Biodynamics is a Hoax

It amuses me to no end to hear an actual Norwegian (usually drunkenly) declare, and it's better at high volume, "I am a wiking." The whole V for W pronunciation thing is charming.
 
Of all the stupid shit I've said [while|after] drinking, that's not one of them. Better add it to the oeuvre. I'd hate to lose touch with the fatherland.
 
originally posted by Thor:
Of all the stupid shit I've said [while|after] drinking, that's not one of them. Better add it to the oeuvre. I'd hate to lose touch with the fatherland.
Click to expand...

It's a classic! And you've got that whole thunderbolt thing to back it up with.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Wasn't Thor (not ours) a member of the American League of Justice.
Click to expand...

Not to be pedantic, but that would be the Justice League of America.

And no, Thor was not a member (you're thinking of the Avengers).
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Maybe not the tooth fairy, but I've long believed in Tinker Bell. Here is my evidence:

1)As is well-known, Tinker Bell has a tendency toward near death experiences in the vicinity of theaters. The only cure for her is to applaud.

2)Tinker Bell's recuperation always causes actors to express gratification and happiness.

3)Whenever I become aware of uncoming Tinker Bell illness in the vicinity of a theatrical performance, at any quiet moment, I applaud warmly to revive her.

4)Upon Tink's recuperation, actors always then express gratification and happiness.

QED.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about?
Click to expand...

You mean you aren't persuaded? Shouldn't you at least show some humility in rejecting the argument?
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Y'know, first I thought Avengers; but then I thought, naa, that's the British show with Diana Riggs. Should've looked it up.
Click to expand...

If only the new Avengers movie will have some Emma Peel. Instead, we will probably have Antman.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
You mean you aren't persuaded? Shouldn't you at least show some humility in rejecting the argument?
Click to expand...

I mean I can't make sense out of what you've written, in the context of the discussion underway. But it's not the first time, so I'll practice some acceptance. Humble enough?

For other old-timers, I'm just curious, is this what having a discussion with Steve Plotnicki was like?
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
You mean you aren't persuaded? Shouldn't you at least show some humility in rejecting the argument?
Click to expand...

I mean I can't make sense out of what you've written, in the context of the discussion underway. But it's not the first time, so I'll practice some acceptance. Humble enough?

For other old-timers, I'm just curious, is this what having a discussion with Steve Plotnicki was like?
Click to expand...

I suppose it's pointless because you tell me you didn't understand again but:

1)I claimed that the arguments for biodynamics could be used to prove the existence of the tooth fairy. To be more precise, I'd say that all of them tended to be versions of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

2)You disagreed.

3) I produced an argument in favor of Tinker Bell, not the tooth fairy I admit, resting on a version of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If you can't follow this, I'd be happy to respond to specific questions about sentences you can't parse.

In the case of Plotniki, as someone who has some experience, I have my own view of who is who.
 
Suppose on, Jonathan, till truth make all things plain.

I enjoyed your ditty about Tinker Bell, but it doesn't appear to be relevant to the discussion on BD. Go ahead and tie it up, if you feel like it.
 
originally posted by Seth Hill:
In Firefox, pressing the "control" and "+" will increase size. "command" and "+" on a Mac.
Click to expand...
Also, in FireFox, if you have a mouse with a wheel, just hold down the Ctrl key and spin the wheel.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Gents, Let's Keep It Friendly.
Click to expand...

Oh god, does that mean I have to kiss Jonathan now?

Seriously, Jonathan, let's take our discussion off-line. We seem to have some difficulty finding common ground and are probably boring the readership. Drop me a line on the side and I'll do my best, within reason, to give you satisfaction.

Sorry about the Plotnicki comment - that was a cheap shot.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
No defense of biodynamics on this thread couldn't be offered, pari passu, for the tooth fairy.
Click to expand...

This strikes me as a bit of over-statement, Jonathan.
Some aspects of BD--treatment of soils with a microbial inoculant to promote an enhanced nutritional cycling, treatment of living organisms with plant extracts to ward off infection, even the idea of the lunar cycle affecting living things--all enjoy some level of acceptance within the scientific community at large.

Whether BD practices as prescribed by Steiner, Thun, Podolinsky, etc bring about the changes claimed is a notion worth investigating.
But there is at least some possibility that the protocols can have a beneficial impact on a piece of farmed land without contravening the known laws of the universe.

Regards,
 
originally posted by Bruce G.:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
No defense of biodynamics on this thread couldn't be offered, pari passu, for the tooth fairy.
Click to expand...

This strikes me as a bit of over-statement, Jonathan.
Some aspects of BD--treatment of soils with a microbial inoculant to promote an enhanced nutritional cycling, treatment of living organisms with plant extracts to ward off infection, even the idea of the lunar cycle affecting living things--all enjoy some level of acceptance within the scientific community at large.

Whether BD practices as prescribed by Steiner, Thun, Podolinsky, etc bring about the changes claimed is a notion worth investigating.
But there is at least some possibility that the protocols can have a beneficial impact on a piece of farmed land without contravening the known laws of the universe.

Regards,
Click to expand...

I'm not a biologist and I'm willing to cede to experimental results (preferably with a link so I can read them), but I remember a claim like yours about soil being fairly vigorously contested on a thread on the erstwhile version of the Parker board (with links to accounts of experiments). I don't remember any discussion of lunar cycle experiments nor anything I would call serious protocols used to control claims about lunar cycles.

This board and numbers of others contain people with pretty fair knowledge of biochemistry and geology. Please, someone who knows, tell me I'm wrong. I won't promise I won't follow up with quibbles and pestiferous questions of the kind I tormented people with over Euro futures until I can figure out the claims. But really if they are serious ones, someone can lay them out with reasonable responses to the kinds of doubts that will get expressed.

The level of discussion on the thread, as I said above, referred to post hoc ergo proper hoc statements, especially at the level of, it produces good wines so there must be something to it, or even, I use it and it works. And my point was, and remains, that with post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, one can prove a lot of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top