Here is one for William Noyes

[John The M]

How come you Science Geeks have not put together a FAQ for
smn, ... yet? What are you Geeks waiting for?

In sci.bio.food-science they have a 4 part FAQ. :)

What is the matter, Noyes? Are you not capable of a little
work? Are you lacking in the smarts department, too?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

You have my condolences.

Perhaps a little less complaining about others, and a little
bit more action on YOUR part would be in order?

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

>Subject: [sci.bio.food-science] Welcome - Read this First!
>(FAQ 3/3) From: pking123@sympatico.ca (Paul E. J. King) Date:
>7/10/03 9:52 AM !!!First Boot!!!

>Archive-Name: sci/food-science-faq/part3
>
>Posting-Frequency: biweekly Last-modified: 2001/10/31
>
>RE-POST: FAQ Section 3/3 - SCI.BIO.FOOD-SCIENCE
>Frequently-Asked Questions
>
>See the first section (1/3) of this FAQ for any preliminary
>and introductory remarks. See this section also for a list of
>food science related sites and abbreviations.

[William A.]

Comments mixed in below for J the M or as he likes to be call
"J Bo" "John the Man" <jhgohde@wmconnect.comSnarf> wrote in
message
news:20030710231555.23136.00000173@mb-m23.wmconnect.com...
> How come you Science Geeks have not put together a FAQ for
> smn, ... yet?
What
> are you Geeks waiting for?

Not a bad idea though I no longer have that much time. I am
doing well to comment a few times a night with my new
schedule.

>
> In sci.bio.food-science they have a 4 part FAQ. :)

I'll look at it. Four parts? Sci.med.nutrition would need a
far larger FAQ, IMO. One discussion for each nutrient for
starters. Then there are the issues of nutrition,
mega-nutrient use, drug interactions with nutrients, public
policy, regulator issues, foods, relation to disease and
aging. Or were you looking for something simpler.....errr like
your web site?

>
> What is the matter, Noyes? Are you not capable of a little
> work? Are you lacking in the smarts department, too?

What because I think both you and the torus shaped bovine
(mOO-she) are udderly lazy. Granted the latter is more so.

>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> You have my condolences.

Gee thanks.

>
> Perhaps a little less complaining about others, and a little
> bit more
action on
> YOUR part would be in order?

Yup, you and mOO-she+O

>
> Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

What? You right? Just your usual opinion, it looks to me.
>
>
> >Subject: [sci.bio.food-science] Welcome - Read this First!
> >(FAQ 3/3) From: pking123@sympatico.ca (Paul E. J. King)
> >Date: 7/10/03 9:52 AM !!!First Boot!!!
>
> >Archive-Name: sci/food-science-faq/part3
> >
> >Posting-Frequency: biweekly Last-modified: 2001/10/31
> >
> >RE-POST: FAQ Section 3/3 - SCI.BIO.FOOD-SCIENCE
> >Frequently-Asked
Questions
> >
> >See the first section (1/3) of this FAQ for any preliminary
> >and introductory remarks. See this section also for a list
> >of food science related sites and abbreviations.

[John The M]

>Subject: Re: Here is one for William Noyes From: "William
>A. Noyes" no.address@ctc.net Date: 7/13/03 4:04 AM
>!!!First Boot!!!

>I'll look at it. Four parts? Sci.med.nutrition would need a
>far larger FAQ, IMO. One discussion for each nutrient for
>starters. Then there are the issues of nutrition,
>mega-nutrient use, drug interactions with nutrients, public
>policy, regulator issues, foods, relation to disease and
>aging. Or were you looking for something simpler.....errr
>like your web site?

My web site has been online since 1999. :)

Too much of a challenge to write a one page FAQ for smn that
is designed to be expanded at a later date?

Perhaps, if you went to school and got a few more
useless degrees?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness,
today. http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering 14 easy to understand lessons that will change
your life.

[Doug Frees]

William A. Noyes wrote:

> Comments mixed in below for J the M or as he likes to be
> call "J Bo" "John the Man" <jhgohde@wmconnect.comSnarf>
> wrote in message
> news:20030710231555.23136.00000173@mb-m23.wmconnect.com...
>
>>How come you Science Geeks have not put together a FAQ for
>>smn, ... yet?

Why - what would one put down for the answer for any question
other than a myriad of biased agenda BS. It would not stop the
pissing contests. You have to read this forum for at least a
month and filter out the A-holes/trolls before you can get
some balanced information. With most usenet groups you get a
majority of usable information with some trolling. Here the
majority is BS with some occasional pearls of balanced dialog.

Actually it's people like jhgohde that top my
quack(kill) file.

--
Caveat Lector "the further you go outside, the further you go
inside" - B. McKibben Doug Freese dfreeseNOBS@hvc.rr.com

[Mattlb]

John the Man wrote:

> >Actually it's people like jhgohde that top my
> >quack(kill) file.
>
> I will repeat my reply for the benefit of the intellectually
> challenged Science Greeks amongst us.

That's very racist.

> Stop complaining you Dork, and start doing something
> constructive like writing a one page FAQ for smn that can be
> expanded at a later date.
>
> Your lack of action proves just how incompetent the
> Holier-than-Thou Science Geeks on smn truly are.
>
> Science Geeks are all bull and no action. Prove me
> wrong Geeks.

Professional scientists are busy actually doing scientific
research for you to copy and paste John. I thought that was
obvious. They don't have the time to put up, say, a
self-congratulatory 50 page website.

The most useful FAQ for any new reader of s.m.n would be

Q: Who's this 'John the Man' and why does he laugh moronically
and think everyone one would "just like to know :)" when
nobody does?
R: Just killfile him and if you don't want to do that, don't
take anything he says seriously - his constant cackling and
emoticons prove that even he doesn't, so why should you?

MattLB

[Mattlb]

John the Man wrote:

> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> So, you are too lazy to develop a one page FAQ for smn
> because you don't want to be called a racist?

Exemplary miscomprehension once again. I'm touched that you
think I'm knowledgable enough to do the FAQ though.

MattLB

[Mattlb]

John the Man wrote:

> >I'm touched that you think I'm knowledgable enough to do
> >the FAQ though.
>
> Food Science is a lot more complex than nutrition is, where
> you can B/S your way through most topics.

You try, but noone is fooled.

> Yet, the Food Science ng has there own FAQ. Where is the FAQ
> for smn?

There isn't one. Your memory's going.

> Gee, Matti Boy have you forgotten my boost

Your boost?

> that most of the Geeks here couldn't get past the
> programming issues of running a web site? Well, you have
> just proven my point. :)

I haven't proved any point that is described in the words
above. You just wished it were so.

"Just thought you'd like to know" part of my job is web-based
teaching of biochemistry which includes interactive Javascript
routines (and not just Dreamweaver rollovers). Does that make
me a non-Geek?

Most scientists are perfectly capable of web-programming and
many do so. The web was created by scientists you know. Having
a website since 1999 is very unimpressive when scientists had
been using it for about 5 years already and the internet for
even longer. As I said before, unlike you they don't have lots
of time on their hands to build clunky, oversized,
self-promoting websites, because they're directly advancing
the knowledge base.

> The first thing any web site operator has to do is organize
> their thoughts. Obviously, you lack what it takes to do what
> so many others have done. :(

Obviously you lack the ability to gain credentials in
nutrition and the sense to post facts instead of your rambling
delusions.

> misc.health.alternative and alt.support.diet.low-fat at one
> time had their FAQ on a web site. Should I start advertising
> my website as the offical FAQ for smn? After all, I managed
> to explain nutrition in only 17 web pages, Matti Boy. :)

Therein lies the root of your delusion.

> And, don't forget Matti that I developed a tutorial on
> Natural Health this spring. :)

How could I forget something I never knew and never cared to?

> What have you Geeks done other than be totally negative
> about everything?

I suppose going "Ha, ... Hah, Ha!" is what you call a positive
contribution is it? And of course calling the people who do
the research you crib "Geeks" is also a positive thing to do.

The world in your head is not the world as it is.

MattLB

[William A.]

Well John I still considering it. I looks like a thankless
job which there has been at least one formal effort with
some fruits.

Google yields a 1st chapter of the FAQ by Tim Triche, Jr.
Nothing more worth speaking of. TT's first chapter is boring
stuff only a web newbie might not know.

If one expands the Google search to "Primer", Google yields
three names Mark Thorsen, Moses Clarke, and John Gohde. These
efforts received little or no comment in the cases of MT and
MC. I didn't look at your past effort though I likely read
them at the time. Indeed MC title begs for further comments,
"An Incomplete Primer Concerning Carotenoids"

Perhaps a repeating cycle of primers with the request for
comments, possible improvements might work. Clearly have one
author per topic would spread the effort and perhaps provide
grist for the mill of discussion. Perhaps this would serve to
incite some specific topic discussions.

Do you suggest a monthly recycling of the the primers??
While that might be naggingly frequent, perhaps they would
serve snag the attension of vistors and those with a new
study or thought?

What the hell, I'll do what I do.

See yah later gator..........Bill Noyes

"John the Man" <jhgohde@wmconnect.comSnarf> wrote in message
news:20030715212629.29869.00000409@mb-m03.wmconnect.com...
> >Subject: Re: Here is one for William Noyes From: MattLB
> >mattlb@FAKEBITangelfire.com Date: 7/15/03 5:15 PM !!!First
> >Boot!!!
>
> Admit it, Matti Boy! You don't have what it takes. :)
> --
> John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a
> Science!
>
> The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of
> the biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17
> webpages, Nutrition
> (http://www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now the
official
> FAQ for sci.med.nutrition by default. :)
>
>
> >John the Man wrote:
> >
> >> >I'm touched that you think I'm knowledgable enough to do
> >> >the FAQ though.
> >>
> >> Food Science is a lot more complex than nutrition is,
> >> where you can B/S
> >your
> >> way through most topics.
> >
> >You try, but noone is fooled.
> >
> >> Yet, the Food Science ng has there own FAQ. Where is the
> >> FAQ for smn?
> >
> >There isn't one. Your memory's going.
> >
> >> Gee, Matti Boy have you forgotten my boost
> >
> >Your boost?
> >
> >> that most of the Geeks here couldn't get past the
> >> programming issues of running a web site? Well, you have
just
> >> proven my point. :)
> >
> >I haven't proved any point that is described in the words
> >above. You just wished it were so.
> >
> >"Just thought you'd like to know" part of my job is
> >web-based teaching of biochemistry which includes
> >interactive Javascript routines (and not just Dreamweaver
> >rollovers). Does that make me a non-Geek?
> >
> >Most scientists are perfectly capable of web-programming
> >and many do so. The web was created by scientists you know.
> >Having a website since 1999 is very unimpressive when
> >scientists had been using it for about 5 years already and
> >the internet for even longer. As I said before, unlike you
> >they don't have lots of time on their hands to build
> >clunky, oversized, self-promoting websites, because they're
> >directly advancing the knowledge base.
> >
> >> The first thing any web site operator has to do is
> >> organize their
thoughts.
> >> Obviously, you lack what it takes to do what so many
> >> others have done.
:(
> >
> >Obviously you lack the ability to gain credentials in
> >nutrition and the sense to post facts instead of your
> >rambling delusions.
> >
> >> misc.health.alternative and alt.support.diet.low-fat at
> >> one time had their FAQ on a web site. Should I start
> >> advertising my
> >website
> >> as the offical FAQ for smn? After all, I managed to
> >> explain nutrition
in
> >only
> >> 17 web pages, Matti Boy. :)
> >
> >Therein lies the root of your delusion.
> >
> >> And, don't forget Matti that I developed a tutorial on
> >> Natural Health
this
> >> spring. :)
> >
> >How could I forget something I never knew and never
> >cared to?
> >
> >> What have you Geeks done other than be totally negative
> >> about
everything?
> >
> >I suppose going "Ha, ... Hah, Ha!" is what you call a
> >positive contribution is it? And of course calling the
> >people who do the research you crib "Geeks" is also a
> >positive thing to do.
> >
> >The world in your head is not the world as it is.
> >
> >MattLB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Mattlb]

John the Man wrote:

> Admit it, Matti Boy! You don't have what it takes. :)

Okay Jonni G(eriatric), I admit "you don't have what it takes"
to respond to posts.

MattLB

[Mattlb]

John the Man wrote:
> My health program is based upon witticisms. :)
>
> Here is one for Matti Boy!
>
> "Those who talk about it, don't. And, those who do are too
> busy doing it to talk about it."

That's no more witty than when I said the same thing
earlier (only I wasn't trying to be witty). Do you have any
original thoughts?

> For the benefit of the intellectually challenged Science
> Geeks on smn, "those who only talk about it, can't!"

Shot yourself in the foot with that one.

MattLB