Geoffy, so you want to argue with me on semantics rather than addressing 
the problem.  If you don't know what I mean, then let me say that the 
links you gave do not have the articles to which you refer--not as in 
deleted, but as in crossed out/removed/missing.  Sorry that it 
apparently offends you that I used the word dedacted, that there are too 
many interpretations for you to understand my meaning.  The criticism of 
Taubes may or may not be appropriate, I simply implied that your 
suggestion that he has a negative reputation with nothing to justify 
that comment but a childish smiley face hardly justifies your comments.  
Perhaps you could shed some light by sending links which have the 
appropriate information and then we could decide for ourselves if Taubes 
is credible  or not and perhaps even share in your snide humor.

carol


On 6/4/2012 11:19 AM, Geoffrey Purcell wrote:
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "redacted"? The odious Vinny Pinto on another forum used the term to suggest "deletion", and the usual manifold dictionary interpretations of the word are a bit too different in addition.Whatever the case, the criticism of Taubes is appropriate, besides Taubes was even given an opportunity to try to debunk Fumento's ideas and failed. Come to think of it, anecdotal evidence from RZC rawpalaeodieters also conflicts with Taubes' claims re extra fat supposedly not leading to weight-gain.
>
>
> Geoff.
>
>
>
>> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:21:58 -0600
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Salt, We Misjudged You
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> geoff,  you've sent links to articles which have been redacted, and then
>> disparage the reputation of an author with a smiley face.  Cool!
>>
>> carol
>