Peter:
>>>>Pretending it is a level playing field when Alan has in fact
>>>>disqualified himself is a bit of stretch...
Carol:
>>I'm sorry Peter, but I'm having difficulty understanding your
>>train of thought there.
You said that I sounded exactly like Alan - such a remark I could,
naturally, not leave unchallenged. :)
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. :) 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. My experience has been that diet fanatics have no
real interest in constructive dialog and probably feel threatened by it.
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. :) He is too
righteous to care much how he comes across.
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. :)
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. :)
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! :)
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. ;-)
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. :)
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. ;-)
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. If
somebody can prove me wrong, I will revise that to almost all
fruitarians. ;-)
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. :)
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. :)
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. :)
Carol:
>>Why waste your time doing any more?
That is the question my therapist keeps asking me. :)
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? :)
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.
Best, Peter
|
