From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Mar 12 2004 - 19:11:26 GMT
Hi
Man from UK asks what soccer moms are?
thanks
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Poot" <mattpoot@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: MD Beyond
> Jon(?) Well I guess you would have to include oxygen to that list of
> things we cannot rid ourselves of. Oxygen is actually a metabolic
> poison. It's a corrosive gas, like fluorine, which is used to etch
> glass. Oxygen was first produced as *a waste product* by certain plant
> cells
>
> Poot: Yes I am aware of this. However there is a fundamental
> difference between free radicals, and environmental estrogens. Quite
> different. Platt remarked that this should not be here, because it
> seemingly does not have to do with quality, but I propose that it does,
> just not in the metaphysical way. So, if that be the case, then it
> won't belong here. I will not get into specifics, and use more
> metaphysical terms, to some other end.
>
>
> You also speak of the apparent 'freaking out' of 'people' at discovering
> the bacteria, which are in a symbiotic relationship with the human
> body's wellness (directly affecting the quality of thought, via the
> brain. Now, this presumption, that you know of what I speak
> (environmental estrogens) :
>
> Jon : Man lives in a sea of bacteria. They are everywhere--on the skin,
> in the ears and mouth, lungs and stomach. *Don't* be scared by your
> science report. Everything we own, touch, and breathe is drenched in
> bacteria. We've adapted together and most of the time work for mutual
> benefit. It has more in common with capitalism than socialism, but I
> regress. Only a small percentage of bacteria produce human disease, the
> rest are harmless or beneficial. So relax. We adapt. What's in the air
> isn't killing us any more than oxygen is.
>
> Poot:This is very true, however, completely different from what I speak
> of. I think, and I am sure that we can agree on this, that the physical
> health of the body, has a most direct, and important role in brain
> healthiness, which directly supports higher intellectual (spiritual as
> well???) activity. And, if you will wait to see, life expectancy of a
> largely growing percentage of population, will decrease , due , not to
> lack of medical or pharmaceutical (I dont even take pills for my cold,
> because it weakens the immune system) technological advancement , but
> other factors such as diet (relating to moderation and economy)
>
>
> Jon: And humans are healthier, stronger, more developed, and live longer
> than EVER before in history--this simply flies in the face of those who
> say humanity is killing itself. And we *don't* need to rid our bodies of
> all those things you mentioned--they actually contribute to a strong
> immune system.
>
> I wish radical environmentalists wouldn't be so hostile to opinions that
> don't absolutely agree with their own.
>
>
> Poot: I do not consider myself to be a 'radical environmentalist' , but
> rather, someone who is a proponent of economy, and and proportion.
> Economy, not pertaining to financial terms, but the true meaning of the
> word. Here is what I found in the dictionary:
>
> Economy:
> 1.. Careful, thrifty management of resources, such as money,
> materials, or labor: learned to practice economy in making out the
> household budget.
>
>
>
> Now(back to the suv :), in what sense would you hold suv's to be
> economic? As I said, unless they are fully utilized , then they are ,
> in fact, anti-economic. What is the purpose of such a vehicle, after
> subracting its lack of precision, economy, etc.? I do not intend to
> say that suv's are quality devoid, but it is just not good practice to
> use them in current fashion (excess). I mean, do you really need a
> vehicle that uses 10 times the amount of fuel, and larger amounts of raw
> materials, and labour to produce, for 1 person to use, simply because
> they have the financial means to do so? It is simply not feasible, on a
> planet of 6 + billion people, to continue to waste to the point of
> extreme excess.
>
>
> "He singled out aspects of Quality such as unity, vividness, authority,
> economy, sensitivity, clarity, emphasis, flow, suspense, brilliance,
> precision, proportion, depth, and so on..." ZMM Pg 186 (this quote
> doesnt really affirm or prove anything, but is for consideration)
>
> Jon: Soccer moms DO have Quality, the kind that makes America Dynamic,
> and that point DOES belong here
>
>
> Poot: I don't believe I said that soccermoms DON'T have quality. I say
> that they promote inequality. Which, is "" bad "" in my books.
>
> Also, if you think of what I have written as not relating to the MoQ,
> then consider this: Our actions, are a direct reflection of our
> mindsets.
>
>
> Matt Poot
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 12 2004 - 19:17:27 GMT