Re: The TONE of the Weston Price website

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure what the point of this post is in that I've already

stated exactly what you said.

I agree that Sally, the WAPF site and Enig are habitually

intellectually dishonest and do use rhetoric to communicate. They do

exactly what their opponents do. I've already agreed that this is

not desirable and there would be better ways to educate, communicate

and deliver the material.

My point is simply that this is NOT reason to discount their material

and my personal opinion is that anyone who discounts FACTUAL DATA

because they don't like the flavor or packaging of the data is in

fact acting like an idiot.

I do in fact see both sides and agree both share responsibility.

However as a person who is FOREVER reading dry, poorly written,

false, misleading, intellectually dishonest info from journals,

websites, etc... I simply have zero sympathy for those who want to

allow discount info cuz its not written well or in 3D or whatever.

The facts are the facts, I say suck it up that's the way things are

quit whining and just get the information you need. The world does

not revolve around how " you " (figurative you) want things.

I fully agree communication should be better from WAPF and sally but

won't allow for ANY room for some alleged " scientifically oriented "

fool to discount their information just because they prefer vanilla

writing over chocolate.

Like I said, get over it, read it, learn what you need and walk away.

In the mean time hopefully the style of presentation will improve.

DMM

> > 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.

>

>

[Guest guest]

, well said! I don't think I could of articulated it the way you did.

-

> > 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.

>

>

[Guest guest]

As an aside,

I was talking with someone online about the WAPD site who studies

lipid biochemistry and this person actually went to look up some of

the cited references. Apparantly some of the author's names are spelt

wrong and some studies aren't well quoted. Since she knew some of the

people who were involved in the study she said she was appalled by the

behavior. She stopped reading the site after that. Is this true; has

anyone checked the WAPD links to see if they are accurate? Before

somebody pounces on me, I'm just being curious. Perhaps the person I

spoke too was mistaken.

Is there anybody here with a scientific background, btw?

-

[Guest guest]

Who cares?

The WPF is in existence to promote their agenda they are no more or

less intelletually dishonest or rhetorical than any other group

fighting for their particular pet agenda. Any illusions of them

being " above " that should be set aside, cuz their not.

you'll consider this pouncing I'm sure while its not meant that

way.

ANYONE can be scientific. THis is not some " moniker " laid upon some

higher intellectuals. You can be scientific. You can verify the

references. You can determine the legitimacy of particular

studies. You need not rely on your instructors, friends or the WAPF

website. Its called doing your homework.

You seem to have questions about how WAP presents itself and

possibly some of the legitimacy of some of the sources of their

perspectives which I think is great and very healthy. If you have

these questions nothing will allay them until YOU verify them.

Enjoy! Any other way is just you being a sheep " believing " what

someone is saying.

I have a scientific background however let me assure you that it

gives me ZERO help in grasping what's real and what's not in today's

science. Its about taking the time to read junk you just don't want

to read.

" Scientific " is as amorphous and misleading a word as genuine

authentic immitation crabmeat.

DMM

> As an aside,

>

> I was talking with someone online about the WAPD site who studies

> lipid biochemistry and this person actually went to look up some of

> the cited references. Apparantly some of the author's names are

spelt

> wrong and some studies aren't well quoted. Since she knew some of

the

> people who were involved in the study she said she was appalled by

the

> behavior. She stopped reading the site after that. Is this true;

has

> anyone checked the WAPD links to see if they are accurate? Before

> somebody pounces on me, I'm just being curious. Perhaps the person

I

> spoke too was mistaken.

>

> Is there anybody here with a scientific background, btw?

>

> -

[Guest guest]

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

exactly what it does, tho...

-

> 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 have a scientific background however let me assure you that it

gives me ZERO help in grasping what's real and what's not in today's

science. Its about taking the time to read junk you just don't want

to read.

Very well said....how many times a year are we told do this or that to

prevent this or that and then someone turns around and says OH! don't do

that we just found out that it is bad for you after all.

Just the other week I heard on the news something I would believe to be very

true....they studied the genes in older folks (nursing homes etc) and found

they have a mutated gene that makes their cholesterol basically no matter

how much their cholesterol appears to be high they don't have a problem

since they produce " fluffy " cholesterol. If you look at family history for

folks you can see some families are plagued with Coronary Artery problems..

others live long and healthy lives.

Personally I feel genetic research at present is one of the most reliable

sciences....nutrition is iffy to me as it seems to change on an almost daily

basis.

[Guest guest]

,

Did the fabricate the existence of such " dictocrats " ? No.

Right or Wrong, simply by positioning themselves as the diametric

opposite a perspective they feel has perpetrated itself with malice

is hardly approaches the formation of a cult.

> > 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]

> ,

>

> 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.

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.

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

me they've been turned 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Guest guest]

>

> ,

>

> 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.

> . . .

_That_ was very well communicated!