Re: Are propaganda and uncited overstatements really bad?

[Guest guest]

I agree. I believe that factual errors will inevitably creep in a

body of work as diverse as what you see from the WAP foundation. A

pair of people can't proofread as thoroughly as thousands from

farming, medicine, nutrition and other fields. To err is human, but

those errors should be immediately corrected.

[Guest guest]

-

>For me the issue is that it is an extreme

>statement. Worse yet it is an extreme statement without citations or

>qualifications. In other words, it's propaganda not information.

>Admittedly, this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that this list, the

>WAPF, PPNF, etc should be strictly about *information*. Propaganda is only

>appropriate when the issues and information don't stand on their own merits.

I don't think extreme statements are a problem per se -- after all, in most

circles, the phrases " cholesterol myths " and " eat saturated animal fat " are

extreme statements -- but extreme statements do need to be documented and

supported. Perhaps it's true that a calf fed only pasteurized milk will

die. It's not exactly impossible or even absurd. But a statement like

that ideally should be rigorously documented so that people who are

inclined to scoff (as well as people who are just healthily skeptical)

won't dismiss the virtues of raw dairy. A pain in the neck, but so it goes.

-