Re: Re: comments about the group

[Guest guest]

»Second, I find it just a *teeny* bit hypocritical to tell people

their research is too old or too personal, when the guru of CRON,

the wonderful Dr. Walford, based his research of the human condition

on events that happened -- to him -- personally, wwwwwaaaaayyyyy

back in...1985?

Actually CR studies on animals have continued to this day and are being done and

being reported here. In addition there are now studies being done on humans

which are also being reported here and discussed. CRON research while not

definitive is current and continuing.

Waltons book is only a book.. an overview of his work.. Not research in and of

itself. I believe, and may be wrong, but its recommendation is only as a great

overview starting place to learn the basics

jeff

[Guest guest]

I am reposting my reply to Kayce below just as it was posted. For all who have seen it and now see it again, please note that none of the words were in all caps.

As for Dr Walford, you've lost me. As a matter of fact, he " updated " his original work in BT120YD. I have no idea what you're referring to when you say he : " based his research of the human condition on events that happened -- to him -- personally, wwwwwaaaaayyyyy back in...1985? "

Dr W personally approved of our site and listed it on his own website. He also kept up a correspondence with us and me personally which is in the files. This continued until his death.

My reply to Kayce (which can be verified by looking it up in the archives:

From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

Reply-

Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:05:16 -0400

< >

Subject: Re: [ ] Dietary omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acidspromote colon carcinoma metastasis

A basic rule of science is that an experiment (or study) is valid only if it can be repeated or verified by other researchers. My husband, a respected scientist and researcher in his field, has drilled this into me.

In fact, Einstein's theories have indeed been verified since he first proposed them, by other scientists through their experiments.

Walford talked about this " show me more " when he mentioned the soy-dementia (one only) study. He said that until he saw further evidence, he was going to continue eating soy.

So show me more recent verification by others, (following this 8 year old study) and perhaps I might change my mind. Until that happens, my previous comments stand.

on 7/14/2006 7:04 AM, ashuwana at ashuwana@... wrote:

Francesca, a response:

I don't feel a need to leave, as I like several people here. But

moderators have the power to make it so and if it comes to that, I

will understand. There are other groups. But since you've asked:

constructively, I do have two suggestions:

First, I'd like to suggest that punching bag is the standard set by

the moderators since whenever a moderator disagrees with what

someone has posted, they throw in the typical JIBE IN ALL CAPS -- as

if the person is somehow a moron for making their statement, or they

are speaking a language we all cannot understand. Writing in all

caps is neither INTERESTING, nor CONSTRUCTIVE -- what it is is RUDE,

UNVEILED, UNWARRENTED CONDENSATION.

[Now tell me honestly, reading what I've just written, that it

doesn't sting? Next, convince me that any part of all of Kayce's

posts deserved to be addressed that way.]

Second, I find it just a *teeny* bit hypocritical to tell people

their research is too old or too personal, when the guru of CRON,

the wonderful Dr. Walford, based his research of the human condition

on events that happened -- to him -- personally, wwwwwaaaaayyyyy

back in...1985? I remember 1985, not so long ago. And " The 120-Year

Diet " came out in 1986, after which it took him 14 years to update

it. By your standards, that means his first book was rubbish. In

fact, by your standards, we might be inclined to ignore all his work

entirely. Or perhaps the magic cut-off date is anything before 1998?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I'm also not wrong. Walford was

an extremely tolerant man who welcomed all ideas; I think he'd be

truly appalled by the oft- rude, contradictory way this list is

moderated. You do provide a great service, but we don't have to lick

your boots about it. You were unnecessarily dismissive to Kayce, and

since I don't forsee this behavior changing without an argument, my

previous comments stand.

Ashuwana

(Oh, and before we get reduced to this, yes, my name really is

Ashuwana. I don't make up personas on the internet.)

>

> Ashuwana: a few thoughts:

>

> We always welcome CONSTRUCTIVE ways to run the group better.

However your

> post is not constructive, but scarcastic, destructive and yes,

rude.

>

> We who run the group do not get any compensation or reward other

than

> feeling we are doing a service. We're certainly not here to be

your

> punching bag.

>

> If you don't appreciate the group, and don't care to improve the

group in a

> constructive way, why are you here? In the event you were

unaware, you can

> leave at any time.

>

[Guest guest]

Hello all,

It has been a very long time since I've written to this list, but I've been

online in this group and it's nefarious, unmentionable predecessor since

some time in the mid 1990s or so.

Moderator responses are, I believe, very well-intentioned but sometimes

harsh, sometime quite harsh, but not nearly as censorious as many other

lists I'm on. Likewise, this is a group of people who are (not

demonstratably but very arguably) a little high strung... I do think this

is a side-effect of CR, hand-in-glove with heightened mental attention.

Agitations follow close, and the other list is an easy example of the flame

wars that can erupt from hungry people!

Perhaps rather than explaining our motives, reasons, and the fault of each

other that gave us reasons for agitation, it would be best to simply agree

that we all generally wish well on each other and both all comments more

harshly than they were really meant (I think that we all really can agree on

that) -- rather than explaining what each other did to lead us to our

respective reactions, let's turn back to good science and support for each

other than makes this challenging project just a little bit easier. The

evil & power-mad moderators actually hope everyone rests well tonight, and

the evil usurping posters really do wish good health on the moderators --

the rest isn't so crucial. SHOUTING aside, let's whisper our consent.

Sorry to be all sunshine, lollipops, and pig-tails... If it's any

consolation, I'd like to see all three icons of joyousness banned, but they

suit the stereotype.

Cheers,

[ ] Re: comments about the group

Francesca, a response:

I don't feel a need to leave, as I like several people here. But

moderators have the power to make it so and if it comes to that, I

will understand. There are other groups. But since you've asked:

constructively, I do have two suggestions:

First, I'd like to suggest that punching bag is the standard set by

the moderators since whenever a moderator disagrees with what

someone has posted, they throw in the typical JIBE IN ALL CAPS -- as

if the person is somehow a moron for making their statement, or they

are speaking a language we all cannot understand. Writing in all

caps is neither INTERESTING, nor CONSTRUCTIVE -- what it is is RUDE,

UNVEILED, UNWARRENTED CONDENSATION.

[Now tell me honestly, reading what I've just written, that it

doesn't sting? Next, convince me that any part of all of Kayce's

posts deserved to be addressed that way.]

Second, I find it just a *teeny* bit hypocritical to tell people

their research is too old or too personal, when the guru of CRON,

the wonderful Dr. Walford, based his research of the human condition

on events that happened -- to him -- personally, wwwwwaaaaayyyyy

back in...1985? I remember 1985, not so long ago. And " The 120-Year

Diet " came out in 1986, after which it took him 14 years to update

it. By your standards, that means his first book was rubbish. In

fact, by your standards, we might be inclined to ignore all his work

entirely. Or perhaps the magic cut-off date is anything before 1998?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I'm also not wrong. Walford was

an extremely tolerant man who welcomed all ideas; I think he'd be

truly appalled by the oft- rude, contradictory way this list is

moderated. You do provide a great service, but we don't have to lick

your boots about it. You were unnecessarily dismissive to Kayce, and

since I don't forsee this behavior changing without an argument, my

previous comments stand.

Ashuwana

(Oh, and before we get reduced to this, yes, my name really is

Ashuwana. I don't make up personas on the internet.)

>

> Ashuwana: a few thoughts:

>

> We always welcome CONSTRUCTIVE ways to run the group better.

However your

> post is not constructive, but scarcastic, destructive and yes,

rude.

>

> We who run the group do not get any compensation or reward other

than

> feeling we are doing a service. We're certainly not here to be

your

> punching bag.

>

> If you don't appreciate the group, and don't care to improve the

group in a

> constructive way, why are you here? In the event you were

unaware, you can

> leave at any time.

>

[Guest guest]

Just a couple of more observations and then I think it's time to move on as mentions in his post.

The moderators generously donate their time, attention, and knowledge to making this a worthwhile place. Although that's rarely acknowledged, I for one don't mind that a pat on the back is a rare thing. But I do object when someone (who BTW never or hardly ever contributes anything to the group) from out of left field decides to get nasty for very little cause.

We moderators often have to deal with spammers, crazies, and hostile people. We spend time on the files and links and sometimes the people who they are intended to benefit don't even bother reading them. Perhaps one could understand if we sometimes lose our patience. We are after all, human and imperfect as is everyone. In fact there were times when I have made public apologies when I felt I had mispoken.

But that was not even the case here. I replied in both cited posts in a polite manner. And the criticism was way out of line.

on 7/15/2006 4:00 AM, Gifford at james.gifford@... wrote:

Hello all,

It has been a very long time since I've written to this list, but I've been

online in this group and it's nefarious, unmentionable predecessor since

some time in the mid 1990s or so.

Moderator responses are, I believe, very well-intentioned but sometimes

harsh, sometime quite harsh, but not nearly as censorious as many other

lists I'm on. Likewise, this is a group of people who are (not

demonstratably but very arguably) a little high strung... I do think this

is a side-effect of CR, hand-in-glove with heightened mental attention.

Agitations follow close, and the other list is an easy example of the flame

wars that can erupt from hungry people!.......(snipped)