RE: OT - Why people disagree

[Guest guest]

José-,

>

>I don't know what the case is for Deanna and . I suspect it's

>case ©. At least I hope it is, because, as far as I can see, both

>are always very assertive and honest in the things they say and

>believe in.

>

>

Maybe so.

>It's not for you to hurry and think I want to mend the world and

>preach at people about what they'd better do. I know you can carry a

>horse to water but not make him drink from it. But it really breaks

>my heart to see these two very articulate ladies parting, if they

>must, probably with a weight upon their otherwise flexible shoulders

>and some bitterness in their otherwise merry hearts, before they

>could make time to try and reach a compromise. I know it won't

>probably last, but while it lasts, it hurts, doesn't it?

>

>

Yes, it is hurtful. But the past repeats, so why stick a hand in the

blender once more.

>But I'm hurrying up to beg your pardon, and Deanna, for my

>untimely interference in this affair and my incapacity to remain

>silent in the face of unbalance.

>

There is unbalance. I accept it. I will not be told to back off or

shut up because I make an opinion or statement of fact against an

unproven system of any sort. I am not a blind follower of faith-based

paradigms. I can't foresee that with the freedom I have found with

reason that I will ever be subject to such a model again. What can I

say? I am no sheep.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna:

Thanks for responding to this. I'm glad that at least a part of my

remarks doesn't sound mindless or absurd to you.

Yes, how could I deny that I was trying to accomodate the situation,

to find a way-out for the impasse? I know I was not entitled to do

so, I have no *carte blanche* from any of you, but then I thought: I

like those two and if I've heard enough (maybe I haven't), there was

basically misunderstanding.

And I don't want to change you, Deanna. Here's a cliché, but I've got

to use it again: I just like you the way you are.

I've so much much in common with you, by the way. I'm also much of a

sceptic. is right. Through my questioning, which can be boring

sometimes, it's clear that I rely a lot on reason, just like you.

Maybe more than I should. Maybe I'm missing a particular dimension,

of which I can only catch a glimpse, because reason can turn you into

a minimalist, you know. Or instil fear. Indeed, sometimes I find

myself wondering if rational understanding alone can go right to the

marrow of things. Or bring joy to one's life. Don't you agree that by

chewing too much and too long, any food becomes tasteless?

Friendly yours,

JC

> José-,

>

> >

> >I don't know what the case is for Deanna and . I suspect

it's

> >case ©. At least I hope it is, because, as far as I can see,

both

> >are always very assertive and honest in the things they say and

> >believe in.

> >

> >

> Maybe so.

>

> >It's not for you to hurry and think I want to mend the world and

> >preach at people about what they'd better do. I know you can carry

a

> >horse to water but not make him drink from it. But it really

breaks

> >my heart to see these two very articulate ladies parting, if they

> >must, probably with a weight upon their otherwise flexible

shoulders

> >and some bitterness in their otherwise merry hearts, before they

> >could make time to try and reach a compromise. I know it won't

> >probably last, but while it lasts, it hurts, doesn't it?

> >

> >

> Yes, it is hurtful. But the past repeats, so why stick a hand in

the

> blender once more.

>

> >But I'm hurrying up to beg your pardon, and Deanna, for my

> >untimely interference in this affair and my incapacity to remain

> >silent in the face of unbalance.

> >

> There is unbalance. I accept it. I will not be told to back off

or

> shut up because I make an opinion or statement of fact against an

> unproven system of any sort. I am not a blind follower of faith-

based

> paradigms. I can't foresee that with the freedom I have found with

> reason that I will ever be subject to such a model again. What can

I

> say? I am no sheep.

>

>

> Deanna

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Deanna

>

>>But I'm hurrying up to beg your pardon, and Deanna, for my

>>untimely interference in this affair and my incapacity to remain

>>silent in the face of unbalance.

>>

>There is unbalance. I accept it. I will not be told to back off or

>shut up because I make an opinion or statement of fact against an

>unproven system of any sort. I am not a blind follower of faith-based

>paradigms.

Implying that or someone else on this list is?

I can't foresee that with the freedom I have found with

>reason that I will ever be subject to such a model again. What can I

>say? I am no sheep.

And is?

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>

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