Paleo Phil said:
> 
> >Cordain's recommendations are somewhat controversial in the group.
> 
> Yes, and Cordain has been the object of repeated personal attacks. Ironic,
> given that he was part of what made this forum and the PALEODIET forum
> successful early on.
(snip)
> 
> According to Todd Moody in the second and eighth posts of this listgroup,
> the PALEOFOOD listgroup was started by him with the help of co-list owners
> Dean Esmay and Don Wiss. 
> Dean had started the PALEODIET listgroup, which preceded PALEOFOOD by a
few months, and included Loren Cordain > and Ray Audette as participants. 

[Ron] I believe that Don Wiss was the one who originated the Paleodiet list.
Mine was the first posting on that list, at Don's invitation. Dean and/or
Todd may also have been a list co-owner. I don't remember. 
 
 
> Ray Audette and Loren Cordain were colleagues and Loren provided Ray with
> some information that Ray used in the 1999 edition of his book,
> NeanderThin.
> Ray in turn provided Loren with some recipes for his book.


[Ron] Michael Eades, M.D. (Protein Power) was also on that list and
contributed extensively. 
As did Robert Crayhon MS (probably a Ph.D. by now), Ashton Embry Ph.D., and
Staffan Lindeberg, Ph.D. 

> I agree, heated evolution arguments should be saved for a forum on
> evolution.


[Ron] I think it is fair to discuss and debate various facets of evolution
here. It may even be fair to debate whether evolution is a viable theory.
However, the attacking style of interaction that has been taking place is
really counterproductive in most contexts. For instance, I could have rudely
insisted that Don Wiss started the Paleodiet forum. Then Phil could have
taken offence and we could have had a hostile debate where at least one of
us would feel foolish because he was mistaken about a very trivial matter.
The other would likely feel offended by the rude treatment he had received
despite having been correct about that trivial matter. 

My point is that good science admits, even embraces disagreement, debate,
discussion, changes of mind, etc. Good science grows through such exchanges.
Personal attacks are not good science. They are dogma. I don't care if the
best qualified scientist in the world gives voice to such attacks. They are
still dogma, sometimes called "scientism". The "ism" suffix denotes a belief
system.  

I once published a paper on that topic, titled "Absolutism's Hidden for
medical Scientism" which I'd be happy to share with anyone who is
interested. 

Best Wishes, 
Ron