Fake Protein Supplements?

[Prisoner A]

Okay, the advice on protein powders is to buy from a company
by a bodybuilder -- Labrada, Dave Draper's Bomber Blend,
Dorian Yates Approved -- since these guys, presumably,
wouldn't want to get a bad reputation for shoddy products.
(How about Gaspari Nutrition, then? Or Bentacourt....)

But while folks on bodybuilding fora and sites believe that
there are companies which sell rip-off protein powders, I've
never heard a name mentioned at all. So, which companies sell
b.s. protein powders? Which brand's protein mix is not really
protein, or not the advertised protein, etc.?

How's Supplement Direct? Odd I find very little said about
them, considering that they sell the absolute cheapest protein
powder anywhere! From what little research I was able to
conduct, they seem to be supplied -- despite their claims of
manufacturing their own stuff -- by a company called Proteint
in MN, which supposedly has the largest whey isolate facility
in the whole world!

And, also, has Schwarzenegger ever done supplement
endorsements himself? I'm surprised he and best buddy Franco
Columbu never went into this business (I understand they were
partners in some construction company they had, which
apparently afforded them all those hours at the gym and all
those steroids!)....

[Dave]

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179280907.606543.296030@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Okay, the advice on protein powders is to buy from a company
> by a bodybuilder -- Labrada, Dave Draper's Bomber Blend,
> Dorian Yates Approved -- since these guys, presumably,
> wouldn't want to get a bad reputation for shoddy products.
> (How about Gaspari Nutrition, then? Or Bentacourt....)
>
> But while folks on bodybuilding fora and sites believe that
> there are companies which sell rip-off protein powders, I've
> never heard a name mentioned at all. So, which companies
> sell b.s. protein powders? Which brand's protein mix is not
> really protein, or not the advertised protein, etc.?

It's not much, and I don't have a source, but years ago I read
an article that criticized whey protein manufacturers. The
gist was that they say how whey protein isolate was shown
effective with such-and-such results, but then they turn
around and sell a different product, whey protein concentrate,
because it's cheaper to make. But I searched on google
products (used to be Froogle), and the isolate variety only
seems to be a little more expensive on average than the
concentrate.

Did they wise up? Are health food stores carrying whey protein
isolate now too?

David

--
Adamant Barbell Unyielding steel, built for abuse
www.adamantbarbell.com

[Will Brink]

In article
<1179280907.606543.296030@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Okay, the advice on protein powders is to buy from a company
> by a bodybuilder -- Labrada, Dave Draper's Bomber Blend,
> Dorian Yates Approved -- since these guys, presumably,
> wouldn't want to get a bad reputation for shoddy products.
> (How about Gaspari Nutrition, then? Or Bentacourt....)
>
> But while folks on bodybuilding fora and sites believe that
> there are companies which sell rip-off protein powders, I've
> never heard a name mentioned at all. So, which companies
> sell b.s. protein powders?

What is a "b.s. protein powder"? Define that first.

OCD/ADHD ramble snipped.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Tom Anders]

On Wed, 15 May 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:

> Okay, the advice on protein powders is to buy from a company
> by a bodybuilder

What? Whose advice? Whoever it is, stop taking their advice,
because they're an idiot.

> But while folks on bodybuilding fora and sites believe that
> there are companies which sell rip-off protein powders, I've
> never heard a name mentioned at all.

Possibly because guys on fora are mostly retarded
bullshitters.

Rip-off products in general, yes, but protein powder? The
stuff is so cheap for the manufacturers to buy that it
doesn't seem worth it. I mean, they'd have to find something
cheaper to cut it with, and short of fly ash, i can't think
of anything!

tom

--
The RAMAN VESSEL enters the SOLAR SYSTEM. The explorers
explore it, and it is COOL. Then they LEAVE. Then the Raman
vessel LEAVES. -- Book-A-Minute SF/F

[Prisoner A]

The bodybuilding.com boards, for starters. Of course, it's
what those ads themselves claim -- essentially, "my name is
here because this is real protein unlike some no-name brands."

Yes, whey protein does seem cheap these days -- surprised so
many college students are still living on ramen noodles! --
but that only means the profits would be even greater for
unscrupulous companies.

On May 16, 9:36 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>
> What? Whose advice? Whoever it is, stop taking their advice,
> because they're an idiot.
>
> Possibly because guys on fora are mostly retarded
> bullshitters.
>
> Rip-off products in general, yes, but protein powder? The
> stuff is so cheap for the manufacturers to buy that it
> doesn't seem worth it. I mean, they'd have to find something
> cheaper to cut it with, and short of fly ash, i can't think
> of anything!
>
> tom
>
> --
> The RAMAN VESSEL enters the SOLAR SYSTEM. The explorers
> explore it, and it is COOL. Then they LEAVE. Then the Raman
> vessel LEAVES. -- Book-A-Minute SF/F

[Prisoner A]

On May 15, 10:51 pm, "Dave" <t...@test.com> wrote:
>
>
> It's not much, and I don't have a source, but years ago I
> read an article that criticized whey protein manufacturers.
> The gist was that they say how whey protein isolate was
> shown effective with such-and-such results, but then they
> turn around and sell a different product, whey protein
> concentrate, because it's cheaper to make.

Sounds a bit like what's happening with creatine: all the
studies are done on creatine monohydrate, but companies come
out with their own "improvements" on creatine while citing the
results of studies done using creatine monohydrate.

> But I searched on google products (used to be Froogle), and
> the isolate variety only seems to be a little more expensive
> on average than the concentrate.

A lot more, actually: those couple of dollars difference add
up when you buy in bulk!

> Did they wise up? Are health food stores carrying whey
> protein isolate now too?

That's the other thing: I'm wary of health food stores. I
mean, all these things that healthy people have done
without...it just sounds so silly on the face of it!

Anyway, since I'm getting on in years here and ain't
responding like I used to be, I'm changing a lot of things,
including my diet. I will try protein powder for, I dunno, two
months and see if anything seems to happen. I just thought it
odd that there's talk of rip-off b.s. powders out there, but
no one ever actually names any names! Just as strange is how
Supplement Direct sells the absolute lowest priced protein by
far, but there's hardly any talk of them, either!

> David
>
> --
> Adamant Barbell Unyielding steel, built for
> abusewww.adamantbarbell.com

[Cubit]

What do they cut it with? Talcum powder?

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179280907.606543.296030@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Okay, the advice on protein powders is to buy from a company
> by a bodybuilder -- Labrada, Dave Draper's Bomber Blend,
> Dorian Yates Approved -- since these guys, presumably,
> wouldn't want to get a bad reputation for shoddy products.
> (How about Gaspari Nutrition, then? Or Bentacourt....)
>
> But while folks on bodybuilding fora and sites believe that
> there are companies which sell rip-off protein powders, I've
> never heard a name mentioned at all. So, which companies
> sell b.s. protein powders? Which brand's protein mix is not
> really protein, or not the advertised protein, etc.?
>
> How's Supplement Direct? Odd I find very little said about
> them, considering that they sell the absolute cheapest
> protein powder anywhere! From what little research I was
> able to conduct, they seem to be supplied -- despite their
> claims of manufacturing their own stuff -- by a company
> called Proteint in MN, which supposedly has the largest whey
> isolate facility in the whole world!
>
> And, also, has Schwarzenegger ever done supplement
> endorsements himself? I'm surprised he and best buddy Franco
> Columbu never went into this business (I understand they
> were partners in some construction company they had, which
> apparently afforded them all those hours at the gym and all
> those steroids!)....

[Dkw12002@Y]

On May 15, 9:01 pm, Prisoner at War
<prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Okay, the advice on protein powders is to buy from a company
> by a bodybuilder -- Labrada, Dave Draper's Bomber Blend,
> Dorian Yates Approved -- since these guys, presumably,
> wouldn't want to get a bad reputation for shoddy products.
> (How about Gaspari Nutrition, then? Or Bentacourt....)
>
> But while folks on bodybuilding fora and sites believe that
> there are companies which sell rip-off protein powders, I've
> never heard a name mentioned at all. So, which companies
> sell b.s. protein powders? Which brand's protein mix is not
> really protein, or not the advertised protein, etc.?
>
> How's Supplement Direct? Odd I find very little said about
> them, considering that they sell the absolute cheapest
> protein powder anywhere! From what little research I was
> able to conduct, they seem to be supplied -- despite their
> claims of manufacturing their own stuff -- by a company
> called Proteint in MN, which supposedly has the largest whey
> isolate facility in the whole world!
>
> And, also, has Schwarzenegger ever done supplement
> endorsements himself? I'm surprised he and best buddy Franco
> Columbu never went into this business (I understand they
> were partners in some construction company they had, which
> apparently afforded them all those hours at the gym and all
> those steroids!)....

Better yet, don't buy protein supplements. If you want more
protein eat some nonfat egg whites at 3 gms per egg white.
This makes them low calorie as well. One body builder I know
just eats some canned tuna when he wants more protein. This
fixation with getting protein is not warranted by the
research. It probably won't hurt you but it is a waste of
money. Protein is EASY to get in food...all you could possibly
want, even for us vegetarians. dkw

[cleanskin]

All protein powders are crap. Stick with real food. Protein
powders will actually pull fat soluble vitamins right out of
you. AND all of them have some sort of synthetic sugar. Eat
liver! One of nature's wonder foods. Vince Gironda knew a lot
of stuff way before anybody else! Also, check out the folks at
http://www.westonaprice.org - really spot on for maximizing
your health!

Tom http://www.itspuresoap.com

On May 16, 11:51 am, Prisoner at War
<prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 10:51 pm, "Dave" <t...@test.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It's not much, and I don't have a source, but years ago I
> > read an article that criticized whey protein
> > manufacturers. The gist was that they say how whey protein
> > isolate was shown effective with such-and-such results,
> > but then they turn around and sell a different product,
> > whey protein concentrate, because it's cheaper to make.
>
> Sounds a bit like what's happening with creatine: all the
> studies are done on creatine monohydrate, but companies come
> out with their own "improvements" on creatine while citing
> the results of studies done using creatine monohydrate.
>
> > But I searched on google products (used to be Froogle),
> > and the isolate variety only seems to be a little more
> > expensive on average than the concentrate.
>
> A lot more, actually: those couple of dollars difference add
> up when you buy in bulk!
>
> > Did they wise up? Are health food stores carrying whey
> > protein isolate now too?
>
> That's the other thing: I'm wary of health food stores. I
> mean, all these things that healthy people have done
> without...it just sounds so silly on the face of it!
>
> Anyway, since I'm getting on in years here and ain't
> responding like I used to be, I'm changing a lot of things,
> including my diet. I will try protein powder for, I dunno,
> two months and see if anything seems to happen. I just
> thought it odd that there's talk of rip-off b.s. powders
> out there, but no one ever actually names any names! Just
> as strange is how Supplement Direct sells the absolute
> lowest priced protein by far, but there's hardly any talk
> of them, either!
>
> > David
>
> > --
> > Adamant Barbell Unyielding steel, built for
> > abusewww.adamantbarbell.com

[Will Brink]

In article <TKGdnaBSjMMw7NfbnZ2dnUVZ_oCmnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Dave" <test@test.com> wrote:

> It's not much, and I don't have a source, but years ago I
> read an article that criticized whey protein manufacturers.
> The gist was that they say how whey protein isolate was
> shown effective with such-and-such results, but then they
> turn around and sell a different product, whey protein
> concentrate, because it's cheaper to make.

Either the article is wrong or you are quoting it wrong.
Most of the studies that looked at the benefits of whey
used concentrates. The entire whey industry that was used
to sell whey, was based on concentrate studies. More recent
studies have used isolates. Everything you could need to
know about whey:

http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?acatid=3&aid=25

>But I searched on google products (used to be Froogle), and
>the isolate variety only seems to be a little more expensive
>on average than the concentrate.
>
> Did they wise up? Are health food stores carrying whey
> protein isolate now too?

Of course, thought very few sell pure isolates as they are
expensive. A mix of isolate and concentrates is the norm.
Plenty of scams and BS in the supplement industry, including
the sellers of whey, but it has nothing to do with the
manufacturers of whey and everything to do with the companies
that sell it (hint, they are not one and the same thing).

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Jason Earl]

"dkw12002@yahoo.com" <dkw12002@yahoo.com> writes:

> On May 15, 9:01 pm, Prisoner at War
> <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Okay, the advice on protein powders is to buy from a
>> company by a bodybuilder -- Labrada, Dave Draper's Bomber
>> Blend, Dorian Yates Approved -- since these guys,
>> presumably, wouldn't want to get a bad reputation for
>> shoddy products. (How about Gaspari Nutrition, then? Or
>> Bentacourt....)
>>
>> But while folks on bodybuilding fora and sites believe
>> that there are companies which sell rip-off protein
>> powders, I've never heard a name mentioned at all. So,
>> which companies sell b.s. protein powders? Which brand's
>> protein mix is not really protein, or not the advertised
>> protein, etc.?
>>
>> How's Supplement Direct? Odd I find very little said about
>> them, considering that they sell the absolute cheapest
>> protein powder anywhere! From what little research I was
>> able to conduct, they seem to be supplied -- despite their
>> claims of manufacturing their own stuff -- by a company
>> called Proteint in MN, which supposedly has the largest
>> whey isolate facility in the whole world!
>>
>> And, also, has Schwarzenegger ever done supplement
>> endorsements himself? I'm surprised he and best buddy
>> Franco Columbu never went into this business (I understand
>> they were partners in some construction company they had,
>> which apparently afforded them all those hours at the gym
>> and all those steroids!)....
>
> Better yet, don't buy protein supplements. If you want more
> protein eat some nonfat egg whites at 3 gms per egg white.
> This makes them low calorie as well. One body builder I know
> just eats some canned tuna when he wants more protein.

While both egg whites and tuna are great (and inexpensive)
sources of protein it really is hard to beat whey protein if
you are supplementing your protein intake. First of all whey
protein is less expensive than egg whites and it doesn't have
the mercury issues that tuna does. You don't even have to look
around to get whey protein that is less than $0.01 per gram of
protein. Costco or WalMart both have what you need.

> This fixation with getting protein is not warranted by the
> research.

There has been plenty of recent research on protein
supplementation before and after exercise that shows that whey
protein is well worth its tiny price.

> It probably won't hurt you but it is a waste of money.
> Protein is EASY to get in food...all you could possibly
> want, even for us vegetarians. dkw

I agree that protein is fairly easy to get in real food
sources. However, whey protein is less expensive than almost
all other high quality protein sources, it is easy to take,
and most whey protein supplements even taste pretty good.

Whey protein *can* be a waste of money, but only if you insist
on some sort of designer brand.

Jason

[Will Brink]

In article
<1179341952.182954.307810@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
cleanskin@itspuresoap.com wrote:

> All protein powders are crap.

Then why does the research find so many benefits from whey
compared to other proteins? Effects on immunity, cancer, GSH,
and others. For example:

http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?acatid=3&aid=26

>Stick with real food. Protein powders will actually pull fat
>soluble vitamins right out of you.

Cite.

> AND all of them have some sort of synthetic sugar.

Your'e an idiot.

> Eat liver! One of nature's wonder foods. Vince Gironda knew
> a lot of stuff way before anybody else!

Not really, but he sure thought he did.

>Also, check out the folks at http://www.westonaprice.org -
>really spot on for maximizing your health!

Actualy they are a bunch of nuts, but that's another issue.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Tom Anders]

On Wed, 16 May 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:

> On May 16, 9:36 am, Tom Anderson
> <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> Rip-off products in general, yes, but protein powder? The
>> stuff is so cheap for the manufacturers to buy that it
>> doesn't seem worth it. I mean, they'd have to find
>> something cheaper to cut it with, and short of fly ash, i
>> can't think of anything!
>
> Yes, whey protein does seem cheap these days -- surprised so
> many college students are still living on ramen noodles! --
> but that only means the profits would be even greater for
> unscrupulous companies.

No it doesn't. It means exactly the opposite.

tom

--
Miscellaneous Terrorists: Ducks | Bird Flu | Avian flu | Jimbo
Wales | Backstreet Boys | The Al Queda Network | Tesco --
Uncyclopedia

[Tom Anders]

On Wed, 16 May 2007, JMW wrote:

> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, the advice on protein powders is to buy from a
>>> company by a bodybuilder
>>
>> What? Whose advice? Whoever it is, stop taking their
>> advice, because they're an idiot.
>>
>>> But while folks on bodybuilding fora and sites believe
>>> that there are companies which sell rip-off protein
>>> powders, I've never heard a name mentioned at all.
>>
>> Possibly because guys on fora are mostly retarded
>> bullshitters.
>
> True. But, then again, so is "Prisoner at War" aka
> "NYC XYZ."
>
> Of course, when most of MFW finally figures that out, he'll
> just come up with a new username and start all over again.

Shhh! I haven't had a good flamewar in ages.

tom

--
Miscellaneous Terrorists: Ducks | Bird Flu | Avian flu | Jimbo
Wales | Backstreet Boys | The Al Queda Network | Tesco --
Uncyclopedia

[cleanskin]

Let me try to go through this point by point with what I know
or what I think I know...

I generally define the best way of eating as to eat the foods
with the lowest profit margins and that spoil soon. These
foods have more nutrients per ounce. Whey protein is cheap as
hell and the source of it is from cows that aren't grass fed.
Not grass fed means lower CLA in the food source. I just saw a
post on one of the groups today citing this very fact. It was
a study done in Europe. I didn't read it thoroughly but got
the gist of it. Also, whey protein or any low fat protein
source will rob Vitamin A (real Vitamin A not beta-carotene)
from the body as it processes the protein. I don't have a
citation for this, but can look it up. Here is an article on
vit A and absorption of protein:
http://www.westonaprice.org/men/vitaminabodybuilding.html

The article which you wrote doesn't have any citations. Please
provide these and we can discuss further. Whey can be made at
home far cheaper than buying a powder. Don't know how? Get raw
milk and make yogurt, then drain the liquid. This would have
to be the best whey ever! Second best, use regular milk. Third
best, buy yogurt.

Please name for me a whey protein that uses only brown sugar
or even regular sugar for sweetening and I'll happily
endorse it.

Vince definitely was a character. He knew a lot. Not all. And
I agree that he sure thought he knew it all.

Not sure why you think the westonaprice folks are nuts. Please
give me an example as opposed to a general attack on them.

Tom http://www.itspuresoap.com

On May 16, 4:26 pm, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> In article
> <1179341952.182954.307...@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> cleans...@itspuresoap.com wrote:
> > All protein powders are crap.
>
> Then why does the research find so many benefits from whey
> compared to other proteins? Effects on immunity, cancer,
> GSH, and others. For example:
>
> http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?acatid=3&aid=26
>
> >Stick with real food. Protein powders will actually pull
> >fat soluble vitamins right out of you.
>
> Cite.
>
> > AND all of them have some sort of synthetic sugar.
>
> Your'e an idiot.
>
> > Eat liver! One of nature's wonder foods. Vince Gironda
> > knew a lot of stuff way before anybody else!
>
> Not really, but he sure thought he did.
>
> >Also, check out the folks athttp://www.westonaprice.org-
> >really spot on for maximizing your health!
>
> Actualy they are a bunch of nuts, but that's another issue.
>
> --
> Will @www.BrinkZone.com
>
> "It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Bully]

In news:1179341578.638629.152330@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
dkw12002@yahoo.com <dkw12002@yahoo.com> typed:
> On May 15, 9:01 pm, Prisoner at War
> <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Okay, the advice on protein powders is to buy from a
>> company by a bodybuilder -- Labrada, Dave Draper's Bomber
>> Blend, Dorian Yates Approved -- since these guys,
>> presumably, wouldn't want to get a bad reputation for
>> shoddy products. (How about Gaspari Nutrition, then? Or
>> Bentacourt....)
>>
>> But while folks on bodybuilding fora and sites believe
>> that there are companies which sell rip-off protein
>> powders, I've never heard a name mentioned at all. So,
>> which companies sell b.s. protein powders? Which brand's
>> protein mix is not really protein, or not the advertised
>> protein, etc.?
>>
>> How's Supplement Direct? Odd I find very little said about
>> them, considering that they sell the absolute cheapest
>> protein powder anywhere! From what little research I was
>> able to conduct, they seem to be supplied -- despite their
>> claims of manufacturing their own stuff -- by a company
>> called Proteint in MN, which supposedly has the largest
>> whey isolate facility in the whole world!
>>
>> And, also, has Schwarzenegger ever done supplement
>> endorsements himself? I'm surprised he and best buddy
>> Franco Columbu never went into this business (I understand
>> they were partners in some construction company they had,
>> which apparently afforded them all those hours at the gym
>> and all those steroids!)....
>
> Better yet, don't buy protein supplements. If you want more
> protein eat some nonfat egg whites at 3 gms per egg white.

Great, 60 egg whites a day then!

> This makes them low calorie as well. One body builder I know
> just eats some canned tuna when he wants more protein.

BODYBUILDER EATS CANNED TUNA !!!

> This fixation with getting protein is not warranted by the
> research.

It's not? It's been working for me! Maybe the research is
flawed eh?

> It probably won't hurt you but it is a waste of money.

Are you saying now NOT to eat the egg whites?

> Protein is EASY to get in food...all you could possibly
> want, even for us vegetarians. dkw

Really? How would you go about getting 180g per day then?

--
Bully Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an
optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir
Winston Churchill

[Bully]

In news:1179375052.854117.247520@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
cleanskin@itspuresoap.com <cleanskin@itspuresoap.com> typed:
> Let me try to go through this point by point with what I
> know or what I think I know...

Nail - head - hit!

[...]

>
> Please name for me a whey protein that uses only brown sugar
> or even regular sugar for sweetening and I'll happily
> endorse it.

What about wholemeal sugar? Isn't that even better than
brown sugar?

>
> Vince definitely was a character. He knew a lot.

You know this how?

[...]

--
Bully Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an
optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir
Winston Churchill

[cleanskin]

On May 17, 9:57 am, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> In article
> <1179375052.854117.247...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> cleans...@itspuresoap.com wrote:
> > Let me try to go through this point by point with what I
> > know or what I think I know...
>
> > I generally define the best way of eating as to eat the
> > foods with the lowest profit margins and that spoil soon.
> > These foods have more nutrients per ounce.
>
> Proft margin has zero to do with nutrient density nor does
> how fast the food spoils.

Wow. So fresh foods are no different from canned, pulverized
or frozen foods? Or anything else done to it.

>
> >Whey protein is cheap as hell and the source of it is from
> >cows that aren't grass fed.
>
> Some are some are not.

Which whey maker uses grass fed, pasture raised cows? I'd love
to know this.

> > Here is an article on vit A and absorption of protein:htt-
> > p://www.westonaprice.org/men/vitaminabodybuilding.html
>
> A worthless source as weston price is worthless info for non
> science types who are fooled by their BS and agendas. The
> article is also worthless.
>

So these are worthless citations? Livera, et al., "Regulation
and Perturbation of Testicular Functions by Vitamin A"
(Review), Reproduction (2002) 124, 173-180 Nayyar, et. al.,
"Alterations in binding characteristics of peripheral
benzodiazepine receptors in testes by vitamin A deficiency in
guinea pigs," Mol Cell Biochem. 2000 Aug;211(1-2):47-50
Bishop, et. al., "The effect of nutritional factors on sex
hormone levels in male twins," Genet Epidemiol.
1988;5(1):43-59. Zadik, et. al., "Vitamin A and iron
supplementation is as efficient as hormonal therapy in
constitutionally delayed children," Clin Endocrinol (Oxf).
2004 Jun; 60(6):682-7. McCormick, et. al., "Chemoprevention of
rat prostate carcinogenesis by 9-cis-retinoic acid," Cancer
Res. 1999 Feb 1;59(3):521-4. Furusho, et. al., "Tissue
specific-distribution and metabolism of vitamin A are affected
by dietary protein levels in rats," Int J Vitam Nutr Res.
1998;68(5):287-92 Narbonne, et. al., "Protein metabolism in
vitamin A deficient rats.
II. Protein synthesis in striated muscle," Ann Nutr Aliment.
1978;32(1):59-75. Stio, et. al., "Synergistic effect of
vitamin D derivatives and retinoids on C2C12 skeletal
muscle cells," IUBMB Life. 2002 Mar;53(3): 175-81

>
>
> > The article which you wrote doesn't have any citations.
> > Please provide these and we can discuss further.
>
> Formatting of the article is messed up for some reason. On
> another site:
>
> http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag97/nov-report97.html
>
> Others can be seen here:
>
> Effects of one of the sub fractions found in whey not found
> in other proteins:
>
> http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?acatid=3&aid=99
>
> Possible effects of whey on weight loss:
>
> http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?acatid=3&aid=11
>
> Pretty much everything you need to know about whey:
>
> http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?acatid=3&aid=25
>
> Those are just a sample BTW.

I agree that whey is fantastic and it is WHEY better in its
original form before it is pulverized and/or cooked.

>
> >Whey can be made at home far cheaper than buying a powder.
> >Don't know how? Get raw milk and make yogurt, then drain
> >the liquid. This would have to be the best whey ever!
> >Second best, use regular milk. Third best, buy yogurt.
>
> You're ignorant of the topic.

I am ignorant on the topic of whey? Have you ever made your
own whey? If a cow is pasture fed, on pesticide free grass,
and you milk it, culture it to become yogurt, drain the liquid
whey out.... are you telling me that WPI or hydrolyzed protein
is healthier than this? What about all of the other nutrients
in this liquid that haven't even been discovered yet? And that
perhaps make the whey work even better? Or whey maybe works
better directly in the yogurt? Or even better, perhaps it
works better in the raw milk?! Healthy whole foods are always
better than an isolated form stripped from their origin.

> > Vince definitely was a character. He knew a lot. Not all.
> > And I agree that he sure thought he knew it all.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about or who Vince is.

You don't know who Vince Gironda was? Have you studied the
history of bodybuilding and nutrition? Your ignorance of Vince
Gironda is revealing.

> > Not sure why you think the westonaprice folks are nuts.
> > Please give me an example as opposed to a general attack
> > on them.
>
> Their info is generally BS and that's easy enough to figure
> out by a simple read of their material.

Still waiting for an example. Have you read "Nutrition and
Physical Degeneration" by Dr. Price? This book is so
insightful that it would be an understatement to say
anything else. This is the basis of the
http://www.westonaprice.org folks.

Tom http://www.itspuresoap.com

[cleanskin]

Here is the study I couldn't find regarding CLA and eating
more organic foods for anyone interested

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=R-
etrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17349086&query_hl=1&itool-
=pubmed_docsum

Tom http://www.itspuresoap.com

On May 17, 3:43 pm, cleans...@itspuresoap.com wrote:
> On May 17, 9:57 am, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink)
> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <1179375052.854117.247...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > cleans...@itspuresoap.com wrote:
> > > Let me try to go through this point by point with what I
> > > know or what I think I know...
>
> > > I generally define the best way of eating as to eat the
> > > foods with the lowest profit margins and that spoil
> > > soon. These foods have more nutrients per ounce.
>
> > Proft margin has zero to do with nutrient density nor does
> > how fast the food spoils.
>
> Wow. So fresh foods are no different from canned, pulverized
> or frozen foods? Or anything else done to it.
>
>
>
> > >Whey protein is cheap as hell and the source of it is
> > >from cows that aren't grass fed.
>
> > Some are some are not.
>
> Which whey maker uses grass fed, pasture raised cows? I'd
> love to know this.
>
> > > Here is an article on vit A and absorption of protein:h-
> > > ttp://www.westonaprice.org/men/vitaminabodybuilding.html
>
> > A worthless source as weston price is worthless info for
> > non science types who are fooled by their BS and agendas.
> > The article is also worthless.
>
> So these are worthless citations? Livera, et al.,
> "Regulation and Perturbation of Testicular Functions by
> Vitamin A" (Review), Reproduction (2002) 124, 173-180
> Nayyar, et. al., "Alterations in binding characteristics of
> peripheral benzodiazepine receptors in testes by vitamin A
> deficiency in guinea pigs," Mol Cell Biochem. 2000
> Aug;211(1-2):47-50 Bishop, et. al., "The effect of
> nutritional factors on sex hormone levels in male twins,"
> Genet Epidemiol. 1988;5(1):43-59. Zadik, et. al., "Vitamin A
> and iron supplementation is as efficient as hormonal therapy
> in constitutionally delayed children," Clin Endocrinol
> (Oxf). 2004 Jun; 60(6):682-7. McCormick, et. al.,
> "Chemoprevention of rat prostate carcinogenesis by
> 9-cis-retinoic acid," Cancer Res. 1999 Feb 1;59(3):521-4.
> Furusho, et. al., "Tissue specific-distribution and
> metabolism of vitamin A are affected by dietary protein
> levels in rats," Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 1998;68(5):287-92
> Narbonne, et. al., "Protein metabolism in vitamin A
> deficient rats.
> II. Protein synthesis in striated muscle," Ann Nutr Aliment.
> 1978;32(1):59-75. Stio, et. al., "Synergistic effect of
> vitamin D derivatives and retinoids on C2C12 skeletal
> muscle cells," IUBMB Life. 2002 Mar;53(3): 175-81
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The article which you wrote doesn't have any citations.
> > > Please provide these and we can discuss further.
>
> > Formatting of the article is messed up for some reason. On
> > another site:
>
> >http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag97/nov-report97.html
>
> > Others can be seen here:
>
> > Effects of one of the sub fractions found in whey not
> > found in other proteins:
>
> >http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?acatid=3&aid=99
>
> > Possible effects of whey on weight loss:
>
> >http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?acatid=3&aid=11
>
> > Pretty much everything you need to know about whey:
>
> >http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?acatid=3&aid=25
>
> > Those are just a sample BTW.
>
> I agree that whey is fantastic and it is WHEY better in its
> original form before it is pulverized and/or cooked.
>
>
>
> > >Whey can be made at home far cheaper than buying a
> > >powder. Don't know how? Get raw milk and make yogurt,
> > >then drain the liquid. This would have to be the best
> > >whey ever! Second best, use regular milk. Third best, buy
> > >yogurt.
>
> > You're ignorant of the topic.
>
> I am ignorant on the topic of whey? Have you ever made your
> own whey? If a cow is pasture fed, on pesticide free grass,
> and you milk it, culture it to become yogurt, drain the
> liquid whey out.... are you telling me that WPI or
> hydrolyzed protein is healthier than this? What about all of
> the other nutrients in this liquid that haven't even been
> discovered yet? And that perhaps make the whey work even
> better? Or whey maybe works better directly in the yogurt?
> Or even better, perhaps it works better in the raw milk?!
> Healthy whole foods are always better than an isolated form
> stripped from their origin.
>
> > > Vince definitely was a character. He knew a lot. Not
> > > all. And I agree that he sure thought he knew it all.
>
> > I have no idea what you are talking about or who Vince is.
>
> You don't know who Vince Gironda was? Have you studied the
> history of bodybuilding and nutrition? Your ignorance of
> Vince Gironda is revealing.
>
> > > Not sure why you think the westonaprice folks are nuts.
> > > Please give me an example as opposed to a general attack
> > > on them.
>
> > Their info is generally BS and that's easy enough to
> > figure out by a simple read of their material.
>
> Still waiting for an example. Have you read "Nutrition and
> Physical Degeneration" by Dr. Price? This book is so
> insightful that it would be an understatement to say
> anything else. This is the basis of
> thehttp://www.westonaprice.orgfolks.
>
> Tomhttp://www.itspuresoap.com

[cleanskin]

Okay so isolates or concentrates were used. Obviously the
nutrient density is higher. But then again you've probably
never heard of the brix of food either. Again, which whey
makers use grass fed, pesticide free, hormone free cows?
I'd love to know this. Vitamin A deficiency from eating
low fat proteins is not a wise move for your health. Good
luck! I'm done.

Tom http://www.itspuresoap.com

On May 17, 5:22 pm, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> In article
> <1179431023.565928.104...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> cleans...@itspuresoap.com wrote:
> > On May 17, 9:57 am, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink)
> > wrote:
> > > In article <1179375052.854117.247...@n59g2000hsh.google-
> > > groups.com>,
>
> > > cleans...@itspuresoap.com wrote:
> > > > Let me try to go through this point by point with what
> > > > I know or what I think I know...
>
> > > > I generally define the best way of eating as to eat
> > > > the foods with the lowest profit margins and that
> > > > spoil soon. These foods have more nutrients per ounce.
>
> > > Proft margin has zero to do with nutrient density nor
> > > does how fast the food spoils.
>
> > Wow.
>
> For you, I guess this basic info leads to a "wow"
> conclusion.
>
> >So fresh foods are no different from canned, pulverized or
> >frozen foods? Or anything else done to it.
>
> For nutrient density, no. Do you even understand what
> nutrient density is? It appears you don't.
>
>
>
> > > >Whey protein is cheap as hell and the source of it is
> > > >from cows that aren't grass fed.
>
> > > Some are some are not.
>
> > Which whey maker uses grass fed, pasture raised cows? I'd
> > love to know this.
>
> As you don't understand even basic concepts like nutrient
> density, I fail to see how the info will do you any good.
>
>
>
> > > > Here is an article on vit A and absorption of protein-
> > > > :http://www.westonaprice.org/men/vitaminabodybuilding-
> > > > .html
>
> > > A worthless source as weston price is worthless info for
> > > non science types who are fooled by their BS and
> > > agendas. The article is also worthless.
>
> > So these are worthless citations?
>
> In the context of this thread and conversation,Yup.
>
> > I agree that whey is fantastic and it is WHEY better in
> > its original form before it is pulverized and/or cooked.
>
> Again, you dont know the data or the science. All the
> studies cited in those aticles are using concentrates or
> isolates processed.
>
>
>
> > > You're ignorant of the topic.
>
> > I am ignorant on the topic of whey?
>
> Yes, every comment you have made proves that.
>
> All natural-Feel-good-how-you-make yogurt-goofyness snipped.
>
> Now move along.
>
> --
> Will @www.BrinkZone.com
>
> "It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Will Brink]

In article
<1179375052.854117.247520@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
cleanskin@itspuresoap.com wrote:

> Let me try to go through this point by point with what I
> know or what I think I know...
>
> I generally define the best way of eating as to eat the
> foods with the lowest profit margins and that spoil soon.
> These foods have more nutrients per ounce.

Proft margin has zero to do with nutrient density nor does how
fast the food spoils.

>Whey protein is cheap as hell and the source of it is from
>cows that aren't grass fed.

Some are some are not.

>Not grass fed means lower CLA in the food source.

Irrelevant and of no consequence to the topic at hand. You are
rambling this off in some attempt to make yourself appear
educated on the topic when you clearly are not.

> I just saw a post on one of the groups today citing this
> very fact.

You read it on another news group. Really showed me you did...

>It was a study done in Europe. I didn't read it thoroughly
>but got the gist of it. Also, whey protein or any low fat
>protein source will rob Vitamin A (real Vitamin A not
>beta-carotene) from the body as it processes the protein. I
>don't have a citation for this, but can look it up.

Then do so, as it's total BS.

> Here is an article on vit A and absorption of protein:
> http://www.westonaprice.org/men/vitaminabodybuilding.html

A worthless source as weston price is worthless info for non
science types who are fooled by their BS and agendas. The
article is also worthless.

>
> The article which you wrote doesn't have any citations.
> Please provide these and we can discuss further.

Formatting of the article is messed up for some reason. On
another site:

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag97/nov-report97.html

Others can be seen here:

Effects of one of the sub fractions found in whey not found in
other proteins:

http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?acatid=3&aid=99

Possible effects of whey on weight loss:

http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?acatid=3&aid=11

Pretty much everything you need to know about whey:

http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?acatid=3&aid=25

Those are just a sample BTW.

>Whey can be made at home far cheaper than buying a powder.
>Don't know how? Get raw milk and make yogurt, then drain the
>liquid. This would have to be the best whey ever! Second
>best, use regular milk. Third best, buy yogurt.

You're ignorant of the topic.

>
> Please name for me a whey protein that uses only brown sugar
> or even regular sugar for sweetening and I'll happily
> endorse it.

I dont care what you endorse. There are many non flavored
whey products on the market BTW. Your ignorance of whey is
not my problem.

> Vince definitely was a character. He knew a lot. Not all.
> And I agree that he sure thought he knew it all.

I have no idea what you are talking about or who Vince is.

>
> Not sure why you think the westonaprice folks are nuts.
> Please give me an example as opposed to a general attack
> on them.

Their info is generally BS and that's easy enough to figure
out by a simple read of their material.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Dave]

<cleanskin@itspuresoap.com> wrote in message
news:1179375052.854117.247520@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Please name for me a whey protein that uses only brown sugar
> or even regular sugar for sweetening and I'll happily
> endorse it.

The brown sugar I've seen is just white sugar + molasses. Is
there something else?

But I do support you in a lot of what you're saying. We just
can't possibly try to create a good diet by isolating
compounds in powder form and putting together a diet with
them. It's like pretending we know all there is to know about
how the body processes food (I certainly don't, and I don't
believe even the best nutritionist out there does), and that
we can do better than nature. People make this mistake in all
areas of science by becoming too specialized in one subject
and ignoring the context. But I do believe there's value in
whey and other supplements as long as they're only taken as
supplements in situations where it may be appropriate, making
up only a minor portion of our daily intake. There's just so
many things in real food that we're missing out on if we rely
heavily on calorie-rich supplements. We could certainly
consume whey as a source of protein, but that's not nutrition,
not healthy, and someone consuming 1000 calories a day in whey
is missing out on the nutrition he'd be getting by eating real
foods to make up his daily protein intake.

The real problem, as I see it, is consumers buy lots and lots
of whey and take it like a magic formula that rationalizes an
otherwise crappy diet.

David

--
Adamant Barbell Unyielding steel, built for abuse
www.adamantbarbell.com

[Omelet]

In article <qKWdnePv260cC9HbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Dave" <test@test.com> wrote:

> <cleanskin@itspuresoap.com> wrote in message news:117937505-
> 2.854117.247520@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > Please name for me a whey protein that uses only brown
> > sugar or even regular sugar for sweetening and I'll
> > happily endorse it.
>
> The brown sugar I've seen is just white sugar + molasses. Is
> there something else?

Change that to raw or turbinado sugar and yes, there is a
difference.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch"
-- Jack Nicholson

[Will Brink]

In article
<1179431023.565928.104700@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
cleanskin@itspuresoap.com wrote:

> On May 17, 9:57 am, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink)
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1179375052.854117.247...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > cleans...@itspuresoap.com wrote:
> > > Let me try to go through this point by point with what I
> > > know or what I think I know...
> >
> > > I generally define the best way of eating as to eat the
> > > foods with the lowest profit margins and that spoil
> > > soon. These foods have more nutrients per ounce.
> >
> > Proft margin has zero to do with nutrient density nor does
> > how fast the food spoils.
>
> Wow.

For you, I guess this basic info leads to a "wow" conclusion.

>So fresh foods are no different from canned, pulverized or
>frozen foods? Or anything else done to it.

For nutrient density, no. Do you even understand what nutrient
density is? It appears you don't.

>
> >
> > >Whey protein is cheap as hell and the source of it is
> > >from cows that aren't grass fed.
> >
> > Some are some are not.
>
> Which whey maker uses grass fed, pasture raised cows? I'd
> love to know this.

As you don't understand even basic concepts like nutrient
density, I fail to see how the info will do you any good.

>
>
> > > Here is an article on vit A and absorption of protein:h-
> > > ttp://www.westonaprice.org/men/vitaminabodybuilding.html
> >
> > A worthless source as weston price is worthless info for
> > non science types who are fooled by their BS and agendas.
> > The article is also worthless.
> >
>
> So these are worthless citations?

In the context of this thread and conversation,Yup.

> I agree that whey is fantastic and it is WHEY better in its
> original form before it is pulverized and/or cooked.

Again, you dont know the data or the science. All the studies
cited in those aticles are using concentrates or isolates
processed.

> >
> > You're ignorant of the topic.
>
> I am ignorant on the topic of whey?

Yes, every comment you have made proves that.

All natural-Feel-good-how-you-make yogurt-goofyness snipped.

Now move along.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Will Brink]

In article
<1179434668.992284.129270@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
cleanskin@itspuresoap.com wrote:

> Here is the study I couldn't find regarding CLA and eating
> more organic foods for anyone interested

Did anyone claim organic foods were bad in this thread or do
you always just throw out random stuff unrlated to the topic
of the thread?

> > > > Here is an article on vit A and absorption

No, it is not. Your reading skills are worse than your
science. Show me in the article where it talks about
ABSORPTION of vitamin A.

> > So these are worthless citations?

From the article:

"athletes and body builders may be able to achieve similar
results from their training by taking high-vitamin cod liver
oil and eating foods rich in vitamin A on a regular basis as
others receive from the common practice of supplementing with
testosterone precursors."

That's very funny! Vitamin A is = to anabolic steroids.

> > Still waiting for an example.

I just gave you one. If they allow that type of BS to be
published on their site...they are well known for fabricating
things and or simply getting the science wrong to support
their agenda's

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Prisoner A]

On May 16, 2:59 pm, cleans...@itspuresoap.com wrote:
> All protein powders are crap. Stick with real food. Protein
> powders will actually pull fat soluble vitamins right out of
> you. AND all of them have some sort of synthetic sugar. Eat
> liver! One of nature's wonder foods. Vince Gironda knew a
> lot of stuff way before anybody else! Also, check out the
> folks athttp://www.westonaprice.org- really spot on for
> maximizing your health!
>
> Tomhttp://www.itspuresoap.com

Vince Gironda, eh? Interesting...he was one of them
Golden-Age-of- Bodybuilding icons, I understand...now you have
me wondering about them old-timers!

It's funny you claim whey protein powders to be crap...this
was the very Spiel or sales pitch behind a Dorian Yates
Approved protein supplement ad in the muscle magazines! It was
the one titled "WHAT
(T)WHEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW"....

[Prisoner A]

On May 17, 1:53 pm, "Dave" <t...@test.com> wrote:
> <cleans...@itspuresoap.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179375052.854117.247520@n59g2000hsh.googlegroup-
> s.com...
>
> > Please name for me a whey protein that uses only brown
> > sugar or even regular sugar for sweetening and I'll
> > happily endorse it.
>
> The brown sugar I've seen is just white sugar + molasses. Is
> there something else?
>
> But I do support you in a lot of what you're saying. We just
> can't possibly try to create a good diet by isolating
> compounds in powder form and putting together a diet with
> them. It's like pretending we know all there is to know
> about how the body processes food (I certainly don't, and I
> don't believe even the best nutritionist out there does),
> and that we can do better than nature. People make this
> mistake in all areas of science by becoming too specialized
> in one subject and ignoring the context. But I do believe
> there's value in whey and other supplements as long as
> they're only taken as supplements in situations where it may
> be appropriate, making up only a minor portion of our daily
> intake. There's just so many things in real food that we're
> missing out on if we rely heavily on calorie-rich
> supplements. We could certainly consume whey as a source of
> protein, but that's not nutrition, not healthy, and someone
> consuming 1000 calories a day in whey is missing out on the
> nutrition he'd be getting by eating real foods to make up
> his daily protein intake.
>
> The real problem, as I see it, is consumers buy lots and
> lots of whey and take it like a magic formula that
> rationalizes an otherwise crappy diet.
>
> David
>
> --
> Adamant Barbell Unyielding steel, built for
> abusewww.adamantbarbell.com

Well, I'm going to try some protein powder and see if it helps
any. I never saw the point to them, but I guess it's like
trying a new exercise, just something to do to see if it's any
"fun" -- for example, I've only started doing squats and
deadlifts last week! I especially enjoy deadlifts! They used
to feel awkward to me -- and I still have to really mind my
back and all -- but I so enjoy the sheer power that's
involved! The bench press is nothing compared to the deadlift!
The deadlift's like a cardio exercise, almost! The squat's
okay, fun for the novelty factor. Funny thing, I think the
deadlift's harder, though some folks seem to think the squat's
the "King of Exercises."

Anyway, the more I learn about supplementation, the more I
find myself looking at good ol' fashioned whole foods again! I
guess I'm bored and trying protein and creatine powders will
be an interesting experiment -- but I've gained new-found
respect for home cookin'!

[Prisoner A]

On May 16, 6:48 pm, JMW
<jmwilli...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
> Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >On Wed, 15 May 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:
>
> >> Okay, the advice on protein powders is to buy from a
> >> company by a bodybuilder
>
> >What? Whose advice? Whoever it is, stop taking their
> >advice, because they're an idiot.
>
> >> But while folks on bodybuilding fora and sites believe
> >> that there are companies which sell rip-off protein
> >> powders, I've never heard a name mentioned at all.
>
> >Possibly because guys on fora are mostly retarded
> >bullshitters.
>
> True. But, then again, so is "Prisoner at War" aka
> "NYC XYZ."
>
> Of course, when most of MFW finally figures that out, he'll
> just come up with a new username and start all over again.

JMW, you're such a sad little circus strongman, aren't you!

I change my e-mail account periodically because they
eventually get inundated with spam from usenet posting. Do you
really think I give a fuck whether MFW blowhards like you pay
me any mind?

As a matter of fact, it's funny how I ignore you and you
continue to try to chat me up! I guess your three cats just
don't know you from a pair of pink spandex shorts, eh?

Here's a hint, gomer: go to a coed gym.

[Prisoner A]

On May 16, 2:01 pm, "Cubit" <n...@not.not> wrote:
> What do they cut it with? Talcum powder?

Well, I'm asking, amn't I?

Like how, for example, many glucosamine supplements were found
to have contained less than the amount claimed on the label --
Lord knows what filler they could have used!

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/3956.html

[Prisoner A]

On May 16, 2:52 pm, "dkw12...@yahoo.com"
<dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Better yet, don't buy protein supplements. If you want more
> protein eat some nonfat egg whites at 3 gms per egg white.
> This makes them low calorie as well. One body builder I know
> just eats some canned tuna when he wants more protein. This
> fixation with getting protein is not warranted by the
> research. It probably won't hurt you but it is a waste of
> money. Protein is EASY to get in food...all you could
> possibly want, even for us vegetarians. dkw

True: Bill Pearl and Albert Beckles were vegetarian
bodybuilders who were champs!

I think I'll give it a shot, just for fun...I used to dismiss
them, but suddenly they've become new toys for me...I'm going
to play with protein and creatine powders this summer and see
what happens. But it's funny how the more I try to read up
about supplements the more I come back to whole foods! Nothing
beats the original, eh. =)

[Prisoner A]

On May 16, 9:07 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, whey protein does seem cheap these days -- surprised
> > so many college students are still living on ramen
> > noodles! -- but that only means the profits would be even
> > greater for unscrupulous companies.
>
> No it doesn't. It means exactly the opposite.

I think you're assuming that they'd get sued and lose
money. But good luck trying to do that on your own.
Besides, a fly-by-night operation wouldn't care: it'd
simply declare bankruptcy, while the principals go off and
start up another venture.

Anyway, do they exist? Are there protein powders which aren't
really protein, or somehow otherwise rip-offs? For example,
33% of glucosamine supps had been found to contain less than
the amount claimed on the labels:
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/3956.html.

> tom
>
> --
> Miscellaneous Terrorists: Ducks | Bird Flu | Avian flu |
> Jimbo Wales | Backstreet Boys | The Al Queda Network | Tesco
> -- Uncyclopedia

[Prisoner A]

On May 16, 9:08 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>
> Shhh! I haven't had a good flamewar in ages.

Oh, is that all he wanted. Well, that socially-challenged
retard could've simply asked. Okay, here's some fodder for all
y'all's vitriol:

What's with the homosexual look in bodybuilding?? I swear this
sport is fucking weird! I open up muscle mags and I see guys
wearing striped tights with earrings and shit...one whiteboy,
with his black girlfriend spotting him, had on a pink tank top
that said "Marines" in flourescent yellow! WTF is up with
that?!?! And today I just got my copy of "Stay Hungry" with
Schwarzenegger and in the original theatrical trailer a girl
goes "people in your sport are, you know..." and Arnold
finishes her sentence with "you mean homosexual?"

> tom
>
> --
> Miscellaneous Terrorists: Ducks | Bird Flu | Avian flu |
> Jimbo Wales | Backstreet Boys | The Al Queda Network | Tesco
> -- Uncyclopedia

[boogaoul]

So what is natural bodybuilding, and how can I use its
principles to build muscle fast?

Well, natural bodybuilding is a way to build muscle and get a
great body without the use of drugs or substances.

But there are important steps to take so that you get real
results with your training, not just small results.

In this article, let's look at these principles of how to
build muscle naturally.

Natural Bodybuilding Tip Number 1

The safest and healthiest way to build muscle tissue is
through using a bodybuilding workout that actually works.

That is, one that uses sets and supersets in such a way that
properly stimulates muscle and gets a real 'pump' instead of
one that does not do this.

By using a technique and program that stimulates the muscle
group about once every 5-7 days, you'll avoid overtraining.

But the exercises has to be ones that are effective, not too
isolating.

You will see the difference in no time, and begin to feel the
great effects that come from it as well, when you use a
bodybuilding workout routine that works.

Natural Bodybuilding Tip Number 2

Proper nutrition is needed to building muscle and not
gaining fat.

Muscle requires more calories and protein to maintain its
current size. A diet rich in protein can help to achieve this.

The carbs? Use low GI carbs.

The oils? Use the helahy ones such as fish oil and olive oil.
Olive oil (use extra virgin as this is where the antioxidants
are) as it (a monounsaturated oil) stimulates natural
testosterone production, and fish oil is good as a natural
anti-inflammatory for repair, and to allow fat loss, amongst
all its other benefits such as on the heart.

And proteins: Use lean sources of protein such as fish,
chicken, yoghurt, egg.

Depending on your body type, this may not be a huge increase
in nutrients, but is whatever your body needs to maintain more
muscle, but not so excessive that you start to gain fat.

Natural Bodybuilding Tip Number 3

As an option, you can take some natural supplements such as
whey protein powder, creatine or glutamine, or a
combination of these.

With a very good body building plan you won't need to
worry too much about these supplements, they're only a bit
of a boost.

The main emphasis here about natural bodybuilding is that you
can gain muscle naturally with naturally occuring nutrients,
without the need for steroids.

Because your gains are based on sound principles of a good
workout and a good diet, then it's sustainable and you get all
the benefits.

So there you have it.

These are the solid tips to building muscle the natural way,
and to do it in a sustainable way.

The main thing is to use a workout that works, as this is the
basis for muscle growth, stimulation of metabolism to burn
fat, and makes the whole program work.

---------------------------------------------------------
----------
Abdu Galama is a personal coach from France. Do you use this 7
strategies to lose fat ? Visit my googlepages for free :
http://diet.cardio.googlepages.com

[Jmw]

Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Here's a hint, gomer: go to a coed gym.

Are you referring to the middle school gym classes where you
stalk 14-year-old latinas, chomo?

[Hard Bop D]

Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179453795.695340.321770@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On May 16, 6:48 pm, JMW
> <jmwilli...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>> Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 15 May 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:
>>
>> >> Okay, the advice on protein powders is to buy from a
>> >> company by a bodybuilder
>>
>> >What? Whose advice? Whoever it is, stop taking their
>> >advice, because they're an idiot.
>>
>> >> But while folks on bodybuilding fora and sites believe
>> >> that there are companies which sell rip-off protein
>> >> powders, I've never heard a name mentioned at all.
>>
>> >Possibly because guys on fora are mostly retarded
>> >bullshitters.
>>
>> True. But, then again, so is "Prisoner at War" aka
>> "NYC XYZ."
>>
>> Of course, when most of MFW finally figures that out, he'll
>> just come up with a new username and start all over again.
>
>
> JMW, you're such a sad little circus strongman, aren't you!
>
> I change my e-mail account periodically because they
> eventually get inundated with spam from usenet posting. Do
> you really think I give a fuck whether MFW blowhards like
> you pay me any mind?
>
> As a matter of fact, it's funny how I ignore you and you
> continue to try to chat me up! I guess your three cats just
> don't know you from a pair of pink spandex shorts, eh?
>
> Here's a hint, gomer: go to a coed gym.
>

Why don't you get some new material? We all know that you were
never in the military and that you have the IQ of gnat. Making
homophobic comments just further cements the fact that you are
a dolt and a bigot.

--
Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above the
herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil;
and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality, the
mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

[Hard Bop D]

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179456880.409805.153980@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 16, 9:08 pm, Tom Anderson
> <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Shhh! I haven't had a good flamewar in ages.
>
> Oh, is that all he wanted. Well, that socially-challenged
> retard could've simply asked. Okay, here's some fodder for
> all y'all's vitriol:
>
> What's with the homosexual look in bodybuilding?? I swear
> this sport is fucking weird! I open up muscle mags and I see
> guys wearing striped tights with earrings and shit...one
> whiteboy, with his black girlfriend spotting him, had on a
> pink tank top that said "Marines" in flourescent yellow! WTF
> is up with that?!?! And today I just got my copy of "Stay
> Hungry" with Schwarzenegger and in the original theatrical
> trailer a girl goes "people in your sport are, you know..."
> and Arnold finishes her sentence with "you mean homosexual?"
>

You see a "homosexual" look because you are a bigoted
homophobe who has real issues with your own sexuality. No one
else has a problem with the magazines. Asshole.

--
Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above the
herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil;
and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality, the
mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

[Hard Bop D]

Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179492033.908581.247090@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> LOL, he's hung up on my popularity with teenage girls, and
> you're hung up over my disdain for homosexuality??
>
> You folks really need to get a life! Talk about getting new
> material, Robert Shuh! BTW, were your ancestors so stupid as
> to have forgotten the proper spelling of shoe in German??
>
> Dis-missed!

You really are a moron. The fact is that you are a bigot and
proud of it. I am willing to bet that you have all sorts of
negative things to say about blacks too, but you are too
much of a pussy to mention that. I suggest you grow up and
grow some balls. Bottom line, you don't have the balls nor
integrity to post your name. BTW, you misspelled my name
too. Dolt.

--
Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above the
herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil;
and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality, the
mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

[Gmcarter]

On 18 May 2007 05:40:33 -0700, Prisoner at War
<prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>LOL, he's hung up on my popularity with teenage girls, and
>you're hung up over my disdain for homosexuality??

Gay people have just been the new whipping boy since psychotic
fundamentalists and other right wing sick shits can't say
"nigger" or "kike" and have lynchings any more.

It's the same kind of despicable, vicious hate. The kind that
exists in the minds of fundamentalists who become terrorists.

George M. Carter

[Will Brink]

In article <lcjt431045ehimqm8cmhbausnq87qs74m4@4ax.com>,
noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:

> On 18 May 2007 05:40:33 -0700, Prisoner at War
> <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >LOL, he's hung up on my popularity with teenage girls, and
> >you're hung up over my disdain for homosexuality??
>
> Gay people have just been the new

New? Pick up a history book. Not since the time of the Romans
or Greeks have gay people been anything but whipping boys for
the small minded, homo phobic, fundamentalist types. Probably
better for them now than it has been in a few thousand years,
but they still have a long way to go for equal rights under
the law and treated as human beings. In my state they can get
married, which will make for interesting politics come next
voting cycle.

> whipping boy since psychotic fundamentalists and other right
> wing sick shits can't say "nigger" or "kike" and have
> lynchings any more.
>
> It's the same kind of despicable, vicious hate. The kind
> that exists in the minds of fundamentalists who become
> terrorists.
>
> George M. Carter

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Steve The]

> Gay people have just been the new whipping boy since
> psychotic fundamentalists and other right wing sick shits
> can't say "nigger" or "kike" and have lynchings any more.

Get a sense of history. Gay people have been the 'whipping
boy' for several millennia.

--
I have nothing at all against well-trained, knowledgeable
Indian technical support. I hope to speak to one before I
retire. --JW, ASR

[Prisoner A]

Actually, they've been the whipping post for many societies
throughout history -- but don't let that stop you from your
gay lobby agenda.

I'm in NYC, and my experience of gays is that a great many of
them act like our obnoxious, touchy, hyperventilating MFW
hallway monitors: cranky, whiny, moody, bored and boring,
preachy self-righteous in-yo- face dipshits.

On May 19, 6:13 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> Gay people have just been the new whipping boy since
> psychotic fundamentalists and other right wing sick shits
> can't say "nigger" or "kike" and have lynchings any more.
>
> It's the same kind of despicable, vicious hate. The kind
> that exists in the minds of fundamentalists who become
> terrorists.
>
> George M. Carter

[Prisoner A]

What's that, the Japanese porn you keep for company when Asian
girls pretend they don't speak English when you introduce
yourself??

Actually, another great thing about being Asian is that most
of us don't have to worry about fat.

Must really eat you up that we don't have hairy backs and yet
we don't go bald, either!

On May 18, 8:06 pm, JMW
<jmwilli...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>
>
> Must be the "chubby Asian dweeb" thing, like Hiro Nakamura
> in "Heroes."

[Prisoner A]

Hey, Faggot!

Why don't you admit that you're just a misogynistic faggot
jealous of women, so insecure that you need to imagine folks
are "afraid" of your faggotry when in fact they're just plain
disgusted by it?

You silly swishy faggots are always foaming at the mouth about
people being afraid of you or people being closet fags. Is
there anything else you have going for you in life???

On May 19, 10:39 pm, "Hard Bop Drums"
<nos...@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
>
>
> Listen pussy, Why don't you just admit that you are a
> homophobic bigot? The fact that you could even post such a
> ludicrous sweeping generalization about ANY group shows that
> you are a bigot and a moron. The fact that you have to claim
> that anyone who is not a bigoted homophobic moron is in fact
> gay, just shows what a mouth breathing Neanderthal you
> really are.
>
> --
> Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above
> the herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called
> evil; and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming
> mentality, the mediocrity of desires attains moral
> designations and honors"
> - Nietzsche
>
> http://www.hardbopdrums.com/
>
> "

[Hard Bop D]

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179621796.616678.226890@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Actually, they've been the whipping post for many societies
> throughout history -- but don't let that stop you from your
> gay lobby agenda.
>
> I'm in NYC, and my experience of gays is that a great many
> of them act like our obnoxious, touchy, hyperventilating MFW
> hallway monitors: cranky, whiny, moody, bored and boring,
> preachy self-righteous in-yo- face dipshits.

Listen pussy, Why don't you just admit that you are a
homophobic bigot? The fact that you could even post such a
ludicrous sweeping generalization about ANY group shows that
you are a bigot and a moron. The fact that you have to claim
that anyone who is not a bigoted homophobic moron is in fact
gay, just shows what a mouth breathing Neanderthal you
really are.

--
Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above the
herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil;
and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality, the
mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

"

[Hard Bop D]

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179623264.371291.244890@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> What's that, the Japanese porn you keep for company when
> Asian girls pretend they don't speak English when you
> introduce yourself??
>
> Actually, another great thing about being Asian is that most
> of us don't have to worry about fat.
>
> Must really eat you up that we don't have hairy backs and
> yet we don't go bald, either!

Are you really this fucking ignorant to not see how disgusting
your bigotry is? Are you capable of carrying on a discussion
that is not filled with either homophobic or other bigoted
comments? Your comments here about Asians are just as
disgusting. You really are a reprehensible little fuck.

--
Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above the
herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil;
and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality, the
mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

"

[Gmcarter]

On Sat, 19 May 2007 09:39:27 -0400, Steve the Geek
<zvqavtugpbzc@pbzpnfg.arg> wrote:

>
>> Gay people have just been the new whipping boy since
>> psychotic fundamentalists and other right wing sick shits
>> can't say "nigger" or "kike" and have lynchings any more.
>
>Get a sense of history. Gay people have been the 'whipping
>boy' for several millennia.

To you and Will Brink I have to laugh--in a good way. Thanks.
I wasn't suggesting that queer folk have not in many cultures
and times throughout history been treated like crap. Just that
the current cultural perversions of U.S. culture, particularly
in the forms of white supremacy and christian fundamentalism
in its worst aspects, have turned to us Queer folk. And it is
more or less sanctioned in the media and elsewhere.

I am a Queer, so it's not merely academic.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On 19 May 2007 22:01:32 -0700, Prisoner at War
<prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Hey, Faggot!

Hey. I'm in New York. I'm a "faggot." Want to meet for a
coffee?

[Ralph]

"Prisoner at War" <>> Why don't you admit that you're just a
misogynistic faggot jealous of women, so insecure that you
need to imagine folks are "afraid" of your
> faggotry when in fact they're just plain disgusted by it?
>
Bob is a hard-core homo, and he was one of the characters in
the book called Muscle, by Sam Fussell who wrote about the guy
who won the contest by giving a blowjob one of the judges in
the dressing room.

[Will Brink]

In article <ij6053toaigs44f26oota95r246cfuevv2@4ax.com>,
noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:

> On Sat, 19 May 2007 09:39:27 -0400, Steve the Geek
> <zvqavtugpbzc@pbzpnfg.arg> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Gay people have just been the new whipping boy since
> >> psychotic fundamentalists and other right wing sick shits
> >> can't say "nigger" or "kike" and have lynchings any more.
> >
> >Get a sense of history. Gay people have been the 'whipping
> >boy' for several millennia.
>
> To you and Will Brink I have to laugh--in a good way.
> Thanks. I wasn't suggesting that queer folk have not in many
> cultures and times throughout history been treated like
> crap. Just that the current cultural perversions of U.S.
> culture, particularly in the forms of white supremacy and
> christian fundamentalism in its worst aspects, have turned
> to us Queer folk. And it is more or less sanctioned in the
> media and elsewhere.

I agree with the former, not so sure I agree with the latter.
I don't think it's sanctioned in the media per se.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Hard Bop D]

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179637292.814843.260050@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hey, Faggot!
>
> Why don't you admit that you're just a misogynistic faggot
> jealous of women, so insecure that you need to imagine folks
> are "afraid" of your faggotry when in fact they're just
> plain disgusted by it?
>
> You silly swishy faggots are always foaming at the mouth
> about people being afraid of you or people being closet
> fags. Is there anything else you have going for you in
> life??? .

Grow up little man. Tell me, what is it like to go through
life as a coward?

--
Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above the
herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil;
and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality, the
mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

[Hard Bop D]

Don't worry. Our little anonymous troll will never do anything
that will expose his lack of life to anyone other than himself
and his computer. Anyone who is this proud of their bigotry
will always wear a mask.

--
Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above the
herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil;
and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality, the
mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3o6053tu8vutcc40omo8o3ecno5q2io3tf@4ax.com...
> On 19 May 2007 22:01:32 -0700, Prisoner at War
> <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hey, Faggot!
>
> Hey. I'm in New York. I'm a "faggot." Want to meet for
> a coffee?

[Hard Bop D]

The media is actually pretty pro gay right now. It is the
lunatic Christian groups and far right government assholes who
are frothing at the mouth over gay married etc.

--
Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above the
herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil;
and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality, the
mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:willbrink-2005071000200001@192.168.2.156...
> In article <ij6053toaigs44f26oota95r246cfuevv2@4ax.com>,
> noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 09:39:27 -0400, Steve the Geek
>> <zvqavtugpbzc@pbzpnfg.arg> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> Gay people have just been the new whipping boy since
>> >> psychotic fundamentalists and other right wing sick
>> >> shits can't say "nigger" or "kike" and have lynchings
>> >> any more.
>> >
>> >Get a sense of history. Gay people have been the 'whipping
>> >boy' for several millennia.
>>
>> To you and Will Brink I have to laugh--in a good way.
>> Thanks. I wasn't suggesting that queer folk have not in
>> many cultures and times throughout history been treated
>> like crap. Just that the current cultural perversions of
>> U.S. culture, particularly in the forms of white supremacy
>> and christian fundamentalism in its worst aspects, have
>> turned to us Queer folk. And it is more or less sanctioned
>> in the media and elsewhere.
>
> I agree with the former, not so sure I agree with the
> latter. I don't think it's sanctioned in the media per se.
>
> --
> Will @ www.BrinkZone.com
>
> "It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Prisoner A]

Politically correct morons like you have more in common with
bigots than you can imagine. You're both simple-minded
ideologues. Given your simple-mindedness, if you had been
raised in a different environment you would still be foaming
at the mouth -- only for so- called "bigots." You're an idiot
because you think that the color of your curtains really
matter, when you're just in the same mental ward as your
enemies. For in all your would-be ripostes, you've only proven
yourself a hypocrite and a bore, projecting onto me your own
inadequacies.

Like I've said many times on usenet, anyone who really has a
problem with my opinions can e-mail me in private to meet in
person. I am really curious to meet you jerks because my
theory is that you are actually very mild-mannered old men in
real life. And it is also my theory that y'all are only so
loquacious because of the medium -- usenet. In person, I doubt
you'd have much to say. I mean, how often can you go on and on
repeating the same bullshit, man? But somehow when you log on
it's like you're hypnotized to just bullshit. Not just with
me, but so many others in this NG through the years.

A very interesting psychology -- you should make yourself
someone's science project, Robert.

On May 20, 10:17 am, "Hard Bop Drums"
<nos...@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
> Don't worry. Our little anonymous troll will never do
> anything that will expose his lack of life to anyone other
> than himself and his computer. Anyone who is this proud of
> their bigotry will always wear a mask.
>
> --
> Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above
> the herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called
> evil; and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming
> mentality, the mediocrity of desires attains moral
> designations and honors"
> - Nietzsche
>
> http://www.hardbopdrums.com/
>
> "GMCarter" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3o6053tu8vutcc40omo8o3ecno5q2io3tf@4ax.com...
>
> > On 19 May 2007 22:01:32 -0700, Prisoner at War
> > <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Hey, Faggot!
>
> > Hey. I'm in New York. I'm a "faggot." Want to meet for a
> > coffee?

[Prisoner A]

Get a fucking life already??

On May 19, 10:43 pm, "Hard Bop Drums"
<nos...@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
>
>
> Are you really this fucking ignorant to not see how
> disgusting your bigotry is? Are you capable of carrying on
> a discussion that is not filled with either homophobic or
> other bigoted comments? Your comments here about Asians
> are just as disgusting. You really are a reprehensible
> little fuck.
>
> --
> Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above
> the herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called
> evil; and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming
> mentality, the mediocrity of desires attains moral
> designations and honors"
> - Nietzsche
>
> http://www.hardbopdrums.com/
>
> "

[Prisoner A]

See? Disgusting. Faggots have that feline passive
aggressiveness usually found in women. Being in NYC, I deal
with you faggots quite often. A good 85% of you mutants are
ridiculous like that.

You fags really don't get it, do you? You think it's out there
in the boondocks where you're not liked because of "ignorance"
and "homophobia," but the truth is that you faggots just ooze
that weird creepy psycho shit in every thing you do and say.
This is why there's the saying "that's so gay." Your brains
are wired up like that. And God made you that way, fine. But
God made roaches, too; excuse me if I don't keep up with
current fashion trends and pretend to be gay- friendly.

You faggots are such drama queens. I'm having a conversation
about protein supplements, but you faggots gotta bring in your
homosexuality into it, like with everything else. And then you
want to cry that you're just like everyone else and shouldn't
be judged for being faggots.

The funny thing, I am probably one of the few people around
who really don't care about your shit. I generally have no
opinions on the matter -- gay rights, marriage, etc. Unlike
the sheeple who are now all okay with gay rights and shit, but
who yesterday would have been on the other side of things
since these types simply go along with whatever the majority
opinion is, I honestly don't care. It's not an issue for me at
all. But the gay lobby is so shrill they have to make an issue
out of it. That's what's so ironic. It's disgusting to me, but
so's escargot. But hey, different folks different strokes. Yet
you fags and fag-friends want to control a person's very
thoughts. So your fag-friends are only liberal fascists.
Fucking idiots all around. And you were only tolerated in the
first place because the gay demographic is even richer than
Jews. But now you really feel like you've graduated to the
mainstream, eh! Because the same idiots that watch TV now are
brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is just another
way of being -- which it is, of course, but like how escargot
is just another course. And you know what, fuck you for trying
to feed me escargot!

LOL...you ideologues are truly hilarious.

On May 20, 5:55 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hey. I'm in New York. I'm a "faggot." Want to meet for
> a coffee?

[Tom Anders]

On Sun, 19 May 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:

> I'm in NYC, and my experience of gays is that a great many
> of them act like our obnoxious, touchy, hyperventilating MFW
> hallway monitors: cranky, whiny, moody, bored and boring,
> preachy self-righteous in-yo- face dipshits.

Yeah, but that's just New Yorkers in general.

tom

--
Is this the only way to get through to you?

[Gmcarter]

On Sun, 20 May 2007 10:00:20 -0400, willbrink@comcast.net
(Will Brink) wrote:

>In article <ij6053toaigs44f26oota95r246cfuevv2@4ax.com>,
>noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 09:39:27 -0400, Steve the Geek
>> <zvqavtugpbzc@pbzpnfg.arg> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> Gay people have just been the new whipping boy since
>> >> psychotic fundamentalists and other right wing sick
>> >> shits can't say "nigger" or "kike" and have lynchings
>> >> any more.
>> >
>> >Get a sense of history. Gay people have been the 'whipping
>> >boy' for several millennia.
>>
>> To you and Will Brink I have to laugh--in a good way.
>> Thanks. I wasn't suggesting that queer folk have not in
>> many cultures and times throughout history been treated
>> like crap. Just that the current cultural perversions of
>> U.S. culture, particularly in the forms of white supremacy
>> and christian fundamentalism in its worst aspects, have
>> turned to us Queer folk. And it is more or less sanctioned
>> in the media and elsewhere.
>
>I agree with the former, not so sure I agree with the latter.
>I don't think it's sanctioned in the media per se.

Yes, I think it is. Nightline, it was recently pointed out,
had Falwell on its show an enormous number of times. Why? So
he could spew his blatant, homophobic bigotry? Who gives a
shit what that gas bag thinks (or thought). The media sucks up
to all those idiots like their opinion matters. And with
little outcry.

IMAGINE if these guys talked about blacks, Latinos or Jews the
same way (granted, Falwell got a lot of flack for his comment
that the antichrist was a Jew). But the outrage that correctly
exists for that kind of bigotry does NOT exist in the
mainstream media when it comes to queer people.

But then I think the media overall in the Untied States is
pretty abjectly horrible, self-aggrandizing and corporate
propaganda driven. It's hardly just their abject failing
around issues of human rights for lesbians, gays,
transgendered individuals.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On 20 May 2007 21:35:03 -0700, Prisoner at War
<prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>See? Disgusting. Faggots have that feline passive
>aggressiveness usually found in women. Being in NYC, I deal
>with you faggots quite often. A good 85% of you mutants are
>ridiculous like that.

Look at the despicable heterosexual lifestyle! They fuck each
other, bear unwanted children, beat, abandon, fuck and kill
those children. Raise them on garbage food and violence.
Heterosexuals are alcoholics, drug addicts, reverends,
politicians, wife beaters. Heterosexuals lie to each other and
divorce and philander, and fuck other hets behind their backs.

My god, what a sick, filthy, horrid lifestyle!

Heterosexuality on an overpopulated planet is clearly a
psychosocial disorder.

[Gmcarter]

On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:06:40 +0100, Tom Anderson
<twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:
>
>> I'm in NYC, and my experience of gays is that a great many
>> of them act like our obnoxious, touchy, hyperventilating
>> MFW hallway monitors: cranky, whiny, moody, bored and
>> boring, preachy self-righteous in-yo- face dipshits.
>
>Yeah, but that's just New Yorkers in general.

LOL...I'd love to meet you for a coffee too.

Especially since that whiny coward "P at W" ran away from my
invitation.

George M. Carter

[Hard Bop D]

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179720370.949881.29790@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Get a fucking life already??

Wow! What an amazing comment. Are you capable of presenting an
argument other than some cheap cliche? You are one of the most
intellectually dishonest motherfuckers that I have seen here
in ages. Your comments are both ignorant and sophomoric. Being
proud of your bigotry is pathetic.

--
Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above the
herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil;
and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality, the
mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

>
>
>
> On May 19, 10:43 pm, "Hard Bop Drums"
> <nos...@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Are you really this fucking ignorant to not see how
>> disgusting your bigotry is? Are you capable of carrying on
>> a discussion that is not filled with either homophobic or
>> other bigoted comments? Your comments here about Asians
>> are just as disgusting. You really are a reprehensible
>> little fuck.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above
>> the herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called
>> evil; and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming
>> mentality, the mediocrity of desires attains moral
>> designations and honors"
>> - Nietzsche
>>
>> http://www.hardbopdrums.com/
>>
>> "

[Hard Bop D]

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179722103.021248.220820@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> See? Disgusting. Faggots have that feline passive
> aggressiveness usually found in women. Being in NYC, I deal
> with you faggots quite often. A good 85% of you mutants are
> ridiculous like that.
>
> You fags really don't get it, do you? You think it's out
> there in the boondocks where you're not liked because of
> "ignorance" and "homophobia," but the truth is that you
> faggots just ooze that weird creepy psycho shit in every
> thing you do and say. This is why there's the saying "that's
> so gay." Your brains are wired up like that. And God made
> you that way, fine. But God made roaches, too; excuse me if
> I don't keep up with current fashion trends and pretend to
> be gay- friendly.
>
> You faggots are such drama queens. I'm having a conversation
> about protein supplements, but you faggots gotta bring in
> your homosexuality into it, like with everything else. And
> then you want to cry that you're just like everyone else and
> shouldn't be judged for being faggots.

You are more pathetic than I thought even possible. Your
comments are no different that one would hear coming from a
3rd grader. You are incapbale of making a cogent argument, so
you have to fall back to calling someone who does not agree
with you a "faggot." You are truly a pathetic excuse for a
human being. I'll bet anything that this guy is shorter than
5'8", is over 20% bodyfat and has a tiny little cock. I would
LOVE to see you talk all of this bullshit in front of a female
that you have an interest in.

>
> The funny thing, I am probably one of the few people around
> who really don't care about your shit.

Right.

I generally have no opinions on the
> matter -- gay rights, marriage, etc. Unlike the sheeple who
> are now all okay with gay rights and shit, but who yesterday
> would have been on the other side of things since these
> types simply go along with whatever the majority opinion is,
> I honestly don't care.

Once again, when you try to pigeon hole me into a "group," all
it does is show your ignorance. I am THE least politcally
correct person on the planet. What you fail to realize is that
I abhore bigotry in ANY form. You really need to do your
homework before you make this type of ludicrous comment.

It's not an
> issue for me at all. But the gay lobby is so shrill they
> have to make an issue out of it. That's what's so ironic.
> It's disgusting to me, but so's escargot.

It is disgusting to you because you are a bigot. It really is
that simple. If you really don't care, post your REAL NAME
with your bigoted comments and grow some fucking balls. You
are no different than a coward in the KKK who hides behind a
mask. Come on tough guy, if you are so motherfucking proud of
your bigotry, go to work and yell that you hate "faggots." You
are nothing but a shit talking pussy. All the FACTS are there.
You won't post a SINGLE verifiable thing about your real life,
yet you find it easy to make up bold faced lies about others.

But hey, different folks different strokes. Yet
> you fags and fag-friends want to control a person's very
> thoughts. So your fag-friends are only liberal fascists.
> Fucking idiots all around. And you were only tolerated in
> the first place because the gay demographic is even richer
> than Jews.

Wow, you really can't help yourself when it comes to
making disgusting sweeping generalizations about groups of
people, can you?

But now you really feel
> like you've graduated to the mainstream, eh!

Come on coward, PLEASE do something other than claim that I
have to be gay because I am not a bigot. Why you think that
calling someone "gay" is going to win an argument is beyond
me. Remember pussy, I am comfortable in my sexuality, so
when some juvenile bigot like you calls me a "faggot," it
means nothing.

Because the same idiots
> that watch TV now are brainwashed into thinking that
> homosexuality is just another way of being -- which it is,
> of course, but like how escargot is just another course. And
> you know what, fuck you for trying to feed me escargot!

You are a brain dead moron.

>
> LOL...you ideologues are truly hilarious.

PLEASE get a fucking clue as to whom you are talking to before
you dig yourself a deeper hole.

--
Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above the
herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil;
and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality, the
mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

[Hard Bop D]

Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179719284.275728.21440@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Politically correct morons like you have more in common with
> bigots than you can imagine. You're both simple-minded
> ideologues. Given your simple-mindedness, if you had been
> raised in a different environment you would still be foaming
> at the mouth -- only for so- called "bigots." You're an
> idiot because you think that the color of your curtains
> really matter, when you're just in the same mental ward as
> your enemies. For in all your would-be ripostes, you've only
> proven yourself a hypocrite and a bore, projecting onto me
> your own inadequacies.

LOL! For you to call me "politcally correct" just shows what a
fucking no brain moron you are. I STRONLY suggest that you get
an education and grow the fuck up. You come across here like a
semi retarded 17 year old. You make ludicrous sweeping
generalizations about entire groups of people and don't even
see how wrong you are. I also think it is HILARIOUS that you
try to make claims that I am "inadequate," yet it is YOU who
is too afraid to post a single fucking thing about your life.
My life is an open book moron. I have been around much longer
than you, seen FAR more than you and am physically and
emotionally FAR stronger than you. You are just another
anonymous moron whose own life is so motherfucking pathetic
that you have to hide behind a fake Internet persona. Please
at least "attempt" to come with a more cogent argument. I can
gaurantee you that everyone who just read that you called me
"polically correct" is laughing their asses off. You could nto
have come up with a more ludicrous comment. You are a childish
coward who listens to assholes like Lard Ass Limbaugh and
lives in a fantasy world. Butch up little man.

>
> Like I've said many times on usenet, anyone who really has a
> problem with my opinions can e-mail me in private to meet in
> person. I am really curious to meet you jerks because my
> theory is that you are actually very mild-mannered old men
> in real life. And it is also my theory that y'all are only
> so loquacious because of the medium -- usenet. In person, I
> doubt you'd have much to say.

LOL! You are THE biggest fucking hypocrite. Don't you see the
irony in your ill informed comments? YOU are the one who is
doing NOTHING but talking shit in Usenet. EVERYTHING that I
say can be 100% verified in a second. I have met dozens of
people from MFW and other newsgroups in person. You are
NOTHING but a blow hard, ill informed and immature child who
is so fucking frightened of the real world that he has to make
up an entire fake persona. Put my name in a search engine. You
will see articles written about me, by me and HUNDREDS of
other things that will verify anything that I say. You on the
other hand, are NOTHING but a sad bigot who lives an entirely
false life through shallow bluster and unverifiable false
statements. Tell me boy, what are you so fucking afraid of??

I mean, how often
> can you go on and on repeating the same bullshit, man? But
> somehow when you log on it's like you're hypnotized to just
> bullshit. Not just with me, but so many others in this NG
> through the years.
>
> A very interesting psychology -- you should make yourself
> someone's science project, Robert.
>
>
>
>

Come on pussy, post a SINGLE fucking fact about me or you. You
won't post a fact about yourself because you know how shallow
and pathetic your life is. You won't post a FACT about me
because all it will do is point out how ill informed and
shallow your commentary is. Butch up little boy. I don't know
why you would think that I am intimidated by the bullshit you
spew. All you post are lies, bigotry and pathetic sweeping
generalizations. That shit may fly when you are sitting around
with your friends who also have IQs barely in the triple
digits, but it won't fly in the real world.

--
Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above the
herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil;
and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality, the
mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

[Tom Anders]

On Mon, 21 May 2007, GMCarter wrote:

> On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:06:40 +0100, Tom Anderson
> <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:
>>
>>> I'm in NYC, and my experience of gays is that a great many
>>> of them act like our obnoxious, touchy, hyperventilating
>>> MFW hallway monitors: cranky, whiny, moody, bored and
>>> boring, preachy self-righteous in-yo- face dipshits.
>>
>> Yeah, but that's just New Yorkers in general.
>
> LOL...I'd love to meet you for a coffee too.

Heh. Unlikely to be in NY for a good while, i'm afraid!

tom

--
Sometimes it takes a madman like Iggy Pop before you can SEE
the logic really working.

[Prisoner A]

Actually, I'm all for population control myself. I think that
as society "matures," it will no longer breed as much -- most
people have children due to their own loneliness in life, and
seek a family because of their own lack of a meaningful life.
With education and, like I said, a more "mature" society (not
this bestial capitalism we have, even here in the West, never
mind over in the East), people will find value in their own
lives *within* their own lives and not *through* the life of
another....

That's why weight-training is so "existential" for me: we lift
not for someone else, and I think most of us lift, eventually,
not for ego or vanity, but simply because it feels so good,
one of the few true things in life.

Homosexuality is what it is. But it's become political, and a
fashion trend, and in becoming more mainstream it's become
bullshit. The majority of the people have always been wrong on
the social issues of the day. The same sheeple who now praise
your cock-sucking lifestyle, knee-jerk, are the same ones who
would have burned you at the stake before it became officially
sanctioned by Madison Avenue and Hollywood.

I'm just not one for bullshit. That's part of what's great
about weights and bodybuilding. You lift, you do the work, you
grow. None of this gay "a little to the left...no, no, a
little to the right...no, wait, more to the left...wait, a
little to the right..." stuff (except as it, too, has become
corrupted, like everything gets to being, when mainstreamed
for sheeple).

Sad to see MFW has been taken over by fags and fag-hags, such
that no discussion of weightlifting or bodybuilding can be
made without proper obeisance to the gay lobby agenda.

On May 21, 6:19 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> Look at the despicable heterosexual lifestyle! They fuck
> each other, bear unwanted children, beat, abandon, fuck and
> kill those children. Raise them on garbage food and
> violence. Heterosexuals are alcoholics, drug addicts,
> reverends, politicians, wife beaters. Heterosexuals lie to
> each other and divorce and philander, and fuck other hets
> behind their backs.
>
> My god, what a sick, filthy, horrid lifestyle!
>
> Heterosexuality on an overpopulated planet is clearly a
> psychosocial disorder.

[Prisoner A]

NYC is full of faggots -- but like all faggot drama queens,
you think you're so unique for me to want to meet you?

Usenet nags like Robert and JMW, however, are different,
'cause I've never met these nags in real life. Maybe as part
of a lynch mob, I imagine, but I've never met a lynch mob,
either. So I'm really curious how these people could be in
person. Does life ever get better for them, or are they really
the malcontents we know from MFW??

But you're just another faggot. Honestly, I deal enough with
you people on a regular basis, and all you'll do is regale me
with your gay lobby agenda, just like how you're doing here.

On May 21, 6:20 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> LOL...I'd love to meet you for a coffee too.
>
> Especially since that whiny coward "P at W" ran away from my
> invitation.
>
> George M. Carter

[Rick++]

Every once in a while a TV news program does a study and finds
about 75% are less than on the label or completely fake. No US
industry regulates this unless someone becomes ill. Frequently
such bills are proposed in Congress but rejected. The problem
is that the company would also have to prove effectiveness
claims, which doesnt have commercial support.

Protein powders are probably a good area for nitrogen spiking
which happened in pet foods. Protein denser gluten was
replaced by cheap flour and a posionous nitrogen substitute.

[Prisoner A]

On May 21, 10:44 am, rick++ <rick...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Every once in a while a TV news program does a study
> and finds about 75% are less than on the label or
> completely fake.

"20/20" must have done an episode or two on bodybuilding and
protein supplements, right? I would love to see the
transcripts.

> No US industry regulates this unless someone becomes ill.
> Frequently such bills are proposed in Congress but rejected.
> The problem is that the company would also have to prove
> effectiveness claims, which doesnt have commercial support.

Yeah, that's just the problem, isn't it.

What I'm wondering about here, though, is why the bodybuilding
discussion boards are so full of talk about lesser or even
fake protein supplements, but no one ever names a company!

> Protein powders are probably a good area for nitrogen
> spiking which happened in pet foods. Protein denser gluten
> was replaced by cheap flour and a posionous nitrogen
> substitute.

?

[Charles]

On Mon, 21 May 2007 06:27:35 -0700, "Hard Bop Drums"
<nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:

>GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:nhs253h5ubh52pv1ei5coq4hblu33e97bk@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:06:40 +0100, Tom Anderson
>> <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 May 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm in NYC, and my experience of gays is that a great
>>>> many of them act like our obnoxious, touchy,
>>>> hyperventilating MFW hallway monitors: cranky, whiny,
>>>> moody, bored and boring, preachy self-righteous in-yo-
>>>> face dipshits.
>>>
>>>Yeah, but that's just New Yorkers in general.
>>
>> LOL...I'd love to meet you for a coffee too.
>>
>> Especially since that whiny coward "P at W" ran away from
>> my invitation.
>>
>> George M. Carter
>>
>
>George, I am guessing that you run into this type of bigoted
>moron all of the time. What kills me about people like this
>moron is that they seem to think it is perfectly fine to
>attack the gay community because they listen to such morons
>as Lard Ass Limbaugh. None of them would ever have the balls
>to rant about their bigotry towards blacks, Jews or any other
>larger group. They think that they can find some solace in
>their anti gay bigotry. The other thing that kills me is that
>they think that their calling someone else "gay" is going to
>help their agenda. That is typical 3rd grade bullshit. I take
>no offense when one of these luddites calls me gay. #1, I am
>not and #2, if I was, I would not be ashamed of it. He is no
>different than any of the cowards in the KKK who hide behind
>their sheets. I would LOVE for this guy to go to his place of
>employment and start to tell everyone about his anti gay
>bigotry. He will never do so because he is too much of a
>coward. If he is so proud of his bigotry, then why does he
>not put his name to it here??

Your continued ranting is oblivious to your own very
obvious form of bigotry, which is more aligned to liberal
fascism than it is to any informed views on what has
happened to the so-called free world, over a very short
period of about 30 years.

Disapproving of homosexual practices (which were illegal until
the late '60's) or men marrying men, is not "homophobia" - it
is strongly held opinions shared by a huge number of people
who are being muted by rampant PC.

Despairing of the hopeless loss of control over immigration,
and the consequent imbalance in a nation's population and
culture by the formation of black ghettoes, is not racist - it
is the glaringly obvious truth!

Stating that the practice of installing women into jobs for
which they are unsuited (front-line military for example),
or the social engineering of promoting women in their
working environment in order to redress the imbalance in
numbers (Police Forces, Prison Service & Members of
Parliament for example), is not sexist or misogynistic - it
is merely pointing out the obvious truth and the inequity in
such conduct.

Repression of free speech by strident feminist induced
political correctness and social engineering, is not any form
of free democracy. It has become the scourge of modern day
society at the behest of a vociferous minority, who have
managed quite unbelievably to brainwash succeeding generations
into perpetuating their mischief.

Fortunately, it arrived quickly and is at odds with the
natural order of things established over many millennia. It
will pass just as quickly, with contemporary signs that the
pendulum is already beginning to swing the other way! (No pun
intended)!

We must be able to discuss these very important matters
impartially, and be aware that there are divergent opinions.
One size does not fit all and bullying and browbeating people
into accepting unpopular beliefs, is the fascist way and more
suited to totalitarian regimes.

I had a good workout today and feel much better than I did
this morning - so Monday is okay again! ;o)

[Will Brink]

In article <35s253hsp1lqiiutse41c82h9u8g57402t@4ax.com>,
noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:

> On Sun, 20 May 2007 10:00:20 -0400, willbrink@comcast.net
> (Will Brink) wrote:
>
> >In article <ij6053toaigs44f26oota95r246cfuevv2@4ax.com>,
> >noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 19 May 2007 09:39:27 -0400, Steve the Geek
> >> <zvqavtugpbzc@pbzpnfg.arg> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Gay people have just been the new whipping boy since
> >> >> psychotic fundamentalists and other right wing sick
> >> >> shits can't say "nigger" or "kike" and have lynchings
> >> >> any more.
> >> >
> >> >Get a sense of history. Gay people have been the
> >> >'whipping boy' for several millennia.
> >>
> >> To you and Will Brink I have to laugh--in a good way.
> >> Thanks. I wasn't suggesting that queer folk have not in
> >> many cultures and times throughout history been treated
> >> like crap. Just that the current cultural perversions of
> >> U.S. culture, particularly in the forms of white
> >> supremacy and christian fundamentalism in its worst
> >> aspects, have turned to us Queer folk. And it is more or
> >> less sanctioned in the media and elsewhere.
> >
> >I agree with the former, not so sure I agree with the
> >latter. I don't think it's sanctioned in the media per se.
>
> Yes, I think it is. Nightline, it was recently pointed out,
> had Falwell on its show an enormous number of times. Why? So
> he could spew his blatant, homophobic bigotry?

Ratings.

> Who gives a shit what that gas bag thinks (or thought). The
> media sucks up to all those idiots like their opinion
> matters. And with little outcry.

I dont think thats true, Thet get a flood of letters, the
person interviewing does not generally agree with them and or
they have a guest to counter the gas bag. The media is
generally liberal and a lot og gay people work in the media,
but ratings is ratings. They are ratings whores vs agreeing
with or sanctioning said gas bag.

>
> IMAGINE if these guys talked about blacks, Latinos or Jews
> the same way (granted, Falwell got a lot of flack for his
> comment that the antichrist was a Jew). But the outrage that
> correctly exists for that kind of bigotry does NOT exist in
> the mainstream media when it comes to queer people.

True, you can say almost what ever you want about gay people
but not about race or sex. But racists are alive and it
depends on who says it. Big double standard there, just look
at Jessy Jackson's comments, etc.

>
> But then I think the media overall in the Untied States is
> pretty abjectly horrible, self-aggrandizing and corporate
> propaganda driven. It's hardly just their abject failing
> around issues of human rights for lesbians, gays,
> transgendered individuals.

Agreed. I can only hope, like most TV preachers, it's found
said gas bag had a gay lover or a huge collection of kiddie
porn or what ever.

>
> George M. Carter

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Hard Bop D]

GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:nhs253h5ubh52pv1ei5coq4hblu33e97bk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:06:40 +0100, Tom Anderson
> <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 May 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:
>>
>>> I'm in NYC, and my experience of gays is that a great many
>>> of them act like our obnoxious, touchy, hyperventilating
>>> MFW hallway monitors: cranky, whiny, moody, bored and
>>> boring, preachy self-righteous in-yo- face dipshits.
>>
>>Yeah, but that's just New Yorkers in general.
>
> LOL...I'd love to meet you for a coffee too.
>
> Especially since that whiny coward "P at W" ran away from my
> invitation.
>
> George M. Carter
>

George, I am guessing that you run into this type of bigoted
moron all of the time. What kills me about people like this
moron is that they seem to think it is perfectly fine to
attack the gay community because they listen to such morons as
Lard Ass Limbaugh. None of them would ever have the balls to
rant about their bigotry towards blacks, Jews or any other
larger group. They think that they can find some solace in
their anti gay bigotry. The other thing that kills me is that
they think that their calling someone else "gay" is going to
help their agenda. That is typical 3rd grade bullshit. I take
no offense when one of these luddites calls me gay. #1, I am
not and #2, if I was, I would not be ashamed of it. He is no
different than any of the cowards in the KKK who hide behind
their sheets. I would LOVE for this guy to go to his place of
employment and start to tell everyone about his anti gay
bigotry. He will never do so because he is too much of a
coward. If he is so proud of his bigotry, then why does he not
put his name to it here??

--
Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above the
herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil;
and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality, the
mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

[Hard Bop D]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dds253t2fcnu7ra4uqug6p1erv2vmoi520@4ax.com...
> On 20 May 2007 21:35:03 -0700, Prisoner at War
> <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>See? Disgusting. Faggots have that feline passive
>>aggressiveness usually found in women. Being in NYC, I deal
>>with you faggots quite often. A good 85% of you mutants are
>>ridiculous like that.
>
> Look at the despicable heterosexual lifestyle! They fuck
> each other, bear unwanted children, beat, abandon, fuck and
> kill those children. Raise them on garbage food and
> violence. Heterosexuals are alcoholics, drug addicts,
> reverends, politicians, wife beaters. Heterosexuals lie to
> each other and divorce and philander, and fuck other hets
> behind their backs.
>
> My god, what a sick, filthy, horrid lifestyle!
>
> Heterosexuality on an overpopulated planet is clearly a
> psychosocial disorder.
>
>

George, I do appreciate your sarcasm here, but please remember
that EVERY group has good and bad. There are good and bad
straight people and good and bad gay people. Don't get into a
pissing match with this bigot. You will do nothing but play
into his game. Parents must be judged one set at a time, gay
or straight.

--
Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above the
herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil;
and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality, the
mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

[Dz]

Hard Bop Drums <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
> GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 19 May 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm in NYC, and my experience of gays is that a great
>>>> many of them act like our obnoxious, touchy,
>>>> hyperventilating MFW hallway monitors: cranky, whiny,
>>>> moody, bored and boring, preachy self-righteous in-yo-
>>>> face dipshits.
>>>
>>>Yeah, but that's just New Yorkers in general.
>>
>> LOL...I'd love to meet you for a coffee too. Especially
>> since that whiny coward "P at W" ran away from my
>> invitation. George M. Carter
>
> George, I am guessing that you run into this type of bigoted
> moron all of the time. What kills me about people like this
> moron is that they seem to think it is perfectly fine to
> attack the gay community because they listen to such morons
> as Lard Ass Limbaugh. None of them would ever have the balls
> to rant about their bigotry towards blacks, Jews or any
> other larger group.

You don't know how to ask - http://groups.google.com/group/mi-
sc.fitness.weights/msg/cf7bbf6e5e9c557c Two months ago I
invited PaW to come to my seminar at Columbia University in
NY, and I even promised to talk about AIDS there, but he
didn't show up. Well, I'm just guessing that he didn't - I did
have a room full of Chinese, some likely with a larger BRAIN
than me, but none with BICEPS anywhere close to my size.

[Tom Anders]

On Tue, 22 May 2007, JMW wrote:

> GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> The media is NOT liberal. That's right wing cant. In fact,
>> some data suggest it has a much more right wing bent--and
>> certain stations even more so. (Clear Channel anyone?)
>
> Bullshit. Several studies of the political views of print,
> radio, and television journalists have clearly established
> that they are, overall, several steps to the left of the
> general populace.

Citation?

tom

--
Osteoclasts = monsters from the DEEP -- Andrew

[Charles]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:23:51 +0100, Tom Anderson
<twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2007, Charles wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:27:21 +0100, Tom Anderson
>> <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007, Charles wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 06:27:35 -0700, "Hard Bop Drums"
>>>> <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:nhs253h5ubh52pv1ei5coq4hblu33e97bk@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Especially since that whiny coward "P at W" ran away
>>>>>> from my invitation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am guessing that you run into this type of bigoted
>>>>> moron all of the time.
>>>>
>>>> Disapproving of homosexual practices (which were illegal
>>>> until the late '60's) or men marrying men, is not
>>>> "homophobia"
>>>
>>> Er, what? It is homophobia. It's pretty much the
>>> definition of homophobia. Disapproving of homosexual
>>> practices is extending your own preferences into an
>>> opinion about how other people should behave in private,
>>> which just isn't on.
>>
>> If it was kept "private" it wouldn't be an issue.
>
>Okay, good.
>
>> Telling us that we have all got to acknowledge
>> unequivocally that it as acceptable behaviour, and that men
>> marrying men is moral and proper, is absurd.
>
>Inconsistent with what you just said. What two other people
>get up to on their own time is none of your business.

Two men 'marrying' each other is of great 'public
interest' and no little concern. As far as I'm concerned
it's utter madness!!

>
>>>> it is strongly held opinions shared by a huge number of
>>>> people who are being muted by rampant PC.
>>>
>>> Doesn't stop it being homophobia.
>>
>> Yes it does; having other opinions to the contemporary
>> liberal intelligentsia, is in no way phobic.
>
>Not in and of itself, no, of course not. But believing that
>gay sex or gay marriage is wrong *is*.

You're waffling Tom; they are both the same thing; having
opinions in opposition is the same as suggesting it's wrong.

>
>> We are all entitled to our opinions and we must be able to
>> express them without spiteful opposition from liberal
>> fascists.
>
>To hold and express opinions, yes - as i said before, nobody
>is telling you what to believe or say. But to act on those
>opinions is not okay.

More waffle Tom, in line with my preceding paragraph.

>
>>>> Despairing of the hopeless loss of control over
>>>> immigration,
>>>
>>> Is not something we were talking about. How did you get
>>> from not being happy about men putting their cocks into
>>> each others arses to immigration policy? I do not see a
>>> connection.
>>
>> You need to read Rob's post again; he included "blacks"
>> and "other groups" in his rant, which is all embracing
>> about so-called anti-PC "bigots" - which they most
>> definitely are not!!
>
>Eh, Rob has trouble staying on target too.

There was no specific "target"; Rob was ranting about "bigots"
in general.

>
>>>> Stating that the practice of installing women into jobs
>>>> for which they are unsuited
>>>
>>> Ditto this.
>>
>> Ditto above!
>
>DITTO YOU!! :)
>
>>>> Repression of free speech by strident feminist induced
>>>> political correctness and social engineering, is not any
>>>> form of free democracy.
>>>
>>> No. It also hasn't happened in the countries where any of
>>> us live - you can find the speech you crave in numerous
>>> newspapers and in the conversation of every pub and street
>>> corner.
>>
>> It's against the law of the land in many cases, to openly
>> express opposition to the protection that has been put in
>> place for so-called vulnerable minorities.
>
>Really? Incitement to violence or whatever, of course, is
>against the law. But to merely express opposition? Examples,
>please, or else we can conclude that you're talking bullshit.

Here is a generalised article in support of my assertion. I
neither have the time nor the inclination to go trawling the
web for further amplification:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/20-
07/01/09/do0901.xml

NB "The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007
came into force on 30th April 2007, and they make
discrimination in the area of goods, facilities and services
on grounds of sexual orientation unlawful. For schools this
means admissions, benefits and services for pupils and
treatment of pupils. For Local Authorities the provisions
extend to the exercise of their functions."

>
>>>> We must be able to discuss these very important matters
>>>> impartially, and be aware that there are divergent
>>>> opinions. One size does not fit all and bullying and
>>>> browbeating people into accepting unpopular beliefs, is
>>>> the fascist way and more suited to totalitarian regimes.
>>>
>>> Nobody's being browbeaten into believing anything. You're
>>> not being told to think that homosexuality is okay, just
>>> that your thinking homosexuality is wrong is not going to
>>> be allowed to have any impact on homosexuals. Seems
>>> entirely proper to me.
>>
>> That's just gobbledygook; who the fuck knows what I'm
>> thinking?
>
>Nobody, and nobody cares, that's my point.

Another "ditto" for you old chap! ;o)

>
>> It's when I express my views in public that the PC Brigade
>> are waiting to pounce, just like Schuh does with people who
>> disagree with him, and what you are now attempting with me!
>
>It is my policy to pounce on any statements which are
>incorrect, on any subject.

Good for you. However, your perception of "correctness" is
heavily biased and will meet always merit firm opposition.

>
>> Whatever you think Tom, I'm entitled to my opinion, and I
>> will always oppose the excesses of political correctness
>> with vigour.
>
>And, being a wishy-washy leftist, i will defend your right to
>hold and express that opinion. At the same time as explaining
>to you why it's wrong!
>

As I am a forthright right wing Conservative (note the
capital C) we are bound to be in conflict on many aspects of
current affairs. Whatever either of us posts here in support
of our respective beliefs, it is bound to fail to change the
other's mind!

Amen! ;o)

[Jmw]

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>The media is NOT liberal. That's right wing cant. In fact,
>some data suggest it has a much more right wing bent--and
>certain stations even more so. (Clear Channel anyone?)

Bullshit. Several studies of the political views of print,
radio, and television journalists have clearly established
that they are, overall, several steps to the left of the
general populace.

My guess is that you are just several more steps to the left.

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:17:21 -0400, JMW
<jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

>GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>The media is NOT liberal. That's right wing cant. In fact,
>>some data suggest it has a much more right wing bent--and
>>certain stations even more so. (Clear Channel anyone?)
>
>Bullshit. Several studies of the political views of print,
>radio, and television journalists have clearly established
>that they are, overall, several steps to the left of the
>general populace.

Really? Please do cite these studies then. Who conducted them?
Ann Coulter?

>My guess is that you are just several more steps to the left.

My guess is you're a goose-stepping fascist.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/bk_descript.htm

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 00:38:20 +0100, Charles
<jrh@msn.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:12:42 GMT, GMCarter
><fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
snip
>Dream on old lad and do spare us the old and much hackneyed
>"latent homosexual" jibe for anyone that finds your lifestyle
>unappealing!

Of course you want to be spared it, Blanche.

You ARE it.

Homophobes and latent homos. Are you a priest too by any
chance?

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 00:50:40 +0100, Charles
<jrh@msn.com> wrote:

snip
>Most people don't, particularly if they keep it private like
>the average heterosexual does!

LOL...you're out of your fucking mind. "My wife" this he said.
"Our children that" they said. "We banged all night" he lied.
"The purple pill" the old stinking politician wheezed.

Please. Hetero crap is EVERYWHERE. And the insane, sick
lifestyle that is attendant to it.

Dropping more unwanted babies on an overpopulated planet!

(Sigh....their own tactics do feel loathsome to me...but
people like you and Falwell live for it.)

[Charles]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 03:26:35 -0700, "Hard Bop Drums"
<nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:5rb553pse03tnev4mboonp1ttofk0dsu5f@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 00:50:40 +0100, Charles
>> <jrh@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>>Most people don't, particularly if they keep it private
>>>like the average heterosexual does!
>>
>> LOL...you're out of your fucking mind. "My wife" this he
>> said. "Our children that" they said. "We banged all night"
>> he lied. "The purple pill" the old stinking politician
>> wheezed.
>>
>> Please. Hetero crap is EVERYWHERE. And the insane, sick
>> lifestyle that is attendant to it.
>>
>> Dropping more unwanted babies on an overpopulated planet!
>>
>> (Sigh....their own tactics do feel loathsome to me...but
>> people like you and Falwell live for it.)
>>
>
>Why not admit that you are no different than these
>homophobes? Your hate filled bullshit is every bit as
>pathetic as the swill these morons spew. What a fucking
>asshole.

I would like the second the erudite contributor's
proposal! ;o)

[Hard Bop D]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5rb553pse03tnev4mboonp1ttofk0dsu5f@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 00:50:40 +0100, Charles
> <jrh@msn.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>>Most people don't, particularly if they keep it private like
>>the average heterosexual does!
>
> LOL...you're out of your fucking mind. "My wife" this he
> said. "Our children that" they said. "We banged all night"
> he lied. "The purple pill" the old stinking politician
> wheezed.
>
> Please. Hetero crap is EVERYWHERE. And the insane, sick
> lifestyle that is attendant to it.
>
> Dropping more unwanted babies on an overpopulated planet!
>
> (Sigh....their own tactics do feel loathsome to me...but
> people like you and Falwell live for it.)
>

Why not admit that you are no different than these homophobes?
Your hate filled bullshit is every bit as pathetic as the
swill these morons spew. What a fucking asshole.

--
Robert Schuh "Everything that elevates an individual above the
herd and intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil;
and the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality, the
mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

[Jmw]

On May 22, 4:44 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007, JMW wrote:
> > GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> The media is NOT liberal. That's right wing cant. In
> >> fact, some data suggest it has a much more right wing
> >> bent--and certain stations even more so. (Clear Channel
> >> anyone?)
>
> > Bullshit. Several studies of the political views of print,
> > radio, and television journalists have clearly established
> > that they are, overall, several steps to the left of the
> > general populace.
>
> Citation?

I don't how well a Brit will understand American news media
and the individual players, but I'll give this a shot. Let's
try the survey done by Pew Research Center. It's part of the
Pew Charitable Trust, a big supporter of NPR and PBS, both of
which are deemed to be solidly to the left in the American new
media spectrum. However, the Pew Research Center, in and of
itself, is generally regarded to be pretty unbiased in terms
its evaluations.

In a 2004 survey, they found:

"Journalists at national and local news organizations are
notably different from the general public in their ideology
and attitudes toward political and social issues. Most
national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of
Americans (41%), describe themselves as political
moderates. But news people =AD especially national
journalists =AD are more liberal, and far less
conservative, than the general public.

"About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat
fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals;
that compares with 19% of the public in a May survey conducted
by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, there is a relatively
small number of conservatives at national and local news
organizations. Just 7% of national news people and 12% of
local journalists describe themselves as conservatives,
compared with a third of all Americans.

"In this regard, Internet journalists are similar
ideologically to local journalists: 57% describe themselves as
moderates, while 27% say they are liberals and 13%
conservatives. Local TV and radio journalists include the
lowest percentage of liberals of any of the journalist groups
surveyed (15%). Even among local TV and radio journalists,
however, just 13% describe themselves as conservatives."

Table: http://people-press.org/reports/images/214-35.gif

Article:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=3D829

2004 Journalist Survey:
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/214topline.pdf .=2E. and
its methodology: http://www.journalism.org/node/823

And keep in mind that these were journalists reporting their
own views.

GMCarter, on the other hand, cites punditry from FAIR.org,
which describes itself as a "progressive" organization, and is
described by SourceWatch as follows:

"Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) is a group that
criticizes the fairness and accuracy of the news media from a
left-leaning standpoint," providing "a counterbalance to
Accuracy in Media, an older, right-leaning media watch group."

But from where Mr. Carter is standing, it looks like everyone
else is over on the right.

[Jmw]

On May 22, 4:44 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007, JMW wrote:
> > GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> The media is NOT liberal. That's right wing cant. In
> >> fact, some data suggest it has a much more right wing
> >> bent--and certain stations even more so. (Clear Channel
> >> anyone?)
>
> > Bullshit. Several studies of the political views of print,
> > radio, and television journalists have clearly established
> > that they are, overall, several steps to the left of the
> > general populace.
>
> Citation?

I don't how well a Brit will understand American news media
and the individual players, but I'll give this a shot. Let's
try the survey done by Pew Research Center. It's part of the
Pew Charitable Trust, a big supporter of NPR and PBS, both of
which are deemed to be solidly to the left in the American new
media spectrum. However, the Pew Research Center, in and of
itself, is generally regarded to be pretty unbiased in terms
its evaluations.

In a 2004 survey, they found:

"Journalists at national and local news organizations are
notably different from the general public in their ideology
and attitudes toward political and social issues. Most
national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of
Americans (41%), describe themselves as political
moderates. But news people =AD especially national
journalists =AD are more liberal, and far less
conservative, than the general public.

"About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat
fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals;
that compares with 19% of the public in a May survey conducted
by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, there is a relatively
small number of conservatives at national and local news
organizations. Just 7% of national news people and 12% of
local journalists describe themselves as conservatives,
compared with a third of all Americans.

"In this regard, Internet journalists are similar
ideologically to local journalists: 57% describe themselves as
moderates, while 27% say they are liberals and 13%
conservatives. Local TV and radio journalists include the
lowest percentage of liberals of any of the journalist groups
surveyed (15%). Even among local TV and radio journalists,
however, just 13% describe themselves as conservatives."

Table: http://people-press.org/reports/images/214-35.gif

Article:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=3D829

2004 Journalist Survey:
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/214topline.pdf .=2E. and
its methodology: http://www.journalism.org/node/823

And keep in mind that these were journalists reporting their
own views.

GMCarter, on the other hand, cites punditry from FAIR.org,
which describes itself as a "progressive" organization, and is
described by SourceWatch as follows:

"Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) is a group that
criticizes the fairness and accuracy of the news media from a
left-leaning standpoint," providing "a counterbalance to
Accuracy in Media, an older, right-leaning media watch group."

But from Mr. Carter's point of view, when you're standing on
the left, it looks like everybody else is over on the right.

[Jmw]

On May 22, 4:44 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007, JMW wrote:
> > GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> The media is NOT liberal. That's right wing cant. In
> >> fact, some data suggest it has a much more right wing
> >> bent--and certain stations even more so. (Clear Channel
> >> anyone?)
>
> > Bullshit. Several studies of the political views of print,
> > radio, and television journalists have clearly established
> > that they are, overall, several steps to the left of the
> > general populace.
>
> Citation?

I don't how well a Brit will understand American news media
and the individual players, but I'll give this a shot. Let's
try the survey done by Pew Research Center. It's part of the
Pew Charitable Trust, a big supporter of NPR and PBS, both of
which are deemed to be solidly to the left in the American new
media spectrum. However, the Pew Research Center, in and of
itself, is generally regarded to be pretty unbiased in terms
its evaluations.

In a 2004 survey, they found:

"Journalists at national and local news organizations are
notably different from the general public in their ideology
and attitudes toward political and social issues. Most
national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of
Americans (41%), describe themselves as political
moderates. But news people =AD especially national
journalists =AD are more liberal, and far less
conservative, than the general public.

"About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat
fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals;
that compares with 19% of the public in a May survey conducted
by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, there is a relatively
small number of conservatives at national and local news
organizations. Just 7% of national news people and 12% of
local journalists describe themselves as conservatives,
compared with a third of all Americans.

"In this regard, Internet journalists are similar
ideologically to local journalists: 57% describe themselves as
moderates, while 27% say they are liberals and 13%
conservatives. Local TV and radio journalists include the
lowest percentage of liberals of any of the journalist groups
surveyed (15%). Even among local TV and radio journalists,
however, just 13% describe themselves as conservatives."

Table: http://people-press.org/reports/images/214-35.gif

Article:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=3D829

2004 Journalist Survey:
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/214topline.pdf .=2E. and
its methodology: http://www.journalism.org/node/823

And keep in mind that these were journalists reporting their
own views.

GMCarter, on the other hand, cites punditry from FAIR.org,
which describes itself as a "progressive" organization, and is
described by SourceWatch as follows:

"Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) is a group that
criticizes the fairness and accuracy of the news media from a
left-leaning standpoint," providing "a counterbalance to
Accuracy in Media, an older, right-leaning media watch group."

But from Mr. Carter's point of view, when you're standing on
the left, it looks like everybody else is over on the right.

[Gmcarter]

On 22 May 2007 08:11:45 -0700, JMW
<jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 22, 4:44 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007, JMW wrote:
>> > GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> The media is NOT liberal. That's right wing cant. In
>> >> fact, some data suggest it has a much more right wing
>> >> bent--and certain stations even more so. (Clear Channel
>> >> anyone?)
>>
>> > Bullshit. Several studies of the political views of
>> > print, radio, and television journalists have clearly
>> > established that they are, overall, several steps to the
>> > left of the general populace.
>>
>> Citation?

Well, thank you for the citation! Data are better, even though
you rejected the references I provided. But indeed, let us
look at this data.

>I don't how well a Brit will understand American news media
>and the individual players, but I'll give this a shot. Let's
>try the survey done by Pew Research Center. It's part of the
>Pew Charitable Trust, a big supporter of NPR and PBS, both of
>which are deemed to be solidly to the left in the American
>new media spectrum. However, the Pew Research Center, in and
>of itself, is generally regarded to be pretty unbiased in
>terms its evaluations.
>
>In a 2004 survey, they found:
>
>"Journalists at national and local news organizations are
>notably different from the general public in their ideology
>and attitudes toward political and social issues. Most
>national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of
>Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates.
>But news people ­ especially national journalists ­ are more
>liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public.

The political views of journalists are not the same as the
news as delivered. And indeed, there are ample numbers of
"journalists" (mostly just pundits dithering) who are quite
right wing. John McLaughlin as an almost "reasonable" one
compared to many of his more deranged compatriots (Limbaugh).
snipping only for brevity.

>Table: http://people-press.org/reports/images/214-35.gif
>
>Article:
>http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=829
>
>2004 Journalist Survey:
>http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/214topline.pdf ... and
>its methodology: http://www.journalism.org/node/823
>
>And keep in mind that these were journalists reporting their
>own views.
>
>GMCarter, on the other hand, cites punditry from FAIR.org,
>which describes itself as a "progressive" organization, and
>is described by SourceWatch as follows:
>
>"Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) is a group that
>criticizes the fairness and accuracy of the news media
>from a left-leaning standpoint," providing "a
>counterbalance to Accuracy in Media, an older,
>right-leaning media watch group."
>
>But from where Mr. Carter is standing, it looks like everyone
>else is over on the right.

LOL..yes, the United States overall is far more right wing
than I am.

But let's look at SourceWatch and the "liberal media" call
often puked out by right wingers--and my apologies to you if I
have mischaracterized your views.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Liberal_media

And I am more concerned about the increasing coporate
ownership of the media available--your own cites note, for
example:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=188

Clear Channel is a clear and present danger in my view. (Not
only politically but aesthetically.)

The media--even NPR--have a capacity for reporting for the
sake of "fairness" that is often overly imbalanced to kowtow
to the right wing.

For example, today (or yesterday) on NPR, they discussed the
breaking of AIDS drugs patents by Thailand and noted a drug
company exec spouting the claim that it costs "a billion
dollars" to bring a drug to market so they have the right to
rape people on the price and threaten to stop research if they
can't make the billions they demand.

The interviewer did NOT question this billion dollar figure
which has been strongly refuted as highly overblown propaganda
to justify global economic genocide. Their high drug prices
assure that millions more people will die needlessly of AIDS.

So despite the Pew data that suggest reporters may consider
themselves liberal (and apparently it doesn't take much to be
cast into that category), there are ample numbers who are
rabid conservatives on the one hand and the news they have to
deliver is decidely more right wing.

Just look at media outlets from other countries for a while.
You'll get the idea.

But I do appreciate the information and a somewhat more
intelligent conversation than dealing with the bigots.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:57:54 -0400, willbrink@comcast.net
(Will Brink) wrote:

>In article <kkb5531rlue47l28gsut28chr7o3kd47af@4ax.com>,
>noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:
>
>> >My guess is that you are just several more steps to
>> >the left.
>>
>> My guess is you're a goose-stepping fascist.
>
>He's not, and it seems you are jumping on the name calling
>stereotypes awful fast here. He can dismiss everything you
>say by calling you a "faggot" after you called him a fascist.

When I'm wrong I'm happy to admit it. And I am hopeful that he
is nothing of the sort--your word and his response seem to
indicate that I was hasty in my judgment.

But hey, some of my best friends are straight.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:32:05 +0100, Charles
<jrh@msn.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:23:51 +0100, Tom Anderson
snip
>Two men 'marrying' each other is of great 'public interest'
>and no little concern. As far as I'm concerned it's utter
>madness!!

OK, so don't marry another man.

snip
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2-
>007/01/09/do0901.xml
>
>NB "The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007
>came into force on 30th April 2007, and they make
>discrimination in the area of goods, facilities and services
>on grounds of sexual orientation unlawful. For schools this
>means admissions, benefits and services for pupils and
>treatment of pupils. For Local Authorities the provisions
>extend to the exercise of their functions."

Yay! That's great news.

You can still hold your bigoted opinions. You just can't use
them to push public policy to discriminate against minorities.

That won't change your opinion any more than those who
believe that white and black people should not marry will
continue to believe that nonsense. Happily, miscegenation
laws are gone now.

As well they should be.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 03:26:35 -0700, "Hard Bop Drums"
<nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:

snip
>Why not admit that you are no different than these
>homophobes? Your hate filled bullshit is every bit as
>pathetic as the swill these morons spew. What a fucking
>asshole.

Darling, dearest, sweetie. I'm merely using the tactics of the
homophobes and religious right.

The difference between me and them is that I'm doing it tongue
in bitten cheek.

As I said elsewhere, I mean, heck, some of my best friends are
stragiht....

But now I'm GLAD you had this reaction. You know how their
hateful words make me and my lesbian, gay and transgendered
friends feel.

Such ugly, hateful discrimination IS despicable.

George M. Carter

[Jmw]

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>The political views of journalists are not the same as the
>news as delivered. And indeed, there are ample numbers of
>"journalists" (mostly just pundits dithering) who are quite
>right wing. John McLaughlin as an almost "reasonable" one
>compared to many of his more deranged compatriots (Limbaugh).

And yet those who regularly refer to Rush Limbaugh as
"deranged" (I prefer to think of him as just "full of shit"),
will often consider Michael Moore to be "a beacon of light
(though, in reality, he is equally full of shit). At least I
recognize the problems with both.

>LOL..yes, the United States overall is far more right wing
>than I am.

And thus, within the context of the United States (though
not your particular locale), that places you solidly on the
left, yes?

>The media--even NPR--have a capacity for reporting for the
>sake of "fairness" that is often overly imbalanced to kowtow
>to the right wing.
>
>For example, today (or yesterday) on NPR, they discussed the
>breaking of AIDS drugs patents by Thailand and noted a drug
>company exec spouting the claim that it costs "a billion
>dollars" to bring a drug to market so they have the right to
>rape people on the price and threaten to stop research if
>they can't make the billions they demand.
>
>The interviewer did NOT question this billion dollar figure
>which has been strongly refuted as highly overblown
>propaganda to justify global economic genocide. Their high
>drug prices assure that millions more people will die
>needlessly of AIDS.

"Economic genocide." "Millions more people will die
needlessly." C'mon, lay off the standard leftist hyperbole.
International corporations are not required to conform to
your ideals of social justice. If they were, investors would
pull out, investment would take a dive, and *there would be
no AIDS drugs*.

Does anyone ask you to do your job without being paid?

>So despite the Pew data that suggest reporters may consider
>themselves liberal (and apparently it doesn't take much to be
>cast into that category), there are ample numbers who are
>rabid conservatives on the one hand and the news they have to
>deliver is decidely more right wing.
>
>Just look at media outlets from other countries for a while.
>You'll get the idea.

I do. It never ceases to amaze me that liberals always play
this card. They seem to assume that if Americans read foreign
news sources, they will automatically be converted to the
views expressed therein. It doesn't work like that.

>But I do appreciate the information and a somewhat more
>intelligent conversation than dealing with the bigots.

The homophobia expressed by Prisoner at War is just part of
his underlying psychopathology.

But along those lines, here's one of my problems. I've always
been very supportive of fair and equal treatment for gays and
lesbians. Unfortunately, many gay/lesbian activists find that
support unacceptable if one does not agree with all the other
aspects of their generally leftist agenda. That pisses me off.

More annoying is the treatment of gay/lesbian conservatives.
Yes, they are a definite minority within their sexual
orientations, but they do exist, and in fairly large numbers.
Nevertheless, they are ostracized by the religous
fundamentalists who otherwise share their political views, and
they are ostracized by the gay/lesbian community because their
political beliefs somehow make them "traitors to the cause."
Now *that* is bullshit.

[Charles]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 16:16:18 GMT, GMCarter
<fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:32:05 +0100, Charles
><jrh@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:23:51 +0100, Tom Anderson
>snip
>>Two men 'marrying' each other is of great 'public interest'
>>and no little concern. As far as I'm concerned it's utter
>>madness!!
>
>OK, so don't marry another man.

I am more than happy to comply with that instruction; it would
be great service to the community all 'men' would consider
doing the same.

>
>snip
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/-
>>2007/01/09/do0901.xml
>>
>>NB "The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007
>>came into force on 30th April 2007, and they make
>>discrimination in the area of goods, facilities and services
>>on grounds of sexual orientation unlawful. For schools this
>>means admissions, benefits and services for pupils and
>>treatment of pupils. For Local Authorities the provisions
>>extend to the exercise of their functions."
>
>Yay! That's great news.

But only for a small section of the population!

>
>You can still hold your bigoted opinions. You just can't use
>them to push public policy to discriminate against
>minorities.

It has only been the persistence of a vociferous minority that
brought about the new legislation. They obviously felt very
strongly and managed to get sufficient 'liberal' support to
effect the changes in the law.

However, that is how democracy works, so you must respect the
right of those that don't agree, to continue to express
opposition and to campaign to repeal those laws which are at
variance with their own strongly held beliefs.

It is "bigoted" of *you* to suggest that only one side is
right, and that all those in opposition are "bigots".

I have responded to you because you are talking sensibly and
have dropped all the silly name calling. It is a topic worthy
of sensible discussion, because people on both sides of the
debate hold very strong views.

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:47:25 -0400, JMW
<jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

>GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>The political views of journalists are not the same as the
>>news as delivered. And indeed, there are ample numbers of
>>"journalists" (mostly just pundits dithering) who are quite
>>right wing. John McLaughlin as an almost "reasonable" one
>>compared to many of his more deranged compatriots
>>(Limbaugh).
>
>And yet those who regularly refer to Rush Limbaugh as
>"deranged" (I prefer to think of him as just "full of shit"),
>will often consider Michael Moore to be "a beacon of light
>(though, in reality, he is equally full of shit). At least I
>recognize the problems with both.

I can't wait to see Sicko. I think Moore is FAR more reliable
in terms of information that he provides than that drug-addled
Limbaugh could ever be. He just makes shit up. But full of
shit--I agree with you there on Limbaugh. I disagree with
regard to Moore.

>>LOL..yes, the United States overall is far more right wing
>>than I am.
>
>And thus, within the context of the United States (though
>not your particular locale), that places you solidly on the
>left, yes?

Pretty much. Though I find the polemic of "left" and "right"
to be less useful than actually trying to find practical
solutions to issues that humans face.

If "left" means having a concern about poverty, starvation,
diseases like AIDS and other infections, health care access,
the environment and the failure of corporations to be
responsible (even as they enjoy all the privileges of their
wealth), then yes, solidly on the left.

>>The media--even NPR--have a capacity for reporting for the
>>sake of "fairness" that is often overly imbalanced to kowtow
>>to the right wing.
>>
>>For example, today (or yesterday) on NPR, they discussed the
>>breaking of AIDS drugs patents by Thailand and noted a drug
>>company exec spouting the claim that it costs "a billion
>>dollars" to bring a drug to market so they have the right to
>>rape people on the price and threaten to stop research if
>>they can't make the billions they demand.
>>
>>The interviewer did NOT question this billion dollar figure
>>which has been strongly refuted as highly overblown
>>propaganda to justify global economic genocide. Their high
>>drug prices assure that millions more people will die
>>needlessly of AIDS.
>
>"Economic genocide." "Millions more people will die
>needlessly." C'mon, lay off the standard leftist hyperbole.
>International corporations are not required to conform to
>your ideals of social justice. If they were, investors would
>pull out, investment would take a dive, and *there would be
>no AIDS drugs*.

That's the lie we have been fed for decades. In fact, MOST of
the AIDS drugs were developed by the NIH, univeristies or
small companies.

It is not hyperbole to people living with AIDS who cannot
obtain access to treatment to save their lives because
pharmaceutical companies would rather they die than lose a
penny in profits.

>Does anyone ask you to do your job without being paid?

Income from a job is not the same as profiteering by
corporations. Profits are not intrinsically evil--but the
system is suffering from excesses that are evil.

And indeed, the arguments have been made resoundingly that
drug discovery and development works MUCH better with an open
architecture of information access and sharing.

Worse in my mind is how pharma has destroyed science. They
have turned clinical trials into little more than
marketing tools.

And it's not even free market: they abuse patent law to
justify their excesses.

Read Marcia Angell's The Truth About the Drug Companies. She
was a senior editor at the New England Journal of Medicine.
Quite brilliantly laid out and not at all dry reading.

>>So despite the Pew data that suggest reporters may consider
>>themselves liberal (and apparently it doesn't take much to
>>be cast into that category), there are ample numbers who are
>>rabid conservatives on the one hand and the news they have
>>to deliver is decidely more right wing.
>>
>>Just look at media outlets from other countries for a while.
>>You'll get the idea.
>
>I do. It never ceases to amaze me that liberals always play
>this card. They seem to assume that if Americans read foreign
>news sources, they will automatically be converted to the
>views expressed therein. It doesn't work like that.

How does "it" work?

>>But I do appreciate the information and a somewhat more
>>intelligent conversation than dealing with the bigots.
>
>The homophobia expressed by Prisoner at War is just part of
>his underlying psychopathology.

Agreed.

>But along those lines, here's one of my problems. I've
>always been very supportive of fair and equal treatment for
>gays and lesbians. Unfortunately, many gay/lesbian activists
>find that support unacceptable if one does not agree with
>all the other aspects of their generally leftist agenda.
>That pisses me off.

Hmmm...sounds like the white folks who wanted to support civil
rights as long as the little brown brothers and sisters knew
their place....but then you're not being too specific here.

>More annoying is the treatment of gay/lesbian conservatives.
>Yes, they are a definite minority within their sexual
>orientations, but they do exist, and in fairly large numbers.
>Nevertheless, they are ostracized by the religous
>fundamentalists who otherwise share their political views,
>and they are ostracized by the gay/lesbian community because
>their political beliefs somehow make them "traitors to the
>cause." Now *that* is bullshit.

LOL...join the Log Cabin guys then. I find them to be
self-immolating fools mostly...so there's my leftist viewpoint
which undoubtedly angers you.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:06:17 -0400, willbrink@comcast.net
(Will Brink) wrote:

>In article <qd565318fcqvqh6omf49ug34f9ui6433i8@4ax.com>,
>noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:
snip
>> When I'm wrong I'm happy to admit it. And I am hopeful that
>> he is nothing of the sort--your word and his response seem
>> to indicate that I was hasty in my judgment.
>
>I think you were. Even if I didnt know him his comments were
>far from goose stepping fascist. It's simply accepted as
>fact most of the US media is left wing/liberal oriented, and
>thats generally true, but less so and more polarized now
>than ever (eg, there are the far right types making enough
>noise to get noticed and have their own followings) which is
>what you are seeing and reacting to. What ever you do, dont
>try and understand US culture or process the US by its very
>strange media.

He's definitely a right winger as he readily admits. But I
don't think a fascist.
>
>> But hey, some of my best friends are straight.
>
>Damn breeders!

LOL...I just try to encourage them to at least have
Queer children!

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:16:23 +0100, Charles
<jrh@msn.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2007 16:16:18 GMT, GMCarter
><fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:32:05 +0100, Charles
>><jrh@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:23:51 +0100, Tom Anderson
>>snip
>>>Two men 'marrying' each other is of great 'public interest'
>>>and no little concern. As far as I'm concerned it's utter
>>>madness!!
>>
>>OK, so don't marry another man.
>
>I am more than happy to comply with that instruction; it
>would be great service to the community all 'men' would
>consider doing the same.

LOL...no it wouldn't. snip

>>Yay! That's great news.
>
>But only for a small section of the population!

The United States was ostensibly given a Constitution that
protects everyone and as case law evolved, particularly
minorities.

>>
>>You can still hold your bigoted opinions. You just can't use
>>them to push public policy to discriminate against
>>minorities.
>
>It has only been the persistence of a vociferous minority
>that brought about the new legislation. They obviously felt
>very strongly and managed to get sufficient 'liberal' support
>to effect the changes in the law.

Hurray!

>However, that is how democracy works, so you must respect the
>right of those that don't agree, to continue to express
>opposition and to campaign to repeal those laws which are at
>variance with their own strongly held beliefs.

Sure. And I'll keep fighting the likes of you.

>It is "bigoted" of *you* to suggest that only one side is
>right, and that all those in opposition are "bigots".

No, dear. It is bigoted for you to impose your lifestyle on
me. I'm not trying to turn you queer. Or black. Or Jewish. Or
white. Or female.

I just want to live my life with fairness and social justice
as a human being. Your views can be as nasty as you like right
up to the point you try to harm me. And denying me rights is
doing me harm.

>I have responded to you because you are talking sensibly and
>have dropped all the silly name calling. It is a topic worthy
>of sensible discussion, because people on both sides of the
>debate hold very strong views.

LOL...oh...SOOOO tempting.

Oh the hell with it..."Gosh, how white of you!"

Georege M. Carter

[Will Brink]

In article <kkb5531rlue47l28gsut28chr7o3kd47af@4ax.com>,
noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:

> On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:17:21 -0400, JMW
> <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>
> >GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>The media is NOT liberal. That's right wing cant. In fact,
> >>some data suggest it has a much more right wing bent--and
> >>certain stations even more so. (Clear Channel anyone?)
> >
> >Bullshit. Several studies of the political views of print,
> >radio, and television journalists have clearly established
> >that they are, overall, several steps to the left of the
> >general populace.
>
> Really? Please do cite these studies then. Who conducted
> them? Ann Coulter?

>
> >My guess is that you are just several more steps to
> >the left.
>
> My guess is you're a goose-stepping fascist.

He's not, and it seems you are jumping on the name calling
stereotypes awful fast here. He can dismiss everything you say
by calling you a "faggot" after you called him a fascist.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Will Brink]

In article <5rb553pse03tnev4mboonp1ttofk0dsu5f@4ax.com>,
noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:

>
> Dropping more unwanted babies on an overpopulated planet!

You call us "breeders" behind our backs don't you?

>
> (Sigh....their own tactics do feel loathsome to me...but
> people like you and Falwell live for it.)

It makes their own sad little life seem less worthless. Most
people can't feel on top if they are not keeping someone else
down. People from the hills hate the people in the vally,
light skin blacks often dont like dark skin blacks, one form
of muslim hates another, etc, etc. Endless human ignorance.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Bully]

In news:1179858935.362367.312670@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> typed:
> Better pray God doesn't send AIDS after you, faggot slime!
>
>
>
> On May 21, 7:06 pm, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Good. For God's sakes, go off yourself.

Goodness; you really are a malcontent. A top posting one at
that!

--
Bully Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an
optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir
Winston Churchill

[Will Brink]

In article <qd565318fcqvqh6omf49ug34f9ui6433i8@4ax.com>,
noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:

> On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:57:54 -0400, willbrink@comcast.net
> (Will Brink) wrote:
>
> >In article <kkb5531rlue47l28gsut28chr7o3kd47af@4ax.com>,
> >noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:
> >
> >> >My guess is that you are just several more steps to the
> >> >left.
> >>
> >> My guess is you're a goose-stepping fascist.
> >
> >He's not, and it seems you are jumping on the name calling
> >stereotypes awful fast here. He can dismiss everything you
> >say by calling you a "faggot" after you called him a
> >fascist.
>
> When I'm wrong I'm happy to admit it. And I am hopeful that
> he is nothing of the sort--your word and his response seem
> to indicate that I was hasty in my judgment.

I think you were. Even if I didnt know him his comments were
far from goose stepping fascist. It's simply accepted as
fact most of the US media is left wing/liberal oriented, and
thats generally true, but less so and more polarized now
than ever (eg, there are the far right types making enough
noise to get noticed and have their own followings) which is
what you are seeing and reacting to. What ever you do, dont
try and understand US culture or process the US by its very
strange media.

>
> But hey, some of my best friends are straight.

Damn breeders!

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Will Brink]

In article
<1179846703.777165.163260@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, JMW
<jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> I don't how well a Brit will understand American news media
> and the individual players, but I'll give this a shot. Let's
> try the survey done by Pew Research Center. It's part of the
> Pew Charitable Trust, a big supporter of NPR and PBS, both
> of which are deemed to be solidly to the left in the
> American new media spectrum.

Just to throw on my two you know whats, I listen to NPR every
day, and have done so for years now (as mentioned in past
threads over the years) and dont find them to be to the left,
at least not far to the left, and they do by far the best job
of obective reporting found in US media. Hell, the first time
I ever heard the name John Lott was when he was being
interviewed on NPR. First place I heard the bogus stat of "12
kids per day are killed with hanguns" was bogus was via NPR
tracking it down, etc. They do as good a job of attempting to
get both sides of a story as possible. I have no idea why NPR
is put in the left wing media title. Perhaps compared to Fox
or something, they might be seen as left wing, but objective
news reporting looks left wing compared to Fox (on the right)
or CNN (on the left).

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Jmw]

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
>But full of shit--I agree with you there on Limbaugh. I
>disagree with regard to Moore.

I knew you would. It's almost a touchstone for identifying a
hard-wired, knee-jerk liberal.

>>More annoying is the treatment of gay/lesbian conservatives.
>>Yes, they are a definite minority within their sexual
>>orientations, but they do exist, and in fairly large
>>numbers. Nevertheless, they are ostracized by the religous
>>fundamentalists who otherwise share their political views,
>>and they are ostracized by the gay/lesbian community because
>>their political beliefs somehow make them "traitors to the
>>cause." Now *that* is bullshit.
>
>LOL...join the Log Cabin guys then. I find them to be
>self-immolating fools mostly...so there's my leftist
>viewpoint which undoubtedly angers you.

Anger me? No, it made me smile. You're more of a caricature
than you know.

[Jmw]

willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> JMW <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't how well a Brit will understand American news media
>> and the individual players, but I'll give this a shot.
>> Let's try the survey done by Pew Research Center. It's part
>> of the Pew Charitable Trust, a big supporter of NPR and
>> PBS, both of which are deemed to be solidly to the left in
>> the American new media spectrum.
>
>Just to throw on my two you know whats, I listen to NPR every
>day, and have done so for years now (as mentioned in past
>threads over the years) and dont find them to be to the left,
>at least not far to the left, and they do by far the best job
>of obective reporting found in US media. Hell, the first time
>I ever heard the name John Lott was when he was being
>interviewed on NPR. First place I heard the bogus stat of "12
>kids per day are killed with hanguns" was bogus was via NPR
>tracking it down, etc. They do as good a job of attempting to
>get both sides of a story as possible. I have no idea why NPR
>is put in the left wing media title. Perhaps compared to Fox
>or something, they might be seen as left wing, but objective
>news reporting looks left wing compared to Fox (on the right)
>or CNN (on the left).

You misapprehend what I meant. I listen to NPR daily, and I
contribute to the cause, which surprises a lot of people.
Their reporting is pretty good. It's the commentary that's
decidedly to the left, although they do it in a rather quiet,
smug manner, so people who are accustomed to rants barely
notice it.

For that matter, I think Fox News is pretty good about
accurate reporting and bringing forth the issues, but their
commentary runs to the right of my personal views. The panel
discussions are pretty civilized and have a range of views,
but Hannity & Colmes *both* annoy the shit out of me, and
O'Reilly is too interested in bolstering his own ego.

I like to watch, read, and listen to a collection of media
outlets. What fascinates me the most is not what given sources
put out front, but rather, what they *fail* to mention.

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:51:44 -0400, willbrink@comcast.net
(Will Brink) wrote: snip
>> I can't wait to see Sicko. I think Moore is FAR more
>> reliable in terms of information that he provides than that
>> drug-addled Limbaugh could ever be. He just makes shit up.
>> But full of shit--I agree with you there on Limbaugh. I
>> disagree with regard to Moore.
>
>Moore is ever bit as full of crap as Limbaugh, and I hate
>Limbaugh. Moore has been exposed many times. They are both
>the worst possible examples of the right and the left.

I understand your view and I disagree.

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 02:26:17 +0000 (UTC), DZ
<30505@130178080.1604532632.65.389.14480> wrote:

>GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
>> JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>> "Economic genocide." "Millions more people will die
>>> needlessly." C'mon, lay off the standard leftist
>>> hyperbole. International corporations are not required to
>>> conform to your ideals of social justice. If they were,
>>> investors would pull out, investment would take a dive,
>>> and *there would be no AIDS drugs*.
>>
>> That's the lie we have been fed for decades. In fact, MOST
>> of the AIDS drugs were developed by the NIH, univeristies
>> or small companies.
>
>Depends on what is meant by develop. Let's take an example,
>abacavir. Did University of Minnesota and government
>scientists (http://pmid.us/2847711) develop this drug?

Interesting if somewhat vague question. Let's explore it a
bit.

First, it should be pointed out that you pick one drug that
presumably was developed at greater cost to the
GlaxoSmithKline than say zidovudine (which the former company
of GSK, Burroughs Wellcome, was handed by NCI and which they
turned around and started selling at the outrageous price of
$10,000 per patient per year after they spent not a dime on
it--and thus setting the standard for price gouging people to
death on antiretroviral drugs and holding the lives of people
with HIV/AIDS hostage).

How much money was spent and by whom in developing this drug?
That's the question. Partially. Define "develop" - does it
include outreach or marketing in some fashion? Were NIH trials
conducted? Were there government tax breaks for the company?

Who undertook the costs associated with studies of combination
therapy when the drugs came from companies other than GSK?

I take it you have some of those data. Are you a GSK
employee? That might help if you have access to internal data
to support.

Of course, we have limited information because drug companies
remain opaque with regard to what their expenses are and
refuse to open their books.

I don't argue that companies spend some resources on genuine
drug development and discovery. That's what they're SUPPOSED
to do. That's their mission and cost of doing business. What
they have done, though, is pervert the system horrifically to
satisfy the parasites of Wall Street--and at the cost of
millions of lives.

What did the people of Ghana do to deserve being denied
Duovir?

Another interesting case: stavudine and its discovery and
"development" where the original discoverer was screwed by
BMS. A stellar example of how patent law has been perverted to
support stockholders and CEOs, not the actual inventors.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:14:19 -0400, JMW
<jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

>GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
>>But full of shit--I agree with you there on Limbaugh. I
>>disagree with regard to Moore.
>
>I knew you would. It's almost a touchstone for identifying a
>hard-wired, knee-jerk liberal.

I guess that's a fair comment, you goose-stepping fascist.

George M. Carter

[Atp*]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:lv56531d9pm75f8ddja3udtt9uak929phj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 03:26:35 -0700, "Hard Bop Drums"
> <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>>Why not admit that you are no different than these
>>homophobes? Your hate filled bullshit is every bit as
>>pathetic as the swill these morons spew. What a fucking
>>asshole.
>
> Darling, dearest, sweetie. I'm merely using the tactics of
> the homophobes and religious right.
>
> The difference between me and them is that I'm doing it
> tongue in bitten cheek.
>
> As I said elsewhere, I mean, heck, some of my best friends
> are stragiht....
>
> But now I'm GLAD you had this reaction. You know how their
> hateful words make me and my lesbian, gay and transgendered
> friends feel.
>
> Such ugly, hateful discrimination IS despicable.
>
> George M. Carter

Here's a blast from Rob's not too distant past:

"It was "New Homo" Lane who was trying to make fun of my
kidney problems. No worries though. Lane is a pathetic White
boy with no soul. If he spent more time in the gym and less
time worrying about whose cock to suck, he would be OK.

--
Robert Schuh "The Most Trolled Man On The Internet!" Stevie,
Trane, Jaco, Jimi and Bird are GODS! Donate your organs. Save
a life. Proud Endorser of Spaun Drums"

[Dz]

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
> JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>> "Economic genocide." "Millions more people will die
>> needlessly." C'mon, lay off the standard leftist hyperbole.
>> International corporations are not required to conform to
>> your ideals of social justice. If they were, investors
>> would pull out, investment would take a dive, and *there
>> would be no AIDS drugs*.
>
> That's the lie we have been fed for decades. In fact, MOST
> of the AIDS drugs were developed by the NIH, univeristies or
> small companies.

Depends on what is meant by develop. Let's take an example,
abacavir. Did University of Minnesota and government
scientists (http://pmid.us/2847711) develop this drug?

[Kcmunchkin]

On May 15, 10:01 pm, Prisoner at War
<prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> And, also, has Schwarzenegger ever done supplement
> endorsements himself?

he endorsed the short-lived Purepower line of
supplements...HUGE was the weight gainer based on supro soy
proteing...MetaMax was the metabolol competitor back in the
days when metabolol and champion were a big deal. i think it
was a Nature's Way line...don't remember how long it lasted on
the shelves...maybe three years at the most.

this was in the late 80's. i just saw an ad the other day in
one of my old mags.

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:51:01 -0400, willbrink@comcast.net
(Will Brink) wrote:

>In article <mp48531dip1sfp9vsi7at07fe1obln9mpk@4ax.com>,
>noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:51:44 -0400, willbrink@comcast.net
>> (Will Brink) wrote: snip
>> >> I can't wait to see Sicko. I think Moore is FAR more
>> >> reliable in terms of information that he provides than
>> >> that drug-addled Limbaugh could ever be. He just makes
>> >> shit up. But full of shit--I agree with you there on
>> >> Limbaugh. I disagree with regard to Moore.
>> >
>> >Moore is ever bit as full of crap as Limbaugh, and I hate
>> >Limbaugh. Moore has been exposed many times. They are both
>> >the worst possible examples of the right and the left.
>>
>> I understand your view and I disagree.
>
>Moore does no favors to the liberal causes, and that's a
>fact. He fabricates much of what ends up in his
>"documentaries" and that too has been exposed many times.

That may be true but I really have to ask you for some back up
for these assertions, if you have the time to provide a few.
I'd appreciate it.

Recent reviews of "Sicko" - his latest film - don't seem to
suggest he made anything up.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:09:10 -0400, willbrink@comcast.net
(Will Brink) wrote:

snip
>It's easy enough to find on the 'net. For example, the
>documentary entitled Manufacturing Dissent was made by two
>film makers who were huge fans of his, until they actually
>started to look into his "facts":
>
>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/175838/tables_turne-
>d_on_michael_moore_in_new.html
>
>He fabricated many facts for all of his "documentaries" which
>are works of fiction:
>
>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32217
>
>http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenhe-
>it-911.htm
>
>He makes entertaining works of fiction, but they are not
>documentaries, and he's actually admitted to that several
>times.Moore is a satirist, not journalist. I liked Roger and
>Me, but also found out he did in fact meet with Roger but
>dropped it from the film because he didnt think it had the
>daramatic effect he wanted... He has a personal agenda and
>does not mind inventing things to push that agenda.

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out and consider
your points.

Tho the first one doesn't indicate much--the one example so
far of deception is here: "His career was launched by the
documentary Roger and Me, released in 1989 and detailing his
unsuccessful efforts to talk with Roger Smith, then chairman
of General Motors. The only problem was, as Manufacturing
Dissent points out, Moore did successfully meet with Smith. He
decided to leave out the footage for the final cut in an
editorial decision."

The other (worldnet) says he had NRA spokesman Charlton Heston
viewed as mild-mannered and then a shot of him salivating over
AK-47s. (Oops..that's my editorializing)...that's not fiction
nor even particuarly distortion.

The "National Review" is not a particularly credible source to
me. Sorry.

This guy is kinda rabid:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

So sorry--I think some of the criticisms are undoubtedly valid
and can weaken the case Moore tries to make--but they are an
order of magnitude--or several--away from the outright
fabrications and lies of a Limbaugh.

Eh--I'm sure that won't change your view. But I'm not
convinced.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:20:36 +0000 (UTC), DZ
<10205@2790611555.1072622779.22470.3643.7113> wrote:

snip
>> Interesting if somewhat vague question.
>
>The reason I replied is because I thought "MOST of the AIDS
>drugs were developed..." was vague enough to be misleading.
>But to be more specific, I was getting at the fact that
>abacavir is not the same molecule as carbovir, and there are
>reasons (at least not entirely related to patenting) to use
>it instead, even though abacavir metabolizes to carbovir in
>the body.

The relevance of the example is weak at best. Not to mention
that you raise the specter of those lying bastards at GSK:
killing more people for extra money with rosiglitazone.

But more specifically, the small amount of clinical research
they did was based only on Trizivir--a drug containing three
ARVs---all interestingly owned by GSK! And a rather toxic,
nasty combo.

>Big companies have much more resources (1) to do the compound
>screening to find safer and more effective derivatives, based
>on the original idea; and (2) put the results through
>expensive clinical trials. Now, in cases like that I would
>agree with you that it is sensible to demand that since
>research and some of the inventions involved were in part
>funded through taxpayers money, a part of the profits should
>be returned back - perhaps in the form of lower cost for
>medicines, if taxpayers so demand.

I think governments have PLENTY of funds to do drug candidate
screening. That's not really all that costly (except where the
thorny thicket of patents has rendered licensing fees up- and
downstream in the discovery process onerously and absurdly and
utterly artificially costly).

And clinical trials are often done by governments, e.g., US
NIH.

Pharma spends FAR more on advertising than clinical trials.

>With regard to your question about my relations with big
>pharma - I'm "firmly grounded" outside corporations. Right
>now not only me but my family are not allowed by law to have
>any financial relations with this industry. We can't even own
>stock in pharma companies. But many people with concern about
>science do not consider such situation a good thing.

I consider it an excellent thing. Science has been turned into
marketing by pharma. They have utterly destroyed the integrity
of many universities, medical teaching hospitals and other
institutions with their unethical practices, data dredging,
ghost writing, spinning, lying about side effects, crappy drug
commercials for physicans (called conferences) and outrageous,
healthcare cost destabilizing drug prices.

>When profits are high, and the public opinion of the "big
>evil" companies is not too low, big pharma is able to attract
>talented researchers by providing a nearly academic
>environment.

Government can do the same thing for commensurate salaries -
at least the researchers. I'm not talking about the
obscenities paid to marketing people or CEOs or overvalued
VPs. Oh--speaking of way overvalued VPs...you might read
Rost's The Whistleblower. Most interesting.

>But that's not easy because there is still a stereotype in
>the sci community that if someone is employed in a company,
>it is because they didn't have the brains to do well outside.
>I think you'd find it hard to believe that peer-review
>process for example is considered by many who work in
>industry heavily biased against them just because of the
>affiliation.

LOL...I find that to be the most ridiculous statement I've
heard in ages. Peer review, as "expert panels have, is also
being turned into a stinking pile marketing crap by it being
staffed with well funded physicians who are more interested in
selling drugs.

>Reviewers, who are most of the time anonymous, have a lot of
>say. I do 2-3 of those each month for diverse journals (it's
>probably because my "expertise" is considered mostly
>statistical) and like everyone I personally know, I cannot be
>pushed around by an editor :-) or be coerced into giving any
>favorable opinions. In many journals, one so-so review means
>rejection without a possibility to resubmit.

Maybe you're one of the few good, honest reviewers left whose
first concern is actually patient care? I hope so!

That indeed should be the first order of business--one that
pharma has LONG since lost sight of.

>So, at the moment some pharma researchers seem to be trying
>to jump the ship. Strangely, government and academia would
>sometimes match the industry salaries, and all in all, the
>outlook for new research done in companies doesn't look too
>good. An interesting quote from pharma CEO which I don't
>think sounds encouraging for say a young graduate who is
>undecided where to go -
>
>"Of the 15 pharma companies that have a significant role in
>the world, only a handful will remain," Garnier said in an
>interview to be published on Friday. "Hardly any of the large
>companies are in the position right now to invest enough
>money into research," Garnier continued - http://www.lse.co.-
>uk/FinanceNews.asp?shareprice=&ArticleRef=38995

Garnier--yeah. The CEO of GSK. What a load of crap--but then
he's known for spouting a lot of ugly shit. The reason there's
only 15 big companies is because companies like his gobble up
the little ones.

At least I have the satisfaction of putting the word
"genocide" in his mouth, even though he was trying to deny it.
I used the example of GSK successfully blocking Ghana from
importing the much cheaper Duovir as one example.

To him, profits and patents are more important than
human life.

That is what has rendered an erstwhile noble industry a big
steaming evil pile of crap.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:56:49 GMT, GMCarter
<fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

snip
>Eh--I'm sure that won't change your view. But I'm not
>convinced.

Although this one casts a more interesting light:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/23/news/moore.php

It paints a picture of a guy that is overzealous.

Yet still--what he does I think is more motivated with the
desire to help people who are sick, out of work
etc...unfortunately, self-aggrandizement is probably in that
mix.

Limbaugh, on the other hand, is all about selfishness, hatred,
bigotry, ugliness and abject lies.

So I think they are not really comparable in meaningful ways.

George M. Carter

[Will Brink]

In article <lic753ta90iohrf8pkngk15q0po9o68p8a@4ax.com>, JMW
<jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

> willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> > JMW <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I don't how well a Brit will understand American news
> >> media and the individual players, but I'll give this a
> >> shot. Let's try the survey done by Pew Research Center.
> >> It's part of the Pew Charitable Trust, a big supporter of
> >> NPR and PBS, both of which are deemed to be solidly to
> >> the left in the American new media spectrum.
> >
> >Just to throw on my two you know whats, I listen to NPR
> >every day, and have done so for years now (as mentioned in
> >past threads over the years) and dont find them to be to
> >the left, at least not far to the left, and they do by far
> >the best job of obective reporting found in US media. Hell,
> >the first time I ever heard the name John Lott was when he
> >was being interviewed on NPR. First place I heard the bogus
> >stat of "12 kids per day are killed with hanguns" was bogus
> >was via NPR tracking it down, etc. They do as good a job of
> >attempting to get both sides of a story as possible. I have
> >no idea why NPR is put in the left wing media title.
> >Perhaps compared to Fox or something, they might be seen as
> >left wing, but objective news reporting looks left wing
> >compared to Fox (on the right) or CNN (on the left).
>
> You misapprehend what I meant. I listen to NPR daily, and I
> contribute to the cause, which surprises a lot of people.
> Their reporting is pretty good. It's the commentary that's
> decidedly to the left, although they do it in a rather
> quiet, smug manner, so people who are accustomed to rants
> barely notice it.

Though I know exactly what you mean, I think you are also
projecting a bit there. They do the best job of trying to
give the news as is humanly possible, but humans have
feelings and opinions that tend to have a tone no matter
what they are talking about. I agree in that it seems the
reportes themselves are mostly left leaning, which is the
sace with most US media it seems, and that can come through,
but they do the best job by FAR of not allowing personal
opinions to clowed their reporting. Some times I am amazed
how they dont allow their emtions to get involved with the
people they interview, such as a David Duke Interview I
heard the other day.

>
> For that matter, I think Fox News is pretty good about
> accurate reporting and bringing forth the issues, but their
> commentary runs to the right of my personal views. The panel
> discussions are pretty civilized and have a range of views,
> but Hannity & Colmes *both* annoy the shit out of me, and
> O'Reilly is too interested in bolstering his own ego.

Agreed, and hes an ignorant person. Well informed people with
big egos I can some times enjoy even when I dont agree with
them, but ignorant idiots with big egos I cant deal with.

>
> I like to watch, read, and listen to a collection of media
> outlets. What fascinates me the most is not what given
> sources put out front, but rather, what they *fail* to
> mention.

Good way of putting it "And now for the rest of the story"

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Will Brink]

In article <mp48531dip1sfp9vsi7at07fe1obln9mpk@4ax.com>,
noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:

> On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:51:44 -0400, willbrink@comcast.net
> (Will Brink) wrote: snip
> >> I can't wait to see Sicko. I think Moore is FAR more
> >> reliable in terms of information that he provides than
> >> that drug-addled Limbaugh could ever be. He just makes
> >> shit up. But full of shit--I agree with you there on
> >> Limbaugh. I disagree with regard to Moore.
> >
> >Moore is ever bit as full of crap as Limbaugh, and I hate
> >Limbaugh. Moore has been exposed many times. They are both
> >the worst possible examples of the right and the left.
>
> I understand your view and I disagree.

Moore does no favors to the liberal causes, and that's a fact.
He fabricates much of what ends up in his "documentaries" and
that too has been exposed many times. Liberals should reject
Moore as conservatives should reject Limbaugh, but the enemy
of my enemy is my friend syndrome wins every time.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Dz]

GMCarter wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> JMW wrote:
>>>> International corporations are not required to conform to
>>>> your ideals of social justice. If they were, investors
>>>> would pull out, investment would take a dive, and *there
>>>> would be no AIDS drugs*.
>>>
>>> That's the lie we have been fed for decades. In fact, MOST
>>> of the AIDS drugs were developed by the NIH, univeristies
>>> or small companies.
>>
>> Depends on what is meant by develop. Let's take an example,
>> abacavir. Did University of Minnesota and government
>> scientists (http://pmid.us/2847711) develop this drug?
>
> Interesting if somewhat vague question.

The reason I replied is because I thought "MOST of the AIDS
drugs were developed..." was vague enough to be misleading.
But to be more specific, I was getting at the fact that
abacavir is not the same molecule as carbovir, and there are
reasons (at least not entirely related to patenting) to use it
instead, even though abacavir metabolizes to carbovir in the
body. Big companies have much more resources (1) to do the
compound screening to find safer and more effective
derivatives, based on the original idea; and (2) put the
results through expensive clinical trials. Now, in cases like
that I would agree with you that it is sensible to demand that
since research and some of the inventions involved were in
part funded through taxpayers money, a part of the profits
should be returned back - perhaps in the form of lower cost
for medicines, if taxpayers so demand.

With regard to your question about my relations with big
pharma - I'm "firmly grounded" outside corporations. Right now
not only me but my family are not allowed by law to have any
financial relations with this industry. We can't even own
stock in pharma companies. But many people with concern about
science do not consider such situation a good thing.

When profits are high, and the public opinion of the "big
evil" companies is not too low, big pharma is able to attract
talented researchers by providing a nearly academic
environment. But that's not easy because there is still a
stereotype in the sci community that if someone is employed in
a company, it is because they didn't have the brains to do
well outside. I think you'd find it hard to believe that
peer-review process for example is considered by many who work
in industry heavily biased against them just because of the
affiliation. Reviewers, who are most of the time anonymous,
have a lot of say. I do 2-3 of those each month for diverse
journals (it's probably because my "expertise" is considered
mostly statistical) and like everyone I personally know, I
cannot be pushed around by an editor :-) or be coerced into
giving any favorable opinions. In many journals, one so-so
review means rejection without a possibility to resubmit.

So, at the moment some pharma researchers seem to be trying to
jump the ship. Strangely, government and academia would
sometimes match the industry salaries, and all in all, the
outlook for new research done in companies doesn't look too
good. An interesting quote from pharma CEO which I don't think
sounds encouraging for say a young graduate who is undecided
where to go -

"Of the 15 pharma companies that have a significant role in
the world, only a handful will remain," Garnier said in an
interview to be published on Friday. "Hardly any of the large
companies are in the position right now to invest enough money
into research," Garnier continued - http://www.lse.co.uk/Fina-
nceNews.asp?shareprice=&ArticleRef=38995

[Will Brink]

In article <8jj853diaeaoi88gcgamo8b31i2iur45ch@4ax.com>,
noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:

> On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:51:01 -0400, willbrink@comcast.net
> (Will Brink) wrote:
>
> >In article <mp48531dip1sfp9vsi7at07fe1obln9mpk@4ax.com>,
> >noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:51:44 -0400, willbrink@comcast.net
> >> (Will Brink) wrote: snip
> >> >> I can't wait to see Sicko. I think Moore is FAR more
> >> >> reliable in terms of information that he provides than
> >> >> that drug-addled Limbaugh could ever be. He just makes
> >> >> shit up. But full of shit--I agree with you there on
> >> >> Limbaugh. I disagree with regard to Moore.
> >> >
> >> >Moore is ever bit as full of crap as Limbaugh, and I
> >> >hate Limbaugh. Moore has been exposed many times. They
> >> >are both the worst possible examples of the right and
> >> >the left.
> >>
> >> I understand your view and I disagree.
> >
> >Moore does no favors to the liberal causes, and that's a
> >fact. He fabricates much of what ends up in his
> >"documentaries" and that too has been exposed many times.
>
> That may be true but I really have to ask you for some back
> up for these assertions, if you have the time to provide a
> few. I'd appreciate it.

It's easy enough to find on the 'net. For example, the
documentary entitled Manufacturing Dissent was made by two
film makers who were huge fans of his, until they actually
started to look into his "facts":

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/175838/tables_turned-
_on_michael_moore_in_new.html

He fabricated many facts for all of his "documentaries" which
are works of fiction:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32217

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenhe-
it-911.htm

He makes entertaining works of fiction, but they are not
documentaries, and he's actually admitted to that several
times.Moore is a satirist, not journalist. I liked Roger and
Me, but also found out he did in fact meet with Roger but
dropped it from the film because he didnt think it had the
daramatic effect he wanted... He has a personal agenda and
does not mind inventing things to push that agenda.

>
> Recent reviews of "Sicko" - his latest film - don't seem to
> suggest he made anything up.
>
> George M. Carter

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Will Brink]

In article <2hv853tuj4min1ueomhmktfbafhm3uj5eb@4ax.com>,
noway@nowherenospam.com wrote:
>
> Tho the first one doesn't indicate much

Then rent the Vid and see what you think. They were big
fans of his and did not start out at all to make an anti
Moore movie.

--the one example so far of
> deception is here: "His career was launched by the
> documentary Roger and Me, released in 1989 and detailing his
> unsuccessful efforts to talk with Roger Smith, then chairman
> of General Motors. The only problem was, as Manufacturing
> Dissent points out, Moore did successfully meet with Smith.
> He decided to leave out the footage for the final cut in an
> editorial decision."

And he made an entire movie based on the fact the man would
not meet with him, that's not documentary film making, that's
a work of fiction and entertainment. If you can't see the
difference, you are too far gone for any help here.

> So sorry--I think some of the criticisms are undoubtedly
> valid and can weaken the case Moore tries to make--but they
> are an order of magnitude--or several--away from the
> outright fabrications and lies of a Limbaugh.

That is striclty a subjective wish on your part. Moore pulls
things out of his ass to support his agenda and Limbaugh does
the same thing.

> Eh--I'm sure that won't change your view. But I'm not
> convinced.

I didn't; expect you to be. Dig into if the topic if
interested. Matters not to me. Very few consider him a serious
journalist or documentary film maker and his works of fiction
and inventing facts are well documented.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Dz]

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> But that's not easy because there is still a stereotype in
>> the sci community that if someone is employed in a company,
>> it is because they didn't have the brains to do well
>> outside. I think you'd find it hard to believe that
>> peer-review process for example is considered by many who
>> work in industry heavily biased against them just because
>> of the affiliation.
>
> LOL...I find that to be the most ridiculous statement I've
> heard in ages. Peer review, as "expert panels have, is also
> being turned into a stinking pile marketing crap by it being
> staffed with well funded physicians who are more interested
> in selling drugs.

I'm always suspicious of someone saying that their manuscripts
are turned down because of who they are, but for the opposite
reason - that is, because based on my plentiful experience
with the system, I don't believe there is evidence of
corruption of the peer-review. There are many of grouchy,
pain-in-the-butt reviewers, but they have little incentive to
promote a particular publication.

>> An interesting quote from a pharma CEO which I don't think
>> sounds encouraging for say a young graduate who is
>> undecided where to go -
>>
>> "Of the 15 pharma companies that have a significant role in
>> the world, only a handful will remain," Garnier said in an
>> interview to be published on Friday. "Hardly any of the
>> large companies are in the position right now to invest
>> enough money into research," Garnier continued - http://ww-
>> w.lse.co.uk/FinanceNews.asp?shareprice=&ArticleRef=38995
>
> Garnier--yeah. The CEO of GSK. [...]

I posted this quote because of his prediction that the amount
of innovative research in pharmaceutical R&D will continue to
go down. Just the fact that this is being admitted is very
interesting. Not so long ago, pharma companies had departments
with academically sounding names like "Evolutionary Biology".
These people actually published papers on sequence phylogeny
in journals like Science, which had very little to do with
discovering drugs. But all those nerd refuges seem to be
disappearing.

[Dz]

Will Brink <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote:
> He fabricated many facts for all of his "documentaries"
> which are works of fiction:
> http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32217

I have nothing to say about Moore, but try these searches
on google:

site:worldnetdaily.com (darwin OR darwinism OR evolution)
site:worldnetdaily.com "evolution watch"

[Will Brink]

In article <78M4i.26$9%.25@newsfe12.lga>, "ATP*"
<waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote:

> >
> NPR has a lot of conservative voices on. It has become a
> very significant news outlet, as evidenced by the quality of
> their Washington guests. I find them to be a bit biased
> toward whiny victims, however, and sometimes I just have to
> shut it off.

Well you know they love the "human" stuff, which means getting
the views of them whiny victims. Some times it works well and
some times it does not, I agree.

>I wish they had more BBC programming on and less "human
>interest" crap.

Well it is NPR and not the BBC, even though the BBC is on
several hours per day, 9am - 10am EST and several other times
during the day I believe. Listening to it right now in fact.
You can always just stream BBC if that's what you want to
listen to. I enjoy some of the human interest stuff when its
well done, which it often is.

> Even so, it's the best radio in this section of the country.

It's the best radio for obective news in the US period.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:13:54 +0000 (UTC), DZ
<27671@194178972.619523738.160.11596.32158> wrote:

>GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> But that's not easy because there is still a stereotype in
>>> the sci community that if someone is employed in a
>>> company, it is because they didn't have the brains to do
>>> well outside. I think you'd find it hard to believe that
>>> peer-review process for example is considered by many who
>>> work in industry heavily biased against them just because
>>> of the affiliation.
>>
>> LOL...I find that to be the most ridiculous statement I've
>> heard in ages. Peer review, as "expert panels have, is also
>> being turned into a stinking pile marketing crap by it
>> being staffed with well funded physicians who are more
>> interested in selling drugs.
>
>I'm always suspicious of someone saying that their
>manuscripts are turned down because of who they are, but for
>the opposite reason - that is, because based on my plentiful
>experience with the system, I don't believe there is evidence
>of corruption of the peer-review. There are many of grouchy,
>pain-in-the-butt reviewers, but they have little incentive to
>promote a particular publication.

The problem is if reviewers have also been physicians or
researchers who have received of the pernicious and pervasive
largesse of pharmaceutical companies. Aside from outright
dishonest ones who hide their assets and investments in
pharma, too many physicians these days are nicely in the
pocket of pharma. They THINK they can remain objective, but
the data refute this notion.

>>> An interesting quote from a pharma CEO which I don't think
>>> sounds encouraging for say a young graduate who is
>>> undecided where to go -
>>>
>>> "Of the 15 pharma companies that have a significant role
>>> in the world, only a handful will remain," Garnier said in
>>> an interview to be published on Friday. "Hardly any of the
>>> large companies are in the position right now to invest
>>> enough money into research," Garnier continued - http://w-
>>> ww.lse.co.uk/FinanceNews.asp?shareprice=&ArticleRef=38995
>>
>> Garnier--yeah. The CEO of GSK. [...]
>
>I posted this quote because of his prediction that the
>amount of innovative research in pharmaceutical R&D will
>continue to go down.

What do you think is reducing the new discovery process?

>Just the fact that this is being admitted is very
>interesting. Not so long ago, pharma companies had
>departments with academically sounding names like
>"Evolutionary Biology". These people actually published
>papers on sequence phylogeny in journals like Science, which
>had very little to do with discovering drugs. But all those
>nerd refuges seem to be disappearing.

Being replaced by more lobbyists for Congress, marketing
scumbags and others whose role is to do what Wall Street wants
them to do.

Sell more. Make more and MORE profit, month-over-month.

This is not a sane business model--it is a gasoline burning on
the gasoline of greed....and this destroys science, narrows
discovery pipelines, reduces innovation, creates ridiculous
patent wars between companies and high licensing fees that
further erode the capacity to undertake discovery--and result
in astronomical prices for shitty "new" drugs that aren't
compared to older, better characterized generics for fear that
the lack of difference will reduce profits.

And millions have died of AIDS because of that intense,
insane greed. Millions more suffer horribly from a range
of infections of little interest to the profit centers: NO
R&D in diseases like leishmaniasis or damned little in TB
and malaria.

Worse--the older antibioties are failing as infections like
MRSA spread.

When pharma ceased to have a CENTRAL mission of discovery and
serving human needs in order to wallow in the SHIT of profit
and the parasites of Wall Street, they became their own
antithesis--the bringers of suffering and death--while
stealing from grandmothers and uncles and children.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:26:50 +0000 (UTC), DZ
<18174@217533395.2992928720.21391.26421.23964> wrote:

>Actually, I'm aware of phase IV abacavir clinical trials
>extending to at least 2004. These were related to the
>hypersensitivity issue - an autoimmune reaction in ~5% of
>patients, presumably to a hapten that abacavir metabolites
>form with proteins. The side effect is serious, but might be
>predicted by a genetic profile. I don't know if the trials
>are still ongoing, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Carbovir being discovered by non-GSK individuals and then
being turned over to GSK...doesn't thrill my heart at all.

Yes, I'm very well aware of the hypersensitivity study. The
phase IV status seems a bit odd....and one wonders how many
other government funded studies GSK rested upon the laurels
of...and how many government kickbacks and rebates they
got....and what justifies the cost of the drug?

And once a hypersensitivity reaction occurs, people can
never use that drug again--people who have have died. It may
only be 5-8%, if the data can be trusted, but it is a very
serious reaction.

The hypersensitivity study appears to be ongoing--so they can
figure a way to sell more drug--not save patients from this
debilitating side effect, sadly. And in not so many people:
"This retrospective Phase IV case-control study will enroll 40
black and 40 white individuals with abacavir hypersensitivity
and 200 black and 200 white abacavirtolerant control subjects
(the gene occurs with varying frequency in different
racial/ethnic populations)." See
http://www.sfaf.org/beta/2007_win/clinical_trials.html and
http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00340080

How 480 people is adequate for "phase IV" status is rather
astonishing, isn't it? Are these ONLY among users of the
bundled Trizivir? Does abacavir have other adverse effects on
neuropathy or aspects of lipodystrophy? Or is GSK a "sell" now
and who cares about those questions any more?

One wonders what interest GSK also has in the cost of the
HLA-B*5701 screening test....

Meanwhile, they keep shoving rosiglitazone down anyone's
throat they can get it into, regardless of the cardiac risks.
So treatment decisions are again rooted in profit, not the
best outcome for the patient nor on the best information that
balances risks against actual benefit.

George M. Carter

[Dz]

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> The reason I replied is because I thought "MOST of the AIDS
>> drugs were developed..." was vague enough to be misleading.
>> But to be more specific, I was getting at the fact that
>> abacavir is not the same molecule as carbovir, and there
>> are reasons (at least not entirely related to patenting) to
>> use it instead, even though abacavir metabolizes to
>> carbovir in the body.
>
> The relevance of the example is weak at best.

This example is directly related to the question "who
developed the drug"? In this case, the molecule that led to
abacavir, but not abacavir itself, was developed by a team of
university and government scientists. Yet I've seen this
example cited as a case where the drug itself was developed
outside the pharma. So a more appropriate statement in this
case would be that the carbovir team contributed to the
development of abacavir.

> But more specifically, the small amount of clinical research
> they did was based only on Trizivir--a drug containing three
> ARVs---all interestingly owned by GSK! And a rather toxic,
> nasty combo.

Actually, I'm aware of phase IV abacavir clinical trials
extending to at least 2004. These were related to the
hypersensitivity issue - an autoimmune reaction in ~5% of
patients, presumably to a hapten that abacavir metabolites
form with proteins. The side effect is serious, but might be
predicted by a genetic profile. I don't know if the trials are
still ongoing, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[Ash]

...actually, the term "gay" or "homosexual" is a fairly new
thing... it's believed that the "effeminate" stereotype of gay
men was probably the result of one of history's first "out"
and "flamboyant" men--Oscar Wilde... before that, it was
referred to as "the other love", or not really discussed at
all. Sex between men was a common practice, and not one that
was particularly looked down upon. Lots of strong men did
it--but it was understood to be about power (check out
Halperin's "History of Sexuality") and it wasn't seen as
threatening to the patriarchy...so, I understand where people
are going here, and I appreciate it...but it is actually a
fairly recent social construct to demonize homosexuals as a
group and go after them.

[Kcmunchkin]

On May 24, 7:07 am, GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> One wonders what interest GSK also has in the cost of the
> HLA-B*5701 screening test....

can't answer that one, but i can tell you what interest glaxo
(wellcome...smithkline...whatever) has in its heavy-handed
"suggestions" to docs (read: how may panera boxed lunches does
your office need today...will 112 do?) that everyone on the
planet...breakout or no...should be prescribed valtrex rather
than zovirax.

who cares that clinical trials showed no significant
difference in patients treated with acyclovir relative to
those treated with valcyclovir.

who cares that valtrex is just acyclovir bound to l-valine?

who cares that valtrex is converted to plain'ol acyclovir on
first pass.

who cares that valtrex costs $358 for 30 tabs (1 gm) rather
than $55 for 90 tabs (800 mgs) of acyclovir...

...wait just second...gsk cares!

[Prisoner A]

On May 23, 12:17 pm, "kcmunch...@gmail.com"
<kcmunch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 10:01 pm, Prisoner at War
> <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And, also, has Schwarzenegger ever done supplement
> > endorsements himself?
>
> he endorsed the short-lived Purepower line of
> supplements...HUGE was the weight gainer based on supro soy
> proteing...MetaMax was the metabolol competitor back in the
> days when metabolol and champion were a big deal. i think it
> was a Nature's Way line...don't remember how long it lasted
> on the shelves...maybe three years at the most.
>
> this was in the late 80's. i just saw an ad the other day in
> one of my old mags.

Oh, cool! Okay, so it was always like this, eh.

In "Pumping Iron" there's a scene where Arnold's doing a
photoshoot with girls all over him, apparently advertising one
of them old-timey bendable coil contraptions for the chest.

Do you have any info on his and Frank Columbu's construction
business? They owned a cement company or something, something
related to construction...what did all them guys do? Those
were the days when folks believed in training every day for
hours and hours at a time, morning and night! So I wonder how
they made their living -- not to mention paying for all those
drugs and having the money to travel to contests and shows!

[Dz]

kcmunchkin@gmail.com wrote:
> GMCarter wrote:
>> One wonders what interest GSK also has in the cost of the
>> HLA-B*5701 screening test....
>
> can't answer that one, but i can tell you what interest
> glaxo (wellcome...smithkline...whatever) has in its
> heavy-handed "suggestions" to docs

It's not easy to say - about the HLA that is :-) The
population frequency of people with 1 or 2 copies of that
haplotype is around 6%, and so even if it were highly
predictive, it would account for only a small proportion of
population at risk. It was found to be highly predictive in
Australian (Caucasian) population, but less so among the US
Caucasians. My estimate, from published data, is that the
probability of hypersensitivity given that a person carries 1
or 2 copies of that haplotype is between 0.2 and 0.65 (it's a
Bayesian interval). Is that good enough to justify its usage?
There could be more precise tests based on a combination of
genes (not just HLA) predictive of both hypersensitivity and
the absence of it, but all these combinations would be
relatively infrequent.