Author Topic: KD's crusade against the infidels and wicked instincto iguanas  (Read 21513 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline eveheart

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,315
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: KD's crusade against the infidels and wicked instincto iguanas
« Reply #50 on: October 09, 2011, 01:24:09 am »
I'm certain that I do not understand exactly what you meant by what you wrote, but I believe that dogma refers to beliefs demanded by an authority. GCB has no authority; he's just a guy (pun intended) who wrote stuff that makes some sense to some people.
"I intend to live forever; so far, so good." -Steven Wright, comedian

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: KD's crusade against the infidels and wicked instincto iguanas
« Reply #51 on: October 09, 2011, 01:34:59 am »
I had edited my posts. perhaps it makes more sense now..

If not I don't think you understand the ramifications, and the kinds of of problems people can run into when they expect someones idea of a healthy diet (even if it is sorta close to how we are meant to eat) will automatically clear out or resolve problems. That there is potential even then to make people more sick than even standard diets regardless to how close to nature they think they are behaving. (although in reality many people skip many aspects of a natural lifestyle that can be as important as diet). Also importantly, that sometimes people need solutions (even drastic ones) that don't present themselves as necessary or available in nature and thus don't have the kind of precedent. Believing otherwise is an ideology whether it comes from  a guru or is intuited and invented by an individual themselves.

simply put, dogma is when beliefs contrast reality but are still insisted upon as reality. Like when you or others assert that since a cave-person didn't do x than its automatically wrong..divorced of contemporary experiences.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 02:00:16 am by KD »

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: KD's crusade against the infidels and wicked instincto iguanas
« Reply #52 on: October 09, 2011, 07:19:31 am »
Also to not get confused (and before the crucifixion starts) ...
 
There IS a difference between trailblazing (what many of us are forced to do) without needing assuredness or 'science' per se (of which I agree), and actual evidence showing something isn't what it seems (if this is the case).
 
The issue that is shocking to me is that people are so unmoveable about ideas that might not even matter to the large portion of people (grinding food?) and then presenting some larger components of diet as more effective regardless of comparisons of the other entire approaches.
 
If a little food or processing not accessed by people thousands of years ago makes something unnecessary or bad, not only does this rule out most of what people are actually eating it still needs to be shown that this is indeed important in comparison to these large ideas/macronutrient ratios etc... Of course people will admit this and draw lines of common sense (what is clearly not 'paleo' to say a brussel sprout or orange) but still say such things are more detrimental than even larger differences in diets. THAT is what needs to be proven..not everyone needing to be a proven superwoman, as I already I said...
 
even if one doesn't ascribe to this idea that health problems MAY require more than a (suggested) natural diet, one can easily just criticize how eating foods that are 'paleo' (exempting non paleo food)  may not always match up with eating to what our true requirements are.  And of course that people not in line with any of those theories might be the ones with the best health successes.
 
I've tried to leave out most of the criticism I've already made in the past about the actual practice of such and talk about the immoral preachyness, but the reason I believe this practice doesn't work (among other things)  is artificial availability and activity, inevitable mental/emotional intrusion,  or cravings/desires due actually to internal problems and imbalances and not true desires of our ancestors .
 
So if it turns out to be true that people in the present aren't testing their body to hold up in certain basic measurable assessments or natural conditions, and that they can not even do so (even in comparison to cooked food dieters, particularly ones that can live in the wild and not die) obviously this is a problem.
 
The reasons for this dilemma is IMO is neglecting many toolsets ( as I implied ) due to dogma AND that certain claims and diets end up being MORE artificial (potentially problematic) than whatever is being proposed as artificial and harmful.
 
Here is an old example..
 
- Lets say someone follows a bear for one year  (heavy in meat OR vegetation, whichever) Keeping in mind a bear (unlike a monkey) spends only 50% of time and energy being active and 50% of that (or 25%) is foraging. also compared to some people who spend close to 0%
 
-After working out those quantities and types of things. (say it was just honey, berries and fish: for simplicity) work out some system to provide an abundance of amount of that fresh food of which it eats and put it in buckets. Then put the bear in a confined area for one year (not exercising or needing to exert energy to acquire food)  with total access to as much of each food as possible.
 
would anyone expect this to have great results in health? accurate to how it ate in the wild, no matter how pure its instincts were? How about a circus bear raised on cooked food their entire life? would either even follow the path of nature's  challenges and limited and changing availability?
 
For kicks one could just look to a even a zoo (where activity is also limited, but diet chosen of adequate but crappy quality foods) or just view in the wild all kinds of cooked garbage such as US camp grounds.  Contrast and compare how much were detrimental in comparison to being confined and having free reign on desire. Then add thousands of years of civilizations degeneration and a raging fungal infection...
 
---
anyway my weekend starts on Sun..so time to engage in all kinds of neolithic activity...
 
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 07:25:38 am by KD »

Offline Iguana

  • Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,049
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: KD's crusade against the infidels and wicked instincto iguanas
« Reply #53 on: October 21, 2011, 06:26:13 am »

Simple quesitons to answer:
mostly yes or no

you certainly have the expertise to answer almost all of them off the top of your head in 5 minutes.

Was it ok to use the phrase 'perfectly proven' that an entire way of thinking is healthy  (…)
Hugh… Yes or no questions, ah ha…! "an entire way of thinking is healthy"  What’s that ?

Quote
considering you were referring to two people with seemingly no real life assessment or any real comparison standards or to others who have competing health ideas?

I had asked: What actual evidence is being put forward here as proof?...

and you said none.

I said none because I can’t prove anything to you since you wrote me:

you are indeed a liar, sorry. you said specifcally you didn't make comments on things you wern't aware about and only said dairy was neolithc and have said much more..way more often  (likeing dairy to steroids perhap?) than i'd like to hunt down and piece together and get called out for attacking you further. I have you quoted as saying why drink water..all the animals do it..like the form of every one of your judgemweental and igrorant (from my persepctive)  posts. leave me alone now.
So, I should not even reply to you in order to leave you alone. But as have a bit of free time now, I’ll try to answer, not for you, but for the others who might be sincerely interested.

Quote
Do you agree that without additional evidence this is no more usefull to members than that of raw vegans or cooked foooders with such longevity when it comes to which specific diet to choose on RPF or elsewhere?
Some evidence is there: http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/instinctomag.html    and some more here: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/bruno-comby%27s-report-on-hiv/
We don’t have to choose any specific diet. Instinctive nutrition is in no way a specific diet.

Quote
Will you retract the original comment and admit you have not proven anything other raw animal food diets have not without proper evidence?
I haven’t proven anything myself. 

Quote
Will you or others provide blood work, specific photos as requested etc..? (with the expectation that people can't make 100% solid judgements on these)
I have no blood work to provide since I only go for a check up every 4 years as requested by the state to keep my heavy trucks driving license. As I’m fine, the MD never requested a blood test and I never asked for it as I couldn’t care less. Photos of his “instincto ever since birth” son have been provided by GCB: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/what-do-raw-paleo-children-prefer/msg66466/#msg66466
I’ve also posted photos of myself: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/post-videos-of-you-eating-raw-meat-with-bare-hands-and-teeth/msg48326/#msg48326
 http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/post-videos-of-you-eating-raw-meat-with-bare-hands-and-teeth/msg48669/#msg48669 and one of GCB somewhere, I think.
Now I should scan a photo of myself as a kid to show how sickly and week I was then. I would most probably be dead if I hadn’t stopped to eat junk food. Can’t prove it, of course!

Quote
Do you think if you see qualities in others that you believe are bad that you can trace it back to your thoughts about their diet? Is it understandable for people to question the diet of instinctos if they suspect their health doesn't match up with the healthiest possible human diet or even just other people trying other things?
I don’t believe others are bad… what the hell are you meaning here?

Quote
You cite experiments of instinctos on humans and mice, how specifically do these experiements differ from those of Cordain, the Medical prfession, raw vegans or any others undertaken since the history of science? Havn't these produced drastically different conclusions? Are these instincto conclusions now half a decade old absolutely unquestionable with endless research following? What if people have proven these experiments wrong (on animals or humans) since?
AFAIK nobody has proven these experiments wrong. Of course you can question them and reproduce them. That’s what GCB has been always asking for. That’s what I’ve done: as I doubted, I’ve repeated the experiment with my limited means – that is on myself. 

Quote
Is it possible these experiments do not lead to finding the idea human diet or that other current methods might estimate a better diet?
Is there a L missing to “idea” and should I read “ideal” instead? If so, I’m not even sure that I correctly understand what you mean. What current methods are you talking about? Moreover, I don’t think that “instinctotherapy” or “anopsology”can be categorized as a specific diet. It is instead opposed to all other specific diets and it just tries to emulate the nutrition of our pre-fire paleo ancestors as much as possible. Of course, there are difficulties in doing so since the environmental and social conditions have changed a lot. Nothing is perfect. We are doing an experiment, there’s no dogma in the way to practice, it’s rather a research.

You once assaulted me because I gave an advise to beginners to eat the meat of a single animal species per meal. Please note that’s in no way a dogma, but just an advice to beginners to avoid a difficult digestion. Once you have practiced  for some time, you can do whatever you want,  eat for example eggs, mackerel, beef, deer, mutton and oysters at the same meal! I wouldn’t do it, but if you feel like doing so, then you can have a go at it and see what happens.   

Quote
How many of these original experimenters or instincto dieters continued with the diet? How many went on to to other raw food diets? Other diets?
Who knows? We don’t have a register, people are not requested to report to someone or some organization, neither when they start instinctotherapy nor when they stop. But if your question is about the very first ones, they were  four, AFAIK. Out of these four people, one went back to cooked food and is still alive. 

Quote
Other than social obligations, why would someone go off an instincto diet?
Just like why people go off raw paleo. Just check the names of the posters on this forum 2 or 3 years ago. How many % are still here? Who knows, most may go on eating raw paleo / instincto but are bored of endlessly arguing here.

Quote
Is it at all possible that some people did not thrive on an instincto diet?
Sure, when the health damages due to cooked Neolithic food are too bad to be reversible.

Quote
If these ideas are not unquestionable and you are presenting a theory, is it OK to tell people that what they are doing is "wrong" (see quotes in thread - or many other statements) and to give the kinds of 'advice' you give on a regular basis?
Advices are just advices, nothing more.

Quote
Particulary without above 'proof' shouldn't one be required to imply opinion based on a single theory when its not actually based on experience with a particular thing at hand  (or uses other 'present company' member's 'statistics' or other statistics that people actually have some access to) ?
Sorry, I fail to grab the meaning of this and I’m running out of time. I already spent more than 2 hours to write the above and search the references. A little more than the 5 minutes you foolishly talked about…

Quote
And slightly more complicated: What specific criteria do you use to measure your health?
Is there an universal criteria to measure someone’s health?

Quote
To criticize others as unhealthy?
Did I criticize others as unhealthy??
Quote
Do you suspect that after 25 years of health experimentation that your health has thrived more than anyone else on any other approach?
It has thrived more than on my previous cooked and dairy nutrition. But no more than my father who ate junk for his whole life and was still touring mountain passes on his racing bike at 75 years old. Unfortunately he died of cancer at 84 after long and awful sufferings.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2011, 04:50:09 pm by Iguana »
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: KD's crusade against the infidels and wicked instincto iguanas
« Reply #54 on: October 21, 2011, 11:33:04 am »
If it is just another diet..like many paleo diets here it should be treated as such. The problem is that other diets don't make the same outrageous claims that eating for pleasure ALWAYS trumps eating according to 'modern' constructions of diets. Those that you regularly criticize often purely for being 'diets' having restrictions or additions different to what you believe handed down by some ideas. These diets might make other claims seemingly more outrageous to you but you and basically few others sharing your philosophy are the only people making that particular claim. Suggesting a process is so close to nature (and criticizing anything and everything that is outside this definition of 'nature') of course is going to have to be more accountable for showing it has more sucess. Without those claims, no other less natural diets (which is assumed of course) are needing to live up to the same percentages of success as natures perfection. Sounds unfair but isn't as extreme claims need extreme successes or at least consise clear evidences of others' failures, not just citing the same ideological principles which is actually under question about what should be good. It just happens to be ironic that other diets do have more success particulary for healing specific conditions. With just plain unknowns to the less common or relevant:  diets useful or sufficient for raising perfectly healthy people from birth in a perfect and wild environment. The idea that people have specifically left instinco to at least try these approaches (if not have more success) which you continually and disingenuously leave out, is also an important issue.

Obviously the reason people go off RPD AND instincto diets would include not having absolutely the best health one would expect. Far more so and before people addressed social or other concerns. No one goes off a diet that makes them feel like the absolute healthiest person that has existed before man mastered fire (when people were truly healthy?)..or whatever opinions you have about the current  human race or how harmful cooking is. Its very important with such drastic claims to show how drastically or poorly this type of 'purity' can stack up to people employing the things one is so critical of.

If people have had far more success with other approaches (even after leaving instincto to other approaches) obviously it is false that one can automatically criticize things as harmful just by the very nature of them crossing instincto ideology, which is absolutely the basis of which you criticize things and NOT actual material assessments and measurements. Its OK to not need or agree with these for personal choices, but as with my comments above to the other member the reverse is NOT OK - that is neglecting outright proof (postive in others, negative in oneself) in favor of how things should be.

Having basic evidence of people being alive with no other evidence as I already suggested...this is stuff one would expect on a raw vegan site which can produce equal or greater 'evidence', grasping at straws to show bare minimums and then citing a diet is perfect for all people and all conditions. What you present is still a combination of 'things appear ok' + we have a failproof idea of what is healthy or natural, nothing more. Raw-veganism fits that bill perfectly for many , particularly with anthropology always in dispute.

Overall still the same 'it may be or it may not be', but a sincere thanks for trying I suppose. Basically here is one last question which should  infom whether there is an untruth or that you truly don't(??) tell people "this is wrong "or place judgement of one diet (instinctotherapy) over another without comparing objective real life evidence.

How about taking two identical twins at birth. If one ate an instincto diet are you saying that you do think its possible that another that ate an entirely differnt diet (still raw, more or less) could easily have better health? That you are only making a claim that an instincto diet should yield reasonable health for most but possibly not better than diets that have other methods?

I said none because I can’t prove anything to you since you wrote me:
---
You have still provided none (most of this is just avoiding the quesitons asked), since this doesn't include actual documentation like teeth and skin as mentioned are needed.  These are easy to take and acquire, particulary if there are plenty of people and such a large percentage succeeding on this approach. Candid photos from the 80's doesn't cut it. Quite simply you quoted a PM from when you harassed me personally after giving up arguing on the forum, I don't see that coming across well. .Also in this thread is a clear "i could have banned you" threat.  Isn't a liar simply someone who consistently shares mistruths? and isn't it a mistruth when you claim you do not make comments about what is right or wrong? (even in situations you have 0 experience with) when clearly this makes up most of your posts? These mis-truths include the ones that incited my claim to your email threat. I pointed out that you lied similarly when you were actually saying you haven't criticized people EVER for discussing not drinking water, dairy eating, or  a 'ZC' diet or any other thing that goes against instincto in some form. These naysayings are also in totally 'paleo' subjects and diets (those making up the bulk of the forum) to be clear. Still the claim of which I called 'lie' was that - That you claimed there is only ever 'suggesting' or 'pointing out' "which things are neolithic" (this is exact quote). Obviously this is untrue. Since that was brought up its been untrue and even since this new thread has been active this continues.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2011, 01:18:47 pm by KD »

Offline Iguana

  • Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,049
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: KD's crusade against the infidels and wicked instincto iguanas
« Reply #55 on: October 21, 2011, 06:18:43 pm »
Your post is much too succinct for me to understand. Can you explain us in more length how and why I’m a liar?
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: KD's crusade against the infidels and wicked instincto iguanas
« Reply #56 on: October 21, 2011, 07:53:17 pm »
ok to be more succinct, as predicted you answered few of these as yes or no questions and only then with caveats or tangents. You gave answers that either avoided the question entirety, pulled old information, or just plain defeated the purpose which was to have a conclusive answers showing or absolving how absolutelist or not your stance often comes across. It really should have taken no time, you chose to give answers that were not particularly forthright with materials that had any vulnerability or insight already known.

Hugh… Yes or no questions, ah ha…! "an entire way of thinking is healthy"  What’s that ? [a reference to when you told another member that if they practiced an instincto diet they wouldn't have to worry about their current health problem or often any other problem or discussion on this website which are issues of specific diet andhealth choices]

Some evidence is there: [the question was do you agree (yes or no) that other peopel could rationalize approaches just as easily, not: supply some websites here]

I haven’t proven anything myself.  [so I guess hanna was right in your speaking irony and that you actually arn't ever putting yourself as example of proveing instincto is suitable for anyone but perhaps yourself]

I have no blood work [ the question was 'will you provide', so I guess no is the answer if I am interpreting correctly]

I don’t believe others are bad… what the hell are you meaning here? [ this again was a yes or no, asking if you think you make judgements of people based on their diet without actually going to material evidence (as I suggest above) and do you think it is ok for people to question the authority of instinctos in other discussions here if they don't believe they offer the solutions they are looking for - obviously this is an easy yes I would think...]

AFAIK nobody has proven these experiments wrong. [This is something which would warrant an entire other argument, but clearly tests are done on wild animals all the time which form other conclusions about their results in formulating ideal proportions etc..]


You once [again a super easy yes or no basically saying whether other diets could succeed if instincto failed - guessing this one is a no on your belief, but it should be a yes]

Who knows? [well you certainly would know more than others and are leaving out info of course]

Just like why people go off raw paleo.  here? [I address this above. If the failure rate is at all similar perhaps instincto being a 'non diet' is no better than other 'diets' who you have by default indeed said are bad or dangerous. Diets whos tweaking is the whole point of this forum. A forum where people generally do not to blanketly criticise things or supply solutions that involve pretty much adopting an entire other philosophy to have any sucessful application whatsover]

 
Sure, when the health damages due to cooked Neolithic food are too bad to be reversible. [ or so a Yes then only with this caveat that it has nothing to do with failings of the diet itself. So you are saying that its still always the best solution one can assume.]

Advices are just advices, nothing more. [ so no that was not ok when you said, sorry you have gone about this wrong etc... and also other things mentioned above]

Sorry, I fail to grab the meaning of this and I’m running out of time. I already spent more than 2 hours to write the above and search the references. A little more than the 5 minutes you foolishly talked about…

[well I've spent 13 minutes writing this (had to leave some typos I assume, sorry) and the whole point of those questions was to not rquire anything but what you already knew off the top of your head. basically it says shouldn't you form things as your opinion and not facts about how x causes disease etc.., ideally another Yes]

Is there an universal criteria to measure someone’s health? [this seems to be unecessary skirting of a simple quesiton anyone can answer of what actual signals motivate them to stick on their diet...ones that go beyond theories or promissess but are experienced everyday and notived by others.]

Did I criticize others as unhealthy??It has thrived more than on my previous cooked and dairy nutrition. But no more than my father who ate junk for his whole life and was still touring mountain passes on his racing bike at 75 years old. Unfortunately he died of cancer at 84 after long and awful sufferings. [pretty consistently even people that supply actual evidence are criticized...]

« Last Edit: October 21, 2011, 07:59:49 pm by KD »

Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,595
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: KD's crusade against the infidels and wicked instincto iguanas
« Reply #57 on: October 21, 2011, 10:47:33 pm »
KD - are you a New Yorker? I ask because I seem to understand you and your way like I understood people in my native land.

Here's what I think is being driven at here Iguana if I might try to intervene as an interpreter (to the best of my ability). KD, please tell me if I'm on target or completely off here.

What I am guessing KD wants to hear from you Iguana is a clear statement that Instincto is not proven to be better than any other paleo diet talked about here per se because all you are basing your opinions on are anectdotal experiences.  He seems to want an apology for having stated in the past that instincto was necessarily better when it was just your opinion and not based on any tested and re-tested verifiable and necessarily pertainable scientific data.

This really shouldn't be too hard because no diet here is proven scientifically with double blind studies, using twins etc.

In my view, all he is asking for is humility. I haven't been here very long so I do not know all the history and am not familiar with your posts over time, I am just basing my good opinions of you on my experiences and what I have read since being here and it seems to me that since I've been here and all of what you wrote recently was humble and speaks to instincto as being experimental, that your opinions are just that, personal opinions. 

All of us here are simply adding our data points because raw diets are not tested - none of them. Paleo is the oldest and the most eaten by the most people over history, but that does not mean it is better for us now in the modern world. That point KD has made many times over and makes a whole lot of sense to me. What we are all trying to figure out is what works in our modern worlds here and now. What you have to offer Iguana, like the rest of us, is your own personal experience with the recognition that it is not necessarily transferable to others - because no one here can claim that.

KD - if Iguana was to make a statement that is clear about his humility, the lack of scientific backing to claims and that his opinions are just opinions just like the rest of us here, would you be able to forgive and move onward? Am I correct that everything pretty much boils down to Iguana stating that he makes no claims? He's just like the rest of us experimenting and reporting his ideas and personal experiences and experiences of other people he knows and concepts that he chooses to adhere to because they are working for him?

It's a tough thing to have really great personal benefits and see others benefit without claiming that your diet is the bomb and great in general because hey - that's human nature. I've noticed that other people do that here too with their forms of paleo diets. They give all sorts of advice from their perspectives with their experience, saying do, this, don't do that etc.

Instincto has it's own little section just like Primal etc. Primal folks give primal advice about dairy in other threads. This place is filled with opinions based on accumulated data and personal experience with little to no verification. Pictures, skin, blood work - nice, but not really much use scientifically without larger samplings. Still, just individual data points.

I know Iguana that KD's style could be a bit tough to follow and pretty intense. It makes me feel at home though. I hope my little input was helpful in making a bridge of understanding.

So - is there hope for this olive branch?

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: KD's crusade against the infidels and wicked instincto iguanas
« Reply #58 on: October 21, 2011, 11:38:19 pm »

What I am guessing KD wants to hear from you Iguana is a clear statement that Instincto is not proven to be better than any other paleo diet talked about here

He seems to want an apology for having stated in the past that instincto was necessarily better when it was just your opinion and not based on any tested and re-tested verifiable and necessarily pertainable scientific data. [i'm sure there is data, just not presently supplied basic data that would be accepted as showing a large percentage of people thriving over other raw or cooked diets. This would be suficient, particularly if it showed having more than adequate vit A,K,D3 BMI etc... as well]

What you have to offer Iguana, like the rest of us, is your own personal experience with the recognition that it is not necessarily transferable to others

Paleo is the oldest and the most eaten by the most people over history, but that does not mean it is better for us now in the modern world.

Am I correct that everything pretty much boils down to Iguana stating that he makes no claims? [no thats just the point I've had to focus on as false as otherwise its even more bickering on how one doesn't gain weight working ones muscles or whatever other thing that cleary is not comming from his expeerience or anyones experience on his or most raw diets - http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/primal-diet/question-on-raw-milk/msg77825/#msg77825]

I think it is more than that, but that above is agreeable enough. The problem is - whatever is said, we will see the same behaviours which start the same old conversations. For the most part no one seems to be convinced by these to actually make any serious changes...but these things are more than just annoying. There are serious reasons that warrent these kinds of arguments like the earliest quote about liver health. This is particularly true to how they eerily mirror vegan Natural Hygiene - putting people off various possible health practices based on bizarre ideas about nature that possibly never needed such. Of course most people here will give statements that come across as factual but I really do not think any other members try to translate their diet as being so absolute in terms of inevitable sucess, none that arn't moderated heavily or banned anyway. Your statement about not being necessarily best to meet the current modern world's issues ('do better with da cooked and neoloithic food??')is certainly my main talking point on this forum, and I suspect won't be agreed upon.

I think for the most part I try to keep my 'lawyering' so specific as to neglect my own personal accusations that would be way worse. :) Perhaps it seems too unecessarily detailed. So scrapping that, basically In addition to what you suggest I would really like anyone to point to how the claims and results [particulary over-emotionality, poor physique, poor teeth, skin, hair, oversensitiveness (physical/moden-world, food) or anger towards the world, as well as automatically labeling anyone who eats differnt as sick despite actual evaluations] differ at all from those claims or experiences of long terms vegans or anyone else that are behind the curtain ideologues. Evidence of course separate than the self-supporting idea of a particular anthopology to butress virtually any result as being automatically positive and a 'natural' development.  If people can't point to specifics there, clearly there is less reason to see 'experience' -or holding out- as having any more value than 40 year vegans or cooked fooders or HRM in terms of translatable value at all here for peoples specific health solutions

So - is there hope for this olive branch?

Sure. I think you did a good and fair job.

go mets!
« Last Edit: October 22, 2011, 12:03:41 am by KD »

Offline Iguana

  • Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,049
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: KD's crusade against the infidels and wicked instincto iguanas
« Reply #59 on: October 22, 2011, 01:35:27 am »
I’m fed up about this.

It’s rather me who deserves an apology for being called dishonest and a liar. If I wrote something erroneous (which is entirely possible) or something someone disagrees with, it should be discussed in the original thread quoting what is supposedly mistaken so that everyone knows what we are talking about, not in a thread such as this where everything is mixed in endless lengthy intricate and unreadable diatribes which are obviously the expression of a personal grudge.

This one is now locked. 
« Last Edit: October 22, 2011, 02:24:17 am by Iguana »
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk