Re: On Threats Real and Imagined
ttramone, if you look back over the thread
I think you will see I have responded to this repeated charge,
and responded more than once, as I recall.
In the original thread I apologized to 4peats
if she felt I left the impression you describe.
And I believe here in this thread
I specifically referred to you,
saying that I do not challenge your honesty.
So I am not the one
who seemingly needs to hold onto this already-asked-and-answered point
and is who is unable to move beyond it.
Now: if a general current of interpretation or spin
begins to emerge on the forum,
an implicit assumption or an explicit assertion
that a Peat diet is (whatever):
delicious, satisfying, varied, easy, etc...
...in that kind of case I feel is is fair game--indeed important game--
to analyze and evaluate
from a skeptical perspective.
Simply put: I believe it is a good thing, a Peatian thing, to question such interpretations.
Let me illustrate the point this way:
If, say, New Yorker magazine sent a science reporter to this site
and asked for our collective, general thoughts on a Peat diet,
including its relative ease, fun, satisfaction, variety, restrictiveness, etc...
...if that situation really arose,
I would feel the need to disassociate myself from such a general response by the forum.
My prediction would be that I would be embarrassed to lend my name to such a group summary.
I think it would likely be extremely rosy, insular, and inaccurate.
In short, it would be a very unscientific and unskeptical summary.
And this is to say nothing of the discomfort I would experience
when we most likely would claim that there is no Peat diet--
just after we had summarized our experience of eating one.
ttramone said:Narouz - why do you think you have the right to judge other people's experience? It comes across as quite arrogant to assume that you are somehow seeing the truth and other people are being fools with no insight into their own experience. Not cool. Why don't you challenge Peat's ideas, instead of something you know nothing about: how another person feels about their own life and undertakings.
ttramone, if you look back over the thread
I think you will see I have responded to this repeated charge,
and responded more than once, as I recall.
In the original thread I apologized to 4peats
if she felt I left the impression you describe.
And I believe here in this thread
I specifically referred to you,
saying that I do not challenge your honesty.
So I am not the one
who seemingly needs to hold onto this already-asked-and-answered point
and is who is unable to move beyond it.
Now: if a general current of interpretation or spin
begins to emerge on the forum,
an implicit assumption or an explicit assertion
that a Peat diet is (whatever):
delicious, satisfying, varied, easy, etc...
...in that kind of case I feel is is fair game--indeed important game--
to analyze and evaluate
from a skeptical perspective.
Simply put: I believe it is a good thing, a Peatian thing, to question such interpretations.
Let me illustrate the point this way:
If, say, New Yorker magazine sent a science reporter to this site
and asked for our collective, general thoughts on a Peat diet,
including its relative ease, fun, satisfaction, variety, restrictiveness, etc...
...if that situation really arose,
I would feel the need to disassociate myself from such a general response by the forum.
My prediction would be that I would be embarrassed to lend my name to such a group summary.
I think it would likely be extremely rosy, insular, and inaccurate.
In short, it would be a very unscientific and unskeptical summary.
And this is to say nothing of the discomfort I would experience
when we most likely would claim that there is no Peat diet--
just after we had summarized our experience of eating one.