Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [fukuoka_farming] Wild foods - be blind

Expand Messages
  • Tim Peters
    ... that ... jean, perhaps it does sound arrogant, it wasn t intended to be... but it is the truth. jean? do you not see yourself? Look at the authority with
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 16, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > > Your question suggests many misconceptions and a narrowness of focus
      that
      > is
      > > nowhere close to the reality of what constitutes nutrition. Nutrition
      ...
      >
      > i am impressed by so much arrogance .

      jean, perhaps it does sound arrogant, it wasn't intended to be... but it is
      the truth. jean? do you not see yourself? Look at the authority with which
      you speak. ...and the label you pin on me, wouldn't it look apropriate as a
      label on your own position? ...on your words?

      > >
      > > ...involves as much the absence of things as it does the presence of
      > things.
      > > In wild crop relatives there are many physical (such as thorns,barbs...)
      > and
      > > chemical toxicities, as well as physical barriers (harder shells,
      tighter
      > > glumes...) and mechanisms promoting the eluding of predators and
      > > competitors(smaller seed size, seed throwing, rapid seed dropping. EACH
      > OF
      > > THESE IS NUTRIENT IMPACTING AS FAR AS WE nutrient needing entities ARE
      > > CONCERNED.
      >
      > your view of the world is a war zone , must be scary to eat .

      sometimes it can be... but just listen to yourself jean. ...Read all you've
      said to this point in this group.

      > there is as much incitation for plants to be eaten as there is defenses to
      > not be overeaten. the recognition of this self regulating system is the
      > base for an instinctive regulation of eating .
      > Because of our efforts to bypass those regulating devices ( toxins and
      > difficulties to access) thru breeding and denaturation of foods via
      cooking
      > and processing we are in trouble health wise and HAVE to KNOW a great
      lot
      > about nutrition .( does it not remind you of something ? scientific
      farming
      > and scientific nutrition same spinning off center )

      jean, I am just going to let you go off the deep end if that is what you
      insist on doing, believe your lies, lead on! but woe to you and those who
      are lead by you. ...unless you change course it will be a bitter end.

      > >
      > > All of the above prevent nutrient access and are designed to prevent
      > > nutrition to anything but itself.
      >
      > i still wonder why animals still eat if it is so horrible ?

      Do you? ... hunger can drive one to eat much they never would if given
      better choices. Evidence of that abounds.

      >
      > > Grains vs. wild grass relatives.
      > > most grains used for food are much lower in tannins, alkloids, and other
      > > noxious anti-nutritive substances. (They are also freer of knife-like
      > glumes
      > > that can work down into the gums and drive an animal insane). Where this
      > is
      > > not so there has been noted distinct negative impact on persons and
      > > creatures in general, esp. the young.
      >
      > you are right .wild grains have never been food for humans before they
      have
      > been " improved "

      You are denying a lot of plain history on that subject jean, you are totally
      wrong. Additionally, that is not what I said.

      and enter human metabolism to the point of still creating
      > havoc there since .( lot of peoples unknowingly are allergic to gluten for
      > ex )

      name a food that doesn't have someone allergic to it. ... I don't care what
      it is there is likely someone with a chemistry that can't handle it.

      >
      > that is exactelly the problem : trying to do better than nature .

      hardly.

      >
      > and i am on a fukuoka list ...... go figure !
      > jean-claude
      >

      yes, I went and figured... came up with some facts that I need to
      contemplate.
      Tim
    • animaphile
      Yes, exactly, despite what you meant and were referring to, do- nothing is very nearly be blind, better still follow first your heart and not first our
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 16, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, exactly, despite what you meant and were referring to, "do-
        nothing" is very nearly be blind, better still follow first your
        heart and not first our eyes-thinking or your head-thinking.

        Gotta Go, 'nough for abit,
        love to all
        Jason Stewart
        Animaphile

        --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "Tim Peters" <psr@p...>
        wrote:
        >
        > >
        > > > Your question suggests many misconceptions and a narrowness of
        focus
        > that
        > > is
        > > > nowhere close to the reality of what constitutes nutrition.
        Nutrition
        > ...
        > >
        > > i am impressed by so much arrogance .
        >
        > jean, perhaps it does sound arrogant, it wasn't intended to be...
        but it is
        > the truth. jean? do you not see yourself? Look at the authority
        with which
        > you speak. ...and the label you pin on me, wouldn't it look
        apropriate as a
        > label on your own position? ...on your words?
        >
        > > >
        > > > ...involves as much the absence of things as it does the
        presence of
        > > things.
        > > > In wild crop relatives there are many physical (such as
        thorns,barbs...)
        > > and
        > > > chemical toxicities, as well as physical barriers (harder
        shells,
        > tighter
        > > > glumes...) and mechanisms promoting the eluding of predators
        and
        > > > competitors(smaller seed size, seed throwing, rapid seed
        dropping. EACH
        > > OF
        > > > THESE IS NUTRIENT IMPACTING AS FAR AS WE nutrient needing
        entities ARE
        > > > CONCERNED.
        > >
        > > your view of the world is a war zone , must be scary to eat .
        >
        > sometimes it can be... but just listen to yourself jean. ...Read
        all you've
        > said to this point in this group.
        >
        > > there is as much incitation for plants to be eaten as there is
        defenses to
        > > not be overeaten. the recognition of this self regulating
        system is the
        > > base for an instinctive regulation of eating .
        > > Because of our efforts to bypass those regulating devices (
        toxins and
        > > difficulties to access) thru breeding and denaturation of foods
        via
        > cooking
        > > and processing we are in trouble health wise and HAVE to KNOW
        a great
        > lot
        > > about nutrition .( does it not remind you of something ?
        scientific
        > farming
        > > and scientific nutrition same spinning off center )
        >
        > jean, I am just going to let you go off the deep end if that is
        what you
        > insist on doing, believe your lies, lead on! but woe to you and
        those who
        > are lead by you. ...unless you change course it will be a bitter
        end.
        >
        > > >
        > > > All of the above prevent nutrient access and are designed to
        prevent
        > > > nutrition to anything but itself.
        > >
        > > i still wonder why animals still eat if it is so horrible ?
        >
        > Do you? ... hunger can drive one to eat much they never would if
        given
        > better choices. Evidence of that abounds.
        >
        > >
        > > > Grains vs. wild grass relatives.
        > > > most grains used for food are much lower in tannins, alkloids,
        and other
        > > > noxious anti-nutritive substances. (They are also freer of
        knife-like
        > > glumes
        > > > that can work down into the gums and drive an animal insane).
        Where this
        > > is
        > > > not so there has been noted distinct negative impact on
        persons and
        > > > creatures in general, esp. the young.
        > >
        > > you are right .wild grains have never been food for humans
        before they
        > have
        > > been " improved "
        >
        > You are denying a lot of plain history on that subject jean, you
        are totally
        > wrong. Additionally, that is not what I said.
        >
        > and enter human metabolism to the point of still creating
        > > havoc there since .( lot of peoples unknowingly are allergic to
        gluten for
        > > ex )
        >
        > name a food that doesn't have someone allergic to it. ... I don't
        care what
        > it is there is likely someone with a chemistry that can't handle
        it.
        >
        > >
        > > that is exactelly the problem : trying to do better than nature .
        >
        > hardly.
        >
        > >
        > > and i am on a fukuoka list ...... go figure !
        > > jean-claude
        > >
        >
        > yes, I went and figured... came up with some facts that I need to
        > contemplate.
        > Tim
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.