Rex:

> 1) Any time I (me) try to add the quality concept to a discussion,
> two individuals fight each other (figuratively) to see who can first
> rush in and stop the 'heresy'. Check the names of the posters who
> almost always immediately respond to my posts and this pattern
> should be quite obvious.

No one denies that quality is important, but why can't you accept that
it is not the ONLY important factor?

\begin{wild claim}
SAD is not unhealthy. People have cholesterol because they eat
unhealthy animals but cows raised on high-Brix grass have a better
fatty-acid profile. By the way, I don't believe in the theory of
cholesterol because all studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies
that sell cholesterol-lowering drugs.

Cancer shouldn't occur if people ate high-quality foods, because they
are rich in anti-oxidants.

Nutritional deficiencies shouldn't exist, even with ultra-cooked,
refined foods, because high-quality foods are so nutrient-rich that
there is always enough left.
\end{wild claim}

Please note that the above is not a sarcasm, but just an illustration
on how far one can go on the subject.

> 2) Some weeks back a young man was literally hounded off this forum
> because he had other ideas than those posited by the high-post
> champs of the list.

He left because
 *he didn't want to hear about anything that is not pro-100% raw vegetarian.
 *he didn't like being challenged.


--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>