[QUOTE=retina;414026]My point is how can you believe what they claim when they use the "human DNA" thing to try and show something amiss? It suggests they use the same flawed reasoning to "show" there is pig/horse/cat/whatever meat in whatever they want to discredit at the time.[/QUOTE]

I was trying to grant a wish in this necropost support group thread, not beat a dead horse or drum up whatever you seem to be complaining about.
Here is the damn report. They don't look particularly muckraking to me but I don't care either way:
[url]http://www.clearfood.com/food_reports/2015/the_hotdog_report[/url]

[QUOTE=retina;414017]Get a better browser, or change your settings, or something.[/QUOTE]
Nothing to change, we are good, thanks. We use the last FF with blacklist plugin, any click or activity that would take us to a site in the list is ignored. All sites that consume our time with popups, crap, "click here to see how this lady did what she did", or "are you sure you want to leave this page", etc, or which find us in bad mood, end up in the list, i.e. they will never be accessed again, regardless of who and what tries to lure us into doing it. We don't fill sorry at all for putting CNN into this list.

[QUOTE=only_human;413973]I have nothing against the not-yet-existing-economic-system of perfect capitalism.
I don't know what perfect capitalism is though.
...
It's nice to dream about things working well.
[URL="http://www.afr.com/technology/cloud-computing/embrace-perfect-capitalism-or-face-disaster-physicist-predicts-20140414-ix56n"]...[/URL]
Perhaps my beef is that meat is ending up in vegetarian hot dogs.

If people just understood the rules and followed them correctly, that wouldn't happen right?[/QUOTE]

OK

We're getting somewhere, I now get your points, I think. Here's my response:

(1) There are rules, even (I would say only) under capitalism.

(2) ONLY under capitalism are the rules rational and understandable.

(3) So YES to "if people ... right?" ... that would, barring accidents, get you your truly veggie hot dogs.

(4) We can only HEAD TOWARDS perfect capitalism if (a) we regard it as a goal, and (b) we can clearly define it.

(5) THEREFORE: Before you knock capitalism, we mustn't just decry the faults in our current imperfect version of it,
we must suggest solutions IN THE CONTEXT of capitalism as it could be.

[QUOTE=davar55;415338]OK

We're getting somewhere, I now get your points, I think. Here's my response:

(1) There are rules, even (I would say only) under capitalism.

(2) ONLY under capitalism are the rules rational and understandable.

(3) So YES to "if people ... right?" ... that would, barring accidents, get you your truly veggie hot dogs.

(4) We can only HEAD TOWARDS perfect capitalism if (a) we regard it as a goal, and (b) we can clearly define it.

(5) THEREFORE: Before you knock capitalism, we mustn't just decry the faults in our current imperfect version of it,
we must suggest solutions IN THE CONTEXT of capitalism as it could be.[/QUOTE]
Would these rules help?[QUOTE]As long as a person is of sufficient intelligence, he can be included in the minyan, even if he is unable to respond to the prayers which make the presence of ten a necessity. According to some sources, this is because as long as ten are gathered the Divine Presence descends and it is feasible to pronounce a Dvar she'bekedusha. This includes someone who is in the middle of his prayers but is precluded from responding to the hazzan’s incantations and someone who is mute but can hear the prayers. (Someone who is deaf but has the ability and knows when to respond can also be included.) There is however a dispute regarding someone who is asleep or intoxicated. Such a person has sufficient intelligence, but at present can neither hear or respond. Ideally he should be woken to the extent that he is dozing, but in extraneous circumstances where it impossible to arouse him, it is permitted to include the maximum of one sleeping person in the minyan. In the case of a drunkard, the accepted view is that even if he has not reached the “drunkenness of Lot”, he still cannot be included. A minimum of six of those gathered in the minyan have a duty to listen attentively and respond appropriately to the additional prayers and that at least nine are required to respond for the repetition of the Amidah.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;415370]Would these rules help?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure which one of us isn't listening.

[QUOTE=davar55;415398]I'm not sure which one of us isn't listening.[/QUOTE]
I dispute all five points that you assert in the recent message. You are prattling dross.

When I was in Hong Kong a couple of years before the British handover I ended up in a primarily Filipino church one day and listened to a couple of hours of monologue about why their church was the only church of Jesus Christ. Strangely your economic opinions remind me strongly of that day.

Was I not properly listening then, or now?

[QUOTE=only_human;415401]I dispute all five points that you assert in the recent message. You are prattling dross.
When I was in Hong Kong a couple of years before the British handover I ended up in a primarily Filipino church one day and listened to a couple of hours of monologue about why their church was the only church of Jesus Christ. Strangely your economic opinions remind me strongly of that day.
Was I not properly listening then, or now?[/QUOTE]
I did allow for the possibility that it was I who wasn't listening carefully enough.
But labeling my comments prattle is perhaps going way too far.
How do we continue a discussion of capitalism in a thread we began differently.
I think I'll wish for a "reset" of this part of the discussion, and suggest I consider
placing my five points you dispute into the other thread.
Sorry if you thought I was accusing you of "not listening", you're being reasonable.

[QUOTE=davar55;415416]I did allow for the possibility that it was I who wasn't listening carefully enough.
But labeling my comments prattle is perhaps going way too far.
How do we continue a discussion of capitalism in a thread we began differently.
I think I'll wish for a "reset" of this part of the discussion, and suggest I consider
placing my five points you dispute into the other thread.
Sorry if you thought I was accusing you of "not listening", you're being reasonable.[/QUOTE]
I acknowledge and accept both the apology and that me calling your comments prattle was unnecessarily harsh.

I further commend your message here and in the capitalism thread that directly reply to the issues that I mentioned.

I grant your wish for a reset and additionally thank you for understanding that I would want the capitalism discussions in the more relevant thread.

Finally Brian made some valid observations about your thought provoking and discussion motivating actions.

I've also reviewed my own actions according to the Soapbox guidelines that I promoted and will try harder to act in their intended spirit.

[QUOTE=only_human;415417]I acknowledge and accept both the apology and that me calling your comments prattle was unnecessarily harsh.

I further commend your message here and in the capitalism thread that directly reply to the issues that I mentioned.

I grant your wish for a reset and additionally thank you for understanding that I would want the capitalism discussions in the more relevant thread.

Finally Brian made some valid observations about your thought provoking and discussion motivating actions.

I've also reviewed my own actions according to the Soapbox guidelines that I promoted and will try harder to act in their intended spirit.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. Would that some of the others were as reasonable.

[QUOTE=davar55;415725]Thanks. Would that some of the others were as reasonable.[/QUOTE]
Not obligatory. Wish not granted. (accept, retry, ignore)?

Are any of the others acting in the specific role of Soapbox moderator?
Did you directly apologize to anyone but me?

Did you realize that an apology that says "sorry if you thought" or "sorry if you misunderstood" or anything similar is a poor apology?

Are you aware that I especially dislike criticism of people who are not already in a specific conversation as they may not have a chance to notice or reply? I also dislike cheap-shot criticism or inaccurate criticisms that will drags things out if I micro-manage anthing to that level of detail.

Cool your jets Turbo.

[QUOTE=only_human;415742]Not obligatory. Wish not granted. (accept, retry, ignore)?
Are any of the others acting in the specific role of Soapbox moderator?
Did you directly apologize to anyone but me?
Did you realize that an apology that says "sorry if you thought" or "sorry if you misunderstood" or anything similar is a poor apology?
Are you aware that I especially dislike criticism of people who are not already in a specific conversation as they may not have a chance to notice or reply? I also dislike cheap-shot criticism or inaccurate criticisms that will drags things out if I micro-manage anthing to that level of detail.
Cool your jets Turbo.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't a wish, it was a regret. For the past.