[Note: This was written, and originally sent to Peter directly, on
April 16, so it's a bit dated in at least one spot.  I'm posting it
to the list a Peter's request.  --Carol]

> Peter:
> >> How can you disregard the possibility that we might be looking at a
> >> serious flaw in his character? :)
>
> Carol:
> >I prefer to look for miscommunications and misunderstandings as the
> >source of trouble.
>
> You sound like a newly graduated social worker on a mission to save
> the "misunderstood" and "rejected" of the world. :)

I hate social workers! :D
[Not my most well-considered statement,
but not far from the truth, either.]

> However, if you remain on this list long enough, you will find that
> no matter how politely, civilly and courteously you bend yourself out
> of shape in attempting to accommodate the more communicatively
> challenged among us such gestures get snowballed and steamrolled
> with such a consistency that I think you will start to doubt their
> good intentions and recognize them for the extremists they are.

This list?  Heck -- the world!  But I still think that it is best to
start by giving people the benefit of the doubt.  If I always stuck
to my initial impressions of people, I'd still think you were just
a bitter and humorless grouch. ;)

> My experience has been that diet fanatics have no real interest in
> constructive dialog and probably feel threatened by it.

Well, yeah... Fanatics of all sorts are like that, aren't they?  Folks
just love to get all enmeshed with their favorite ideas in such a way
that a question or doubt hits them like a personal insult.

> Carol:
> >I can see the humor, but I'm serious about the possibility that Alan
> >didn't realize how he was coming across (though I should hope he's
> >got an inkling NOW).
>
> Here you go again with your bleeding liberal heart. :)

:D  If you only knew...

> He is too righteous to care much how he comes across.

Could be.

> Carol:
> >also think that part of bringing debate to a higher level is for all of
> >us to behave ourselves better when confronted with folks who annoy us.
>
> I used to subscribe to that philosophy.  I am now rougher around the
> edges and shoot to kill at first sight. :)

Imagine a list filled to the brim with such... enthusiasm.  Yeah,
there'd be a whole lot of rational dialog there! :D

> Carol:
> >I know people who talk in that know-it-all way all the time.  When I
> >confront such people about how annoying it is, I usually find that they
> >think that talking that way is just being assertive and standing up for
> >themselves.  Somehow they don't hear the not-so-subtle differences
> >between what's just assertive and what's downright domineering.
>
> With such a sensitive touch I vote for you becoming the guardian of
> the next poor, misguided zealot that drops by this list. :)

Hmmm... With you as the official marksman, I'm not sure that's such
a good deal! :D

> Carol:
> >Interestingly, there continue to be posts that are just as ignorant
> >and dogmatic as Alan's ever were.  But I haven't seen them come in
> >for anything near what Alan got.
>
> You mean that we missed some?  I say roll them in tar and feathers
> and kick them out of Tombstone! :)

(Feathers from chickens raised organically and eaten raw, I assume.)

> Carol:
> >I suspect that many of us were very put off by his bizarre, racist-
> >sounding obsession with nationalities, and maybe we jumped on his
> >dietary opinions all the more because of it.
>
> Actually, it is the fact that he is residing in old enemy territory
> that really got to me. ;-)

Um... Natural hygienism or Germany? :)

> Carol:
> >He was rude not to answer the questions, but it needs to be kept in
> >mind that many people (even scientists) are not above making things
> >up to support their claims.
>
> Well, shame on them too. :)

Any tar and feathers left?

> Carol:
> >Those among us who already distrusted Alan probably would have doubted
> >the truth of what he had to say no matter what it was that he said.
> >He had dug his very own credibility moat.
>
> Yeah, once a fraud always a fraud - no second chances here. ;-)

Here on the list, or here in Peterland?  :)

> Peter:
> >>True but if we do not make efforts to separate what we know to be true
> >>from what we think is true
>
> Carol:
> >We can make efforts, sure, but we need to be very, very careful what
> >we put into that first group.
>
> Not really.  I know to be true that all fruitarians are charlatans.

But that brings us back, as always, to how one defines fruitarianism.
Some folks call themselves fruitarians while eating plenty of leafy
greens, seeds, nuts, etc...  Words are tricky litte things.

> If somebody can prove me wrong, I will revise that to almost all
> fruitarians. ;-)

But I assume you've already shot to kill.  Could be too late for
revisions if you're a halfway decent shot. :)

> Peter:
> >>If we are not on a common quest for the truth what are we doing in each
> >>others company?  This list aspires to a level of maturity and integrity
> >>that is not usually found in the raw community - without it I would
> >>have checked out a long time ago.
>
> Carol:
> >Maturity and integrity are helpful in this endeavor;
> >it is better for everyone if the ideas put forth are not off-the-cuff
> >ramblings or dogmatic regurgitations but thoughts carefully arrived
> >at by mature and honest people.  When folks show up who don't fit
> >into such an arrangement, it's a shame if we let them bring the
> >rest of us down to their level.
>
> I do not have the moral fiber to withstand such a temptation - as
> NFL says: water sinks to its own level. :)

NFL??  Puh-lease! :D  (David Wolfe is speaking just 45 minutes away
from me tonight.  I'm tempted to go and heckle him, but I'd rather
not waste my $20 for the priviledge.  He's such an ass...)
[Didn't go.]

> Peter:
> >>I do not have the inclination, time or energy to address every
> >>exaggerated claim that comes my way.
>
> Carol:
> >Who does??  So why should any of us waste any effort on those who
> >aren't interested in civil discussions beyond what it takes to tell
> >them, simply and without name calling, what the y're doing wrong?
>
> Because the cat is out of the bag - my inner extremist is on the
> loose. :)

Now your outer extremist, it would seem.  (Does that mean that you now
have an inner moderate?)

> Carol:
> >If that doesn't work, the moderator should step in.
>
> Only when it is really needed. I think David is doing an excellent job.
>
> Peter:
> >>Are you for real? With all the heaps of evidence that have been
> >>presented over the years on this list exposing fruitariansm, you want
> >>me to beat that dead horse one more time. :)
>
> Carol:
> >Then why didn't you just refer him to the archives and be done with
> >it?
>
> Because I take a sick pleasure in tormenting misguided, fruitarian
> zealots. :)

If torment is your goal, wouldn't it be better to toy with your
victim,
rather than shooting to kill?  Make the fun last! :D

> Carol:
> >Why waste your time doing any more?
>
> That is the question my therapist keeps asking me. :)

Ah, therapists... Talk about making the fun last.. They make it pay!

> Carol:
> >>>No, and I don't think that is a good analogy.  (I never called
> >>>you a hypocrite, for one thing.)
>
> Peter:
> >>In so many words you did.
>
> Carol:
> >If a guy were to say that people should always wear blue socks,
> >but didn't wear blue socks himself, he would be a hypocrite.  If
> >a guy were to request that a certain person put on blue socks but
> >refused to wear blue socks himself, he would *not* be a hypocrite
> >(though his refusal might raise questions about his motives).  You
> >were asking that Alan give references, but - as far as I know - you
> >never said that everyone should always give references, so no... I
> >would not consider that the act of a hypocrite.
>
> How about inconsistent then? :)

OK, but being inconsistent isn't necessarily bad.  I forget who said
it, but I've always liked the quote "A foolish consistency is the
hobgoblin of little minds..." (Emerson?)

> Carol:
> >So.... you just said that Alan can scientifically support his claims
> >without any scientific support whatsoever.  Neat trick! :D
>
> I am sure that Alan would love to learn it as well. :) What I was trying
> to say is that he could easily have supported his claims without any
> scientific support if he had been so inclined.

And I wish he had, but you know he would have been attacked no matter
what he said.  Don't you think so?

:)
Carol