At 15:33 +1100 23/1/03, Evelyn McWilliams wrote:

>I'm with Dr Bernarr on this one.
>The idea of censoring Andrew's posts gives me a chill.

I'm against censorship as well. But I have the right to post polite,
well reasoned questions and comments to the list with the expectation
that I won't be insulted in response. And I expect to be able to read
the list without seeing references to "the clownish Richard" several
weeks after my last post.


>Andrew is clearly opinionated and seems to have something to contribute. As
>far as I can see, some of his arguments have not received a satisfactory
>rejoinder.

I disagree most emphatically with that. Well, except for the
opinionated bit.

I can't even recall Andrew posting any facts or even new ideas in
the last week or two. All he does is asks disingenuous questions over
and over ad nauseam. I guess he's waiting for someone to reply with
something he disagrees with so he can insult them as well.

And he rudely insists that Ken provides him with some nonsense data or
opinion which apparently he thinks important enough to justify multiple
postings, getting ruder and ruder to the level where I'm sure it's
offending more people on the list than just Ken.

And at the same time he refuses to answer any of my requests of him to
back up some of his more ludicrous comments with some facts. Talk about
the pot calling the kettle black.

Hey Andrew, where are your figures supporting your claim that the
emu is a good source of saturated fat? Where are your figures for
the nutrient profile of a bear? What a hypocrite.


>I think this list should be able to cope with robust debate and an
>insistence on arguing the merits of a case.

Robust debate does not include calling people "idiot", "ignorant" or
"clown". That is the tactic of a debater who has been caught in a
losing position and is desperately trying to drive off their
competitors. Andrew has clearly given up debating the facts and
instead descended into a ghastly pit of name-calling and vitriol.

 ...R.