visionofstrength
Member
My view is that whenever I say "Peat thinks" or "Peat feels", what follows should be a very close paraphrase of what Peat has actually said, which one can verify with a quick search of toxinless. If it comes from his newsletters or books I have access to but not available on toxinless, I try to say that.tara said:If you understand, as you say above, that you are sometimes wrong, and as you have said elsewhere, that you have limited understanding of biochemistry etc, then please exercise some restraint, and replace 'Peat thinks' and 'Peat feels' in front of your thoughts with 'I think' , and stop referring misleadingly to 'the RDAs' all over the forum. It is not 'being nice' or in my book to continue with these phrases.
On the other hand, if someone knows a quote from Peat that contradicts what I've said, it should be easy enough to call it up in the search and point it out to me, so I can learn. That is the nature of discourse. We don't throw stones at someone who interprets Blake, saying "Blake thinks" and "Blake feels". It's implicit that Blake's work, like Peat's, has many layers of meaning.
Like Blake, perhaps intentionally, Peat writes in a style that is challenging, and the substance of what he writes departs from, and really entirely obliterates the core of biology and molecular biology taught in university. I've spent countless hours enjoyably studying it. But if anyone thinks I have failed to understand it, please let me know. That's why we're here.
And I do urge a disclaimer that Ray Peat is not affiliated with this forum in any way, which I think would be a sign of respect for the man and his work.