Re: Nitpicking (was raw egg safety)

[Guest guest]

bye

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " bacon.ette " <baconette@...>

> Gene, and others:

>

> > The original point, I think was quite relevant to this list, and

> > wasn't nitpicky at all. I think that most (but not all people) on this

> > list, are into this general way of eating because there is actually

> > EVIDENCE that it is better for you, and that we have been misled. In

> > order to have a rational discussion about this, facts and science must

> > be rather relevant to the discussion. The notion that the facts don't

> > matter, and that we should construct our diet around what our concept

> > of a personal God is, isn't a matter of only semantics, nitpicky, or

> > irrelevant.

>

> I'm new here, having been in the group for a few weeks now. I tried to

respond

> to Gene's

> original post calling Allyn's statement " silly, " but for some reason, my post

> never showed

> up. I'm reprising it here, and adding further thoughts.

>

> I'd originally said something like this to Gene:

>

> " What's silly is your behavior in reaction to your particular interpretation

of

> her statement.

> The statement could be read as being idiomatic, or as being a statement of

> faith, but in

> either case, the original poster was simply expressing offhandedly how *she*

> chooses to

> eat an egg.

>

> Along the scale of NT application, she's chosen to draw the line at separating

> eggs.

>

> Rather than taking from her comment what you could and leaving what you

couldn't

> --

> you took the opportunity to use her brief and offhanded post as a platform

from

> which to

> force the rest of us to watch your display of what I'm sure you consider to be

> your logical

> and science-based 'reasoning.'

>

> I joined the list to exchange nutritional information, and I resent being

forced

> into being

> your audience in this uncalled for style of exchange. I'd appreciate it if

> you'd please try

> and stick to the topic at hand. "

>

> You can say all you want, Gene, that your posts were aimed at clarifying the

> science or

> keeping folks from relying on misinformation, etc. but your style would belie

> that

> interpretation. It's clear that communication was *not* your true goal, but

> that socializing

> her was.

>

> Did you respond to Allyn in a single, friendly post?

>

> No, you decided you knew what she meant, and then baited her. When she

> gracefully

> backed out of the conversation, you kept going. You've stroked your own ego

at

> the

> expense of another list-member, and it's creepy and depressing to read.

>

> Since my original attempt to comment, the conversation has deteriorated even

> further, and

> now others have piled on. I'm surprised to see also picking on Allyn,

or

> at least

> taking her to task (shell's, banana peels) in a way that appears to ignore

> Allyn's original

> intention.

>

> I joined this list a few weeks ago, and at the same time, I also joined a

> " Discussing NT "

> list.

>

> Allyn, I'd like to invite you (along with anyone else who feels this

> conversation has been

> rather dispiriting and counter-productive) to come over to the other list.

The

> group there

> is friendly, supportive and fun, and the members are at least as well informed

> as this

> group. But they don't appear to have anything to prove.

>

> I'll be leaving NN-NT now.

> Best of luck to you all.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>