RE: Re: Getting all upset over water

December 29, 2001

, Maybe it wasn't your intention but the way you came across was

completely steam-rolling what Crystal said. You also came across this way

after one of my posts recently. No one was disputing what you were saying -

it's a very valid and interesting point. Just the way you communicated it

after Crystal added her info - also interesting - seemed aggressive. The

written word can be very powerful sometimes, and I am also guilty of not

checking how I may come across. As I said, it was just how you came across.

Let's not spoil the good communication we have on the list, hey?

-----Original Message-----

As for your (educated) ND... well, buyer beware. Just because someone

has a degree on the wall, doesn't mean they know squat. I prefer to

be an informed consumer. If that means that perceives me

an " opinionated " , well, I'd prefer to be informed. I thought those

here would, too, but if you prefer to keep your own ideas unchallenged

and your minds closed, perhaps it would be better to delete my posts.

December 30, 2001

Geez, I am a lurker on this list, and I have been debating whether or not I

really want to remain on this list versus continuing to hit the delete key. I

know neither of the two ladies, but personally I think BOTH have come across as

steam-rolling each other, and BOTH seem very aggressive and " sanctimonious. "

It is a discussion-- I do not believe that there is any true right or wrong

answer. I think in general that as with quite a few scientific theories or ideas

one can find evidence to support both sides of the argument-- when it is a

subject that researchers, doctors, scientists, etc etc do not agree on

completely. Similar to a debate about artificial sweetners-- one can find

enormous amount of articles supporting claims that artificial sweetners are

dangerous.. whereas there enormous amount of articles saying how there is no

danger involved. Also, I tend to read articles about various subjects and keep

informed but as with most things I take them in with a grain of salt. I believe

that the human body is an extraordinary vessel. What may prove to be dangerous

and lethal for one-- may be neither to another. Take for example smoking--- I

have a great uncle (who is approaching 80) who has smoked all of his life since

he was about 13. He has never suffered any health problems related to smoking.

On the other hand you have people who have smoked semi-lightly for decades and

they develop a host of symptomatic disease and illness associated with smoking.

Certain foods and additives may be harmless for some and very dangerous for

others without explanation. I tend to think of it in the perspective as my

seafood allergies. I am deathly allergic to shellfish and unlike some other

allergy sufferers both freshwater and salt water fish also make me break out in

hives, become ill, even though it does not make my throat close up as shellfish

does. My doctor, friends, and family members all find this odd considering I am

not allergic to iodine-- but it is just the way it is. There is not an

explanation why I can not freshwater fish or saltwater for the matter-- heck

many other seafood allergy sufferers can-- however I am different.

I believe all of this similar to the unifying subject that brings everyone to

this list. Diet based on blood type. Countless doctors, scientists,

nutriionists, believe the idea to be hogwash--- others see the credibility. No

right or wrong answer. Just my opinion for what it is worth.