Guest guest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Hi everyone I would just like to say 'So True' to Lauries message, I am new to the group and was quite disapointed with all the sniping etc. Come on people this should be encouraging and informative Cheers Toni > > Hello all. > > Not sure what the flap is about now-something to do with algae, I think. Maybe > we all need to remember that men's and women's brains and thought processes are > different. Men tend to see one thing at a time (eyes solely on the mammoth, > maybe?) while women tend to see a wider picture and much more detail. (mammoth > skin for the baby, bones for the new towel rack, tail for the necklace). Each > way of looking at things has merits-but we tend to become a bit short with each > other. > > So, more info, less sniping, perhaps? Just a thought. > > Laurie > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 In this case the gender 'roles' reversed; the lady's ideologist nature provided untenable theory, while the man's practical nature investigated the theory, dug up several details the theorist was missing, and applied them to the wider picture of nutritional deficiency. Regardless of the exercise in gender switching the discussion was fruitful; the truth was scrutinized and it did not support the theory. all good, Duncan >... we all need to remember that men's and women's brains and thought processes are > different. Men tend to see one thing at a time (eyes solely on the mammoth, > maybe?) while women tend to see a wider picture and much more detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Toni, the discussion was informative in that the facts and the ideals surrounding nutritional supplementation were aired with regard to some of the specific nutrients and promoted dosage of algae. I'm sure members find it encouraging to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff through discussion. The strengths of this group include the analysis and application of data and revamping of ideals, and I think it's important to our personal progress to continue to do both. Don't worry about the couple of small shots I took from Carol; they are water under the bridge. Some people express themselves that way in a discussion and it won't be the last time we heard it. all good, Duncan > > > > Hello all. > > > > Not sure what the flap is about now-something to do with algae, I think. Maybe > > we all need to remember that men's and women's brains and thought processes are > > different. Men tend to see one thing at a time (eyes solely on the mammoth, > > maybe?) while women tend to see a wider picture and much more detail. (mammoth > > skin for the baby, bones for the new towel rack, tail for the necklace). Each > > way of looking at things has merits-but we tend to become a bit short with each > > other. > > > > So, more info, less sniping, perhaps? Just a thought. > > > > Laurie > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 I had decided I wouldn't post any more about this subject because people are getting really sick of this. But, really Duncan??? I can't believe you are still attacking my " theory " , as you call it, because you just have no clue as to the merits of the product. There is no way I can teach people about whole food supplements if they are not willing to learn. You do not hear/understand what I am saying. Carol > > In this case the gender 'roles' reversed; the lady's ideologist nature provided untenable theory, while the man's practical nature investigated the theory, dug up several details the theorist was missing, and applied them to the wider picture of nutritional deficiency. > > Regardless of the exercise in gender switching the discussion was fruitful; the truth was scrutinized and it did not support the theory. > > all good, > > Duncan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing./arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Carol, I understand why algae is good for you, but not why you strongly adhere to the theory that it is a complete nutritional solution and no other supplement would be required, when the theory is unsupported by company literature and nutritional analyses. Please tell us you're not " teaching " people that, Carol! all good, Duncan > > I had decided I wouldn't post any more about this subject because people are getting really sick of this. But, really Duncan??? I can't believe you are still attacking my " theory " , as you call it, because you just have no clue as to the merits of the product. There is no way I can teach people about whole food supplements if they are not willing to learn. You do not hear/understand what I am saying. > > Carol > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Funny thing Duncan, I have had dozens of clients on my " theory " products for various ailments - and they got better! Wow, what an amazing theory! So yes, I'm not just teaching people, I'm helping them improve their health. So I'm sorry to disappoint you Duncan that this " theory " actually works. Carol > > Carol, I understand why algae is good for you, but not why you strongly adhere to the theory that it is a complete nutritional solution and no other supplement would be required, when the theory is unsupported by company literature and nutritional analyses. Please tell us you're not " teaching " people that, Carol! > > all good, > > Duncan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 " untenable theory " ? Try using that the next time you want that mamoth hide cleaned and tanned! Laurie ________________________________ From: Duncan Crow <duncancrow@...> Coconut Oil Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 2:42:40 PM Subject: Re: gender differences? In this case the gender 'roles' reversed; the lady's ideologist nature provided untenable theory, while the man's practical nature investigated the theory, dug up several details the theorist was missing, and applied them to the wider picture of nutritional deficiency. Regardless of the exercise in gender switching the discussion was fruitful; the truth was scrutinized and it did not support the theory. all good, Duncan >... we all need to remember that men's and women's brains and thought processes >are > > different. Men tend to see one thing at a time (eyes solely on the mammoth, > maybe?) while women tend to see a wider picture and much more detail. ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.