Re: Endless debates (was Burning Fat for Energy- low carb debate-) -Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/1/04 3:52:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

dezinegal@... writes:

Well of course it is. I never said it wasnt. HOWEVER, when one party

relentlessly and consisitently chalenges the other on practically every

post about whether they are right, even going so far as to question a

person's experience when *they* themselves have *zero* experience in

said topic and then try to argue their point just because they read

something off the web 5 minutes ago and want to challenge this person

because they like challenge for the sake of challenge and they expect

an answer to some tangent that they are now interjecting into a reply

that they misquoted, took out of context, misunderstood or didnt take

the time to clean up properly and expect me comment on said tangent

when most of the time it is an attempt to prove me wrong instead of

adding to the knowledge of the list, and then further state that they

will assume that my choosing to not comment any further on their reply

will be assumed to mean that I agree with their position *that;s* when

I get to the point where I say " whoa, this is not worth spending this

much time on because it has now degenerated into a game. "

_____

Hi ,

A few things are worth noting about the instance to which you are referring

here (the 20 rep squat thread):

1) My post neither mentioned you nor was directed to you

2) I never " questioned " your experience, but merely referred to your own

statement that you weren't currently doing the 20 rep squat (and which seemed to

strongly imply that you hadn't done it in the past, either)

3) I *only* brought that up *after* you had accused me of not having enough

experience with the matter to have an opinion

4) You were the one in this instance who argued with me, after I made a

statement to someone else about the 20 rep squat's effect on bone density, you

interjected (as you frequently do) to tell me I had absolutely no idea what I

was

talking about. Beyond that, the evidence you provided to show that I was so

completely wrong was a study comparing light exercise to no exercise, when I

was comparing low-rep high-weight exercise to high-rep low-weight exercise.

Talk about " out of context. "

While I am certainly not unbiased in my recollections, from the best of my

recall, I don't believe I have ever disagreed with anything you said for any

other reason than I actually disagreed with what you wrote. Further, I don't

recall doing so in any way other than discussing the specific points involved.

On the other hand, you frequently interject, even in discussions that do not

involve you at the moment (the above is a case in point) to tell me I " don't

know what I'm talking about, " " need to do my homework, " etc. Or, by making

other snide remarks, like the recent one addressing the fact, apparent to you,

that I'd emptied the entire contents of my brain into an email, even though the

language surrounding the text in question clearly indicated that I was offering

a limited off-the-top-of-my-head example.

Again, I'm not unbiased in my recollections. I'm sure there's things that I

have said that could have been said better, and perhaps were insulting, which

I try my best not to do. But, given what I've written above, it seems a gross

distortion for you to imply that there is only " one party " (quoted from your

above text) to blame.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/1/04 2:35:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

implode7@... writes:

I

remember well arguing with him about Chomsky, and it taking him about 20

emails (he'll probably correct me and say that it was 13) to admit that

maybe, kinda sorta, he was not really correct in his premises...

_____

Hi Gene,

I have no idea how many emails it was, but from what I recall, I *did* make

concessions and did my best to reword what I was trying to say in a more

correct way. Contrary to what you've written above, I admit quite often that

I'm

wrong whenever I'm convinced I'm wrong, and I often go out of my way to do so,

telling someone I had a debate with that they've long since forgotten that I

was wrong if it becomes apparent to me. I don't recall just how long you've

been on this list, but you'll find quite a few instances where I've made

dramatic

changes of position in debates. Off the top of my head, the Warrior Diet is

a major example.

In the case of the Chomsky thread, I admit fully that I had very bad wording

in that I used words with fuzzy definitions, such as " ideologue " that may have

been unfair. You correctly pointed out that an " ideologue " is generally not

defined as " someone who holds an ideology, " but is commonly used to denote

someone whose objectivity is compromised by their ideological beliefs.

Ultimately, we came to a stalemate, from the best of my memory, because we

came to a disagreement over whether it is more important or not to use multiple

sources when one or more source is ideological in nature. I hope I'm not

misrepresenting your view here, but if I am, it's not deliberate, it's because

it

was a while ago. From memory, I thought that it is always best to use

multiple sources on something, but that it is moreso when a source is

ideological, or

when the person holds an ideology that relates to that issue. I don't recall

whether or not you believed that it is important to use multiple sources (I

think you did), but you didn't believe that the ideology of a source makes a

difference.

I don't want to revive this debate by any means, and I don't think you do

either, but I did make concessions at the time, and if you weren't satisfied

with

the quickness with which I made them, or the quality of them, I'm making one

right now, rather quickly. Granted, we will agree to disagree on the parts I

did not concede.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Well of course it is. I never said it wasnt. HOWEVER, when one party

>relentlessly and consisitently chalenges the other on practically every

>post about whether they are right, even going so far as to question a

>person's experience when *they* themselves have *zero* experience in

>said topic and then try to argue their point just because they read

>something off the web 5 minutes ago and want to challenge this person

>because they like challenge for the sake of challenge and they expect

>an answer to some tangent that they are now interjecting into a reply

>that they misquoted, took out of context, misunderstood or didnt take

>the time to clean up properly and expect me comment on said tangent

>when most of the time it is an attempt to prove me wrong instead of

>adding to the knowledge of the list, and then further state that they

>will assume that my choosing to not comment any further on their reply

>will be assumed to mean that I agree with their position *that;s* when

>I get to the point where I say " whoa, this is not worth spending this

>much time on because it has now degenerated into a game. "

Well, I kind of think that is an inaccurate characterization of so

I'll come to his defense.

1. He, and some of the others on this list, have done a LOT of

reading and study on metabolism issues. When he comments

on a topic in that realm, it is NOT based on a 5 minute internet

search (tho if you ask for references, as you have, he might

be willing to search to find a reference you can access, because

you can't access his textbooks he probably has on the shelf

behind him).

2. When he, or some of the others, " challenge " a thing, they are

challenging the " fact " not the person. When you post a website

and folks challenge what is on it, that is not challenging you per se.

Personally I think that if anyone just posts a " xyz is true " kind

of statement, it can be challenged, esp. if the science behind

it is less than absolute. A lot of these health issues are currently

hotly debated in the scientific communities, they are not cut

and dried.

3. Cleaning up posts seems to be somewhat of a function

of the emailing software, tho I agree it can be irritating.

4. I understand you feel misunderstood, which can be

irritating. Commenting on tangents happens a lot in this

and other groups ... often it leads in interesting directions.

5. Yeah, I admit sometimes it IS a game, kind of challenging

each other to new thinking, which is one of the things I

appreciate about some folks who challenge facts. ly

when I joined this list, I would have assumed " carbs cause

diabetes " myself, now I tend to look deeper and take

less for granted. I still get angry when someone points

out I made an error (hopefully I hide it well ...), esp.

when they are correct. But I've changed my views on a

lot of things, and am glad I have.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> Re: Endless debates (was Burning Fat for Energy- low carb

>debate-) -Heidi

>

>5. Yeah, I admit sometimes it IS a game, kind of challenging

>each other to new thinking, which is one of the things I

>appreciate about some folks who challenge facts. ly

>when I joined this list, I would have assumed " carbs cause

>diabetes " myself, now I tend to look deeper and take

>less for granted.

The same goes for me Heidi. The debates on this list have made me into much

more of a critical thinker than I previously was. And has certainly

played a roll in that since he's good at challenging inaccurate info that is

often taken for granted or challenging muddy thinking, which I'm sometimes

prone to. And I'm extremely grateful for that. Sometimes it's hard not to

let one's ego get in the way, but if it can be done, these debates can force

needed growth.

My 2 cents...

>I still get angry when someone points

>out I made an error (hopefully I hide it well ...)

You do. You are a wonderful example (as is Chris) of not letting your

emotions cloud a debate. I often think of how you two handle debates when

I'm getting annoyed at someone I'm debating with (as I am now on another

list. And I'm coming across as very unemotional and neutral, which I really

think impresses others more than my opponent's arrogant and condescending

remarks. In any case, it's always impressed me when either of you debate!).

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>

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

[Guest guest]

> The same goes for me Heidi. The debates on this list have made me

into much

> more of a critical thinker than I previously was. And has

certainly

> played a roll in that since he's good at challenging inaccurate info

that is

-----> Isn't that the truth! this one a big Thanks! (although

if I'm in the middle of a stuggling " thoughtful discussion " ....I might

not feel that way for awhile LOL)

And , you also have gotten me questioning and searching deeper

for stuff " I thought was right " .

Lynn

[Guest guest]

>

> -- Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

>> But I for one have learned a LOT

>> from debating with and he's a gentleman (doesn't call

>> anyone names). I've learned a lot from listening to others debate

>> too. Have two intelligent people (or more) intelligently debating

>> is a great way to learn stuff you didn't know.

>

> Well of course it is. I never said it wasnt. HOWEVER, when one party

> relentlessly and consisitently chalenges the other on practically every

> post about whether they are right, even going so far as to question a

> person's experience when *they* themselves have *zero* experience in

> said topic and then try to argue their point just because they read

> something off the web 5 minutes ago and want to challenge this person

> because they like challenge for the sake of challenge and they expect

> an answer to some tangent that they are now interjecting into a reply

> that they misquoted, took out of context, misunderstood or didnt take

> the time to clean up properly and expect me comment on said tangent

> when most of the time it is an attempt to prove me wrong instead of

> adding to the knowledge of the list, and then further state that they

> will assume that my choosing to not comment any further on their reply

> will be assumed to mean that I agree with their position *that;s* when

> I get to the point where I say " whoa, this is not worth spending this

> much time on because it has now degenerated into a game. "

>

LOL! You've got it totally right. presents himself as an expert on

practically everything, despite often knowing little to nothing about many

of the subjects. Even when presented with overwhelming evidence that he is

wrong, he will continue to debate the subject, ignoring what he wants to

ignore, and repeating the same tired illogic over and over. He IS a

gentleman in that he (rarely) gets into name calling, but his ability to act

condescending without overt insults is perhaps his most admirable trait. I

remember well arguing with him about Chomsky, and it taking him about 20

emails (he'll probably correct me and say that it was 13) to admit that

maybe, kinda sorta, he was not really correct in his premises...

I generally keep out of debates with him at this point - they are

exhausting. I DO (admittedly) troll him from time to time when I find what

he says to be utterly preposterous.

[Guest guest]

GENE WROTE:

Yes - you are to be commended for ultimately

conceding - however I did have a rather deep glimpse into your debating

style, which seemed to stem much more from a desire to win at all costs.

_____

I RESPOND:

Hi Gene,

I assume you won't believe me, but this is honestly never my intention. My

intention at the time was to try to clarify the point I was originally trying

to make, which I still believe to be valid, although I did some fumbling and

sabotaged myself by originally stating it in an improper way. Unfortunately,

this caused a big waste of time for the both of us, because your intention was

to prove that my original statement was wrong, and my intention was to make the

point I originally *intended*.

______

GENE WROTE:

Well, I often don't read your posts. I admit that. I do enjoy reading your

posts on kettlebells, however, having watched you become an expert in that

in virtually no time at all.

_____

I RESPOND:

I tend to share my opinions when I have them. Why not? I don't claim to be

an expert in kettlebells, and when I mention them, I usually refer people to

Dragon Door, where they experts are. What have I said about k-bells that was

founded upon anything other than my personal experience? If I say, " K-bells

are really fun! " no expertise is required. If I say, " k-bells have been the

best way to lose fat for me, " no expertise is required. If I were to inform

someone on how to do an exercise, that would require expertise, but I haven't,

to

my recollection, ever done that.

_____

GENE WROTE:

> Ultimately, we came to a stalemate, from the best of my memory, because we

> came to a disagreement over whether it is more important or not to use

> multiple

> sources when one or more source is ideological in nature.

LOL! I'm not going to be dragged into this again. You are again implying

that Chomsky is not as objective as others who exhibit views that are

considered by most to be in the political center. That is laughable.

______

I RESPOND:

I don't know why you think I'm saying this. An ideology can be on any point

in the spectrum. " Centrism " is an ideology just the same. In some sense, it

is impossible to avoid subjectivity in anything, so it is always good to read

more than one source. I believe that anyone who subscribes to any ideology

should be countered by an opposing ideology. So, a left view should be

countered by center and right views; a right view should be countered by center

and

left views; and, a center view should be countered by right and left views. I

think what I was trying to say, perhaps poorly, was that a left view should not

be taken as the only source, and two left views should not be taken as the

only source, but rather a mix of views should be looked at in all cases. Does

this make more sense?

In other words, the problem with Chomsky isn't Chomsky per se; it's that

reading only from one type of source, be it Chomskyian, libertarian, centrist,

or

whatever, is insufficient to get a good view. One can never achieve an

" objective syllabus, " but one can more closely approach it by drawing on a

variety

of views. If one does this, one might find that the left view is the best.

Or, one might find a mix to be best.

If you view this as different from what I am saying, please take it as a

correction of what I previously said, rather than an attempt to disguise my

former

statements. If you agree with this point of view, I will concede that what I

said before was wrong, and that this is what I now think, having had a chance

to think about it more and formulate it better.

____

GENE WROTE:

How exactly does one disagree to disagree?

____

I RESPOND:

I simply meant we wouldn't debate it any more, because it is tiring, and

neither of us like to debate with the other.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>You do. You are a wonderful example (as is Chris) of not letting your

>emotions cloud a debate. I often think of how you two handle debates when

>I'm getting annoyed at someone I'm debating with (as I am now on another

>list. And I'm coming across as very unemotional and neutral, which I really

>think impresses others more than my opponent's arrogant and condescending

>remarks. In any case, it's always impressed me when either of you debate!).

Thanks, and ditto! Actually you should see the dents in the

table ... sometimes I mumble to myself for days, thinking how CAN

that POSSIBLY be TRUE !!! But I'm very unimpressed by arguments

that begin by talking about the other person ... arguments that have

factual content are far more impressive. Sometimes even irritating

and stupid people happen to be correct (and in fact, if they

are correct I'm probably more likely to assume they are irritating

and stupid, if that challenges my assumptions ...)

I tend to be a fuzzy thinker too ... it drives my dh crazy that

I still think of 11:50 as 12:00. I'm learning to be more exact ...

lately someone I was talking to told me " I'll bet you were in

debate team in high school! You debate so well! " I said no,

I get my practice online ...

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 9/1/04 2:35:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> implode7@... writes:

> I

> remember well arguing with him about Chomsky, and it taking him about 20

> emails (he'll probably correct me and say that it was 13) to admit that

> maybe, kinda sorta, he was not really correct in his premises...

> _____

>

> Hi Gene,

>

> I have no idea how many emails it was, but from what I recall, I *did* make

> concessions and did my best to reword what I was trying to say in a more

> correct way. Contrary to what you've written above, I admit quite often that

> I'm

> wrong whenever I'm convinced I'm wrong, and I often go out of my way to do so,

> telling someone I had a debate with that they've long since forgotten that I

> was wrong if it becomes apparent to me.

Well, indeed you did make concessions in that debate. You should have made

them wayyyyy earlier. In that instance I argued to the point of utter

exasperation - and you repeatedly made claims about Chomsky's views that

were demonstrably false. Yes - you are to be commended for ultimately

conceding - however I did have a rather deep glimpse into your debating

style, which seemed to stem much more from a desire to win at all costs.

I certainly emerged from that argument, and a couple of others, with the

instinct never to trust what you're saying about a topic that I myself

haven't studied. It may be that you concede when you are convinced that

you're wrong, however it virtually impossible to convince you that you're

wrong - often when you both know little about the subject matter, AND you

have made logical mistakes that can be demonstrated to you over and over.

> I don't recall just how long you've

> been on this list, but you'll find quite a few instances where I've made

> dramatic

> changes of position in debates. Off the top of my head, the Warrior Diet is

> a major example.

Well, I often don't read your posts. I admit that. I do enjoy reading your

posts on kettlebells, however, having watched you become an expert in that

in virtually no time at all.

>

> In the case of the Chomsky thread, I admit fully that I had very bad wording

> in that I used words with fuzzy definitions, such as " ideologue " that may have

> been unfair. You correctly pointed out that an " ideologue " is generally not

> defined as " someone who holds an ideology, " but is commonly used to denote

> someone whose objectivity is compromised by their ideological beliefs.

And I pointed out this, as well as other points that should have made an

impression ad nauseum before you came to realize some of this. But these

points, which you seem to imply were somehow trivial because they are

semantic in nature, were central to the discussion. You still emerged with

the view that Chomsky's objectivity is compromised.

>

> Ultimately, we came to a stalemate, from the best of my memory, because we

> came to a disagreement over whether it is more important or not to use

> multiple

> sources when one or more source is ideological in nature.

LOL! I'm not going to be dragged into this again. You are again implying

that Chomsky is not as objective as others who exhibit views that are

considered by most to be in the political center. That is laughable.

>I hope I'm not

> misrepresenting your view here, but if I am, it's not deliberate, it's because

> it

> was a while ago. From memory, I thought that it is always best to use

> multiple sources on something, but that it is moreso when a source is

> ideological, or

> when the person holds an ideology that relates to that issue. I don't recall

> whether or not you believed that it is important to use multiple sources (I

> think you did), but you didn't believe that the ideology of a source makes a

> difference.

>

?That is different than what you are saying above. There is a difference

between saying that someone who is viewed by most as an 'extremist', or who

actually believes that one should act in accordance with one's beliefs and

does, is therefore not objective, and saying that one should read more than

one point of view. It is also different than saying that " the ideology of a

source " makes a difference, whatever the hell that means.

> I don't want to revive this debate by any means, and I don't think you do

> either, but I did make concessions at the time, and if you weren't satisfied

> with

> the quickness with which I made them, or the quality of them, I'm making one

> right now, rather quickly. Granted, we will agree to disagree on the parts I

> did not concede.

>

How exactly does one disagree to disagree?

> Chris

>

>

>