Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 8 Dec 1997 23:02:23 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
At 08:19 PM 12/8/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Gene! :) We were talking about an ENEMA. Look it up.
>Since your reply is all about what humans could consume
>It would be logical to assume that you do not know what
>an enema is.
>
>Gene wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Bill Wilcox wrote:
>> > Mary wrote:
>> > > What is the paleo view of colonics ..
>> > Doesn't sound very paleolithic to me. How would a
>> > caveman do an enema?
>> The problem I have with this answer is the logical fallacy
>> it utilizes. It implies that *only* things that paleolithic
>> human *could* consume without technology are permitted.
Your logic is once again flawed. Because I replied in terms
of consuming, which *does* happen in the course of an enema
:-), it does not logically follow that I did not know the
definition of "enema".
My comments were merely aimed at using the "caveman" test to
determine if anything is good for us. Since *MOST* of what we
talk about here is about what we consume, I addressed my reply
in those terms.
The "caveman" test to determine something is *NOT* paleo is
equally invalid regardless of the orifice into which you are
inserting things.
Gene
|
|
|