http://ecologos.org/fft.htm

Larry Forti wrote:
http://ecologos.org/fft.htm

Very nice, Larry. However, your approach to dismissing
the findings which you understandably don't like is
thoroughly unscientific. IN fact, it is ANTI-science,
par excellence.

A REAL scientist would have pointed out inconsistencies
in Leonard's account. A real scientist, Larry -
something you could never be - would keep his own
emotions out of it. You can't.

"jambalaya" wrote in message
link.net...
http://ecologos.org/fft.htm
However, your approach to dismissing
the findings which you understandably don't like is
thoroughly unscientific. IN fact, it is ANTI-science,
par excellence.
If you'd like to point out and correct any errors of mine, please do so.
However, just sniping from the sidelines with juvenile insults and
saying nothing substantial is much easier.
That you, noBalls?

Laurie

jambalaya wrote in message hlink.net...
Larry Forti wrote:
http://ecologos.org/fft.htm

Very nice, Larry. However, your approach to dismissing
the findings which you understandably don't like is
thoroughly unscientific. IN fact, it is ANTI-science,
par excellence.

A REAL scientist would have pointed out inconsistencies
in Leonard's account. A real scientist, Larry -
something you could never be - would keep his own
emotions out of it. You can't.

Even though some parts are indeed loaded with emotion aswell as gloss
(I've never seen Larry write differently) Larry does makes some points
and shows inconsistencies in the article.

A real scientist would keep emotions out of it, yet when do we see
this happen in real life? When the journal Nature called for the
burning of Sheldrake's book?
Larry's present style suits him and the spirit he writes in well. It
would of course never do in formal scientific discussion.

Laurie wrote:

"jambalaya" wrote in message
link.net...

http://ecologos.org/fft.htm

However, your approach to dismissing
the findings which you understandably don't like is
thoroughly unscientific. IN fact, it is ANTI-science,
par excellence.

If you'd like to point out and correct any errors of mine, please do so.

With pleasure, Larry.


Leonard, the person holding a Ph.D. from an
accredited university:
We humans are strange primates.

Polemicisit Larry Forti, the business world reject:
True, and the fiction they create disguised as
'science' to support their own personal cultural
conditioning and superstitions, which they refuse to
examine logically, is even stranger.

You have not refuted claims by REAL scientists - not
the shabby fraud you are - concerning their findings
about human origins and diet. Instead, you attempt to
smear them with a lot of hot air about "cultural
conditioning" and superstition. Show a *specific*
scientific claim that you have *refuted*, Larry. Not a
caricature of a claim that you dismiss with angry
handwaving. You can't legitimately and honestly call
their science "fiction", Larry, unless you are capable
of refuting it, using the same techniques they use. We
all know you can't.



Leonard, real scientist:
Anthropologists and biologists have long sought to
understand how our lineage came to differ so
profoundly from the primate norm in these ways, and
over the years all manner of hypotheses aimed at
explaining each of these oddities have been put
forth.

Polemicisit Larry Forti:
Simple: culture. The other species are driven by
instincts, thus can function only in harmony with
Nature, not destroy it and themselves through misuse
of intellect as humans do as a result of cultural
conditioning. Some of the primates, such as the
chimp, are starting to develop culture as shown by
their limited flesh-eating.

SUPPORT your contention that it is "merely" "culture",
Larry. You haven't even attempted it, Ipse Dixit
Larry; you have merely asserted it, and merely repeated
your assertion when challenged. SUPPORT, Larry -
that's what a *real* scientist does. You aren't a
scientist in ANY WAY, Larry: you are an angry,
dishonest polemicist who LIES and claims to understand
science. You do not.



Leonard, the real scientist:
But a growing body of evidence indicates that these
miscellaneous quirks of humanity in fact have a
common thread: they are largely the result of
natural selection acting to maximize dietary quality
and foraging efficiency.

Larry Forti, the angry LYING polemicist
Natural selection made our species into the self-
and omni-destructive plague that is currently
destroying our planet? This is, indeed, a perverted
view of evolution. "Quirks" of behavior are not
the slightest bit related to evolution, which occurs
in the physical body, only. "Quirks" of behavior
exist only in the domain of culture/consciousness,
which is totally independent from, and different
than, genetic processes.

Are you challenging the fact that we evolved, Larry?
Are you challenging the contention that our ABILITY to
develop culture is itself an evolutionary change? If
so, what is the SCIENTIFIC basis for your challenge?
We don't want to hear your angry, hyperbolically
EMOTIONAL dismissal of it merely because you find it
aesthetically displeasing, Larry. If you're going to
pretend to be writing a scientific critique of the
findings of science, YOU need to use scientific
methodology and language, Larry. You haven't done it.
I don't think you can.



Leonard, the real scientist:
Changes in food availability over time, it seems,
strongly influenced our hominid ancestors. Thus, in
an evolutionary sense, we are very much what we ate.

Larry, the ignorant-of-biology polemicist:
Here, the false and long-abandoned 18th Century
Lamarckian view of evolution, that personal behavior
in one generation influences the physical evolution
of the species in the next, is invoked.

You are flatly wrong: he is in NO WAY relying on
Lamarckian evolution in reaching his conclusion. You
simply don't know what you're reading.



Leonard, the true scientist:
Accordingly, what we eat is yet another way in which
we differ from our primate kin.

Larry Forti, the lying polemicist:
Much to our own detriment, as epidemiology shows.

No. You are UNQUALIFIED to discuss what epidemiology
shows, Larry. You have ZERO training in epidemiology,
and you have read no original epidemiological articles.

That's more than enough, Larry. You are a FRAUD. You
are INCOMPETENT in science, and you do not make any
kind of a scientific rebuttal of the findings of real
scientists. What you offer, instead, is an angry,
dogmatic polemic.

You ****ING FRAUD.

"jambalaya" wrote in message
news
Leonard, the person holding a Ph.D. from an
accredited university:
We humans are strange primates.
Polemicisit Larry Forti, the business world reject:
That's SO like you, noBalls, demonstrating that you have no education or
intellectual integrity by leading off with a personal insult. It seems that
that is your primary ability, doesn't it??

True, and the fiction they create disguised as
'science' to support their own personal cultural
conditioning and superstitions, which they refuse to
examine logically, is even stranger.

You have not refuted claims by REAL scientists -
The entire critique refuted the false claims made by the author, you
have not only failed, but you have not ever attempted, to refute anything I
have said.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the strange world of logical argument,
but in order for you to refute any concept , you would have to prove
error(s) in fact, or error(s) in the logic, I used to derive that concept.
You have not done so, you have failed to even try to do so.

the shabby fraud you are
Name-calling reduces your credibility to zero, noBalls; haven't you
learned that YET?? It has been years of your same juvenile behavior, and
you learn nothing.

... with angry handwaving.
Another characteristic of the terminal psychopath, the false claim that
they can read "emotions", "feelings", or other affect from dots on a screen.

their science "fiction", Larry, unless you are capable
of refuting it, using the same techniques they use.
I use facts and logic, you have not demonstrated ANY errors of mine in
either fact or logic, because you are not able to do so. Again, I invite
you to do so.

We all know you can't.
Now, he can read the minds of everyone, where??
On the planet? In the Universe? Or, are you referring to all those
voices in your head?

Polemicisit Larry Forti:
Do you REALLY believe that juvenile name-calling enhances your
credibility, self-respect, or the respect of the others who read this?

Simple: culture. The other species are driven by
instincts, thus can function only in harmony with
Nature, not destroy it and themselves through misuse
of intellect as humans do as a result of cultural
conditioning. Some of the primates, such as the
chimp, are starting to develop culture as shown by
their limited flesh-eating.

SUPPORT your contention that it is "merely" "culture",
First of all, I did NOT say: "merely", you are simply intentionally
misquoting me and demonstrate boundless stupidity by enclosing "merely" in
quotes. You are lying.
There are two processes in the Universe: Nature and culture, that is
axiomatic. Offer concincing proof that there are more, or different, than
these two processes.

... You aren't a scientist in ANY WAY, ...
I have degrees in engineering and was exposed to the basic sciences,
apparently much more intensely than you ever were, since you have failed to
refute anything I have said with facts and logic.

you are an angry, dishonest polemicist ...
Again with the mind-reading? IF you could really do this, then let's
take the Amazing Randi $1,000,000 challenge for anyone who can, like you
claim to, demonstrate a verifiable psychic ability.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
Otherwise, you should really stop lying about your magic powers.
More name-calling: do you feel better about yourself when you insult
others? Do you delude yourself into thinking you are stronger than the
people you insult? Or that insults put you in control of something? Is
that the only way you can feel better than everyone??

who LIES and claims to understand
science. You do not.
Yet, you have not even attempted to disprove anything I have said in an
intellectually-honest manner, for you are totally incapable of doing so.

Larry Forti, the angry LYING polemicist
More name-calling and false claims of telepathy. Don't you ever get
tired of denigrating yourself like this, noBalls??

Natural selection made our species into the self-
and omni-destructive plague that is currently
destroying our planet? This is, indeed, a perverted
view of evolution. "Quirks" of behavior are not
the slightest bit related to evolution, which occurs
in the physical body, only. "Quirks" of behavior
exist only in the domain of culture/consciousness,
which is totally independent from, and different
than, genetic processes.

Are you challenging the fact that we evolved, ...
It is clear that I am challenging the false claim by Leonard that
global, human self-destructive behavior was a result of "evolution" or
"natural selection acting to maximize dietary quality and foraging
efficiency".
Leonard offers no support for his claim.

Are you challenging the contention that our ABILITY to
develop culture is itself an evolutionary change?
The concept, which you miss, or intentionally choose to miss, is simple:
the self-destructive behavior manifest by only one species on the planet,
ours, is a result of culture, not "evolution" at the genetic level as
Leonard claims.
Similarly, your obnoxious behavior is a result of YOUR cultural
programming, and your mal-adaptive responses to it. Apparently, your
parents forgot to teach your how to behave in a civilized society, and
whatever "education" you would claim has failed to teach you how to carry on
a polite, logical, academic discussion.
Culture, and the ABILITY to develop culture, are quite different, so
don't try to obfuscate the difference, or twist my words to suit yourself.

angry, hyperbolically EMOTIONAL ...
More mind reading?? You are simply lying about this false ability.

I don't think you can.
You have shown no ability to think.

Leonard, the real scientist:
Thus, in an evolutionary sense, we are very much what we ate.
Lamarckian evolutionary theory was discarded a century ago.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Einmag_Abstr/AHeschl.html

the ignorant-of-biology polemicist:
Do you see juvenile insults in the scientific texts YOU read? Why do
you choose to embarrass and destroy yourself, like this? When did this
self-destructive behavior happen in your childhood? Did your parents ever
express any love to you? You seem to have missed out on developing the
human qualities. Respect, intelligence, manners, ...

You are flatly wrong: he is in NO WAY relying on
Lamarckian evolution in reaching his conclusion.
Leonard, the real scientist:
Changes in food availability over time, it seems,
strongly influenced our hominid ancestors. Thus, in
an evolutionary sense, we are very much what we ate.

Leonard states that "in an evolutionary sense, we are very much what we
ate", which is a clear assertion in the Lamarckian model that behavior (what
we ate) influenced our being at the biological level (what we are).
It has not.
IF changing human diet from the natural, biologically-correct one for
our species resulted in our "adapting" to that diet as he falsely claims,
then we would have developed the physical tools, the biochemical tools, and
the instincts to eat flesh over the millions of years of doing so, yet,
clearly, we have developed NONE of these. In addition, the devastating
health-destroying effects of eating animal products, clearly shown by
current epidemiology, would not exist IF any "evolution" had occurred as a
result of flesh-eating (what we ate).

You simply don't know what you're reading.
Yet, you have failed to even try to refute anything I said.

Leonard, the true scientist:
Accordingly, what we eat is yet another way in which
we differ from our primate kin.

Larry Forti, the lying polemicist:
Does that really make you feel superior?? What a phychopath!

Much to our own detriment, as epidemiology shows.
No. You are UNQUALIFIED to discuss what epidemiology
shows, ...
I am qualified to discuss anything.

and you have read no original epidemiological articles.
Ah, yes, mind-reading again; how about that $1,000,000 challenge; all
I'd ask is a 50% finder's fee. Come forth and demonstrate your magic
powers, and let's both make some money, or try to be honest enough to stop
making such idiotic claims.

You are a FRAUD.
Hmmm...name calling gets you points, somehow??

is an angry, dogmatic polemic.
More mind-reading and insults, what debating team taught you this
technique??

You ****ING FRAUD.
And to top it all off: vulgarity, the credibility and respect-builder.

NoBalls, you will never grow up.

Laurie

"Samudra" wrote in message
om...

Even though some parts are indeed loaded with emotion ...
As I have been a student of human consciousness for close to half a
century, would you PLEASE tell me EXACTLY what methodology you use to "read"
emotions from dots on a screen??
Do you use electronics? Or perhaps an ancient Tibetan meditation
technique? The Ouija Board, perhaps? Spock's Mind Meld? Casting bones or
entrails?
Clearly, emotion does not translate into my writing, since I am happily
amused when writing these critiques; I am amused at how inadequate the
"educational system" is to produce quacks like Leonard.

It would of course never do in formal scientific discussion.
There is no "formal" scientific discussion; Leonard's article was not
presented as such, it is loaded with his personal superstitions and cultural
beliefs that are presented as fact with absolutely no support.

Laurie

Laurie wrote:

"jambalaya" wrote in message
news

Leonard, the person holding a Ph.D. from an
accredited university:
We humans are strange primates.
Polemicisit Larry Forti, the business world reject:

That's SO like you, noBalls, demonstrating that you have no education or
intellectual integrity by leading off with a personal insult.

You ARE a failure/reject from the business world,
Larry, and Leonard DOES hold a Ph.D. The two facts are
highly relevant: he is an expert in the field, you are
not; he is accomplished, you are bitter as a result of
being a miserable failure.



True, and the fiction they create disguised as
'science' to support their own personal cultural
conditioning and superstitions, which they refuse to
examine logically, is even stranger.

You have not refuted claims by REAL scientists -

The entire critique refuted the false claims made by the author

Your "critique" (haw haw) refuted nothing, Larry. It
was a pure rant on your part, a foul-minded angry
polemic, not a refutation.


Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the strange world of logical argument

I am intimately familiar with it, Larry, and I can tell
that you have no exposure to it whatever.

but in order for you to refute any concept,

There is nothing you wrote to refute, Larry.

you would have to prove
error(s) in fact, or error(s) in the logic, I used to derive that concept.

YOU DIDN'T USE ANY LOGIC, Larry.

their science "fiction", Larry, unless you are capable
of refuting it, using the same techniques they use.

I use facts and logic

You used nothing of the kind, Larry. Now you are
LYING. There wasn't a single fact contained in your
entire shrill rant.


Polemicisit Larry Forti:

Do you REALLY believe that juvenile name-calling enhances your
credibility, self-respect, or the respect of the others who read this?

Shut up and address the issue, Larry: You made an
assertion about "culture", and you failed to support
it. You didn't even try. You KNOW you can't, and WE
know you can't.



Simple: culture. The other species are driven by
instincts, thus can function only in harmony with
Nature, not destroy it and themselves through misuse
of intellect as humans do as a result of cultural
conditioning. Some of the primates, such as the
chimp, are starting to develop culture as shown by
their limited flesh-eating.

SUPPORT your contention that it is "merely" "culture",

First of all, I did NOT say: "merely",

Implied by "simple". Get to work, Larry, you gutless
punk. You're trying to dodge (and failing even at that.)


There are two processes in the Universe: Nature and culture, that is
axiomatic.

No. Don't make me laugh, you science-IGNORANT bozo.
You are not an authority in ANYTHING that would make
your declaration of something being "axiomatic" taken
as truth. Shut up.

Offer concincing proof that there are more, or different, than
these two processes.

More proof that you're a science- and logic-IGNORANT
fool, Larry. It is not my job to prove that your
fatuous, arrogant claim is wrong; it is YOUR job to
prove that it is right.

Get busy. NOW, Larry. If you're not even going to
attempt to defend your empty claim that the universe
reduces *axiomatically* to two "processes" of nature
and culture, then the claim will be withdrawn.
Understand, Larry? The burden of support is on you.



... You aren't a scientist in ANY WAY, ...

I have degrees in engineering and was exposed to the basic sciences,

Oh, that's cute. You FAILED as an engineer, and your
exposure to "basic sciences" is over 40 years old. You
have NEVER worked a day in your life as a scientist.
You fumble the most elementary assignments,
specifically supporting assertions that you make. No
real scientist would do that. No real scientist would
angrily refer to "meatarians".

You're a FRAUD, Larry.

apparently much more intensely than you ever were, since you have failed to
refute anything I have said with facts and logic.

You didn't write anything to refute, Larry. I can't
refute venom; that's all you wrote.



you are an angry, dishonest polemicist ...

Again with the mind-reading?

No.



who LIES and claims to understand
science. You do not.

Yet, you have not even attempted to disprove anything I have said

Larry: YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING in the form of a
refutable proposition. This ALSO proves you aren't a
scientist, Larry: science is done in terms that allow
its conclusions to be challenged and refuted. NOTHING
you wrote is in that form.



Larry Forti, the angry LYING polemicist

More name-calling and false claims of telepathy.

No.


Natural selection made our species into the self-
and omni-destructive plague that is currently
destroying our planet? This is, indeed, a perverted
view of evolution. "Quirks" of behavior are not
the slightest bit related to evolution, which occurs
in the physical body, only. "Quirks" of behavior
exist only in the domain of culture/consciousness,
which is totally independent from, and different
than, genetic processes.

Are you challenging the fact that we evolved, ...

It is clear that I am challenging the false claim

There's more proof that you are not a scientist, Larry.
First, you ASSUMED, purely for ideological/polemical
reasons, that the claim by Leonard was false. A real
scientist doesn't do that. A real scientist tests the
claim, then accepts or rejects the claim.

And then:

by Leonard that
global, human self-destructive behavior

You are fighting against a strawman, lying Larry.
Leonard made no such claim about "global,
self-destructive behavior"; that's YOUR false
characterization.

Don't you see it, Larry? You didn't do science; you
did politics.

was a result of "evolution" or
"natural selection acting to maximize dietary quality and foraging
efficiency".
Leonard offers no support for his claim.

Leonard certainly doesn't offer support for what you
FALSELY called his claim, you sleazy liar. He was
under no obligation to offer support for your
mischaracterization of his claim.



Are you challenging the contention that our ABILITY to
develop culture is itself an evolutionary change?

The concept, which you miss, or intentionally choose to miss, is simple:
the self-destructive behavior manifest by only one species on the planet,
ours, is a result of culture, not "evolution" at the genetic level as
Leonard claims.

You're still lying about what Leonard's claim ACTUALLY
is. You're tearing into a strawman, Larry.




angry, hyperbolically EMOTIONAL ...

More mind reading??

No.



I don't think you can.

You have shown no ability to think.

Yes, I certainly have shown it, Larry. I have to
confess that I don't need to think MUCH in order to
point out your errors, and the fact that you do NOT
practice science.



Leonard, the real scientist:
Thus, in an evolutionary sense, we are very much what we ate.

Lamarckian evolutionary theory was discarded a century ago.

Leonard is not working in Lamarckian evolutionary
theory, as anyone who read Leonard's actual article,
rather than your hatchet-job misrepresentation of it,
can plainly see.



the ignorant-of-biology polemicist:

[snip]


You are flatly wrong: he is in NO WAY relying on
Lamarckian evolution in reaching his conclusion.
Leonard, the real scientist:

Changes in food availability over time, it seems,
strongly influenced our hominid ancestors. Thus, in
an evolutionary sense, we are very much what we ate.

Leonard states that "in an evolutionary sense, we are very much what we
ate", which is a clear assertion in the Lamarckian model that behavior (what
we ate) influenced our being at the biological level (what we are).

No, it is not an assertion "in the Lamarckian model" at
all; your claim is false. "What we ate" is not
behavior, AFTER it was done. You are getting
grotesquely confused about time. Change in food
availability is a *classic* Darwinian exogenous
environmental change. It is perfectly reasonable that
humans ***as a species*** responded in evolutionary
terms to the change in their environment. Lamarckian
evolution would assert that *individual* humans changed
in response, and that is NOT what Leonard is asserting.
You are LYING about Leonard's claim. You are
creating a strawman.

It has not.

You have misrepresented Leonard's claim, either
deliberately, in which case you are a willful liar, or
unintentionally, in which case you simply didn't
understand what he wrote. By the way, Larry, what he
wrote was for the LAY press, so if you couldn't
understand him there, you have no hope of understanding
something written for academic journals.

IF changing human diet from the natural, biologically-correct one

There you go again, Larry. "Natural,
biologically-correct" is not scientific terminology.
It is, rather, your PROJECTION of your spiritual and
aesthetic values using a shabby veneer of science
words. I am not fooled, and I intend to assist others
in not being fooled.

for our species resulted in our "adapting" to that diet as he falsely claims,

No. As YOU claim, without a shred of support, to be
false, and which you have FALSELY characterized as a
Lamarckian conclusion by Leonard, when it clearly is not.

then we would have developed the physical tools,

Prove it. That's an unsupported assertion. There is
more than one way to skin a cat, lying Larry; I don't
need to have claws and fangs of my own, and your
assertion that I "would have developed" these physical
tools is an UNSUPPORTED allegation.

the biochemical tools,

We did. The human gut can digest meat quite well.

and
the instincts to eat flesh over the millions of years of doing so, yet,
clearly, we have developed NONE of these.

That conclusion is simply untrue, and the process by
which you arrived at it is thoroughly unscientific.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from any logical
statements; you are arguing by mere assertion.

In addition, the devastating
health-destroying effects of eating animal products,

More unsupported assertion. That's all you do.

clearly shown by current epidemiology,

Nope. You are INCOMPETENT to discuss epidemiology,
Larry. You have ZERO training in it, and all you've
done is cherry-pick some results from which you then
extrapolate a conclusion that the researchers
themselves never reached.

would not exist IF any "evolution" had occurred as a
result of flesh-eating (what we ate).


You simply don't know what you're reading.

Yet, you have failed to even try to refute anything I said.

You didn't write any science. I can't refute your
rant, Larry, and it's specious of you to demand that I
do so.



Leonard, the true scientist:
Accordingly, what we eat is yet another way in which
we differ from our primate kin.

Larry Forti, the lying polemicist:

Does that really make you feel superior?? What a phychopath!


Much to our own detriment, as epidemiology shows.
No. You are UNQUALIFIED to discuss what epidemiology
shows, ...

I am qualified to discuss anything.

You are unqualified to discuss epidemiology, Larry.
You have ZERO training in epidemiology.



and you have read no original epidemiological articles.

Ah, yes, mind-reading again;

No.


You are a FRAUD.

Hmmm...name calling gets you points, somehow??

You are a FRAUD, Larry.



is an angry, dogmatic polemic.

More mind-reading and insults,

No.



You ****ING FRAUD.

"jambalaya" wrote in message
ink.net...
The same old, tired juvenile insults and no rational attenpt to disprove
anything I said, just like Jon-a-thug noBalls has been doing for YEARS.
Back in the Jon-a-thug Memorial Killfile for you...

Laurie

Laurie wrote:

"jambalaya" wrote in message
ink.net...
The same old, tired juvenile insults

No. Yet another instance of cutting Larry Forti a new
asshole.

Laurie wrote:

"jambalaya" wrote in message
ink.net...
The same old, tired juvenile insults and no rational attenpt to disprove
anything I said, just like Jon-a-thug noBalls has been doing for YEARS.

Bad whiff off. You took an ass-kicking, and now you're
running away.

"David Harrison" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Laurie wrote:

"jambalaya" wrote in message
ink.net...
The same old, tired juvenile insults and no rational attenpt to
disprove
anything I said, just like Jon-a-thug noBalls has been doing for YEARS.

You took an ass-kicking, and now you're running away.
David, YOU may consider lies, personal insults, intentional distortions
of other's posts, evasion, and vulgarity to be legitimate techniques in
polite academic discussion, but that only reveals your own lack of
intellectual development and integrity.

Laurie

(Samudra) wrote in message . com...
jambalaya wrote in message hlink.net...
Larry Forti wrote:
http://ecologos.org/fft.htm

Very nice, Larry. However, your approach to dismissing
the findings which you understandably don't like is
thoroughly unscientific. IN fact, it is ANTI-science,
par excellence.

A REAL scientist would have pointed out inconsistencies
in Leonard's account. A real scientist, Larry -
something you could never be - would keep his own
emotions out of it. You can't.

Even though some parts are indeed loaded with emotion aswell as gloss
(I've never seen Larry write differently) Larry does makes some points
and shows inconsistencies in the article.

Such as?

A real scientist would keep emotions out of it, yet when do we see
this happen in real life?

All the time where any real academic discussion takes place.. Why
did you ask such a stupid question?




When the journal Nature called for the
burning of Sheldrake's book?

Do you think one example supports the claim implied by your first
question?



Larry's present style suits him and the spirit he writes in well. It
would of course never do in formal scientific discussion.


Then lying Larry should stop pretending to have any scientific
background and admit he is an intellectual and scientific zero and a
total fraud as well as a gender-confused buffoon.

Kevin

Samudra wrote:

jambalaya wrote in message hlink.net...

Larry Forti wrote:

http://ecologos.org/fft.htm

Very nice, Larry. However, your approach to dismissing
the findings which you understandably don't like is
thoroughly unscientific. IN fact, it is ANTI-science,
par excellence.

A REAL scientist would have pointed out inconsistencies
in Leonard's account. A real scientist, Larry -
something you could never be - would keep his own
emotions out of it. You can't.


Even though some parts are indeed loaded with emotion aswell as gloss
(I've never seen Larry write differently) Larry does makes some points
and shows inconsistencies in the article.

Show ONE inconsistency Larry has pointed out.


A real scientist would keep emotions out of it, yet when do we see
this happen in real life? When the journal Nature called for the
burning of Sheldrake's book?

Because they considered it rubbish, not dangerous.
Sheldrake is a biologist, with no credentials to be
writing about physics. I suspect lots of legitimate,
dispassionate scientists also wanted to burn the racist
biological rantings of the physicist William Shockley,
too. I think it may be a poor choice of words for
scientists, but it's written or said in order to
express disgust, not fear of dangerous
paradigm-shifting ideas.

Larry's present style suits him and the spirit he writes in well. It
would of course never do in formal scientific discussion.

Larry Forti's "style", if you want to call it that, is
clear proof that he is a complete crank out on the
fringe. The fact remains that he DOES NOT UNDERSTAND
the science against which he rants and raves, and his
ravings have NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS in them at all.

Let me tell you a little story. When my goofy younger
brother (who barely finished high school and never
attended university, but who like Larry thinks he has
everything figured out) was about 10 years old, my mom
asked him some pretty mundane kind of typical mom's
question; you know, something like "Did you clean up
your room?" or "Have you finished your homework?" I
don't recall what the substantive part of my brother's
answer was, but I well recall that he prefaced it with
"On the theological survey, ..." That is, he had heard
some high-falutin' words, and he thought he sounded
impressive using them. That's Larry Forti. He has
picked up a smidgen of "science talk" - perhaps enough
to fool some fellow diet-extremist crackpots - but no
science.

Laurie wrote:

"David Harrison" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Laurie wrote:


"jambalaya" wrote in message
thlink.net...
The same old, tired juvenile insults and no rational attenpt to

disprove

anything I said, just like Jon-a-thug noBalls has been doing for YEARS.

You took an ass-kicking, and now you're running away.

David, YOU may consider lies, personal insults, intentional distortions
of other's posts, evasion, and vulgarity to be legitimate techniques in
polite academic discussion, but that only reveals your own lack of
intellectual development and integrity.

You took an ass-kicking, Larry. You did not "refute" a
single thing in William Leonard's article. I don't
know if your misrepresentations of what Leonard wrote
were deliberate, or simply based on your slovenly
reading and ignorance of real science, but you clearly
did not understand what he wrote, EXCEPT that it points
to a conclusion completely opposite your hysterical
dietary extremism. You were called on your slovenly,
ANTI-scientific rantings, and you did a ****-poor job
of defending yourself - that is, you took an ass-kicking.