Re: FROM THE LIST-OWNER - New Group Description & Other List Business

October 7, 2004

At 04:21 PM 10/7/2004, you wrote:

>Thoughts (and objections) are welcome, onlist and off.

paul:

my first thought is: wheee!

i'm into all that.

my second thought - the amazon thing is a super good idea. iit'd be great

to buy all the stuff we banter about and get some money back for the group

for it....

more thoughts to follow...

katja

October 8, 2004

> Seriously, if you have any comments, suggestions, bugfixes, requests,

> browser rendering problem reports, or anything else, send 'em on

> over.

Personally, I would like to see do something about their search

function. Searching through the 50,000+ message in the archives 100 at a

time is incredibly frustrating and time-consuming. Any hope in this regard??

~~ Jocelyne

October 8, 2004

, your ideas sound fantastic. I think it would be FABULOUS for

Native Nutrition to ultimately become its own independant website. Web

forums are SO MUCH EASIER to follow than this list format, given the

post volume that we have. is cumbersome, ugly, and unreliable.

The problem is getting it off the ground. Web hosting is pretty cheap

these days but I suspect that we'd need to be darn sure we could get

it off the ground before attempting to run a self-funded site and

forum. So I think your proposal to start a site side-by-side with this

list, with the ultimate goal of completely abandoning , is

great.

Tom, who is only about a month behind on reading posts...

> Yea verily, though long have you suffered under the yoke of an

obsolete and

> confusing group description, at last your fearless leader hath rendered

> unto you something more fitting -- that you might come up with fresh

new

> complaints. <g>

>

> Seriously, if you have any comments, suggestions, bugfixes, requests,

> browser rendering problem reports, or anything else, send 'em on

> over. Just remember two things: first, the new description is very

much a

> work in progress, presently just an alpha; and second, 's

> 2000-character limit (including HTML code and spaces) is a PITA and

is the

> reason there aren't descriptions for all the books in the current

> draft. (I'd actually like to have a longer list of recommended

resources,

> to more fully encompass the group's nature and brief, but if

anything, the

> 2000-character limit imposed by the current software is likely to

> shorten the list, meaning for example that the resource list might

move to

> another page.)

>

> More generally, this raises an issue I'd like you all to think

> about. seems to be planning to offer a premium tier (or several

> premium tiers) of service at some point in the future. I believe

all of

> you will still be able to ACCESS the group for free, but it'll be

possible

> for me to pay for extra features, such as reduced or

eliminated ads,

> extra storage space, dedicated servers for better and faster service

(and

> less bouncing) and so on. Depending on how much they cost, and on what

> feedback I get from you, I might well be willing to spring for the

extra

> features.

>

> In fact, I've been thinking for some time about ways I could make

Native

> Nutrition more useful.

>

> Besides 's possible future extra services, would a separate

website be

> interesting and useful? Depending on time, money and staffing, it

could

> house a lot of useful resources, links to interesting news items,

how-tos

> and guides, etc., in much more user-friendly ways than the group's

> site can by itself. For the immediate future I can't foresee the group

> itself departing , because it seems to be the best deal at the

moment,

> but in addition to its immediate usefulness, a separate NN website

could

> make a possible future transition elsewhere a lot easier and more

seamless

> for all of you.

>

> Also consider that as a large group of like-minded people (OK,

like-minded

> on SOME things, anyway <g>) we have some not inconsiderable buying and

> lobbying power. Believe me, I'm not thinking about trying to turn this

> into some sort of political action committee (what a nightmare that

would

> be!) but it has occurred to me that some of the problems we all have

> finding and acquiring certain foods and products might be more

vulnerable

> to group than individual action. Just something to think about.

>

> And finally, because anything like this would cost at least some money,

> what sort of fund-raising mechanisms would be OK by you, and what

> wouldn't? Obviously I have no intention of " selling out " ,

subjecting you

> to advertising by the very companies and for the very products we

object

> to, or anything like that, but what about advertising products and

services

> that we do generally approve of? Or linking to recommended books and

> products, for example via Amazon, such that the commission money

defrays

> some of the expenses? I don't expect any of that would ever even fully

> defray those expenses, but at least it might make the expense easier

to bear.

>

> Thoughts (and objections) are welcome, onlist and off.

>

> -

October 8, 2004

In the photo section, you might like to delete the full-size version of photos

to save space - most people only look at the screen version.

My only real concern is the number of unwanted messages we get on the list. I

realise this is because it is unmoderated. Have you considered having new

members moderated for a short time to combat this? I'm sure we could probably

find a few people who would be willing to check new messages. They'd only have

to do a quick check to see that the message is not junk - rather than other

lists where they have to weed out posts that are a little too argumentive or

off-topic, etc. I think just having the group listed as 'moderated' would stop

most of it.

Cheers,

Tas'.

October 8, 2004

I agree with Tom that 's ideas sound great. It would be nice to

have a separate site one day if it's feasible.

I also love the new intro. on the home page.

Lastly, I think our files section needs to be expanded and organized

better (there are a lot of empty folders). We should all make an

effort to include more recipes if possible. I also think it would be

nice to have more photos too. Maybe it's just me, but I like to put a

face with a name.

Dawn

> , your ideas sound fantastic. I think it would be FABULOUS for

> Native Nutrition to ultimately become its own independant website. Web

> forums are SO MUCH EASIER to follow than this list format, given the

> post volume that we have. is cumbersome, ugly, and unreliable.

>

> The problem is getting it off the ground. Web hosting is pretty cheap

> these days but I suspect that we'd need to be darn sure we could get

> it off the ground before attempting to run a self-funded site and

> forum. So I think your proposal to start a site side-by-side with this

> list, with the ultimate goal of completely abandoning , is

> great.

>

> Tom, who is only about a month behind on reading posts...

>

> --- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> > Yea verily, though long have you suffered under the yoke of an

> obsolete and

> > confusing group description, at last your fearless leader hath

rendered

> > unto you something more fitting -- that you might come up with fresh

> new

> > complaints. <g>

> >

> > Seriously, if you have any comments, suggestions, bugfixes, requests,

> > browser rendering problem reports, or anything else, send 'em on

> > over. Just remember two things: first, the new description is very

> much a

> > work in progress, presently just an alpha; and second, 's

> > 2000-character limit (including HTML code and spaces) is a PITA and

> is the

> > reason there aren't descriptions for all the books in the current

> > draft. (I'd actually like to have a longer list of recommended

> resources,

> > to more fully encompass the group's nature and brief, but if

> anything, the

> > 2000-character limit imposed by the current software is

likely to

> > shorten the list, meaning for example that the resource list might

> move to

> > another page.)

> >

> > More generally, this raises an issue I'd like you all to think

> > about. seems to be planning to offer a premium tier (or

several

> > premium tiers) of service at some point in the future. I believe

> all of

> > you will still be able to ACCESS the group for free, but it'll be

> possible

> > for me to pay for extra features, such as reduced or

> eliminated ads,

> > extra storage space, dedicated servers for better and faster service

> (and

> > less bouncing) and so on. Depending on how much they cost, and on

what

> > feedback I get from you, I might well be willing to spring for the

> extra

> > features.

> >

> > In fact, I've been thinking for some time about ways I could make

> Native

> > Nutrition more useful.

> >

> > Besides 's possible future extra services, would a separate

> website be

> > interesting and useful? Depending on time, money and staffing, it

> could

> > house a lot of useful resources, links to interesting news items,

> how-tos

> > and guides, etc., in much more user-friendly ways than the group's

>

> > site can by itself. For the immediate future I can't foresee the

group

> > itself departing , because it seems to be the best deal at the

> moment,

> > but in addition to its immediate usefulness, a separate NN website

> could

> > make a possible future transition elsewhere a lot easier and more

> seamless

> > for all of you.

> >

> > Also consider that as a large group of like-minded people (OK,

> like-minded

> > on SOME things, anyway <g>) we have some not inconsiderable buying

and

> > lobbying power. Believe me, I'm not thinking about trying to turn

this

> > into some sort of political action committee (what a nightmare that

> would

> > be!) but it has occurred to me that some of the problems we all have

> > finding and acquiring certain foods and products might be more

> vulnerable

> > to group than individual action. Just something to think about.

> >

> > And finally, because anything like this would cost at least some

money,

> > what sort of fund-raising mechanisms would be OK by you, and what

> > wouldn't? Obviously I have no intention of " selling out " ,

> subjecting you

> > to advertising by the very companies and for the very products we

> object

> > to, or anything like that, but what about advertising products and

> services

> > that we do generally approve of? Or linking to recommended books and

> > products, for example via Amazon, such that the commission money

> defrays

> > some of the expenses? I don't expect any of that would ever even

fully

> > defray those expenses, but at least it might make the expense easier

> to bear.

> >

> > Thoughts (and objections) are welcome, onlist and off.

> >

> > -

October 8, 2004

I agree. I avoid like the plague generally, but there's

no other group like this! Speaking of which, I found two

other forums: Real Food for Real Folks and Beyondprice,

but neither of them have much activity. Would it be really

rude to go on them and tell people to come over here

where the action is? I would have been happy if someone

had clued me in sooner. I also wonder how many more

people would want to be here if it wasn't a group.

That might be enough to keep some people away.

Aven

> > , your ideas sound fantastic. I think it would be FABULOUS for

> > Native Nutrition to ultimately become its own independant website. Web

> > forums are SO MUCH EASIER to follow than this list format, given the

> > post volume that we have. is cumbersome, ugly, and unreliable.

> >

> > The problem is getting it off the ground. Web hosting is pretty cheap

> > these days but I suspect that we'd need to be darn sure we could get

> > it off the ground before attempting to run a self-funded site and

> > forum. So I think your proposal to start a site side-by-side with this

> > list, with the ultimate goal of completely abandoning , is

> > great.

October 8, 2004

> Re: FROM THE LIST-OWNER - New Group Description & Other

>List Business

>

>I agree. I avoid like the plague generally, but there's

>no other group like this! Speaking of which, I found two

>other forums: Real Food for Real Folks and Beyondprice,

>but neither of them have much activity. Would it be really

>rude to go on them and tell people to come over here

>where the action is?

As co-owner of beyondprice, it doesn't bother me at all. Our group was

pretty active for the first year and a half, but hasn't been so for several

years now. I think most members are already on , though.

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>

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

>

October 8, 2004

Hi ,

As a long time er, here are my comments.

This group was formed to explore Nourishing Traditions and Weston Price's

work (which is what Nourishing Traditions is all about). There is not a

single mention of Weston Price in your new description. Weston Price and his

work is the main focus of this group and always has been. I think he should

be the first one mentioned along with NAPD - the work that NT and the focus

of our discussions is based on. I'm glad you mention the Weston Price

*Foundation* - that's an important inclusion.

For obvioius reasons, I think it's good that you mention NT - as it's also

foundational to this group. However, I think BTVC has absolutely *nothing*

to do with WAP/NT and should not be listed as a book integral to the focus

of this list. I know that YOU really like it personally, but I don't think

it fits with the theme of this group, other than being one of MANY books

that can be modified to work with a WAP-compatible diet. The same goes for

Dr. Atkins book - it's got absolutely nothing to do with WAP/NT other than

that it can be modified to fit the WAP/NT paradigm like so many other diet

plans. The same critique holds for " Dangerous Grains " .

While both " The Cholesterol Myths " and " Wild Fermentation " are more directly

related to WAP/NT, I don't believe these books should be held up to be any

more integral to the focus of this list than, say, Enig's " Know your Fats " ,

or Ron Schmid's raw milk book, or several other related books. By listing

all these books along with NT (and excluding the MOST IMPORTANT BOOK OF

ALL - NAPD) it looks like they all have about equal weight, when this is the

farthest thing from the truth. So, my suggestion is to add NAPD, and drop

mention of all the others except NT in the group description. *However* I'd

suggest putting all these books and many other related ones in a file in the

files section AND to send out this list of books to all newcomers upon

subscription. That way, everyone has access to the book list, but the group

description doesn't make this list sound like the Elaine Gotschall list, or

the gluten-free Dr. Atkins list, but rather the Weston Price and Nourishing

Traditions list, which is what it's traditional focus has always been.

That's why it's called NATIVE nutrition, I imagine!

My .02 :-)

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>

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

>

October 8, 2004

> Re: FROM THE LIST-OWNER - New Group Description & Other

>>List Business

>

>As co-owner of beyondprice, it doesn't bother me at all. Our group was

>pretty active for the first year and a half, but hasn't been so for several

>years now.

Oops...that should read " but hasn't been for several months now " .

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>

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

>

October 8, 2004

Jocelyne-

>Personally, I would like to see do something about their search

>function. Searching through the 50,000+ message in the archives 100 at a

>time is incredibly frustrating and time-consuming. Any hope in this regard??

I really don't know, but if they do offer an improvement to their miserable

search function, it would definitely be high on my list of priorities to

implement.

-

October 8, 2004

Tas-

>In the photo section, you might like to delete the full-size version of

>photos to save space - most people only look at the screen version.

Not a problem at the moment, but if space gets scarce, it's a good thought.

>My only real concern is the number of unwanted messages we get on the

>list. I realise this is because it is unmoderated. Have you considered

>having new members moderated for a short time to combat this? I'm sure we

>could probably find a few people who would be willing to check new

>messages. They'd only have to do a quick check to see that the message is

>not junk - rather than other lists where they have to weed out posts that

>are a little too argumentive or off-topic, etc. I think just having the

>group listed as 'moderated' would stop most of it.

By unwanted messages do you mean spam? Spam has definitely been on the

increase lately. I'll definitely look into the " New Members " option for

moderation.

-

October 8, 2004

Dawn-

>Lastly, I think our files section needs to be expanded and organized

>better (there are a lot of empty folders).

Good point, and I'll work on trimming and updating it. 's files

interface, though, is probably never going to be ideal, which is one reason

I'd like to set up a companion website.

>I also think it would be

>nice to have more photos too. Maybe it's just me, but I like to put a

>face with a name.

Good point again, so I'll lead by example. I have a photo from my bio on

my own site, so I'll just put it up here today.

-

October 8, 2004

Aven-

>Speaking of which, I found two

>other forums: Real Food for Real Folks and Beyondprice,

>but neither of them have much activity. Would it be really

>rude to go on them and tell people to come over here

>where the action is?

Ask their list-owners first!

-

October 8, 2004

Suze-

>This group was formed to explore Nourishing Traditions and Weston Price's

>work (which is what Nourishing Traditions is all about). There is not a

>single mention of Weston Price in your new description. Weston Price and his

>work is the main focus of this group and always has been.

The main focus of the original description was actually NT, but I did think

long and hard (well, relatively speaking, anyway <g>) about including NAPD

in the list despite the 2,000-character limit (which I'm within a few

characters of hitting, BTW). The reason I didn't is that NAPD is not a

beginner-friendly book, while the WAPF site is a relatively

beginner-friendly introduction to his work, and I was trying to keep the

intro as beginner-friendly as possible. I should probably try to mention

his work in the intro, though, so I'll see what I can do on that front. As

I mentioned before, I might be moving the resources onto a whole separate

page anyway, but we'll see. My time is limited, so this will be a gradual

process.

>For obvioius reasons, I think it's good that you mention NT - as it's also

>foundational to this group. However, I think BTVC has absolutely *nothing*

>to do with WAP/NT and should not be listed as a book integral to the focus

>of this list. I know that YOU really like it personally, but I don't think

>it fits with the theme of this group, other than being one of MANY books

>that can be modified to work with a WAP-compatible diet. The same goes for

>Dr. Atkins book - it's got absolutely nothing to do with WAP/NT other than

>that it can be modified to fit the WAP/NT paradigm like so many other diet

>plans. The same critique holds for " Dangerous Grains " .

You might be right about BTVC. I'm not sure. But like it or not,

low-carbing has become central to this list, even though not everyone on

the list low-carbs and low-carbing isn't a requirement of NT/WAP-style

eating. Atkins provided an introductory endorsement to NT, and though

Sally doesn't generally discuss it, she does acknowledge that for some

people, low-carb high-fat eating is a necessity. And while I have some

substantial disagreements with " Dangerous Grains " , there's no question that

gluten-free eating has become a similarly popular focus of this group. I

admit I put BTVC up partly as what I consider a necessary companion and

counterpart to " Dangerous Grains " , but while I don't think the SCD is as

popular as gluten freedom is on this list, I do think it has something of a

following.

Of course, I could be wrong. That's why I solicited comments.

>While both " The Cholesterol Myths " and " Wild Fermentation " are more directly

>related to WAP/NT, I don't believe these books should be held up to be any

>more integral to the focus of this list than, say, Enig's " Know your Fats " ,

>or Ron Schmid's raw milk book, or several other related books. By listing

>all these books along with NT (and excluding the MOST IMPORTANT BOOK OF

>ALL - NAPD) it looks like they all have about equal weight, when this is the

>farthest thing from the truth.

Perhaps, perhaps not. " The Cholesterol Myths " is definitely mentioned and

recommended more often than " Know Your Fats " , and getting over cholesterol

paranoia is definitely a central issue for many newcomers to this list. I

wasn't entirely happy with my choice of " Wild Fermentation " , though, just

because it covers just one kind of fermentation -- wild. Yet fermented

foods generally are very important, are central to this list, and deserve

representation. I'd rather replace it with a more general text than just

eliminate it.

> So, my suggestion is to add NAPD, and drop

>mention of all the others except NT in the group description.

That's not going to accurately characterize the actual group, rather than

perhaps the theoretical one you'd be interested in, and although there are

limits to how far I'd be willing to see the group diverge from its WAP

orientation (you'll notice I didn't mention the POLITICS tag, or politics

generally, in the new intro!) I'm also not interested in ivory tower

inaccuracy.

> *However* I'd

>suggest putting all these books and many other related ones in a file in the

>files section AND to send out this list of books to all newcomers upon

>subscription.

Hmm, send it out to all newcomers? Interesting idea. I'll definitely

consider that.

Thanks for your post, Suze. Definitely food for thought.

-

October 8, 2004

> Yea verily, though long have you suffered under the yoke of an

obsolete and

> confusing group description, at last your fearless leader hath rendered

> unto you something more fitting -- that you might come up with fresh

new

> complaints. <g>

Okay, well at least you were anticipating some ;-)

<snip>

(I'd actually like to have a longer list of recommended resources,

> to more fully encompass the group's nature and brief, but if

anything, the

> 2000-character limit imposed by the current software is likely to

> shorten the list, meaning for example that the resource list might

move to

> another page.)

Well to be honest, I think the resource list *should* move to another

page for several reasons:

1. This group is based on the work of Weston Price. There is no

mention of his name on the home page. It seems to me that he should be

mentioned first and his book, NAPD, should receive the first mention

since this is what everything else is based on.

2. Other than Nourishing Traditions, most of the books mentioned have

a tenuous connection to the WAP paradigm, in other words they have to

be greatly modified in order to fit within the concept of Nourishing

Traditions. That doesn't mean they aren't personally helpful to

various folks on the list, but they don't really embrace or explain

the WAP paradigm in its totality (or some even in part).

For example, if someone asked me about losing weight, I might send

them in the direction of the Warrior Diet, but I would also tell them

about NT/WAP in order to modify that approach, even though, unlike

nearly every other diet/food program I have read, the Warrior Diet

does have *some* basis in a " nourishing tradition. "

3. For the books you mentioned that don't have to be modified, they

nonetheless only represent an aspect of WAP, not the full spectrum of

his ideas. You could have very well included s or Ron

Schmid's book on milk, or Pottengers Cats, or a book like Steffanson's

dealing with one specific group that Price studied. None however are

an adequate description of Price's principles regarding native nutrition.

IMO, there are only three books that should mentioned on the home

page. The first is NAPD since it is the foundation for everything

else. The other two would be _Nourishing Traditions_ and _Traditional

Foods Are Your Best Medicine_, both of which are direct attempts to

make Price's work more accesible to the modern day reader (as opposed

to something like the Makers Diet, which also extends Price's work but

modifies his observations with some even more traditional food

observations).

In fact, I think Schmids book is an easier introduction to Price since

it was written specifically for the purpose of introducing folks to

the WAP paradigm.

I also think that the Weston Price Foundation *and* the Price

Pottenger should be listed up front as resources. Beyond that I think

everything else belongs in the file section.

> In fact, I've been thinking for some time about ways I could make

Native

> Nutrition more useful.

>

> Besides 's possible future extra services, would a separate

website be

> interesting and useful?

Yes I think in the long run, if the group keeps growing, a separate

website would be quite useful. There are lots of people who do not

know about our group yet are interested in WAP if the conference was

any indicator. A brief announcement at the next convention might

really swell our ranks.

<snip>

I think one thing that could immediately be done to dramatically

change our archival search capability and usefulness is to get a group

of us to put our archives on PGOffline, a third party software tool

designed for groups. Once completed that would make everything

regarding the archives sooooooooo much easier.

FWIW,

October 8, 2004

-

>Well to be honest, I think the resource list *should* move to another

>page for several reasons:

Perhaps I should've made one thing more clear. There WILL be a

comprehensive resource list, and obviously it can't and shouldn't fit in

the group intro.

The purpose of the group intro is to let newcomers know what they're

getting into and to help them decide whether to join. To that end, I tried

to use a short list of resources as a shorthand description of the

group. In addition, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I tried to keep all the

resources listed in the intro very beginner-friendly, so that if a newcomer

who's not that familiar with all this stuff were to use the list, it would

be useful rather than intimidating. NAPD's great, but it's not for

everyone, particularly not as an introduction.

>1. This group is based on the work of Weston Price. There is no

>mention of his name on the home page. It seems to me that he should be

>mentioned first and his book, NAPD, should receive the first mention

>since this is what everything else is based on.

Well, yes and no. I agree that NAPD and the work of WAP are important

foundations of the group, but more than what you think the group is, even

more than what I think the group is, the group is what it is regardless of

what anyone thinks.

>In fact, I think Schmids book is an easier introduction to Price since

>it was written specifically for the purpose of introducing folks to

>the WAP paradigm.

Schmid's book is worth considering. I haven't read it yet, but it's on my

shelf, so I'll check it out.

>I also think that the Weston Price Foundation *and* the Price

>Pottenger should be listed up front as resources. Beyond that I think

>everything else belongs in the file section.

I thought about the Price-Pottenger Foundation too, but again, I believe

it's less beginner-friendly.

>Yes I think in the long run, if the group keeps growing, a separate

>website would be quite useful. There are lots of people who do not

>know about our group yet are interested in WAP if the conference was

>any indicator. A brief announcement at the next convention might

>really swell our ranks.

I'd wanted to go this year's convention, though unfortunately that didn't

work out, but I would like to have a website and some other services up and

running by next year's, so that an announcement and a little PR would

actually serve a purpose -- and so that we'll have the infrastructure ready

for a potentially large influx of people.

>I think one thing that could immediately be done to dramatically

>change our archival search capability and usefulness is to get a group

>of us to put our archives on PGOffline, a third party software tool

>designed for groups. Once completed that would make everything

>regarding the archives sooooooooo much easier.

That looks like a very interesting utility. One thing I could probably do

pretty quickly is get a barebones website up with a comprehensive resource

list and a searchable full message archive. I'll look into this. It might

have to wait a month, though, as I'm extremely busy at the moment.

-

October 8, 2004

<snip>

> The main focus of the original description was actually NT, but I

did think

> long and hard (well, relatively speaking, anyway <g>) about

including NAPD

> in the list despite the 2,000-character limit (which I'm within a few

> characters of hitting, BTW). The reason I didn't is that NAPD is not a

> beginner-friendly book, while the WAPF site is a relatively

> beginner-friendly introduction to his work, and I was trying to keep

the

> intro as beginner-friendly as possible. I should probably try to

mention

> his work in the intro, though, so I'll see what I can do on that

front. As

> I mentioned before, I might be moving the resources onto a whole

separate

> page anyway, but we'll see. My time is limited, so this will be a

gradual

> process.

,

I think it is possible to include NAPD while at the same time noting

the various strengths and weaknesses of the books. For example, how

many people have actually read NT in its entirety. I would be willing

to bet not many (same for NAPD). So it might be helpful to point

people to at least the first 70 pages or so to get an introduction to

WAP/NT principles, rather than piecemealing it because its written as

a cookbook.

Same goes for NAPD. Just point out that is not the most beginner

friendly book for some, and then let the folks choose where they want

to go, rather than having no mention of it at all.

<snip>

However, I think BTVC has absolutely *nothing*

> >to do with WAP/NT and should not be listed as a book integral to

the focus

> >of this list. I know that YOU really like it personally, but I

don't think

> >it fits with the theme of this group, other than being one of MANY

books

> >that can be modified to work with a WAP-compatible diet. The same

goes for

> >Dr. Atkins book - it's got absolutely nothing to do with WAP/NT

other than

> >that it can be modified to fit the WAP/NT paradigm like so many

other diet

> >plans. The same critique holds for " Dangerous Grains " .

>

> You might be right about BTVC. I'm not sure. But like it or not,

> low-carbing has become central to this list, even though not

everyone on

> the list low-carbs and low-carbing isn't a requirement of NT/WAP-style

> eating.

Maybe so, but up until this point we have kept a balance between a

specific representative group within the Price paradigm (of which low

carb qualifies) and the broad principles that exemplify the NT way.

It seems to me that including on the home page a book or books that

reflect *only* the current focus of the group rather than the broad

underlying principles, violates that balance and reflects only an

aspect of NT/WAP and not NT/WAP per se.

Atkins provided an introductory endorsement to NT, and though

> Sally doesn't generally discuss it, she does acknowledge that for some

> people, low-carb high-fat eating is a necessity.

Yes and that is certainly represented in NT/WAP groups, but an

emphasis? IMO, no.

Besides s wrote an introductory endorsement to NT as

well, and raw dairy is HUGE on this list, probably bigger than low

carb, since it is for many folks their *only* source of raw animal

food in their diet, a *clear* WAP/NT distinctive.

Personally, as detailed in my other post, I think neither book belongs

on the home page.

And while I have some

> substantial disagreements with " Dangerous Grains " , there's no

question that

> gluten-free eating has become a similarly popular focus of this

group. I

> admit I put BTVC up partly as what I consider a necessary companion and

> counterpart to " Dangerous Grains " , but while I don't think the SCD

is as

> popular as gluten freedom is on this list, I do think it has

something of a

> following.

It does and there should probably be a emphasis within WAP/NT on

gluten free grains, though to dismiss grains in their entirety would

be again emphasizing one aspect of the NT paradigm to the exclusion of

another.

It is interesting that Sally mentioned gluten as a problem at the

conference, but she also mentioned something else that rarely gets

mentioned here, most of Price's groups fermented their grain foods

(including bread) for at least two weeks. My take is that some of our

grain problems may be self imposed.

Nonetheless, it seems to me, that certain emphasis about which part of

the dietary paradigm we follow more properly belong within the list,

(popular focus or not) and not on the home page.

<snip>

> > So, my suggestion is to add NAPD, and drop

> >mention of all the others except NT in the group description.

>

> That's not going to accurately characterize the actual group, rather

than

> perhaps the theoretical one you'd be interested in, and although

there are

> limits to how far I'd be willing to see the group diverge from its WAP

> orientation (you'll notice I didn't mention the POLITICS tag, or

politics

> generally, in the new intro!) I'm also not interested in ivory tower

> inaccuracy.

I'm not sure what you mean about ivory tower inaccuracy. I don't see

any of that going on here, least of all from Suze.

But I think this whole group and the several related groups flow from

the foundational observations of Weston Price which are reiterated in

NT. I think it would be a mistake for this group to narrow that BROAD

focus.

Reading through the archives (which is no longer desirable since

made its changes recently) it is obvious this issue has come up

before, once over the place of raw animal foods in the WAP/NT paradigm

and also over the place of grains in the WAP/NT paradigm. WAP/NT isn't

primal nor is it low carb. IMO, given the dietary diversity among the

NT groups, there should be no mention of any particular dietary

emphasis on the home page.

more grain for the mill ;-),

October 8, 2004

" Web forums are SO MUCH EASIER to follow than this list format, given the

post volume that we have. is cumbersome, ugly, and unreliable.

Tom Jeanne "

I agree that can be a pain in the neck, but speaking for those of us with

older computers and dial-up connections - is wonderful b/c we can read

posts in email form. If I had to go to a website to read posts, I wouldn't go,

so I would be missing out.

As far as spam, setting new members to moderated posts pretty much in itself

keeps the spammers away. If they go to the main page and see that, they usually

don't even bother to join the group. It's a bit more work for the mods, but not

too much of a pain hopefully. Once the new member posts their first post, their

status can be changed to unmoderated.

A separate site with the bulk of the info in an easier to search format would be

wonderful!

This group has perhaps shifted in focus from what may have been it's original

intention, or maybe has just moved beyond the basics. It seems like the other

groups - like nativefamilynutrition and discussingnt - are focused more on the

basics and how to cook these meals and where to buy supplies. This list is less

for newbies and more for people who want in depth, scientific type discussions

of how this food affects our bodies, etc. The newbies who come here looking for

basic advice don't generate nearly as much discussion as politics, smoking,

exercise, gluten, and liver cleansing. :-) Perhaps that fact could be

mentioned in the welcome letter or something? I'm glad I'm here and have

enjoyed most of the discussions (ahem, except politics ;-)), but as for basic

info, I've gotten a lot more out of those other groups. Of course, without this

group, I wouldn't have found out that we need to go GF, so I'm extremely

thankful for that.

Steph

October 8, 2004

> more grain for the mill ;-),

So...we're eating grains again?

(ducking and running)

I've got long experience running large web communities and I can offer

hosting, community management software, and a potential funding

mechanism (Amazon, but nicely done and it's actually funding a couple

of the communities I run). See my portfolio: http://www.siprelle.com/.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.wisforwomen.com

http://www.knitting911.net * http://www.tomformayor.org

October 8, 2004

Yay, Lynn!

What I have in mind is a full-featured bulletin board similar to the

eGullet forums (http://forums.egullet.org/). Massive amounts of

information, organized logically, lavishly illustrated how-tos, etc.

We can get the forum software for free: phpBB is free and

full-featured (yay open-source software!). I've got a phpBB forum

running on my website and it's very easy to maintain and administer.

Efficient code and small pages mean the site loads quickly.

Tom

> > more grain for the mill ;-),

>

> So...we're eating grains again?

> (ducking and running)

>

> I've got long experience running large web communities and I can offer

> hosting, community management software, and a potential funding

> mechanism (Amazon, but nicely done and it's actually funding a couple

> of the communities I run). See my portfolio: http://www.siprelle.com/.

>

> Lynn S.

>

> ------

> Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

> http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

> http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.wisforwomen.com

> http://www.knitting911.net * http://www.tomformayor.org

October 8, 2004

>> Web

forums are SO MUCH EASIER to follow than this list format, given the

post volume that we have. is cumbersome, ugly, and unreliable. <<

I absolutely disagree with this. Not that is cumbersome, yes, it is,

but I never use it. I subscribe to this as an EMAIL LIST and never use the

web interface. The day this list stops being an email list is the day I'm

gone. I hate, hate, hate web forums. Hate them. Ick.

I don't think is considering making this a web forum... but since

someone brought this up I had to weigh in. I love email lists and I don't

even participate in the web forums on my the websites I WORK FOR! I just

can't stand them.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. <G>

Christie

October 8, 2004

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:>

> Also consider that as a large group of like-minded people (OK,

like-minded

> on SOME things, anyway <g>) we have some not inconsiderable buying

and

> lobbying power. Believe me, I'm not thinking about trying to turn

this

> into some sort of political action committee (what a nightmare

that would

> be!) but it has occurred to me that some of the problems we all

have

> finding and acquiring certain foods and products might be more

vulnerable

> to group than individual action. Just something to think about.

>

I'm in the process of contacting local county extension offices for

info about dairies . . . theoretically I could act as a point-of-

contact between the list and local farmers. Is that what you mean

by group action? It's hard to imagine organizing so many people,

but it sounds feasible.

October 8, 2004

I am new to the board, so maybe this isn't my place, but I agree

with Suze and . I actually preferred the original intro to

this new one.

said: " IMO, given the dietary diversity among the

NT groups, there should be no mention of any particular dietary

emphasis on the home page. "

I agree with this. The current " dietary emphasis " changes and is

different for everybody, but the work of Weston A Price is the

foundation of this group and IMO should be the main focus of the

intro, as well as Sally Fallon/Nourishing Traditions. I don't think

that " Cholesterol Myths " is out of place, but " dangerous grains "

doesn't seem very fitting. I haven't read it, but my impression is

that it talks about all of the dangers of glutenous grains and

doesn't give any information about sprouting and fermenting the

grains, which isn't concurrent with the beliefs of WAPF, but rather

with some portion of the members on this list. Being that this is

the largest, most active list focusing on WAP, it would make sense

for the interests of the group to encompass all of the core beliefs

of the WAPF, and leave the " dietary emphasis " 's to be discussed

among the members of the group, or, as Suze suggested- to be kept as

a seperate list, given to new members.

Jackie

>

> --- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

>

> <snip>

>

> > The main focus of the original description was actually NT, but I

> did think

> > long and hard (well, relatively speaking, anyway <g>) about

> including NAPD

> > in the list despite the 2,000-character limit (which I'm within

a few

> > characters of hitting, BTW). The reason I didn't is that NAPD

is not a

> > beginner-friendly book, while the WAPF site is a relatively

> > beginner-friendly introduction to his work, and I was trying to

keep

> the

> > intro as beginner-friendly as possible. I should probably try to

> mention

> > his work in the intro, though, so I'll see what I can do on that

> front. As

> > I mentioned before, I might be moving the resources onto a whole

> separate

> > page anyway, but we'll see. My time is limited, so this will be

a

> gradual

> > process.

>

> ,

>

> I think it is possible to include NAPD while at the same time

noting

> the various strengths and weaknesses of the books. For example, how

> many people have actually read NT in its entirety. I would be

willing

> to bet not many (same for NAPD). So it might be helpful to point

> people to at least the first 70 pages or so to get an introduction

to

> WAP/NT principles, rather than piecemealing it because its written

as

> a cookbook.

>

> Same goes for NAPD. Just point out that is not the most beginner

> friendly book for some, and then let the folks choose where they

want

> to go, rather than having no mention of it at all.

>

> <snip>

>

> However, I think BTVC has absolutely *nothing*

> > >to do with WAP/NT and should not be listed as a book integral to

> the focus

> > >of this list. I know that YOU really like it personally, but I

> don't think

> > >it fits with the theme of this group, other than being one of

MANY

> books

> > >that can be modified to work with a WAP-compatible diet. The

same

> goes for

> > >Dr. Atkins book - it's got absolutely nothing to do with WAP/NT

> other than

> > >that it can be modified to fit the WAP/NT paradigm like so many

> other diet

> > >plans. The same critique holds for " Dangerous Grains " .

> >

> > You might be right about BTVC. I'm not sure. But like it or

not,

> > low-carbing has become central to this list, even though not

> everyone on

> > the list low-carbs and low-carbing isn't a requirement of NT/WAP-

style

> > eating.

>

> Maybe so, but up until this point we have kept a balance between a

> specific representative group within the Price paradigm (of which

low

> carb qualifies) and the broad principles that exemplify the NT way.

>

> It seems to me that including on the home page a book or books that

> reflect *only* the current focus of the group rather than the broad

> underlying principles, violates that balance and reflects only an

> aspect of NT/WAP and not NT/WAP per se.

>

> Atkins provided an introductory endorsement to NT, and though

> > Sally doesn't generally discuss it, she does acknowledge that

for some

> > people, low-carb high-fat eating is a necessity.

>

> Yes and that is certainly represented in NT/WAP groups, but an

> emphasis? IMO, no.

>

> Besides s wrote an introductory endorsement to NT

as

> well, and raw dairy is HUGE on this list, probably bigger than low

> carb, since it is for many folks their *only* source of raw animal

> food in their diet, a *clear* WAP/NT distinctive.

>

> Personally, as detailed in my other post, I think neither book

belongs

> on the home page.

>

> And while I have some

> > substantial disagreements with " Dangerous Grains " , there's no

> question that

> > gluten-free eating has become a similarly popular focus of this

> group. I

> > admit I put BTVC up partly as what I consider a necessary

companion and

> > counterpart to " Dangerous Grains " , but while I don't think the

SCD

> is as

> > popular as gluten freedom is on this list, I do think it has

> something of a

> > following.

>

> It does and there should probably be a emphasis within WAP/NT on

> gluten free grains, though to dismiss grains in their entirety

would

> be again emphasizing one aspect of the NT paradigm to the

exclusion of

> another.

>

> It is interesting that Sally mentioned gluten as a problem at the

> conference, but she also mentioned something else that rarely gets

> mentioned here, most of Price's groups fermented their grain foods

> (including bread) for at least two weeks. My take is that some of

our

> grain problems may be self imposed.

>

> Nonetheless, it seems to me, that certain emphasis about which

part of

> the dietary paradigm we follow more properly belong within the

list,

> (popular focus or not) and not on the home page.

>

> <snip>

>

> > > So, my suggestion is to add NAPD, and drop

> > >mention of all the others except NT in the group description.

> >

> > That's not going to accurately characterize the actual group,

rather

> than

> > perhaps the theoretical one you'd be interested in, and although

> there are

> > limits to how far I'd be willing to see the group diverge from

its WAP

> > orientation (you'll notice I didn't mention the POLITICS tag, or

> politics

> > generally, in the new intro!) I'm also not interested in ivory

tower

> > inaccuracy.

>

> I'm not sure what you mean about ivory tower inaccuracy. I don't

see

> any of that going on here, least of all from Suze.

>

> But I think this whole group and the several related groups flow

from

> the foundational observations of Weston Price which are reiterated

in

> NT. I think it would be a mistake for this group to narrow that

BROAD

> focus.

>

> Reading through the archives (which is no longer desirable since

> made its changes recently) it is obvious this issue has come up

> before, once over the place of raw animal foods in the WAP/NT

paradigm

> and also over the place of grains in the WAP/NT paradigm. WAP/NT

isn't

> primal nor is it low carb. IMO, given the dietary diversity among

the

> NT groups, there should be no mention of any particular dietary

> emphasis on the home page.

>

> more grain for the mill ;-),

>

October 8, 2004

--- In , " inlucescere " <inlucescere@y...>

wrote:

>

> I am new to the board, so maybe this isn't my place, but I agree

> with Suze and . I actually preferred the original intro to

> this new one.

>

> said: " IMO, given the dietary diversity among the

> NT groups, there should be no mention of any particular dietary

> emphasis on the home page. "

>

> I agree with this. The current " dietary emphasis " changes and is

> different for everybody, but the work of Weston A Price is the

> foundation of this group and IMO should be the main focus of the

> intro, as well as Sally Fallon/Nourishing Traditions. I don't think

> that " Cholesterol Myths " is out of place, but " dangerous grains "

> doesn't seem very fitting. I haven't read it, but my impression is

> that it talks about all of the dangers of glutenous grains and

> doesn't give any information about sprouting and fermenting the

> grains, which isn't concurrent with the beliefs of WAPF, but rather

> with some portion of the members on this list. Being that this is

> the largest, most active list focusing on WAP, it would make sense

> for the interests of the group to encompass all of the core beliefs

> of the WAPF, and leave the " dietary emphasis " 's to be discussed

> among the members of the group, or, as Suze suggested- to be kept as

> a seperate list, given to new members.

>

> Jackie

I feel the same. Maybe it is because I am also new. I came here specifically for

NT/WAPF knowledge. I learn from all the other things, but if I want to know

more about Atkins or Gluten, etc, I'd go to another list.

CJ

October 8, 2004

I have to agree with both of the posters that the list should stick more

closely to WAPF principles rather than the gluten-free, etc. tangents.

Not that they aren't important, but not all of us have gluten

intolerance, we just want to eat healthier, which may include some

grains that are properly prepared. I love all the information and

recipes I'm getting BTW.

Kristi

Re: FROM THE LIST-OWNER - New Group Description & Other

List Business

--- In , " inlucescere "

<inlucescere@y...>