>>>>>>>>Carol:
>>>>>>>>You're sounding *exactly* like Alan there. :D


>>>>>>Peter:
>>>>>>How far are you willing to take this logic?


>>>>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...


I'm sorry Peter, but I'm having difficulty understanding your
train of thought there.


>>> >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? :)


Having been misjudged myself at times, I am extremely reluctant to
judge others harshly. I prefer to look for miscommunications and
misunderstandings as the source of trouble.


>>> >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? :)


:D Hey! Whatcha got against barns? :D


>>> >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. :)


True. (As far as my reluctance to make judgments goes, I will
be happy to make an exception in the case of NFL. What a bunch
of twits! :D )


>>> >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? :)


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). 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.


>>> >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. :)


:D You're a funny guy, Peter. :)

>> Peter:
>> I am not so much trying to settle any particular issue as I am trying
>> to bring the debate to a higher level.


That sounds great to me, Peter. :) I think that civil debate and
friendly sharing of personal experiences and opinions are what this
list should be all about. I certainly hope that no one is coming to
this list expecting our small group to be capable of settling their
big diet or health questions for them.

I 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.

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. I suspect that many of us were
very put off by his bizarre, racist-sounding obsession with national-
ities, and maybe we jumped on his dietary opinions all the more
because of it.


>>> >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.


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. 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.


>>> >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.


I agree.


>>> >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


We can make efforts, sure, but we need to be very, very careful what
we put into that first group.


>> ...or would like to be true, most constructive dialog dies and we risk
>> being left with overblown egos exchanging declarations of madness.


Nicely put! :)

>> 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.


We are pursuing truth, but we're pursuing it individually. I don't
believe that there will ever be any one dietary idea that we will
all agree is an absolute truth, and I hope we share the belief that
such agreement on absolutes is not the aim here. I come to the group
because each of us is a source of ideas for the others, ideas we can
turn over in our minds and accept, reject, or put on the back burner,
as we see fit. 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.


>>> >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.


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 they're doing wrong?
If that doesn't work, the moderator should step in.


>>> >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. :)


Then why didn't you just refer him to the archives and be done with
it? Why waste your time doing any more?


>>>> >>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?


>>> >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.


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.


>>> >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.


So.... you just said that Alan can scientifically support his claims
without any scientific support whatsoever. Neat trick! :D


>>> >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.


I couldn't agree more.

:)
Carol