>>>>>>You're sounding *exactly* like Alan there. :D
Peter:
>>>>How far are you willing to take this logic?
Carol:
>>I don't know what you mean there, so I'll say this...
Pretending it is a level playing field when Alan has in fact
disqualified himself is a bit of stretch...
Carol:
>>I think that Alan's dogmatic style is just that -- his style.
How can you disregard the possibility that we might be looking at a
serious flaw in his character? :)
Carol:
>>He does not have good e-list social skills.
That is an understatement - sometimes I wonder if not all raw vegans
and fruitarians have been raised in barns? :)
Carol:
>>Instead of prefacing what he says with "in my opinion" and "I think"
>>and such all the time,
You mean instead of using his frontal lobes which quite conceivably
have shriveled to a fraction of their original size due to a
fruit-induced hypoxia of the brain. :)
Carol:
>>he puts things out in a very blunt, know-it-all way.
He seems almost shy compared to some of the more militant fruitarian
types that drop by from time to time. :)
Carol:
>>This gets on some people's nerves; they interpret it as meaning that
>>he thinks he knows everything and that what is best for him and his
>>friends is what is best for every person on the planet.
Where were you when the President had to explain to his wife about the
stain on the dress? :)
Carol:
>>It has been suggested that what he needs to do is back up what he says
>>with science,
Science? - I am so starved for any kind of evidence that if Kato Kaelen
(Spelling?) would stand by Alan that would be fine by me. :)
Carol:
>>so I have tried to point out that giving references doesn't settle any
>>issue raised on this list because of (1) all the junk science out
>>there (2) the huge voids that exist in certain areas of scientific
>>inquiry and (3) what I would bet to be the extreme unlikeliness that
>>list members actually dig up the studies people refer to and read them
>>for themselves.
I am not so much trying to settle any particular issue as I am trying
to bring the debate to a higher level.
Carol:
>>Besides, he usually claims that he is just speaking from his
>>experiences and those of his friends, and who could expect him to
>>produce scientific studies on them?
Forget about the science for a moment. He has been asked for details
about his diet when he was a fruitarian but has repeatedly refused - he
has been asked to provide details about his "fruitarian" friends but
has refused.
Carol:
>>If there was a time, as I think there may have been, when Alan said
>>something along the lines of 'there are plenty of studies, but I don't
>>have time to list them', I'm totally with you in that case and agree
>>that he should produce those studies. To claim that they exist but not
>>to share them is dirty pool.
He has a lot of growing up to do if he is playing tricks like that in
his early fifties.
Carol:
>>But, if I recall correctly, most of Alan's sweeping generalizations
>>were drawn from his experiences and those of his friends.
Experiences he refers to but for some reason refuses to share.
Carol:
>>It has also been suggested that any sort of absolute declaration is
>>dangerous because of the poor little newbies who might take it as a
>>great truth and go off and do something unwise.
Cute. :)
Carol:
>>This is -- like all the whining about the dangers of the internet --
>>useless. People should examine EVERYTHING with a critical eye,
>>whether it's advice given by Dr. Famous T. Knowitall MD PhD DDS ND XYZ
>>or bluntly stated opinions from Alan. A reminder about this in the
>>welcome message should be sufficient.
That is a good idea. I think that one of the important services that
the internet provides is the exposing of frauds in forums like this.
Carol:
>>In my very humble opinion, it all comes down to manners. It is NICE
>>to provide references for those list members who might actually want
>>to look the stuff up and read it. It is NICE to qualify what you say
>>with statements that remind people that you know that you are not the
>>god of all knowledge. But whether people provide references or not,
>>whether they write "IMHO" and such all over the place, it is always
>>their opinion they are stating and everyone who reads it should put
>>their own brain in gear before acting on it.
True but if we do not make efforts to separate what we know to be true
from what we think is true or would like to be true, most constructive
dialog dies and we risk being left with overblown egos exchanging
declarations of madness. 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:
>>So Peter, that's where I'm coming from, and it's in that spirit of
>>good manners that I think you should set a good example for Alan and
>>provide references, if you require them of him.
I do not have the inclination, time or energy to address every
exaggerated claim that comes my way. Besides, to me the issue of
exercising caution and care when it comes to consuming information
overrides almost any other issue I can think of - certainly whether or
not aliens are exerting anal probes up peoples' behinds or whether we
should scrap evolution and try to override our biology by trying to
adhere to a fruitarian diet. :)
Carol:
>>It isn't just between you two, you know, and there are probably
>>onlooking list members who are just as interested in reading your
>>supporting science as they are in reading Alan's.
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. :)
Peter:
>>>>If I said I could walk on water but refused and got defensive when
>>>>asked to substantiate it, if somebody called me fraud, would you
>>>>demand they prove that I was charlatan and if they declined say they
>>>>were hypocrites?
Carol:
>>No, and I don't think that is a good analogy. (I never called you a
>>hypocrite, for one thing.)
In so many words you did.
Carol:
>>A water-walking skill is easily verified if the claimant is willing;
>>but no matter how willing Alan might be to do what he can to
>>scientifically support his claims about his successes and those of his
>>friends, he cannot.
Sure he can - without any scientific support whatsoever. How many
times does this point have to be driven home?
Carol:
>>Again, I agree that Alan was overly assertive in his statements, but
>>those that were made about his experiences and those of his friends
>>cannot be substantiated that way and should not be expected to be.
By answering directly some of the questions that he was asked, he could
have gained a lot of credibility.
Best, Peter
|
