Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:35:06 +0900 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Wally Day wrote:
> >And Paleos. ;-)
>
> Actually, I did not include 'paleo' in that comment because
> I was listing what I consider groups at the 'fringe' of reason.
> Although I *have* heard a few unjustified and unsupported
> statements from paleo followers, for the most part the theory
> is supportable by documentation and is scientifically sound.
> (No yin, yang, dubious "life essence", or religio-philosophical
> justification). Therein lies the difference.
I was sort of kidding myself. More from the tone than from any
specific point. When I think of my own experience, and the
almost immediate relief from negative conditions I was
barely aware I had until they were gone. When I try to
explain this stuff to anyone, I come off sounding just like
the diet freaks I always derided. I agree that paleo has at
least a reasonable starting point. I am not sure about a lot
of the science though. A lot of it seems to be fringe stuff,
never replicated. That seems to be changing.
|
|
|