The links I gave did indeed give the articles I mentioned:-

http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake
 
http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/an-exercise-in-vitriol-rather
 
http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/gary-taubes-tries-to-overwhelm

That is, unless your computer is too primitive to allow the rendition of those words into print. Incidentally, you used the word "redacted" not "dedacted" in your previous message to the last one. At any rate, my own, very primitive, PC shows the relevant words of those articles very clearly, so I am a bit surprised that anyone else could claim that they did not exist, that is, unless there is a mor

e obvious explanation thereof.

Geoff.







> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:48:37 -0600
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Salt, We Misjudged You
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> Geoffy, so you want to argue with me on semantics rather than addressing 
> the problem.  If you don't know what I mean, then let me say that the 
> links you gave do not have the articles to which you refer--not as in 
> deleted, but as in crossed out/removed/missing.  Sorry that it 
> apparently offends you that I used the word dedacted, that there are too 
> many interpretations for you to understand my meaning.  The criticism of 
> Taubes may or may not be appropriate, I simply implied that your 
> suggestion that he has a negative reputation with nothing to justify 
> that comment but a childish smiley face hardly justifies your comments.  
> Perhaps you could shed some light by sending links which have the 
> appropriate information and then we could decide for ourselves if Taubes 
> is credible  or not and perhaps even share in your snide humor.
> 
> carol