We should eat no artificial food ! ! !! !

[Hans-Marc]

Artificial food is bad for the body, food made with chemicals
is bad for the body.

So better eat :

Insects , trees , flowers and raw meat !

[Succorso]

Hans-Marc Olsen wrote:
> Artificial food is bad for the body, food made with
> chemicals is bad for the body.
>

Agreed

>
> Insects , trees , flowers and raw meat !

I prefer Grains, Nuts, Seeds, Fish and (some) meat, Fruit,
Vegetables

--
Succorso

[Hagrinas M]

Succorso wrote:
> Hans-Marc Olsen wrote:
>> Artificial food is bad for the body, food made with
>> chemicals is bad for the body.
>>
>
> Agreed
>
>>
>> Insects , trees , flowers and raw meat !
>
> I prefer Grains, Nuts, Seeds, Fish and (some) meat, Fruit,
> Vegetables

But all those things are made with chemicals too. So is tap
water for that matter. (Bottled water might or might not have
more chemicals, but it will have H2O, so you cannot avoid
chemicals no matter what.)

What exactly is "natural" food? Is it the opposite of
supernatural food? Is it limited to foods that occur in
nature? Grains may occur in nature, but a bag of whole grain
flour does not. It's not natural. There are foods that claim
to have all natural ingredients, so maybe a diet high in
potato chips would be good. They have no preservatives
either, even though salt used to be a preservative. I guess
times change.

My grandmother used to have a bowl of plastic fruit on her
table. I'm pretty sure that that's artificial food. When my
great grandmother tried eating it, my grandmother thought it
was the funniest thing. Then when grandma got close to 100,
she started to do the same thing. I agree that artificial food
is a bad thing. I disagree with my great grandmother who said
that America has the worst grapes.

[Justice Gu]

Succorso <chris@ivy-house.net> wrote:

>Hans-Marc Olsen wrote:
>> Artificial food is bad for the body, food made with
>> chemicals is bad for the body.
>>
>
>Agreed
>
>>
>> Insects , trees , flowers and raw meat !
>
>I prefer Grains, Nuts, Seeds, Fish and (some) meat, Fruit,
>Vegetables

No, you need to build a resistance.

Eat more Cool Whip, Cheeze Whiz, Diet Coke, Pringles and
Twinkies.

--
"If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower"

[Hagrinas M]

Justice Gustine wrote:
> Eat more Cool Whip, Cheeze Whiz, Diet Coke, Pringles and
> Twinkies.

The ingredients in Pringles are just as natural as that
organic evaporated cane juice that my health foods use instead
of that nasty sugar.

[N-H-P]

"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> The ingredients in Pringles are just as natural as that
> organic evaporated cane juice that my health foods use
> instead of that nasty sugar.

Please stop abusing the English language!

http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html
"Natural is what naturally occurs in nature without any
assistance from man. What can only be made by man is called
artificial. While natural is what naturally occurs in nature,
if mankind did not and had never existed.

Man can produce both natural and artificial toxins. Evolution
has given living creatures a natural way of dealing with
natural toxins. Man made artificial toxins are especially
harmful to life since these toxins may not be biodegradable.
Nor, has evolution given living creatures a natural way of
detoxifying these artifical toxins."

Natural http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?sear-
ch_for_texts_web1828=natural "Pertaining to nature; produced
or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or
motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power. ... In
this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired."
from Webster's 1828 Dictionary
--
john gohde http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

[Elmer]

In article <16a9b594.0411160403.2f0ba3f8@posting.google.com>,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:

> Please stop abusing the English language! "Natural is what
> naturally occurs in nature without any assistance from man.
> What can only be made by man is called artificial. While
> natural is what naturally occurs in nature, if mankind did
> not and had never existed.
>
> Man can produce both natural and artificial toxins.
> Evolution has given living creatures a natural way of
> dealing with natural toxins. Man made artificial toxins are
> especially harmful to life since these toxins may not be
> biodegradable. Nor, has evolution given living creatures a
> natural way of detoxifying these artifical toxins."

I wish life were really this simple. The problem I have is
when
natural is associated with healthy. All too often the
opposite is true.

Natural rape seeds are poisonous, unnaturally Canola is
considered a health food. Cooking bread, vegetables,
meat is to take a naturaly occurring material and
chemically alter it (make it into an unnatural material)
to make it taste better. All too often that change from
natural to unnatural "a good thing".

Elmer

[Hagrinas M]

N-H-P wrote:
> "Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> The ingredients in Pringles are just as natural as that
>> organic evaporated cane juice that my health foods use
>> instead of that nasty sugar.
>
> Please stop abusing the English language!

I wasn't abusing the English language. Don't blame me if you
didn't understand my post.

[Bj]

"natural" means whatever the marketer wants it to mean. bj

[N-H-P]

"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> >> The ingredients in Pringles are just as natural as that
> >> organic evaporated cane juice that my health foods use
> >> instead of that nasty sugar.
> >
> > Please stop abusing the English language!
>
> I wasn't abusing the English language. Don't blame me if you
> didn't understand my post.

Don't blame me if I use my brain to disagree with your
statements and conclusions.

I do. And, just did. Yet, again. :)
--
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

[N-H-P]

Elmer <ogryzlo@chem.ubc.ca> wrote:

> > Please stop abusing the English language!
>
> > "Natural is what naturally occurs in nature without any
> > assistance from man. What can only be made by man is
> > called artificial. While natural is what naturally occurs
> > in nature, if mankind did not and had never existed.
> >
> > Man can produce both natural and artificial toxins.
> > Evolution has given living creatures a natural way of
> > dealing with natural toxins. Man made artificial toxins
> > are especially harmful to life since these toxins may not
> > be biodegradable. Nor, has evolution given living
> > creatures a natural way of detoxifying these artifical
> > toxins."
>
> I wish life were really this simple. The problem I have is
> when
> natural is associated with healthy. All too often the
> opposite is true.

Life is that simple, when you use your brain. :)

The problem is entirely YOUR problem as the word 'natural'
connotes no such thing.

Just my opinion, but I am right as usual.
--
john gohde
http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html

[N-H-P]

"bj" <bjones44@bellatlantic.net> wrote:

> "natural" means whatever the marketer wants it to mean.

Is that how science operates? I really don't think so!

"Natural" has a specific meaning and it is always opposed to
"artificial."
--
john gohde
http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html

[Hagrinas M]

N-H-P wrote:
> "Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>>> The ingredients in Pringles are just as natural as that
>>>> organic evaporated cane juice that my health foods use
>>>> instead of that nasty sugar.
>>>
>>> Please stop abusing the English language!
>>
>> I wasn't abusing the English language. Don't blame me if
>> you didn't understand my post.
>
> Don't blame me if I use my brain to disagree with your
> statements and conclusions.
>
> I do. And, just did. Yet, again. :)

My statements implied that the word "natural" is pretty much
meaningless in this context because even something like
potato chips could be considered natural. I compared it to
"organic evaporated cane juice" which is just a buzz word for
sugar, and I compared that to "nasty" sugar itself to drive
home my point.

This was also a follow up to an earlier post where I explained
my position in no uncertain terms.

Then you berated me for abusing the English language even
though you never said how, you gave a definition that was
entirely consistent with what I had said on my earlier post on
this topic, and you claimed that you understood my post.

Saying something does not make it true. If you honestly
believe that name calling and snide implications are the way
to win arguments, I can do the same thing, in which case, I
win on your terms.

I used my brain far more than you did here. I win. Na, na, na,
na, na. (That's a schoolyard taunt by the way.)

By the way, you still did not understand my post, and I doubt
you understand this one either. Natural does have a specific
meaning, but it has nothing to do with whether a food is
healthful.

P.S. Don't bother replying. I've already killfiled you.

[N-H-P]

"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> >>>> The ingredients in Pringles are just as natural as that
> >>>> organic evaporated cane juice that my health foods use
> >>>> instead of that nasty sugar.
> >>>
> >>> Please stop abusing the English language!
> >>
> >> I wasn't abusing the English language. Don't blame me if
> >> you didn't understand my post.
> >
> > Don't blame me if I use my brain to disagree with your
> > statements and conclusions.
> >
> > I do. And, just did. Yet, again. :)
>
> My statements implied that the word "natural" is pretty much
> meaningless in this context because even something like
> potato chips could be considered natural.

Absolutely NOT! per the reasons I have already given. :)

Potato chips are artifical for a number of reasons.

They contain chemicals that are NOT naturally the part of
anybodyies diet: animal or human. Hence, humans have NOT
evolved to process those artificial chemicals.

Next, potato chips are not natural to the human diet because
they have been in it probably not more than a 100 years.

Cooking is natural to the human diet, because people have been
cooking for about 30,000 years. :)

Seems simply enought to me. I completely disagree with you,
for the above cited reasons.
--
john gohde
http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html

[Dunne E .]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 06:43:26 GMT, "bj"
<bjones44@bellatlantic.net> posted:

>"natural" means whatever the marketer wants it to mean.

Never a truer word. Thanks bj.

[Dunne E .]

On 17 Nov 2004 12:36:14 -0800,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) posted:

>"bj" <bjones44@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>> "natural" means whatever the marketer wants it to mean.
>
>Is that how science operates?

How? What has science got to do with marketing? No wonder you
are confused and ask such uninformed questions.

[Dunne E .]

On 18 Nov 2004 04:40:26 -0800,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) posted:

>"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> >>>> The ingredients in Pringles are just as natural as
>> >>>> that organic evaporated cane juice that my health
>> >>>> foods use instead of that nasty sugar.
>> >>>
>> >>> Please stop abusing the English language!
>> >>
>> >> I wasn't abusing the English language. Don't blame me if
>> >> you didn't understand my post.
>> >
>> > Don't blame me if I use my brain to disagree with your
>> > statements and conclusions.
>> >
>> > I do. And, just did. Yet, again. :)
>>
>> My statements implied that the word "natural" is pretty
>> much meaningless in this context because even something
>> like potato chips could be considered natural.
>
>Absolutely NOT! per the reasons I have already given. :)
>
>Potato chips are artifical for a number of reasons.
>
>They contain chemicals that are NOT naturally the part of
>anybodyies diet: animal or human. Hence, humans have NOT
>evolved to process those artificial chemicals.

So what happens to them?

>Next, potato chips are not natural to the human diet because
>they have been in it probably not more than a 100 years.

What parts of potato chips, or is it just that combination of
substances? What ones are artificial?

>Cooking is natural to the human diet, because people have
>been cooking for about 30,000 years. :)

No other animals cook anything. How can it be "natural"?

>Seems simply enought to me.

More "simplistic", I think.

[N-H-P]

Dunne E. Dawe <never@never.again> wrote:

> >Absolutely NOT! per the reasons I have already given. :)
> >
> >Potato chips are artifical for a number of reasons.
> >
> >They contain chemicals that are NOT naturally the part of
> >anybodyies diet: animal or human. Hence, humans have NOT
> >evolved to process those artificial chemicals.
>
> So what happens to them?
>
> >Next, potato chips are not natural to the human diet
> >because they have been in it probably not more than a
> >100 years.
>
> What parts of potato chips, or is it just that combination
> of substances? What ones are artificial?

Perhaps, if you were to focus?

Perhaps, if you STOP being such an ass?

Perhaps, if you actually tried reading the printed page your
comments wouldn't be so stupid?

Nah! You are natuarally born obnoxious. And, you are probably
a Brit because all Britians suffer from the same mental
illness. :)

Just my opinion, but I am right as ususal. :)
--
john gohde http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

[Dunne E .]

On 24 Nov 2004 05:33:39 -0800,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) posted:

>Dunne E. Dawe <never@never.again> wrote in message
>news:<2168q0p8kquii6qk4t31q464dq51l5hu9j@4ax.com>...
>> On 18 Nov 2004 04:50:20 -0800,
>> johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) posted:
>>
>> >"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If "natural" has no specific meaning when it comes to
>> >> toxins, then you should not be referring to natural
>> >> toxins so much in your post. The reality is that if a
>> >> toxin occurs in nature, it's a natural toxin.
>> >
>> >Man is the measure of all things, Dear, especially in
>> >smn. :)
>> >
>> >This is NOT a ng on floral and fungi! Just thought you
>> >might want to know.
>>
>> Floral what?
>
>Floral is in my dictionary.

And if you read beyond the headword, you would see it is an
adjective. As I asked, "floral what?". BTW, I didn't need a
dictionary for this simple word. Go figure!

>I suggest that you try taking biology all over again.

What for? I already know what this adjective means. Do YOU
know what an adjective is? It describes a noun. I asked what
noun you were describing with it.

>Your comment was so stupid, that I am not going to waste my
>time replying to your other comments which are even more
>stupid than this one was.

As I said, "Floral what?"

[Dunne E .]

On 24 Nov 2004 05:42:07 -0800,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) posted:

>Dunne E. Dawe <never@never.again> wrote:
>
>> >Absolutely NOT! per the reasons I have already given. :)
>> >
>> >Potato chips are artifical for a number of reasons.
>> >
>> >They contain chemicals that are NOT naturally the part of
>> >anybodyies diet: animal or human. Hence, humans have NOT
>> >evolved to process those artificial chemicals.
>>
>> So what happens to them?
>>
>> >Next, potato chips are not natural to the human diet
>> >because they have been in it probably not more than a 100
>> >years.
>>
>> What parts of potato chips, or is it just that combination
>> of substances? What ones are artificial?
>
>Perhaps, if you were to focus?
>
>Perhaps, if you STOP being such an ass?
>
>Perhaps, if you actually tried reading the printed page your
>comments wouldn't be so stupid?
>
>Nah! You are natuarally born obnoxious. And, you are probably
>a Brit because all Britians suffer from the same mental
>illness. :)
>
>Just my opinion, but I am right as ususal. :)

Nothing substantive comes to your mind? Why do you bombard
this newsgroup with empty nonsense?

[N-H-P]

Dunne E. Dawe <never@never.again> wrote in message
news:<6ndaq05gs1fco97cltgcodp6fcpjov7dab@4ax.com>...
> On 24 Nov 2004 05:42:07 -0800,
> johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) posted:
>
> >Dunne E. Dawe <never@never.again> wrote:
> >
> >> >Absolutely NOT! per the reasons I have already given. :)
> >> >
> >> >Potato chips are artifical for a number of reasons.
> >> >
> >> >They contain chemicals that are NOT naturally the part
> >> >of anybodyies diet: animal or human. Hence, humans have
> >> >NOT evolved to process those artificial chemicals.
> >>
> >> So what happens to them?
> >>
> >> >Next, potato chips are not natural to the human diet
> >> >because they have been in it probably not more than a
> >> >100 years.
> >>
> >> What parts of potato chips, or is it just that
> >> combination of substances? What ones are artificial?
> >
> >Perhaps, if you were to focus?
> >
> >Perhaps, if you STOP being such an ass?
> >
> >Perhaps, if you actually tried reading the printed page
> >your comments wouldn't be so stupid?
> >
> >Nah! You are natuarally born obnoxious. And, you are
> >probably a Brit because all Britians suffer from the same
> >mental illness. :)
> >
> >Just my opinion, but I am right as ususal. :)
>
> Nothing substantive comes to your mind? Why do you bombard
> this newsgroup with empty nonsense?

Nothing substantive comes to your mind? Why do you bombard
this newsgroup with empty nonsense?

If it good enough for you to use, then it is good enough for
me to reply with.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
john gohde http://blog.naturalhealthperspective.com/

[Alf Christ]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:34:52 -0800, Elmer
<ogryzlo@chem.ubc.ca> wrote:

> Natural rape seeds are poisonous, unnaturally Canola is
> considered

If you think of erucic oil, please update yourself with recent
literature (not published by those who just want to scare the
hell out of you)

If that toxic, there should be no population problems in China
at all today, since all should have been dead by now, using
daily natural rape seed oil containing more than 15% of erucic
oil. (Seems like it is rather healthy since they seem to
thrive very well)