Re: The TONE of the Weston Price website

[Guest guest]

Zulu,

>Everytime I show people (like some of my teachers) the Weston Price

>website they always say it's interesting but that they're put of by

>the heated and emotional rhetoric.

That's interesting, because I first read the website when I was a strict

lacto-vegetarian, and I wasn't even put off then. The ideas were

challenging to me, and I got the feeling like I had too much food on my

plate and had to put some aside for later. But I picked it up again a bit

later, and more and more I began to absorb it.

So I think it has to do with the person's receptivity to the information.

And I happen to think the WAPF site is organized very nicely. But I've seen

websites that were such a mess navigation-wise, appearance-wise, just

disasters. Still, when you really want to get information, you dig and find

it underneath appearances and any perceived emotional tone.

-

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:04:42 -0000

" paultheo2000 " <paultheo2000@...> wrote:

>Everytime I show people (like some of my teachers) the Weston Price

>website they always say it's interesting but that they're put of by

>the heated and emotional rhetoric.

Do they ever give you examples of " heated and emotional rhetoric? " If

they do why don't you post them here? Otherwise anyone can make such a

claim but that doesn't mean its true.

>

>It seems to me that while attracting the layman, such an approach may

>put off more scientifically oriented readers. I always hate it when I

>bring up a quote from the Fallon or Enig and they're immediately

>dismissed as quacks.

That actually might say more about the people whom you are interacting

with as opposed to Fallon and Enig.

>

>-Zulu

>

The People vs. Rush Limbaugh

http://tinyurl.com/qon2

[Guest guest]

People who claim to be " scientists " or " scientific " who then

proclaim that they dismiss someones message because they don't

like " how " they present it are niether " scientists " nor " scientific " .

Most folks are put off by rhetoric, however if one has any

aspiration to have more intelligence than a typical nitwit you

overlook it and look at the data.

Its no different than someone saying " I don't like reading articles

off of PubMed or from medical journals cuz its too dry. " Too bad

reading these things are not for entertainment they are for

knowledge. Its nice when the two occur together but they often

don't.

I'd tell your instructors to get a clue.

DMM

> Everytime I show people (like some of my teachers) the Weston Price

> website they always say it's interesting but that they're put of by

> the heated and emotional rhetoric.

>

> It seems to me that while attracting the layman, such an approach

may

> put off more scientifically oriented readers. I always hate it

when I

> bring up a quote from the Fallon or Enig and they're immediately

> dismissed as quacks.

>

> -Zulu

[Guest guest]

Another easy way around such ignorant behavior is stop quoting

Fallon or Enig. If Fallon or Enig state something you're inclined

to quote, then just find the reference and quote the reference

instead. I realize this makes things more inconvenient however it

does force your " instructor " to show their true colors. Many times

what you'll find is a general disinterest in the references also.

They essentially just aren't interested and just feign a lack of

science so they may save face and just avoid the issue all together.

People generally hate the overwhelming amount of bad news in the

newspaper and on the evening news and yet watch and read it every

day. People generally do what they want to do. Pseudoscientists

included.

DMM

Ps- Zulu I sympathize with you, I've confronted this more times than

I care to recall. Its just a fact of life.

> > Everytime I show people (like some of my teachers) the Weston

Price

> > website they always say it's interesting but that they're put of

by

> > the heated and emotional rhetoric.

> >

> > It seems to me that while attracting the layman, such an

approach

> may

> > put off more scientifically oriented readers. I always hate it

> when I

> > bring up a quote from the Fallon or Enig and they're immediately

> > dismissed as quacks.

> >

> > -Zulu

[Guest guest]

> Everytime I show people (like some of my teachers) the Weston Price

> website they always say it's interesting but that they're put of by

> the heated and emotional rhetoric.

>

,

I haven't looked at the website in a while, but one thing that

bothered me about it was the highlighted " press release " from 2057

that states that the Cholesterol Theory has wiped out the human

race. This is on the first page of the website!

This " press release " is speculative and so outside the realm of

current thinking that I think it gives a very bad first impression

about the foundation. It sounds like hype (even if it ends up being

true). First impressions are important. I can see this turning off

many people from wanting to look further at the site.

I'd rather see a *study* highlighted that shows lack of dietary

cholesterol leads to infertility in mice. I'm not sure if there is

such a study, but I'd think there must be something substantive

behind what's stated in this press release.

Personally, I believe that we could completely destroy our fertility

if we continue to eat as we do, but I don't know if/when that will

happen. That we might kill ourselves off isn't the first thing i

bring up with friends when introducing them to NT principles!

Other than that, I like the website (at least last time i looked).

You know, I think I stopped going to the website because I'd cringe

every time I saw the cholesterol " press release! "

[Guest guest]

I don't mention the website because i find it a little embarrassing. I agree

it is heavy on rhetoric and propaganda when it doesn't need to be. The tone

in parts of the book are off-putting to me too. The facts speak for

themselves and should be left alone. I think it is a factor of little

marketing/writing finesse more than anything. Just my two cents.

Elaine

>> Everytime I show people (like some of my teachers) the Weston Price

>> website they always say it's interesting but that they're put of by

>> the heated and emotional rhetoric.

>>

[Guest guest]

Agreed! It does nothing but give material to potential detractors,

although the idea behind the fiction is sound.

Overall I think the WAPF site isn't bad. It does look quite

professional, which is very imporatant. The navigation could be

improved, though.

Tom

> I haven't looked at the website in a while, but one thing that

> bothered me about it was the highlighted " press release " from 2057

> that states that the Cholesterol Theory has wiped out the human

> race. This is on the first page of the website!

>

> This " press release " is speculative and so outside the realm of

> current thinking that I think it gives a very bad first impression

> about the foundation. It sounds like hype (even if it ends up being

> true). First impressions are important. I can see this turning off

> many people from wanting to look further at the site.

>

> I'd rather see a *study* highlighted that shows lack of dietary

> cholesterol leads to infertility in mice. I'm not sure if there is

> such a study, but I'd think there must be something substantive

> behind what's stated in this press release.

>

> Personally, I believe that we could completely destroy our fertility

> if we continue to eat as we do, but I don't know if/when that will

> happen. That we might kill ourselves off isn't the first thing i

> bring up with friends when introducing them to NT principles!

>

> Other than that, I like the website (at least last time i looked).

> You know, I think I stopped going to the website because I'd cringe

> every time I saw the cholesterol " press release! "

>

>

[Guest guest]

>> Overall I think the WAPF site isn't bad. It does look quite

professional, which is very imporatant. The navigation could be

improved, though. <<

Actually, I think it looks clunky and out of date - it needs a professional

redesign desperately.

Christie

[Guest guest]

Mike-

*Extremely* sound advice.

>Another easy way around such ignorant behavior is stop quoting

>Fallon or Enig. If Fallon or Enig state something you're inclined

>to quote, then just find the reference and quote the reference

>instead.

-

[Guest guest]

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

From: " Christie " <christiekeith@...>

> >> Overall I think the WAPF site isn't bad. It does look quite

> professional, which is very imporatant. The navigation could be

> improved, though. <<

>

> Actually, I think it looks clunky and out of date - it needs a

professional redesign desperately.

I rather like it, but...did anyone else have to remind himself when he

first saw the site that the Web wasn't around in the '70s? There's just

something about the color scheme....

[Guest guest]

> Actually, I think it looks clunky and out of date - it needs a

professional redesign desperately.

>>>>I rather like it, but...did anyone else have to remind himself when he

first saw the site that the Web wasn't around in the '70s? There's just

something about the color scheme....

---->i think all of these issues regarding mechanics/design of the site

relate to a shoestring budget. sally's son designed and built the website

IIRC, and i doubt the foundation has the funds to totally redo it. i'd LOVE

to see it better organized (and designed) myself and would love to see a

content management system that would allow sally et al to upload articles

and control content on their own without requiring a web professional, (not

to put you out of biz, jill!) but it would a much more efficient system.

yeh, the site could use improvements, but without the big bucks of corporate

sponsorship, i think they're doing a pretty good job of getting info out to

the public on their budget.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

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

From: " Dr. Marasco " <mmarasco@...>

> Let the alarms sound separate the wheat from the chaff and move on.

> This is what intelligent people do. The morons just sit and say " I

> don't like how so and so said/wrote such and such and therefore I'm

> not listening. " Life is to short to be concerned with such trite.

On the other hand, some might argue that life is too short to listen to

those who aren't confident enough in their arguments to present them

without manipulative rhetoric.

[Guest guest]

Again I agree, I am not suggesting that the rhetoric is good or

enjoyable. However reality does in fact dictate that however

inconvenient it may be, a certain commitment to intelligent

discernment is required. Especially considering that I don't see

rhetoric as a means of behaviour manipulation stopping anytime soon.

DMM

--- In , " Berg " <bberg@c...>

wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: " Dr. Marasco " <mmarasco@c...>

>

> > Let the alarms sound separate the wheat from the chaff and move

on.

> > This is what intelligent people do. The morons just sit and

say " I

> > don't like how so and so said/wrote such and such and therefore

I'm

> > not listening. " Life is to short to be concerned with such

trite.

>

> On the other hand, some might argue that life is too short to

listen to

> those who aren't confident enough in their arguments to present

them

> without manipulative rhetoric.

[Guest guest]

>On the other hand, some might argue that life is too short to listen to

>those who aren't confident enough in their arguments to present them

>without manipulative rhetoric.

I see this so often as lack of communication or writing skill, not lack of

confidence in the material.

I don't know how many times I've suffered through a dreadfully edited book

because the germ of truth was there... somewhere...

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/28/03 2:13:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jafasum@... writes:

> I do think they should take out the accusatory language. They would reach

> more people that way. Some people are very sensitive on the issue of food!!!

This is in no way personal, but I think the above idea, which is shared by

many, is preposterous. It is particularly ironic that new folks on this list,

who obviously have gotten " sucked in " if you will, on a list that has been

growing astronomically since I've been on it, which is home to an astounding

number of hundreds of people surprisingly willing to tolerate the enormous

amount

of traffic on this list. And last I knew, the WAPF's membership was doubling

every year.

The fact is that for everyone one person who is " put off " by the " emotional "

rhetoric, 10 or 100 would never be attracted by the dynamism of the rhetoric

were the site just another boring, tone-less, adynamic health site that passed

away in the faceless desert of technical information.

If anything, it represents marketing skill, in my opinion, and it's worth ke

eping in mind that Nourishing Traditions is a COOK BOOK. As such, it is

wonderfully unique. Anyone who is trying to convince a neurosurgeon that red

meat

is good for you with Nourishing Traditions is a little off their rocker. Since

Sally Fallon doesn't have any credentials, and since Nourishing Traditions is

not *meant* to be a position paper, a piece of scientific evidence, etc, but

rather a cook book, I wouldn't ever quote a statement from her as some kind of

evidence to back up my point. If someone is trying to convince someone with

a scientific background on scientific grounds, they should be giving them the

science stuff. Know Your Fats is a good place to start, The Cholesterol

Myths, and obviously NAPD.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/28/03 9:41:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

> Let the alarms sound separate the wheat from the chaff and move on.

> This is what intelligent people do. The morons just sit and say " I

> don't like how so and so said/wrote such and such and therefore I'm

> not listening. " Life is to short to be concerned with such trite.

And for that, there's calorie restriction.

Chris

[Guest guest]

-

While I do wish WAPF material would be improved, relying on the presence or

absence of what you call manipulative rhetoric makes for a really poor junk

filter.

>On the other hand, some might argue that life is too short to listen to

>those who aren't confident enough in their arguments to present them

>without manipulative rhetoric.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/28/03 5:31:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, lm324@...

writes:

> The second REALITY is that people get turned off when they have a bad

> first impression (you'd say this shows they are " idiots who can't

> read something intelligently. " ). I honestly think we all do this and

> I'd bet that there are areas in your life where you do the same.

> That is the reality of human nature. I don't think that's going to

> change any time soon. You WISH it were different; you think it

> should be different, but the REALITY is that it isn't different. So,

> if you're interested in education then you need to be responsible to

> educate in a manner that is effective.

,

The third reality is that WAPF is one of the fastest growing health sites on

the internet, that as an organization it's membership is growing

astronomically, that it's monetary base and quality of conferences has been

growing

astronomically, and that they not only attract people like the diverse crowd on

this

gigantic list (which probably includes every type of person) but their

conferences are loaded with health professionals, etc. There's just no evidence

that

the " tone " of the WAPF site is interfering with their/our ability to attract

people.

In fact, I want to point out something I consider very, very important:

People OFTEN complain on this list that they have trouble convincing people that

certain things are healthy/unhealthy for them, etc. Well, I don't have this

problem. Not only have I made significant impacts in the diets of just about

everyone I've talked to about diet, but people from school naturally gravitate

towards asking *me* health advice, which they often put higher value on than

their, say, nutrition teacher's advice, which is the opposite of mine.

There are a couple reasons for this, but rather than going into them, I just

want to point out that if WAPF's " tone " is uninviting, mine must be ten times

more uninviting, and I frequently use the terms " ridiculous, " " load of

bullshit, " " crock of shit, " etc, when I talk to people, and rather than turning

people off, I get requests for encores of " lectures " and a growing number of

people

who appreciate my advice.

So either a) there are lots of people out there who are turned off my this

type of rhetoric and I happen to have the odd fortune of never having met them

or b)there is something else going on that is causing people to be unreceptive,

and they naturally say they're put off by the tone, but that doesn't really

speak to what's going on.

> When someone sees that WAPF says the human race will be wiped out in

> 2057 because of lack of dietary cholesterol, I understand the

> response to think, " This group is out-there! " And, living in an

> information-overloaded world, I understand the desire to look for

> info that doesn't seem so hyped. Someone who's turned off by that

> press release isn't an " idiot who can't read intelligently. "

No, but they obviously have a hypocholesterol-induced deficient sense of

humor. That's meant to be funny, plain and simple. I thought it was.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> But wouldn't it be better if Fallon and Enig could reach more people

> with their message?

>

> -

,

I agree with you. It's true that people need to learn to separate

spin from facts, but it's also true if you have an important message,

you need to take responsibility to communicate in a way that presents

your message in the best way.

The poor tone that appears in some WAPF stuff bothers me, but I

overlook it because I appreciate the content. But I *know* that the

tone has made a few of my friends not give it a second look.

I have the exact same problem when writing or speaking about an issue

I'm not happy about. I have a definite " negative tone. " A good

friend once told me, " , it's not what you say [that's fine]; it's

the way you say it [puts people off]. "

I have thought a lot about what he said. It's completely true. The

frustrating thing on my end is learning a new way of expressing

myself; it's not natural and I'm often not successful.

However, I believe that if I want to communicate my

opinions/beliefs/thoughts/feelings then it is *my* responsibility to

learn how to communicate well. And to ask my friends for continual

mercy as I learn...!

If I put people off, how have I communicated? I haven't. Or,

actually, I communicated something completely other than what I

desired.

[Guest guest]

> ---->i think all of these issues regarding mechanics/design of the

site

> relate to a shoestring budget. sally's son designed and built the

website

> IIRC,

-----> Well I am impressed with what they have given that! Maybe at

some point they will have enough money for a moderate redesign.

Thanks for letting us know!

Lynn

[Guest guest]

Thank goodness you said that Chris. NT is JUST a cookbook IMHO and in not

meant to be *followed* like some sort of cultish dietary fad like other books

out

there.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

I agree.

One person who is quite literate and in favor of the cholesterol myths that I

showed this website was put off by it. For example, he read the article on red

meat being beneficial. He said that the scientific studies that were done were

dismissed as wrong, without true substantiation to this effect. And then they

went on to claim the benefits of red meat without adequate studies (except from

W. Price). Basically, he said that what the anti red meat people may be guilty

of, Fallon/Enig are equally guilty by attacking them back. He is pro red meat,

but won't have new people read this site.

I do think they should take out the accusatory language. They would reach more

people that way. Some people are very sensitive on the issue of food!!!

It wouldn't cost them to edit their own words. Just time. I think I will

write NAP and share this story. If enough people let them know, maybe they will

change their approach a little.

Jafa

paultheo2000 <paultheo2000@...> wrote:

But wouldn't it be better if Fallon and Enig could reach more people

with their message?

-

ADVERTISEMENT

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/28/03 8:42:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, lm324@...

writes:

> That is an important reality. It would be very different if

> membership weren't growing, etc... Then WAPF would really need to

> examine why. Most of the time the " tone " doesn't bother me because I

> agree with all of this and I share the same disgust w/the food

> processing industry, SAD diet, etc...

>

> I have also had an impact on the diets of *many* people around me and

> don't find myself needing to convince people.

Great.

> I'm speaking up because there have been at least 3 people who've told

> me they've been turned off.

Well if " *many* " have been receptive and 3 have been turned off, that seems

like a good record, considering any given tone or approach is bound to turn

some folks on and turn some folks off.

I don't believe they were just looking

> for an argument either. It can never hurt to fine tune your

> presentation. Yes, WAPF has great growth, but that's no reason not

> to explore ways to improve.

No of course not. But my point is that these few people who are turned off

probably do not outweigh the people who are attracted to the wittiness, humor,

and sarcasm that is sometimes presented. And anyone who goes into reading

something with the title " Caustic Commentary " expecting something germane and

unoffensive frankly needs better " scanning " skills.

>

> One example, as I was first reading " The Oiling of America, " I was

> thinking of how I was excited to give a copy to an obese friend.

> Then I got to a part where a " short, bald, fat man " (IIRC) from the

> margarine industry shows up at Enig's office. My heart sank.

> Why did they have to do a personal attack on the man, particularly

> for short and bald? Even if that did have to do w/how his parents

> and he ate, aren't we all in that situation until we change? I

> haven't given my obese friend a copy of that yet simply because of

> the cheap jab at someone's appearance.

I don't recall that part and didn't have it in mind. I agree it would be

better to change it. Might want to mention it to Sally. I can see reasons for

keeping it, but it makes sense to share your experience with outreach to

improve the effectiveness.

> Also, as I said in a previous post, this is kind of a personal issue

> for me because I am just as guilty as carrying a " tone " and had one

> true friend point it out to me. I've always had plenty of friends,

> so it's not like my " tone " made me unlikeable. It's been one of my

> most difficult challenges to work on this, but as I've made some

> progress, I see that there are benefits to changing one's style of

> presentation, that people respond differently to the content of what

> I'm saying. Did I have to do that to have friends? No. Has it

> benefited me? Significantly.

It may also be that some of the friends you've made were attracted to your

personality too. While a more bland tone might be less offensive to some, it

also gives you less of a strong personality, which is one thing that makes

people like other people. That's not to say there isn't a place for

professionalism, or for learning to read your audience, etc, of course.

> I have *tons* of admiration for all Sally has done and continues to

> do. I am indebted to her -- beyond what I can say. There are

> thousands of people who feel the same way. I sometimes get teary-

> eyed even thinking about it.

> The tone hasn't been a stumbling block for me, but it has for some.

> That's worth knowing and considering.

Well I agree. I just don't see a way to measure the relative benefits and

costs of it, and I'm sure the former exist.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/28/03 7:18:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> By proclaiming itself as the enemies of 'Diet Dictocrats' that's

> exactly what it does, tho...

, this is a good example of taking-something-too-seriously gone awry.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Obviously ... but there's the way I wish the world was and

> REALITY. I still wish for the WAPF site to be better but REALITY

is

> its NOT and making excuses for the idiots who can't read something

> intelligently because they don't like the style or manner of

> presentation is not a worthy effort.

DMM,

You're arguing against your own point here! You want to be committed

to REALITY and not how you WISH the world was. I want the same

thing. But there are 2 realities here and you seem to only embrace 1

of them. Seriously, if you're committed to reality, be willing to

see the second.

The second REALITY is that people get turned off when they have a bad

first impression (you'd say this shows they are " idiots who can't

read something intelligently. " ). I honestly think we all do this and

I'd bet that there are areas in your life where you do the same.

That is the reality of human nature. I don't think that's going to

change any time soon. You WISH it were different; you think it

should be different, but the REALITY is that it isn't different. So,

if you're interested in education then you need to be responsible to

educate in a manner that is effective.

I want to be clear: I'm not saying you don't have a good point that

since emotional rhetoric is a reality, you need to be willing to look

past it to get to the facts. That is a good point.

The flip side is also true. People get turned off by certain types

of rhetoric, so if you want to spread your message, you need to be

careful how you present your material.

I believe that responsibility always, always, always goes both ways.

> Yes better presentations would be great but people using poor

> presentation as an excuse to ignore the data is pathetic.

When someone sees that WAPF says the human race will be wiped out in

2057 because of lack of dietary cholesterol, I understand the

response to think, " This group is out-there! " And, living in an

information-overloaded world, I understand the desire to look for

info that doesn't seem so hyped. Someone who's turned off by that

press release isn't an " idiot who can't read intelligently. "

Your point *has* encouraged me to not let inital negative impressions

turn me away from something, but, honestly, I was neither an idiot

nor pathetic when I've done that in the past.