RE: this list (was Top Post)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/20/04 9:17:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> i do understand the lament from people who want to limit the discussion to

> nutrition issues and i honestly sympathize, but want to point out that that

> view is not shared by all. i know i'm not the only one who wants it to stay

> the way it is.

I think a lot, perhaps hundreds, of the people on this list wish the topics

were more restricted, but " put up " with the tangential and off-topic posts

because the on-topic posts are so beneficial.

How about a thought experiment: If everyone on the list who participates in

the political, etc, disccussions left the list, how would that change the

character of the *on-topic* exchange?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Suze-

I concur, but I think there's a lot of merit to Heidi's proposal, and I

think I'm going to give it my official endorsement and even put it in the

list's guidelines once I finally get around to writing them up. (There

will be precious few actual rules, especially since most would be

unenforceable, but it's useful to have an official set of guidelines to

refer people to.)

>i do understand the lament from people who want to limit the discussion to

>nutrition issues and i honestly sympathize, but want to point out that that

>view is not shared by all. i know i'm not the only one who wants it to stay

>the way it is.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/21/04 12:15:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,

fxfireob@... writes:

> why don't those who want indepth discussion of politics have it on

> nt_politics/

> and if the ot political discussion here goes on too long just ask people

> to continue it on the group set up specifically for political

> discussion. imo it's nice to have a bit of off topic now and again but

> too much can be distracting.

I'm on that list, but I never post to it because I don't know whether anyone

else joined, or who did and who didn't.

One of the problems here is that people seem to assume " political " topics are

" off-topic. " While the " money and health " thread did go significantly

off-topic, it started as an on-topic thread, and in the last two days, has

returned

on-topic.

Nutrition has political and anthrpological components, and they are just as

" on-topic " to it as any other. Many of the non-political threads are off-topic

too. For example, gluten-free living is hardly on topic: Price mentioned

nothing of it, and, to boot, fed his patients wheat! Low-carbing isn't

advocated

by WAPF and wasn't advocated by Price, so is hardly " on-topic. "

Yet all of these issues are related in that they are cared about by *us* a

community of people who share some basic common views about food, nutrition,

research, etc, that most other folks don't. And the issues that we care about

beyond Price and NT are informed and affected by those common views.

How building codes would be replaced in a libertarian society is certainly

off-topic. But how economics influences the quality of food in a society and

how soil fertility could be improved in a libertarian society are certainly,

doubtlessly, _on-topic_. And having these discussions necessarily spurts

tangential sub-threads, as certain issues must be dealt with by offering

scenarios

and analogies, comparing the issue to something else, etc, in order to deal with

some fundamental principles that we discuss for the purpose of applying them

to food and nutrition.

The gun thread, on the other hand, just has no excuse <g>

But it's not easy to differentiate between " on-topic " and " off-topic, " and

whatever definition we choose, I don't think that something should be considered

" off-topic " by any means, just because it is political.

Chris

[Guest guest]

YAY!! >Suze-

YAY!! >

YAY!! >I concur, but I think there's a lot of merit to Heidi's

YAY!! >proposal, and I

YAY!! >think I'm going to give it my official endorsement and

YAY!! >even put it in the

YAY!! >list's guidelines once I finally get around to writing

YAY!! >them up. (There

YAY!! >will be precious few actual rules, especially since most would be

YAY!! >unenforceable, but it's useful to have an official set of

YAY!! >guidelines to

YAY!! >refer people to.)

i agree - it thought heidi's idea was great. very glad that you're not going

to limit the scope of the list. THANK YOU!!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

YAY!! >

[Guest guest]

why don't those who want indepth discussion of politics have it on

nt_politics/

and if the ot political discussion here goes on too long just ask people

to continue it on the group set up specifically for political

discussion. imo it's nice to have a bit of off topic now and again but

too much can be distracting.

-susan

austin tx

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> In a message dated 1/20/04 9:17:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> s.fisher22@... writes:

>

> > i do understand the lament from people who want to limit the

> discussion to

> > nutrition issues and i honestly sympathize, but want to point out

> that that

> > view is not shared by all. i know i'm not the only one who wants it

> to stay

> > the way it is.

>

> I think a lot, perhaps hundreds, of the people on this list wish the

> topics

> were more restricted, but " put up " with the tangential and off-topic

> posts

> because the on-topic posts are so beneficial.

>

> How about a thought experiment: If everyone on the list who

> participates in

> the political, etc, disccussions left the list, how would that change the

> character of the *on-topic* exchange?

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

Well what about if there are two main groups labeled " FOOD " and " POLITICS "

then those of use who filter (I'm very fond of Mailwasher just as Rhea is)

can filter stuff out when wanted. This will only work if everyone does it

but it may solve the problem and keep most people happy. I think we should

go for a WIN-WIN here.

--

**Good Point** -----Original Message-----

**Good Point** From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

**Good Point** But it's not easy to differentiate between

**Good Point** " on-topic " and " off-topic, " and

**Good Point** whatever definition we choose, I don't think that

**Good Point** something should be considered

**Good Point** " off-topic " by any means, just because it is political.

**Good Point**

**Good Point** Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> for example i posted yesterday asking for

> sources of grass fed gelatin, and only one person responded by basically

> saying 'make it yourself' which i appreciate but it was not what i asked

> and therefore does me little good.

Yes, but the list doesn't exist for your good, and the people who participate

in it don't do so for your benefit, and you aren't " entitled " to an answer.

People who participate in the group DO help out others, but not because they

have a " responsibility " to do so.

You seem to think that the political discussion detracts from other

discussion, but you have no basis to think so-- I'm sure you would have gotten

similar

response, or lack thereof, had you posted during a time when political

discussion was absent.

I don't ignore non-political posts, but sometimes I just don't have an

answer. I don't use gelatin, so I don't have an answer.

to continue this example - this

> morning i open my email folder with the hopes of a

> response to my inquiry but there were none. there were many replies to

> debated topic such as politics, ethics, how one should format their

> replies etc., and imo these topic should be discussed, they need to be,

> but not at the expense of the central topic of food and giving real

> tangible support to individuals in their transition to better and more

> conscious eating.

But on what basis do you conclude that such topics were discussed at the

*expense* of your question? Doesn't any given individual on the list have a

right

not to respond to your question? Certainly the " list " can't have a

collective responsibility, since there is no mechanism to enforce participation,

or to

allocate specific responsibility. (Not to mention, if there were, no one

would want to participate). It's more likely that no one had an answer, or, no

one had gotten around to answering who did.

so i would ask that those who enjoy the contextual

> conversations more than the core topics to please make an effort to

> occasional reply to core questions as well and not to be so enamored by

> the thrill of the debate. i know the core topic can get boring and

> redundant but it needs as much if not more attention than heated topics

> because the truth is it the glue here we can have both it just takes a

> conscious effort on everyone's part.

I suppose if you want to pay people for it, some consider themselves to be

responsible for it, but I think most people wish to respond to queries or ask

their own on their own time, out of their own volition.

Sometimes a question just gets missed and you need to ask it again.

Sometimes nobody has an answer. I understand your frustration, but I disagree

that

the political threads are the culprit. If I had an answer for you, I'd

certainly post it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

i agree, it is hard to know where the line is and a discussion list void

of context becomes sterile and boring. i for one would hate to see this

list or any good list become ridge, it needs to be free flowing. but i

see the problem comes in when the tangential or contextual conversation

overwhelms the core topic. for example i posted yesterday asking for

sources of grass fed gelatin, and only one person responded by basically

saying 'make it yourself' which i appreciate but it was not what i asked

and therefore does me little good. to continue this example - this

morning i open my email folder with the hopes of a

response to my inquiry but there were none. there were many replies to

debated topic such as politics, ethics, how one should format their

replies etc., and imo these topic should be discussed, they need to be,

but not at the expense of the central topic of food and giving real

tangible support to individuals in their transition to better and more

conscious eating. so i would ask that those who enjoy the contextual

conversations more than the core topics to please make an effort to

occasional reply to core questions as well and not to be so enamored by

the thrill of the debate. i know the core topic can get boring and

redundant but it needs as much if not more attention than heated topics

because the truth is it the glue here we can have both it just takes a

conscious effort on everyone's part.

susan

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> But it's not easy to differentiate between " on-topic " and " off-topic, "

> and

> whatever definition we choose, I don't think that something should be

> considered

> " off-topic " by any means, just because it is political.

>

> Chris

In a message dated 1/21/04 12:15:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> fxfireob@... writes:

>

> > why don't those who want indepth discussion of politics have it on

> > nt_politics/

> > and if the ot political discussion here goes on too long just ask

> people

> > to continue it on the group set up specifically for political

> > discussion. imo it's nice to have a bit of off topic now and again but

> > too much can be distracting.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> ,

>

> > for example i posted yesterday asking for

> > sources of grass fed gelatin, and only one person responded by

> basically

> > saying 'make it yourself' which i appreciate but it was not what i

> asked

> > and therefore does me little good.

>

> Yes, but the list doesn't exist for your good, and the people who

> participate

> in it don't do so for your benefit, and you aren't " entitled " to an

> answer.

wow thats amazing how someone can find something that's simply not there

- i said " for example " i never said nor implied i was owed anything. i

was passin on a relevant onservation best done by providing an example

sorry you took it personal.

>

> People who participate in the group DO help out others, but not

> because they

> have a " responsibility " to do so.

i don't remember saying that anyone was responsible for anything in

particular. we're all here voluntarily therefore each person posts

voluntarily - no shame no blame prehaps hopes but no expectations

> You seem to think that the political discussion detracts from other

> discussion, but you have no basis to think so-- I'm sure you would

> have gotten similar

> response, or lack thereof, had you posted during a time when political

> discussion was absent.

i never said this either. the phrase i used in another post was

something to the effect 'can be distracting' in fact i said without

these sorts of posts the list would loss it's context and become sterile

i said i agreed with your position.

> I don't ignore non-political posts, but sometimes I just don't have an

> answer. I don't use gelatin, so I don't have an answer.

i'm glad you don't ignore posts but then again i never said you or

anyone else did. i said the 'core topics' can be overwhelmed by

political and ethical posts so we all need to make sure we don't do that.

> to continue this example - this

> > morning i open my email folder with the hopes of a

> > response to my inquiry but there were none. there were many replies to

> > debated topic such as politics, ethics, how one should format their

> > replies etc., and imo these topic should be discussed, they need to be,

> > but not at the expense of the central topic of food and giving real

> > tangible support to individuals in their transition to better and more

> > conscious eating.

>

> But on what basis do you conclude that such topics were discussed at the

> *expense* of your question?

it was a general caution not a conclusion or even a complaint regarding

my specific question. but when looking through the archives it appears

that at the moment the group is more focused on debating than on the

central topic. this trend will either continue or not. if people are

unhappy one way to change things and try and make everyone at least

somewhat satisfied is to give everyone a little of what they want so if

you find yourself responding more or exclusively to non-core topics/ot

post then prehaps you might want to braoden your focus - it seems to me

that is exactly what you are asking people who are not interested in ot

post to do - you get what you give i guess.

> Doesn't any given individual on the list have a right

> not to respond to your question?

absolutely only sincere (or funny:) responses please - not that i can

control what another chooses to do:)

> Certainly the " list " can't have a

> collective responsibility, since there is no mechanism to enforce

> participation, or to

> allocate specific responsibility. (Not to mention, if there were, no one

> would want to participate). It's more likely that no one had an

> answer, or, no

> one had gotten around to answering who did.

that's fine again it was just an example not a biggie i thought that by

starting the sentence out with " for example " that would have made it

clear that it was just an example.

> so i would ask that those who enjoy the contextual

> > conversations more than the core topics to please make an effort to

> > occasional reply to core questions as well and not to be so enamored by

> > the thrill of the debate. i know the core topic can get boring and

> > redundant but it needs as much if not more attention than heated topics

> > because the truth is it the glue here we can have both it just takes a

> > conscious effort on everyone's part.

>

> I suppose if you want to pay people for it, some consider themselves

> to be

> responsible for it, but I think most people wish to respond to queries

> or ask

> their own on their own time, out of their own volition.

what is it? pay people for what exactly?

> Sometimes a question just gets missed

yes that's why i said it takes a conscious effort not to have both

because the more mundane question are easily overlooked

> and you need to ask it again.

> Sometimes nobody has an answer.

sure there are no guarenties that there will be answers and i for one

don't experct any response. once again it was an example there are many

i'm sure it was just the closest at hand

> I understand your frustration, but I disagree that

> the political threads are the culprit. If I had an answer for you, I'd

> certainly post it.

>

> Chris

i'm not frustrated at all and i never said the political discussion was

the culprit. what i said was:

" i agree, it is hard to know where the line is and a discussion list void

of context becomes sterile and boring. i for one would hate to see this

list or any good list become ridge, it needs to be free flowing. but i

see the problem comes in when the tangential or contextual conversation

overwhelms the core topic. "

to explain the context is the politics & ethics, the core is the making

of food and all the logicistic of where & what to buy and how to prepare

it. one is not more important then another i believe if you had really

read my post you would have understood that point but it seems the

desire to fight won and that's fine with me. i got no problem with that,

but i also have no real time for that either. as i said i agree with

your position i just think its a " both and " deal

susan

austin, tx

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> wow thats amazing how someone can find something that's simply not there

> - i said " for example " i never said nor implied i was owed anything. i

> was passin on a relevant onservation best done by providing an example

> sorry you took it personal.

Oh, I didn't take it personally at all. I'm sorry if I came across that way.

It seemed to me that you were saying the list should change its operations

so you get more answers, and I was simply pointing out that answering questions

is voluntary.

> >You seem to think that the political discussion detracts from other

> >discussion, but you have no basis to think so-- I'm sure you would

> >have gotten similar

> >response, or lack thereof, had you posted during a time when political

> >discussion was absent.

>

> i never said this either. the phrase i used in another post was

> something to the effect 'can be distracting' in fact i said without

> these sorts of posts the list would loss it's context and become sterile

> i said i agreed with your position.

Fair enough; I misinterpreted you then. I did catch that post and so did

realize you didn't want to eliminate the political posting-- but I'm not sure

what you *were* saying if you weren't saying that the political posting was

nevertheless interfering with other posting, which I don't think is true.

> >I don't ignore non-political posts, but sometimes I just don't have an

> >answer. I don't use gelatin, so I don't have an answer.

>

> i'm glad you don't ignore posts but then again i never said you or

> anyone else did. i said the 'core topics' can be overwhelmed by

> political and ethical posts so we all need to make sure we don't do that.

I don't understand what you mean then. If the " core topics " are overwhelmed,

and your example is that you don't get an answer for a given question, isn't

that implying that the political threads are preventing people from answering

you? Otherwise, it would simply mean that there are more of them then " core

topics " ? I'm really not sure what you're saying.

> it was a general caution not a conclusion or even a complaint regarding

> my specific question. but when looking through the archives it appears

> that at the moment the group is more focused on debating than on the

> central topic. this trend will either continue or not. if people are

> unhappy one way to change things and try and make everyone at least

> somewhat satisfied is to give everyone a little of what they want so if

> you find yourself responding more or exclusively to non-core topics/ot

> post then prehaps you might want to braoden your focus - it seems to me

> that is exactly what you are asking people who are not interested in ot

> post to do - you get what you give i guess.

Not at all. I don't expect people who aren't participating in political

posts to participate; I expect them to delete the posts. I don't understand how

I

could lay an expectation on someone else to engage themselves in a discussion

they aren't interested in.

It's worth noting that you did end up getting an answer to your question, and

also that I had answered a post the same day about sources for lard, so

clearly those threads aren't neglected. Also, I disagree that political threads

are some how not " core topics " -- I'd only consider them off-topic when they go

on tangents about say, guns or building codes.

> that's fine again it was just an example not a biggie i thought that by

> starting the sentence out with " for example " that would have made it

> clear that it was just an example.

Sure but it has to be an example *of something*.

> > so i would ask that those who enjoy the contextual

> >>conversations more than the core topics to please make an effort to

> >>occasional reply to core questions as well and not to be so enamored by

> >>the thrill of the debate. i know the core topic can get boring and

> >>redundant but it needs as much if not more attention than heated topics

> >>because the truth is it the glue here we can have both it just takes a

> >>conscious effort on everyone's part.

> >

> >I suppose if you want to pay people for it, some consider themselves

> >to be

> >responsible for it, but I think most people wish to respond to queries

> >or ask

> >their own on their own time, out of their own volition.

>

> what is it? pay people for what exactly?

For answering the questions when they don't want to. Rereading the paragraph

I quoted from you above, I really can't escape understanding you to be saying

that people have some sort of duty to respond to certain questions rather

than others.

> >Sometimes a question just gets missed

>

> yes that's why i said it takes a conscious effort not to have both

> because the more mundane question are easily overlooked

More likely they are not answered because people don't have an answer. You

did get an answer didn't you? About Jensen's gelatin? So the list IS working,

not broken in any way.

> >and you need to ask it again.

> >Sometimes nobody has an answer.

>

> sure there are no guarenties that there will be answers and i for one

> don't experct any response. once again it was an example there are many

> i'm sure it was just the closest at hand

I understand it was just an example, but it was an example OF people not

answer a question *you* wanted answered, and instead discussing what *they*

wanted

to discuss. So I'm not sure how saying it was an " example " changes that.

> to explain the context is the politics & ethics, the core is the making

> of food and all the logicistic of where & what to buy and how to prepare

> it. one is not more important then another i believe if you had really

> read my post you would have understood that point but it seems the

> desire to fight won and that's fine with me. i got no problem with that,

> but i also have no real time for that either. as i said i agree with

> your position i just think its a " both and " deal

I did read your post. I'm not trying to fight! I swear! You should meet me

in person; I'm very friendly :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>

> I did read your post. I'm not trying to fight! I swear! You should

> meet me

> in person; I'm very friendly :-)

>

> Chris

i'm sure you are very nice! i've read a number of your post and am in

agreement with most every position you've taken. i'm sorry i'm not

stating myself clear enough for you to get what i'm saying but its not

an important enough point for me to continue trying to make it. but

honestly it had nothing to do with my question (which by the way i never

really did get an answer for but if i do find one i'll be sure to post

it to the group in case anyone here would like to know a confirmed

source of grass fed beef gelatin) and i am happy to see that the lard

thread was very active i for one learned the pork equivalent to tallow

(the fat from around the kidneys of cows) - leaf lard - good to know. i

believe the last 2 days have been very diverse conversation its nice to

see, ideal really - imo anyway:)

take care and keep talking:)

susan