[Andre Jute]

That's because, as usual, I've done my homework, and the clowns wittering on about subjects of which they know nothing except what they hear on television haven't.

Do you have Al Gore's video, Danno? If you don't, borrow a copy. At each point you can check the facts, and discover that Fat Al lies or is stupid, or both. A High Court Judge in the UK pointed out nine outright lies about the environment in Al Gore's video which stopped it from being shown to schoolchildren. The most notorious instance is where he stands in front of a huge historical ice core record, that CO2/global temperature graph the full width of the stage that's supposed to prove global warming is real, the faithful in the audience adoring him sweatily, and not one of them points out that what Fat Al says, which is that CO2 causes temperature to rise, is contradicted by his own graph, which consistently shows that TEMPERATURE RISE PRECEDES CO2 INCREASE.

If you're serious about informing yourself, there's a survey of the literature that makes interesting reading. It's written by a Green Peace activist called Bjorn Lomborg and is called The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjørn Lomborg, and, among other things, he explains how hysterical catastrophism keeps the funding rolling in to keep climatolgical snouts in the trough.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1344144817&sr=8-2&keywords=lomborg

Andre Jute

[davethedave]

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 08:47:18 -0700, Dan O wrote:

<snip>

> Not so much for my situation, but I make it so (possibly quite a
> stretch).

Heh! Mine neither really. :) A car would be useful but many other things
seem to suck up the money. And the benefit of owning one versus the cost
is not a particularly even relationship. Cars here are NOT cheap. And
petrol is (checks and converts http://www.benzinal.com/) $2.45 a litre
($9.27 per US Gallon, and as sure as that stuff from the biggun it's not
going down.)

>
>> The planet has been here for a while and barring the construction of a
>> superhighway by the Vogons, necessitating the demolition of the planet,
>> it will probably continue to be so, for longer than I will be needing
>> it.
>
> Of course nature will out - that's it's business - it's very definition;
> but nature doesn't squirt shit into the air, etc. "Been here" yes, and
> will continue to *be* here, and may even heal when we're gone, but you
> only need to open yur eyes and look around to see that we're fucking it
> up big time.

Where I live in the winter it is almost impossible to ride through the
town centre due to everyone using random bits of timber as firewood. The
smoke is so thick you can hardly breathe. You don't even need to open
your eyes to notice that. In fact it is recommended against opening them.
Seeing where you are going is over rated in the face of having your
eyeballs melt from the toxic smoke.

With regards to nature and spraying... I went on holiday to Ghana, Togo
and Benin years ago. They have some very interesting stomach bugs over
there... :(
--
davethedave

[datakoll]

chicago chicago itsa wonderful town

big deal with the shi gun is gting cattle to sit the guns hopper.

hiring a gun is very expensive now AND later.

we r dissapped, amuzi is hassling older women.

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:33:04 AM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:

> On 05/08/12 07:39, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > That's because, as usual, I've done my homework, and the clowns wittering on about subjects of which they know nothing except what they hear on television haven't.
>
> > Do you have Al Gore's video, Danno? If you don't, borrow a copy. At each point you can check the facts, and discover that Fat Al lies or is stupid, or both. A High Court Judge in the UK pointed out nine outright lies about the environment in Al Gore's video which stopped it from being shown to schoolchildren. The most notorious instance is where he stands in front of a huge historical ice core record, that CO2/global temperature graph the full width of the stage that's supposed to prove global warming is real, the faithful in the audience adoring him sweatily, and not one of them points out that what Fat Al says, which is that CO2 causes temperature to rise, is contradicted by his own graph, which consistently shows that TEMPERATURE RISE PRECEDES CO2 INCREASE.
>
> >
>

> > If you're serious about informing yourself, there's a survey of the literature that makes interesting reading. It's written by a Green Peace activist called Bjorn Lomborg and is called The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bj�rn Lomborg, and, among other things, he explains how hysterical catastrophism keeps the funding rolling in to keep climatolgical snouts in the trough.
>
> > http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1344144817&sr=8-2&keywords=lomborg
>
>
>
> http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

In the first supposed error I open, about rice yields, I find the usual global warmie attempt to claim that eveyone must use the global warmie frame of reference in talking about the environment: "[Lomborg] forgets to mention that Lester Brown is aware of this new type of rice..." Yeah, Lomborg should read the mind of the guy he's putting down with statistics. After that it becomes irrelevant that the writer of the site then proceeds to cook the statistics -- in an attempt to prove that Lomborg cooked the statistics!

It's juvenile crap, Frank, and if you don't know it, you're insensitive to nuance. However, as a joke for people with their brains in gear, it is pretty funny. Thanks.

I should perhaps say that I'm professionally a psychologist and an economist, and at the higher levels both of those, particularly in my specialties of mass motivation and demographics, are really just jumped-up statisticians a deal more articulate (or glib if you prefer) than strictly mathematical statisticians, who're generally speaking grimly unsmiling technicians. When I worked in advertising, one of the things I controlled was a $160m research budget, that's per annum. I therefore know every statistical lie in the book (which is why Krygowski fears me so much), and I don't believe in reformed Green Peacers, so I approached Lomborg with a jaundiced eye indeed. He's clean. I recommend him with a good conscience (as long as you watch him like a hawk so he doesn't revert to type).

Andre Jute
Carfree since 1992. How about you?

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 8:16:56 AM UTC+1, davethedave wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 08:47:18 -0700, Dan O wrote:
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Not so much for my situation, but I make it so (possibly quite a
>
> > stretch).
>
>
>
> Heh! Mine neither really. :) A car would be useful but many other things
>
> seem to suck up the money. And the benefit of owning one versus the cost
>
> is not a particularly even relationship.

My problem with the car was never money (mine have most been paid for by the shareholders). It was such boredom with crawling along that I never used any of my cars more than 3000 miles a year. In 1992 I gave up the car altogether in favour of the bicycle, and I haven't been sorry a single day. It is true, however, that I have always worked at home, so I admire the allweather bike commuters extravagantly.

Andre Jute
A conservationist who puts his muscles where his mouth is

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 4:52:46 AM UTC+1, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:

> The more advanced apes are recumbent while cycling.

Yes, Liddell Tommi, that's what I mean by "monkey see, monkey repeats" -- recumbents are, as you say, a fine example of pointless copycatting, just like gobal warming. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Andre Jute

[davethedave]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:23:04 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

> My problem with the car was never money (mine have most been paid for by
> the shareholders).

Which is nice. ;)

> It was such boredom with crawling along that I never
> used any of my cars more than 3000 miles a year. In 1992 I gave up the
> car altogether in favour of the bicycle, and I haven't been sorry a
> single day. It is true, however, that I have always worked at home, so I
> admire the allweather bike commuters extravagantly.

I binned my car in about 96. I was a young then and really didn't enjoy
spending 2.5 hours of my morning and evening sat in a car on an 30 mile
commute into London. I bought a motor bike and flogged the car. 45
minutes each way.Never had a car since. My last motorbike was flogged to
a dodgy bloke in a pub about 6 years ago and it's been bike ever since.

Kind of got rid of London too. :)
--
davethedave

[Frank Krygowski]

John B. wrote:
>
> And the solution is simple. Simply return to the life style of, say
> 250 ago.
>
> Eliminating manufacturing, power generation and fuel used for
> transportation will reduce carbon output by 52% and eliminating
> agricultural uses, recovery and transportation of hydro-carbon fuels,
> residential and commercial uses, land use and biomass burning and
> waste disposal and treatment will bring the number to nearly zero.
>
> This of course will eliminate carbon fiber bikes, purple lycra shorts
> and ceramic bearings.

Well, those last three wouldn't affect me at all! ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

davethedave wrote:
>
>
> I binned my car in about 96. I was a young then and really didn't enjoy
> spending 2.5 hours of my morning and evening sat in a car on an 30 mile
> commute into London. I bought a motor bike and flogged the car. 45
> minutes each way.Never had a car since. My last motorbike was flogged to
> a dodgy bloke in a pub about 6 years ago and it's been bike ever since.
>
> Kind of got rid of London too. :)

I'd be interested in hearing about (married) Americans who successfully
gave up their cars. Seems to me that it's extremely difficult in the
U.S. unless one lives in a very large and dense city.

The only one of my friends (or at least, acquaintances) that's car-free
lives an extremely isolated life. And he still mooches rides to the few
public events he attends.

(BTW, sorry if this post appears twice. Another system hiccup occurred.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[davethedave]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 16:03:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> I binned my car in about 96. I was a young then and really didn't enjoy
>> spending 2.5 hours of my morning and evening sat in a car on an 30 mile
>> commute into London. I bought a motor bike and flogged the car. 45
>> minutes each way.Never had a car since. My last motorbike was flogged
>> to a dodgy bloke in a pub about 6 years ago and it's been bike ever
>> since.
>>
>> Kind of got rid of London too. :)
>
> I'd be interested in hearing about (married) Americans who successfully
> gave up their cars. Seems to me that it's extremely difficult in the
> U.S. unless one lives in a very large and dense city.

If you incentivi[s|z]e the populace to do so by charging $10 - $15 a
gallon more would do so. Globally speaking your petrol is obscenely cheap
to the purchaser. Huge taxes on cars with large engines also helps.

> The only one of my friends (or at least, acquaintances) that's car-free
> lives an extremely isolated life. And he still mooches rides to the few
> public events he attends.

Heh. Ride mooching. Why not. Better than buying a car and overextending
yourself financially. Maybe a better public transport system might be
indicated though.


--
davethedave

[Dan O]

On Aug 4, 10:39 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 3:14:51 AM UTC+1, Dan O wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 6:10 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > ... global warming... wishful thinking...
>
> > Trying to get my mind around this; can't do it; just keeps eluding my
>
> > grasp like a slippery potato dumpling.
>
> > Andre, you argue with such certainty on this - and such vehemence.
>
> > What's the deal? It's not as if the haves gave a shit about the have
>
> > nots before Kyoto. Seems like slowing the burning ought to actually
>
> > give people a chance to take a look around and rethink priorities.
>
> > <snip>
>
> That's because, as usual, I've done my homework, and the clowns wittering on about subjects of which they know nothing except what they hear on television haven't.
>

*Many* who believe global warming is occurring have done their
homework, and yours cannot possibly so thorough and definitive as you
seem to think it is.

> Do you have Al Gore's video, Danno? If you don't, borrow a copy.

I don't have a copy, but I saw it once. Yeah, it was pretty over the
top - a pep rally - not so objective as e.g. a Nova episode. I
wouldn't be so quick to condemn Gore; I think he was just a figurehead
for the producers, who wanted to stir public apathy. Al seemed to be
using the opportunity as vehicle for legacy.

> At each point you can check the facts, and discover that Fat Al lies or is stupid, or both. A High Court Judge in the UK pointed out nine outright lies about the environment in Al Gore's video which stopped it from being shown to schoolchildren.

What, the book burners thought children coudn't smell a rat or think
for themselves? Seems like a valuable learning opportunity, actually.

> The most notorious instance is where he stands in front of a huge historical ice core record, that CO2/global temperature graph the full width of the stage that's supposed to prove global warming is real, the faithful in the audience adoring him sweatily, and not one of them points out that what Fat Al says, which is that CO2 causes temperature to rise, is contradicted by his own graph, which consistently shows that TEMPERATURE RISE PRECEDES CO2 INCREASE.

Again, just a figurehead (such vehemence). And how does a temperature
increase outside of CO2 increase disprove global warming?

>
> If you're serious about informing yourself, there's a survey of the literature that makes interesting reading. It's written by a Green Peace activist called Bjorn Lomborg and is called The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjørn Lomborg, and, among other things, he explains how hysterical catastrophism keeps the funding rolling in to keep climatolgical snouts in the trough.http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/...
>

"Real State of the World" - that's a good one :-) Thanks for the
link, though, I might check it out. Meanwhile, I'll respect nature
and try not to do things that irritate her.

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:40:28 PM UTC+1, Dan O wrote:
> On Aug 4, 10:39 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> *Many* who believe global warming is occurring have done their
>
> homework, and yours cannot possibly so thorough and definitive as you
>
> seem to think it is.

There aren't any who've done their homework on RBT, except perhaps Muzi, who as a trader keeps a low profile. Wish there were.

> > Do you have Al Gore's video, Danno? If you don't, borrow a copy.
>
> I don't have a copy, but I saw it once. Yeah, it was pretty over the
>
> top - a pep rally - not so objective as e.g. a Nova episode. I
>
> wouldn't be so quick to condemn Gore; I think he was just a figurehead
>
> for the producers, who wanted to stir public apathy. Al seemed to be
>
> using the opportunity as vehicle for legacy.
>
> > At each point you can check the facts, and discover that Fat Al lies or is stupid, or both. A High Court Judge in the UK pointed out nine outright lies about the environment in Al Gore's video which stopped it from being shown to schoolchildren.
>
> What, the book burners thought children coudn't smell a rat or think

Book burners? No, that's not what I said, nor what the judge said. He said the video told lies for political purposes, and should therefore be withheld from the children as all party-political propaganda is kept out of schools. You should check the facts before you embarrass yourself, Danno.

> > The most notorious instance is where he stands in front of a huge historical ice core record, that CO2/global temperature graph the full width of the stage that's supposed to prove global warming is real, the faithful in the audience adoring him sweatily, and not one of them points out that what Fat Al says, which is that CO2 causes temperature to rise, is contradicted by his own graph, which consistently shows that TEMPERATURE RISE PRECEDES CO2 INCREASE.
>
> Again, just a figurehead (such vehemence).

Wow. Now it gets to be a counter to any point I make that I am articulate and make it tellingly. I feel sorry for the dullness of your life, Danno, and the aridity of your education.

>And how does a temperature
>
> increase outside of CO2 increase disprove global warming?

Read what I wrote again. The entire global warming movement rests on the claim that CO2 causes global temperature rise. But what the science, the ice record proves, as in the graph Fat Al showed, is that temperature rise comes before CO2 increase. Thus cause and effect is reversed. And you, Danno, excuse this by calling Gore a figurehead? People starved in their hundred of millions so that we could spend trillions on preventing something where the entire global warming community cannot even get cause and effect right. But righto, we shouldn't be passionate about a few hundred million people starving, they're not Americans.

Andre Jute

[Wes Groleau]

On 08-05-2012 13:50, Andre Jute wrote:
> Carfree since 1992. How about you?

2010.

--
Wes Groleau

------
“The reason most women would rather have beauty than brains is
they know that most men can see better than they can think.”
— James Dobson

[Wes Groleau]

On 08-05-2012 16:03, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> I'd be interested in hearing about (married) Americans who successfully
> gave up their cars. Seems to me that it's extremely difficult in the
> U.S. unless one lives in a very large and dense city.

I couldn't for most of the time I was married. Bike-only my last 3.5
years in the navy, the last two being a thirteen mile commute.

> The only one of my friends (or at least, acquaintances) that's car-free
> lives an extremely isolated life. And he still mooches rides to the few
> public events he attends.

I accept a ride when the schedule makes my average speed¹ unacceptable
and I can't change the schedule. I also "mooch" a ride when I'm told
that the effects of the anesthetic are such that driving or biking are
dangerous and walking will be difficult.

If the distance is such that I don't think my body can endure it, I take
the train. (And the train station is thirty miles away.)

¹Even though I do 18-20 MPH on the level, even out in rural areas it
seems that stops and slow downs occur enough to bring my average down to
fourteen or fifteen. In the city, only once have I made enough lights
to average better than twelve.

--
Wes Groleau

¡Qué quiero realmente hacer es comer un perrito caliente!
私が実際にしたいと思う何をホットドッグを食べることである!
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=463

[Wes Groleau]

On 08-05-2012 16:27, davethedave wrote:
> Heh. Ride mooching. Why not. Better than buying a car and overextending
> yourself financially. Maybe a better public transport system might be
> indicated though.

The public transit here _would_ be overextending financially. And it
would have to be a LOT better to be more convenient than bicycling.

--
Wes Groleau

“Ideas are more powerful than guns,
We would not let our enemies have guns;
why should we let them have ideas?”
— Jozef Stalin

[Frank Krygowski]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 08-05-2012 16:27, davethedave wrote:
>> Heh. Ride mooching. Why not. Better than buying a car and overextending
>> yourself financially. Maybe a better public transport system might be
>> indicated though.
>
> The public transit here _would_ be overextending financially. And it
> would have to be a LOT better to be more convenient than bicycling.

Yes, public transit is dismal in the U.S.

While near Paris, France, I got in a long conversation about their train
system with a guy from Lyon. He said "It's silly to drive to Lyon when
I can take the TGV. Driving costs several times as much and takes
several times longer! Why would anyone drive?"

But in the U.S., the answer would usually be "Because once you got off
the train, you'd have no practical way to get around the city."

Well, unless you brought a bike with you! ;-)

Some U.S. cities do have decent public transit. But in most, it seems
to be slow, sparse and generally unpleasant.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[thirty-six]

On Aug 5, 6:50 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:33:04 AM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:
> > On 05/08/12 07:39, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > > That's because, as usual, I've done my homework, and the clowns wittering on about subjects of which they know nothing except what they hear on television haven't.
>
> > > Do you have Al Gore's video, Danno? If you don't, borrow a copy. At each point you can check the facts, and discover that Fat Al lies or is stupid, or both. A High Court Judge in the UK pointed out nine outright lies about the environment in Al Gore's video which stopped it from being shown to schoolchildren. The most notorious instance is where he stands in front of a huge historical ice core record, that CO2/global temperature graph the full width of the stage that's supposed to prove global warming is real, the faithful in the audience adoring him sweatily, and not one of them points out that what Fat Al says, which is that CO2 causes temperature to rise, is contradicted by his own graph, which consistently shows that TEMPERATURE RISE PRECEDES CO2 INCREASE.
>

> > > If you're serious about informing yourself, there's a survey of the literature that makes interesting reading. It's written by a Green Peace activist called Bjorn Lomborg and is called The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bj rn Lomborg, and, among other things, he explains how hysterical catastrophism keeps the funding rolling in to keep climatolgical snouts in the trough.
>
> > >http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/...

>
> >http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
>
> In the first supposed error I open, about rice yields, I find the usual global warmie attempt to claim that eveyone must use the global warmie frame of reference in talking about the environment: "[Lomborg] forgets to mention that Lester Brown is aware of this new type of rice..." Yeah, Lomborg should read the mind of the guy he's putting down with statistics. After that it becomes irrelevant that the writer of the site then proceeds to cook the statistics -- in an attempt to prove that Lomborg cooked the statistics!
>
> It's juvenile crap, Frank, and if you don't know it, you're insensitive to nuance. However, as a joke for people with their brains in gear, it is pretty funny. Thanks.
>
> I should perhaps say that I'm professionally a psychologist and an economist, and at the higher levels both of those, particularly in my specialties of mass motivation and demographics, are really just jumped-up statisticians a deal more articulate (or glib if you prefer) than strictly mathematical statisticians, who're generally speaking grimly unsmiling technicians. When I worked in advertising, one of the things I controlled was a $160m research budget, that's per annum. I therefore know every statistical lie in the book

including "cholesterol kills"?

[Frank Krygowski]

Andre Jute wrote:

> I therefore know every statistical lie in the book (which is why Krygowski fears me so much)...

HAHAHAHAHAHA! :-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

What are you on about, Trevor? Are you claiming that cholesterol, in excess of the body's requirements for certain regulatory requirements, does not form plaque on the arteries of the heart and does not kill by it?

My cardiologist will be very happy to hear that!

Andre Jute
The heart of an ox

[Andre Jute]

Wonderful. Kreepy Krygowski is accused of misusing statistics to tell his lies, and the best response he can manage is the bray of a juvenile ass.

I've met more dignified donkeys.

Andre Jute

[Radey Shouman]

> Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bj�rn

> Lomborg, and, among other things, he explains how hysterical
> catastrophism keeps the funding rolling in to keep climatolgical
> snouts in the trough.
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1344144817&sr=8-2&keywords=lomborg

Andre loves to foam, but in this case he's definitely on the right side
of history. There is almost no real evidence of a CO2 caused climate
catastrophe in the making.

There is physical reasoning for some CO2 mediated warming, between 1C
and 2C per *doubling* of CO2, which is the bit that is often left out --
one should expect "greenhouse" warming to be logarithmic in the
greenhouse gas concentration.

Predictions of catastrophe are produced by programming assumptions on
*H2O* concentration into complicated and opaque numerical simulation
programs. The remarkable improvement of short term weather prediction
in recent years shows that numerical simulation is not always useless,
but the loop has to be closed by comparison with physical reality in
order to make real predictions. And the warmists have zero record of
skilled predictions in the real world.

For evidence that catastrophe is already occuring there are several
temperature record sources:

1) The satellite record is useful but too short to say much at this
point.

2) The surface record has been abused by "corrections" that for some
reason always seem to indicate recent warming. The number and quality
of surface stations has declined markedly, an odd development given the
presumed importance of their data.

3) The last records are of long term temperature proxies. These, like
computer programs, are not inherently worthless, but they have been
shamelessly gamed beyond all recognition -- McIntyre and McKitrick have
conclusively shown this.

The evidence does show that the Earth's temperature has never remained
constant, but has always varied over a wide range of time scales.
Perhaps familiarity with this commonplace is the reason that so many of
the global warming dissenters seem to be either meteorologists or
geologists.

[thirty-six]

On Aug 6, 6:24 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 6, 2012 4:08:50 PM UTC+1, thirty-six wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 6:50 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > When I worked in advertising, one of the things I controlled was a $160m research budget, that's per annum. I therefore know every statistical lie in the book
>
> > including "cholesterol kills"?
>
> What are you on about, Trevor? Are you claiming that cholesterol, in excess of the body's requirements for certain regulatory requirements, does not form plaque on the arteries of the heart and does not kill by it?

I'm not making any claim of the sort. You check it out. Find out the
source of that BS then think, and think of what it really means.
Trust no-one.

>
> My cardiologist will be very happy to hear that!

likely not.

The story is something like:
Cholesterol is required to scavange injurous matter from the
bloodstream, preventingt it damaging the walls of the blood vessels.
Artificial reduction in cholesterol leads to damaged and weak blood
vessels. What cholesterol you have is there for your safety. Plaques
are caused by hydrogenated oils, instead use coconut and walnut oil,
butter and lard.
The response from rabbits was used to assess what occured with raised
cholesterol levels and pharmaco picked a number indicating the level
at which man should be medicalised. The fear factory at work.
Statins kill, cholesterol saves.

[AMuzi]

And yet, brains need cholesterol.
Fast for a few days and the lack is obvious.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[thirty-six]

coconut oil is an ideal survival food. I'd previously used sugar to
keep my mind functioning, but I was still getting episodes of
confusion. For my whole life, some forty-something years I have been
on a low-fat diet and was unable to see it as I had no alternative
reference. When i wanted to change things to help my health I have
twenty or so years to look back on where public advice was to lower
fats and salt. I was already there. Is it any wonder that adopting
such a skewed diet disenabled my mind and body on a long term basis?
It is only because of my athletic involvement led me toi study a
little physiology which clearly showed me that things were not going
as they should. I was unable to correct the inbalances because there
was some information missing from the physiology books that I studied,
that relating principally to magnesium intake and the effects of
hydrogenated oils as opposed to cold pressed nut oils. With this part
of my diet now corrected my body is responding correctly to ingestion
of herbs and fruits, which go to alkalise my body. Dandelion leaves
never tasted so good.

[Andre Jute]

> > Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bj�rn

>
> > Lomborg, and, among other things, he explains how hysterical
>
> > catastrophism keeps the funding rolling in to keep climatolgical
>
> > snouts in the trough.
>
> > http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1344144817&sr=8-2&keywords=lomborg
>
>
>
> Andre loves to foam, but in this case he's definitely on the right side
>
> of history.

Don't be so surprised. I've been putting down the catastrophists since as a precocious teenager I had a column in a Sunday paper, and once a month I would ask for evidence of the hole in the ozone layer. Velikovsky was meat and veg to me, and I remember when Hansen, the so-called "father of global warming" was predicting the coming Ice Age...

In any event, I have a track record of being alone in the minority, and a few years later being proved perfectly right. Reason, logic and science will always endure longer than trendiness, hysteria, and brainless braying of the Sherman/Krygowski/TibetanMonkey/assorted asshole variety.

Andre Jute

[thirty-six]

On Aug 6, 10:35 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 6, 2012 7:13:13 PM UTC+1, Radey Shouman wrote:

> > > Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bj rn

>
> > > Lomborg, and, among other things, he explains how hysterical
>
> > > catastrophism keeps the funding rolling in to keep climatolgical
>
> > > snouts in the trough.
>

> > >http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/...

>
> > Andre loves to foam, but in this case he's definitely on the right side
>
> > of history.
>
> Don't be so surprised. I've been putting down the catastrophists since as a precocious teenager I had a column in a Sunday paper, and once a month I would ask for evidence of the hole in the ozone layer. Velikovsky was meat and veg to me, and I remember when Hansen, the so-called "father of global warming" was predicting the coming Ice Age...
>
> In any event, I have a track record of being alone in the minority, and a few years later being proved perfectly right. Reason, logic and science will always endure longer than trendiness, hysteria, and brainless braying of the Sherman/Krygowski/TibetanMonkey/assorted asshole variety.

Do they believe in the cholesterol hoax too?
r

[James]

On 07/08/12 04:55, AMuzi wrote:
> On 8/6/2012 12:24 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Monday, August 6, 2012 4:08:50 PM UTC+1, thirty-six wrote:
>>> On Aug 5, 6:50 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> When I worked in advertising, one of the things I controlled was a
>>>> $160m research budget, that's per annum. I therefore know every
>>>> statistical lie in the book
>>>
>>> including "cholesterol kills"?
>>
>> What are you on about, Trevor? Are you claiming that cholesterol, in
>> excess of the body's requirements for certain regulatory requirements,
>> does not form plaque on the arteries of the heart and does not kill by
>> it?
>>
>> My cardiologist will be very happy to hear that!
>>
>>
>

> And yet, brains need cholesterol.
> Fast for a few days and the lack is obvious.
>

I read or heard somewhere that the cholesterol is only a problem when
there is an excess of iron in the blood, which makes the cholesterol
sticky, so it sticks to the artery walls and itself.

Men who reduce heavy exercise as they grow older (which kept iron levels
in check) and continue to eat plenty of red meat, start to get
cholesterol related problems.

Women, once they go through menopause also see an iron build up and are
susceptible to cholesterol related problems.

--
JS.

[thirty-six]

On Aug 6, 11:47 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/08/12 04:55, AMuzi wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/6/2012 12:24 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> On Monday, August 6, 2012 4:08:50 PM UTC+1, thirty-six wrote:
> >>> On Aug 5, 6:50 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> When I worked in advertising, one of the things I controlled was a
> >>>> $160m research budget, that's per annum. I therefore know every
> >>>> statistical lie in the book
>
> >>> including "cholesterol kills"?
>
> >> What are you on about, Trevor? Are you claiming that cholesterol, in
> >> excess of the body's requirements for certain regulatory requirements,
> >> does not form plaque on the arteries of the heart and does not kill by
> >> it?
>
> >> My cardiologist will be very happy to hear that!
>
> > And yet, brains need cholesterol.
> > Fast for a few days and the lack is obvious.
>
> I read or heard somewhere that the cholesterol is only a problem when
> there is an excess of iron in the blood, which makes the cholesterol
> sticky, so it sticks to the artery walls and itself.

I've seen something which links iron in with sulphates, the sulphate
having something to do with storing iron inside the mitochondria. The
mitochondria draw sulphates from the joints as we age so giving the
aging population arthritis in the absence of adequate sulphur intake.
High sulphur levels are found in shellfish, garlic and onions, as long
as you don't boil it off.

>
> Men who reduce heavy exercise as they grow older (which kept iron levels
> in check) and continue to eat plenty of red meat, start to get
> cholesterol related problems.

Liver also IIRC contains healthy levels of sulphates.

[John B.]

I really suggest that you do a little reading about what Cholesterol
is and what it does in the body as the above is about as incorrect as
it is possible to get.

Cheers,
John B.

[John B.]

Alkalise your body? Your digestive system is primarily acid and the
contents of your stomach is so highly acidic that a bottle of calcium
tablets will not change it for more then a few minutes. All foods that
leave your stomach are acidic. Then they enter your intestines where
secretions from your pancreas neutralize the stomach acids. So no
matter what you eat, the food in stomach is acidic and the food in the
intestines is alkaline.

Cheers,
John B.

[thirty-six]

I know of the standard mainstream literature, I was highlighting a
function not typically known and understood. You ought to get up to
speed before you go spouting off.

[Wes Groleau]

On 08-06-2012 22:14, John B. wrote:
> I really suggest that you do a little reading about what Cholesterol
> is and what it does in the body as the above is about as incorrect as
> it is possible to get.

http://soursaltybittersweet.com/content/things-wont-kill-you-volume-4-saturated-fat-part-ii-cholesterol-myths

--
Wes Groleau

“In the field of language teaching, Method A is the logical
contradiction of Method B: if the assumptions from which
A claims to be derived are correct, then B cannot work,
and vice versa. Yet one colleague is getting excellent
results with A and another is getting comparable results
with B. How is this possible?”
— Earl W. Stevick

[Wes Groleau]

On 08-06-2012 11:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Wes Groleau wrote:
>> On 08-05-2012 16:27, davethedave wrote:
>>> Heh. Ride mooching. Why not. Better than buying a car and overextending
>>> yourself financially. Maybe a better public transport system might be
>>> indicated though.
>>
>> The public transit here _would_ be overextending financially. And it
>> would have to be a LOT better to be more convenient than bicycling.
>
> Yes, public transit is dismal in the U.S.
>
> While near Paris, France, I got in a long conversation about their train
> system with a guy from Lyon. He said "It's silly to drive to Lyon when
> I can take the TGV. Driving costs several times as much and takes
> several times longer! Why would anyone drive?"
>
> But in the U.S., the answer would usually be "Because once you got off
> the train, you'd have no practical way to get around the city."
>
> Well, unless you brought a bike with you! ;-)

But AmTrak wouldn't let me bring the bike with me, and Greyhound
demanded that it be in a shipping case. Now how am I supposed to strap
a shipping case that big to my back so I can get it to the bus depot?


--
Wes Groleau

“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a
firm and unalterable experience has established these laws,
the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact,
is as entire as could possibly be imagined.”
— David Hume, age 37
“There's no such thing of that, 'cause I never heard of it.”
— Becky Groleau, age 4

[Dan O]

On Aug 6, 11:55 am, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 8/6/2012 12:24 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > On Monday, August 6, 2012 4:08:50 PM UTC+1, thirty-six wrote:
> >> On Aug 5, 6:50 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> When I worked in advertising, one of the things I controlled was a $160m research budget, that's per annum. I therefore know every statistical lie in the book
>
> >> including "cholesterol kills"?
>
> > What are you on about, Trevor? Are you claiming that cholesterol, in excess of the body's requirements for certain regulatory requirements, does not form plaque on the arteries of the heart and does not kill by it?
>
> > My cardiologist will be very happy to hear that!
>
> > Andre Jute
> > The heart of an ox
>
> And yet, brains need cholesterol.

And glucose.

> Fast for a few days and the lack is obvious.
>

I have to wonder how many more people bought the Atkin's diet than
Ride Bike and eat well.

[Dan O]

I tried nicely to question "what's the deal" with the vehemence (and
don't try to sell us the "starving millions" angle as you toodle down
to the shops on your extravagant bike with your really nice watch for
good wine to go with your good dinner).

And you seem so certain. Come on - really?

And that bit about "no damage to the ecosystem"? "Earth to Andre... "

raaman nailed it in the first reply to your OP.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 8/6/2012 10:08 AM, thirty-six wrote:
> On Aug 5, 6:50�pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> [...]

>> I should perhaps say that I'm professionally a psychologist and an economist, and at the higher levels both of those, particularly in my specialties of mass motivation and demographics, are really just jumped-up statisticians a deal more articulate (or glib if you prefer) than strictly mathematical statisticians, who're generally speaking grimly unsmiling technicians. When I worked in advertising, one of the things I controlled was a $160m research budget, that's per annum. I therefore know every statistical lie in the book
>
> including "cholesterol kills"?

> [...]

A 55-gallon drum of cholesterol dropped from 100 feet will indeed kill.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 8/6/2012 10:55 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> But AmTrak wouldn't let me bring the bike with me,[...]

Not even a Bike Friday or similar in a case?

[Joe Riel]

"Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:

> On 8/6/2012 10:55 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
>> But AmTrak wouldn't let me bring the bike with me,[...]
>
> Not even a Bike Friday or similar in a case?

Probably depends on the particular train. I've traveled from San Diego
to Los Angeles and back with a bike several times on AmTrak, but not
recently. If the train had a baggage car, it would go in there. With
the Moulton, I could split it into two parts and carry them on board in
nylon bags. The newer commuter trains have facilities for standing a
bike, but I never used them (weren't generally available when I was
doing that).

--
Joe Riel

[Joe Riel]

"Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:

> On 8/6/2012 10:55 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
>> But AmTrak wouldn't let me bring the bike with me,[...]
>
> Not even a Bike Friday or similar in a case?

[Andre Jute]

Well, Danno, if you've made up your mind that precautionary measures
costing trillions (that we should be spending on the starving in
Africa instead) are justified on such a distant possibility, how about
funding my pet project, to put down the rats infesting the universe.
After all it is perfectly possible that the moon is made entirely of
cheese. And if you think I'm patronizing you, and brushing you off,
don't. I'm demonstrating that the entire argument of global warming
and eco-damage is at precisely that childish level, but dressed up in
scientific-sounding gobbledegook for gullible but well-intentioned
punters punters like you, preconditioned by our Christian heritage to
feel uncomfortable if they don't have something to feel guilty about.

Of course I'm certain. I'm not in the habit of opening my mouth until
I've done my homework. And I did do it; unlike the "friends" of the
environment on RBT, who take their information from television
soundbites, I've read all the IPCC reports end to end, and I've read
the testimony to the houses of congress, and I know for instance that
the claim that the NAS supports global warming is a lie.

But I suspect you're not listening. You've used the word "vehemence"
five times now, and soon you'll explain to us that that's your excuse
for not listening. So I'll stop wasting my time on you, and just leave
you with this thought, What are the unintended consequences of the
measures suggested to "prevent" or "correct" climate change? For
instance, in the 1970s, the catastrophists, the same people very often
as now witter on about global warming, including James Hansen,
wittered on about an impdending New Ice Age. They wanted us to heat up
the oceans. What if we had done it, on exactly the same Precautionary
Principle you argue for now, and the global warmies are right? Then we
could have burned already. Gee, sorry, Gaia, we made a dumb mistake.
But we meant well.

See, Danno, historically it is far more likely that we're for an Ice
Age next, so the chances are that the nutters of the 1970s (often the
same nutters as of the 2010s) were more right then than they are now.
But we just don't know.

We shouldn't act until we do know.

Andre Jute
It isn't difficult to put your mind in gear

[Dan O]

Interesting the way rats in particular thrive in attendance of human
activity, eh?

> After all it is perfectly possible that the moon is made entirely of
> cheese. And if you think I'm patronizing you, and brushing you off,
> don't. I'm demonstrating that the entire argument of global warming
> and eco-damage is at precisely that childish level, but dressed up in
> scientific-sounding gobbledegook for gullible but well-intentioned

> punters punters like you...

I'm just saying take it easy on Mother Earth.

> ..., preconditioned by our Christian heritage to

> feel uncomfortable if they don't have something to feel guilty about.
>

Ah, an apsect of whence the vehemence begins to emerge.

> Of course I'm certain. I'm not in the habit of opening my mouth until
> I've done my homework. And I did do it; unlike the "friends" of the
> environment on RBT, who take their information from television
> soundbites, I've read all the IPCC reports end to end, and I've read
> the testimony to the houses of congress, and I know for instance that
> the claim that the NAS supports global warming is a lie.
>

Sorry, all the reports and more cannot offer you or anyone else
understanding that warrants such certainty.

> But I suspect you're not listening. You've used the word "vehemence"
> five times now, and soon you'll explain to us that that's your excuse
> for not listening.

No, I'm listening - precisely *because* of the vehemence. I'm really
curious, being fascinated by psychology myself (sure, I know - your
understanding of human psychology is also unsurpassed, unparalleled,
and probably complete).

> So I'll stop wasting my time on you, and just leave
> you with this thought, What are the unintended consequences of the
> measures suggested to "prevent" or "correct" climate change? For
> instance, in the 1970s, the catastrophists, the same people very often
> as now witter on about global warming, including James Hansen,
> wittered on about an impdending New Ice Age. They wanted us to heat up
> the oceans. What if we had done it, on exactly the same Precautionary
> Principle you argue for now, and the global warmies are right? Then we
> could have burned already. Gee, sorry, Gaia, we made a dumb mistake.
> But we meant well.
>

So you believe the human race has the power to rapidly, dramatically,
and irreversibly affect global livability via unintended
consequences? Hmm...

> See, Danno, historically it is far more likely that we're for an Ice

> Age next...

There is no historical precedence for what we are doing.

> ..., so the chances are that the nutters of the 1970s (often the

> same nutters as of the 2010s) were more right then than they are now.
>

> But we just don't know.

"But we just don't know." Thank you. Quite right there.

>
> We shouldn't act until we do know.
>

Don't act? Burn, baby, burn?

[Andre Jute]

I leave you to your smug ignorance and arrogance, Danno. You have a
more than decent helping of the dangerous hubris I mentioned at the
beginning of this thread. When you've Lomborg's book, we can talk
again.

Andre Jute

[Robert Borchert]

That brings back memories. About 15 years ago, I would toss a coin, riding from Mission Viejo, either north to Redondo Beach, or south to San Diego. Some weekends, we'd do both.

If I stayed late in San Diego, we'd load the bikes in the baggage car and ride the Amtrak back from SD to San Juan Capistrano. In the world according to Amtrak, we could not access the bikes at the station in SJC. I never did figure out why.

We were told that the bikes could be unloaded at the Anaheim station. Wonder what the "Anaheim Station" was? A 30 yard concrete pad at the edge of the Anaheim Stadium parking lot. No shit.

There is a silver lining to all this. From Anaheim, we would ride east and climb Chapman Avenue up into the hills, and banzai down Santiago Canyon for home. Awesome detour, and one more decent climb.

Hehe, just checked the satellite view, they've added an awning and some palm trees.

Ah, sorry, I digress. I have always thought I was born 50 years late. In the 50s, we drank like fish, smoked like factories, and ate breakfast with eggs, bacon, and mounds of butter. No statins, no obese masses afraid of eating anything with fat. We have folks afraid that the sky is falling, and asking Al Gore for divine intervention.

Somewhere between Leave It To Beaver and Romper Room, intelligence took a precipitous plunge, didn't it? I think Mr Green Jeans might have something to do with it.

Bob

[thirty-six]

On Aug 7, 4:49 am, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 08-06-2012 22:14, John B. wrote:
>
> > I really suggest that you do a little reading about what Cholesterol
> > is and what it does in the body as the above is about as incorrect as
> > it is possible to get.
>

> http://soursaltybittersweet.com/content/things-wont-kill-you-volume-4...
>

I wasn't even thinking what cholesterol does not do in the body, the
popular myth driving the sale of statin drugs.

quote -----------------------------------

In a 1952 article in Circulation, the journal of the American Heart
Association, <Ancel> Keys noted that although rabbits and chickens
that eat high-cholesterol diets will develop high cholesterol and
atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries:
"No animal species close to man in metabolic habitus has been shown to
be susceptible to the induction of atherosclerosis by cholesterol
feeding…. Moreover, even in the favorite species for such
experimentation, the herbivorous rabbit, the necessary concentration
of cholesterol in the diet is fantastically high in comparison with
actual human diets. Moreover, there is reason to believe that man has
a greater power of cholesterol regulation than does the rabbit or the
chicken. From the animal experiments alone the most reasonable
conclusion would be that the cholesterol content of human diets is
unimportant in human atherosclerosis."

Two "moreovers" in one paragraph, people! “Most reasonable
conclusion”! Moreover, five decades of subsequent research haven't
given anyone any reason to think differently. In 1997, Keys was even
more direct:

" There’s no connection whatsoever between cholesterol in food and
cholesterol in blood. And we’ve known that all along. Cholesterol in
the diet doesn’t matter unless you happen to be a chicken or a
rabbit."

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

[Andre Jute]

We don't have trains where we live. We have a nice ride beside the
river where the rails were removed.

But you can take your bike on the bus, if you don't mind sliding it
into the luggage compartment on its side... (Yeah, that's real
likely.) Typically of Ireland, the service is available at the
discretion of the bus driver, if there is space, and if he isn't
running to late to wait for you to put your bike in the luggage
compartment between the wheels. The bus drivers are generally friendly
and helpful, but it is possible to get a ride to some place too far
away to cycle home with one driver and then to find the last bus is
operated by a sullen sod who just says, "No bikes." To make up for it,
the charge for the bike also seems to be in the dirver's discretion.
Some charge, some charge occasionally, some never charge. The charge
is a flat fiver or tenner, any distance, less than a ticket for a
human anyway.

Andre Jute
Not an adjunct of the Tourist Board

[Andre Jute]

Sqauwk! [WIGGLES EARS]

[thirty-six]

Unless it isn't. What if the pancreatic secretions are inadequate?
It seems to me that it is the bitter foods which cause alkalisation.
I don't know the mechanism but perhaps bitter substances directly
stimulate the pancreas releasing bicarbonate. The first time I came
across this alkalisation was in Bender's dictionary, first pub c
1978 He considered the relative alkalisation of foods to be
important for correct nutrition and valued each food by it's acid or
alkaline forming effect.

Anyway, off for a hot lemon infusion.

[thirty-six]

lightbulb moment- of course the bittering is due to the bitter salts,
magnesium chloride and magnesium sulphate. Next time I get
breathless i'll give it a go and see if one or other dissolved under
my tongue alleviates the breathlessness.

[thirty-six]

On Aug 7, 6:23 am, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

1.1 gallon of cholesterol from a pair of feet, I don't think so? On,
hold on, is that Elephantitis?

[John B.]

Do a little research about the body's PH control. It is quite
interesting.
Cheers,
John B.

[John B.]

I probably am fairly well versed.. I've had high cholesterol for 20
years, or so and have been pretty inquisitive about the causes, and
care. Your first sentence, "Cholesterol is required to scavenge
injurious matter from the bloodstream, preventing it damaging the
walls of the blood vessels.", for example, is incorrect.


Cheers,
John B.

[John B.]

I hate to say it but a study conducted 60 years ago is unlikely to be
valid today. But on the other hand, cholesterol is found only in meat
or meat products and since rabbits aren't carnivorous they don't
consume cholesterol. Chickens, on the other are not only cannibalistic
but also omnivorous.

Current thinking is that diet may (please note the word "may") effect
your cholesterol by between 10 and 25%, depending on what authority
you consult however there are many things that effect the amount of
cholesterol circulating in your blood. Smoking has an effect on
cholesterol levels, drinking does too although there are indications
that red wine may tend to lower cholesterol levels.

As the liver regulates cholesterol levels varying liver function may
well result in different responses to dietary quantities of fats.

In my own case I pretty well proved that diet does have an effect on
cholesterol levels. At one time I was having a blood test every month
to check that some medication I was taking wasn't having an
undesirable effect. After several months the Meds, cholesterol levels,
diet and liver functions were stabilized. Shortly thereafter I went to
Singapore to have my annual physical (Singapore because I used to work
there and the clinic has 20 years of records for me) and a Chinese
friend and I went out for "supper". The clinic's position to take
nothing but water after 18:00 the day before a blood test so my mate
and I went out to supper about 16:00 and dined on pizza, big pizza
with plenty of olive oil and sausages and cheese and garlic bread. The
next day my cholesterol levels were substantially higher then what
they had been a couple of weeks before. After finishing the physical
(and listening to a lecture from my doctor about cholesterol) I came
back home and returned to my normal diet and meds. Two weeks later I
took another blood test and lo and behold my cholesterol levels had
returned to the same levels as they were before my Singapore trip. So
in my case I am convinced that the pizza did effect my cholesterol
levels.

Cheers,
John B.

[Joe Riel]

Robert Borchert <race...@yahoo.com> writes:

> That brings back memories. About 15 years ago, I would toss a coin, riding from Mission Viejo, either north to Redondo Beach, or south to San Diego. Some weekends, we'd do both.
>
> If I stayed late in San Diego, we'd load the bikes in the baggage car and ride the Amtrak back from SD to San Juan Capistrano. In the world according to Amtrak, we could not access the bikes at the station in SJC. I never did figure out why.
>
> We were told that the bikes could be unloaded at the Anaheim
> station. Wonder what the "Anaheim Station" was? A 30 yard concrete pad
> at the edge of the Anaheim Stadium parking lot. No shit.

Yeah, I've debarked there a couple times. More frequently at the Santa
Ana station, which is an actual building.


--
Joe Riel

[John B.]

And 50 years ago my father walked to work and back every day it wasn't
raining or too much snow, people used to shovel their driveways, by
hand, when it snowed and mow their lawn with a push lawnmower. My
granddad ate 6 meals a day and all but the snack before he went out to
do the morning chores came right out of a cast iron skillet and none
of this fancy pants magnolia oil, or whatever, "shortening was lard
right out of the bucket.

A different world.

Cheers,
John B.

[Dan O]

Definition of HUBRIS
: exaggerated pride or self-confidence

[John B.]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:01:45 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danov...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The "Atkins Diet" worked. In a sense. At least people lost weight. If
you ever know anyone that went to one of their clinics they came out
skinny. Wake up before daylight and drink a glass of cold water, and
then a 5 mile hike. A lettuce leaf Lunch and then 3 hours of aerobics.
A lecture and another plate of lettuce and then a couple more hours of
exercise. It wasn't the food that was making then skinny it was the
exercise.


Cheers,
John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 08-06-2012 11:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>> But in the U.S., the answer would usually be "Because once you got off
>> the train, you'd have no practical way to get around the city."
>>
>> Well, unless you brought a bike with you! ;-)
>
> But AmTrak wouldn't let me bring the bike with me, and Greyhound
> demanded that it be in a shipping case. Now how am I supposed to strap a
> shipping case that big to my back so I can get it to the bus depot?

When we biked coast to coast, we took Amtrak back home. Had to box our
bikes, which was a minor hassle. (In Europe, you just hang them in the
bike storage areas on board.)

But the bigger problem occurred on arriving at home. The Amtrak stop in
our city had no baggage service, and we were not permitted to handle our
own baggage. So we could get off and go home (a friend picked us up in
her car), but we later had to drive about 75 miles on to the next city
with baggage service, to retrieve our bikes!

The U.S. has a long way to go.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[thirty-six]

When I find my pH indicator strip, I will. Possibly in brewshed and I
hope to get there today.

> interesting.
> Cheers,
> John B.

[thirty-six]

because you want to believe the drug peddlars?

> But on the other hand, cholesterol is found only in meat
> or meat products and since rabbits aren't carnivorous they don't
> consume cholesterol. Chickens, on the other are not only cannibalistic
> but also omnivorous.

rabbits and chicks have noiwt tdo wi man!

>
> Current thinking is that diet may (please note the word "may") effect
> your cholesterol by between 10 and 25%, depending on what authority

so effin what? all that shows is that when one consumes little or
non, the protective agents and hormone carrier, cho.lkesterol, drops.

> you consult however there are many things that effect the amount of
> cholesterol circulating in your blood. Smoking has an effect on
> cholesterol levels,

quite rightly showing the protective respose of the body by releasing
more cholesterol to bind to otherwise injurous toxins.

> drinking does too  although there are indications
> that red wine may tend to lower cholesterol levels.

throughout my adult life I've always enjoyed drinking port. One or
two decent glasses being sufficient (up to 1/2 bottle) at least once a
week.

>
> As the liver regulates cholesterol levels varying liver function may
> well result in different responses to dietary quantities of fats.

meaning one needs cholesterol and most people obeying western govt
advice are living with a diminished reserve capacity.

>
> In my own case I pretty well proved that diet does have an effect on
> cholesterol levels. At one time I was having a blood test every month
> to check that some medication I was taking wasn't having an
> undesirable effect. After several months the Meds, cholesterol levels,
> diet and liver functions were stabilized. Shortly thereafter I went to
> Singapore to have my annual physical (Singapore because I used to work
> there and the clinic has 20 years of records for me) and a Chinese
> friend and I went out for "supper". The clinic's position to take
> nothing but water after 18:00 the day before a blood test so my mate
> and I went out to supper about 16:00 and dined on pizza, big pizza
> with plenty of olive oil and sausages and cheese and garlic bread. The
> next day my cholesterol levels were substantially higher then what
> they had been a couple of weeks before.

Olive oil contains linoleic acid, which is thought to provoke
oxidation of saturated fats (that in the cheese), and this is possibly
why your cholesterol spiked. The bread wont have helped. be glad
that you did have sufficient reserve to protect against the oxidated
fats.

> After finishing the physical
> (and listening to a lecture from my doctor about cholesterol) I came
> back home and returned to my normal diet and meds. Two weeks later I
> took another blood test and lo and behold my cholesterol levels had
> returned to the same levels as they were before my Singapore trip. So
> in my case I am convinced that the pizza did effect my cholesterol
> levels.

in conjunction with olive oil (or vegetable oils)..

[thirty-six]

is your body so remarkedly different from your grandfather's that you
cannot live by the same foods?

[Andre Jute]

Quite. That's why I do the research before I express an opinion.
Global warmies have an opinion, can't prove it, then claim that we
should take their failure to prove it as a reason for action. They
dress it up as the Precautionary Principle but that what it comes down
to. It's hurbis of the worst kind to claim you unprovable opinion is
science because you say so.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

Er, Trevor, surely you are aware that our life expectancy is
substantially higher than that of our grandfathers?

Actually, I should be so lucky. My great-grandfather on his 101st
birthday took me for a thirty-mile hike through the vines, then
stacked a three ton raisin stoker and fueled up. His only dietary
peculiarity was that he was a teetotaller. -- Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Aug 7, 3:58 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:01:45 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>

I thought the Atkins Diet was all red meat with the fat left on...
Another illusion shattered! -- AJ

[thirty-six]

I'm not so sure mine is, and both my grandfathers died before their
time. I'm educating myself so I can get myself healthy and get a life
before I get old. One g'father had been kicked by a horse in the
stomach and afterwards subjected to high levels of radiation in his
work with RAF. He had much of his stomach removed after is was found
to be cancerous. He smoked cigarettes, drank whisky and took aspirin
for years and cancer was again found in his stomach and oesophagus,
evntually infesting throat and lungs. I watched him weaken and
struggle for breath over a 3 year period and his only assistance was
oxygen for about 6 months. His diet was meagre because of his limited
stomach capacity and this will certainly have contributed to further
cancerous infection. I intend to stay away from the rear of horses
and won't be smoking nearly so much or taking so much aspirin.

I find aspirin very helpful (as Beechm's powders)for pain relief
way and above better than other oral analgesics and this is because it
acts directly through the stomach wall. My search for alternatives in
controlling pain seems close to completion. It involves correctly
identifying which foods are appropriate for which pains and are
modified according to the time of day. Left side upper abdomen is
generally aided by green tea, right side by lemon infusion. Central
lower abdominal pain (which is not bladder) in the morning is best
treated with a strong stovetop coffee and this removes whatever is
binding to the intestinal walls and is a gentle purge.. Musco-skeltal
pains are eased with fruits in general along with herbs and spices.
Cream oils and fats also find benefit and a direct examination of my
skin still indicates I need to continue consumption of good quatities
of oils and fats.

My other g'father died with throat cancer after cigarette smoking and
wroking with his hands covered in mineral oils all day. He was an
engineer with a responsibility for coal and oil fired steam angines
and mineral oil fired diesels. It was thought that possibly the oils
he transferred to his cigarette papers mostly responsible for
initiating the cancer. i believe that the soaking of oils on his
skin in themselves had a greater effect than that of of smoking
tobacco as despite what was thought, he wasn't an excessive smoker and
I say this in comparrison to other people of his time who did not work
in industry but smoked to a similar extent and outlived him by 30
years. He died younger and I know that his wife gave him margarine
not butter and all baking was done with margerine. I believe that
choosing oils and fats correctly will go a long way in returning me to
health and I am also careful what contacts my skin, my clothes now
only washed in pure soap.

It's a shame that part of my learning has come through the deaths of
my grandparents, uncle and mother, yet I cannot deny this experience
for the sake of bloody-minded ignorance. I take these lessons along
with information from literature in physiolgy and mre recent findings
into the benefits of certain foods and treatment outside of the
medicalised system and apply the information to looking after myself
in the best manner I am capable of. It's a long slog for me but I'm
making progress, unlike the medical profession who let me decline into
being bedridden. Food is a gret healer as long as it is used not
misused. I'm getting to the point where I'm quite confident on my
choices between effectual foods and killer foods. Some of the bad
list might be re-emerging into the good list, I think milk might be OK
for me in the presence of sulphurous food as i never had any trouble
with digesting my own quiches which included cheese, milk eggs, onions
and brocolli.

[thirty-six]

I like to think of all fat with a little red meat left on. Too much
meat protien hurts me both intestinally and in skeletal muscle. It
also leads to breathlessness, it is acicifying. Eggs may also be if
they are hard-boiled, I eat the majority raw, up to 5 a day.

[John B.]

No, because medical knowledge has been increased. It used to be that
people died or were crippled by "infantile paralysis" but since the
early 1950's when a vaccine was discovered for the disease it has been
largely eradicated in most countries.

>> But on the other hand, cholesterol is found only in meat
>> or meat products and since rabbits aren't carnivorous they don't
>> consume cholesterol. Chickens, on the other are not only cannibalistic
>> but also omnivorous.
>
>rabbits and chicks have noiwt tdo wi man!

Do, I don't think it has, but since you mentioned the subject (

"Cholesterol in the diet doesn t matter unless you happen to be a

chicken or a rabbit")."I thought I'd reply.

>>
>> Current thinking is that diet may (please note the word "may") effect
>> your cholesterol by between 10 and 25%, depending on what authority
>
>so effin what? all that shows is that when one consumes little or
>non, the protective agents and hormone carrier, cho.lkesterol, drops.
>
>> you consult however there are many things that effect the amount of
>> cholesterol circulating in your blood. Smoking has an effect on
>> cholesterol levels,
>
>quite rightly showing the protective respose of the body by releasing
>more cholesterol to bind to otherwise injurous toxins.
>

Except that cholesterol doesn't "bind with otherwise injurious
toxins".

>> drinking does too �although there are indications
>> that red wine may tend to lower cholesterol levels.
>
>throughout my adult life I've always enjoyed drinking port. One or
>two decent glasses being sufficient (up to 1/2 bottle) at least once a
>week.
>>
>> As the liver regulates cholesterol levels varying liver function may
>> well result in different responses to dietary quantities of fats.
>
>meaning one needs cholesterol and most people obeying western govt
>advice are living with a diminished reserve capacity.

True that the body requires some cholesterol, it is used in making
cell walls and part of the brain structure. However a cholesterol
level low enough to be dangerous is a very rare problem.

>>
>> In my own case I pretty well proved that diet does have an effect on
>> cholesterol levels. At one time I was having a blood test every month
>> to check that some medication I was taking wasn't having an
>> undesirable effect. After several months the Meds, cholesterol levels,
>> diet and liver functions were stabilized. Shortly thereafter I went to
>> Singapore to have my annual physical (Singapore because I used to work
>> there and the clinic has 20 years of records for me) and a Chinese
>> friend and I went out for "supper". The clinic's position to take
>> nothing but water after 18:00 the day before a blood test so my mate
>> and I went out to supper about 16:00 and dined on pizza, big pizza
>> with plenty of olive oil and sausages and cheese and garlic bread. The
>> next day my cholesterol levels were substantially higher then what
>> they had been a couple of weeks before.
>
>Olive oil contains linoleic acid, which is thought to provoke
>oxidation of saturated fats (that in the cheese), and this is possibly
>why your cholesterol spiked. The bread wont have helped. be glad
>that you did have sufficient reserve to protect against the oxidated
>fats.

The point is not what caused my cholesterol level to be inflated. The
point is what I did that caused my cholesterol levels to change.

>
>> After finishing the physical
>> (and listening to a lecture from my doctor about cholesterol) I came
>> back home and returned to my normal diet and meds. Two weeks later I
>> took another blood test and lo and behold my cholesterol levels had
>> returned to the same levels as they were before my Singapore trip. So
>> in my case I am convinced that the pizza did effect my cholesterol
>> levels.
>
>in conjunction with olive oil (or vegetable oils)..

Cheers,
John B.

[John B.]

You are correct and I was exaggerating about the lettuce leaf lunches.

The Air Force had a program that followed the Atkins Diet and it did
produce some remarkable weight losses. In fact, at the base I was at
they set up a special mess hall for dieters. A good friend was the
Sqdn. First Sergeant (Company Sergeant Major) who arranged a mess pass
for me :-) and the "diet" consisted of eating all you wanted of any of
the food available, which was basically all protein. I saw people
eating 5 - 6 fried eggs and probably a half a pound of bacon; and
losing weight.
Cheers,
John B.

[Andre Jute]

I have preferred fish, pasta, grains, fowl, fruit, salads all my life,
so it is somewhat against natural justice for me to suffer from high
cholesterol.

[thirty-six]

slimy slugs got mine, I didn't put the crushed egg-shells down. i
think i like dandelion leaves better now.

[thirty-six]

If it was me I'd stop eating the grains and have coconut and walnut
oil, raw eggs and onions. I woud dttch the statins and have improved
muscle strength. You weren't so weak before taking statins were you?
Prk-belly is a good source of quality fat, and tasty too. I find that
pickled chillis make a good accompianment.

[thirty-six]

On Aug 8, 1:20 am, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:17:12 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Therels no requirement to manipulate for a magic number just eat good
foods.

[datakoll]

HP fired him caws he was irritating.