10

votes

Is feisty blogger infighting good for the cause?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created September 06, 2011 at 2:57 AM

According to this comment, Peter has not allowed through Stephan???s comment in rebuttal to his critique (this could well be software issue though ??? I hate trying to post comments on blogs). Stephan recently removed his post in response to Taubes??? blog post because he felt it wasn???t presented as constructively as Stephan would have liked, though a couple of commenters have indicated that they preferred he had not pulled it. According to a comment from Taubes on his own blog, he is trying to calm down the debate some and spoke with Dr. Harris on the phone for two hours recently.

So do you think the feisty infighting is good for the cause, or is there a better approach? I understand the rancor can sometimes put people in less positive light, but does the good outweigh the bad?

I think it is somewhat net positive (so far). Stephan, Dr. Harris, Masterjohn, Jaminet, Kresser, etc??? have been rather skeptical of the Insulin Hypothesis if one paid attention to their blogs, but apparently many have been surprised by the direct criticism. I think more open discussion is usually good, but at what point does it become too negative?

EDIT - Or conversely, has it been too much of a confirmation-bias circle thingy-ma-jiggy so far? Some people have really seemed really surprised by Guyenet???s and Harris???s criticism, when if they had really been paying attention it should have come as no surprise.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on September 15, 2011
at 10:11 PM

How do I know it was either the fructose or the total carbohydrate? Well I don't know of course, but it seems like the logical answer, because when I started paleo I basically interpreted it, for all practical purposes, as Atkins + pastured meat. I was still eating lots of O-6, chugging almond butter and pork for example. Granted I was cutting out gluten along with everything else, but no one really suspects the gluten -- especially for people like me who have virtually no reaction to it; I've done several reintroduction experiments, after one-month and three-month periods of elimination.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on September 15, 2011
at 10:06 PM

@Cliff, sorry, just seeing your responses. How can a low-carb diet not be rewarding? Just because I eliminated the carbs + fat combo doesn't mean I wasn't eating high-reward food. I was still eating things that I wanted to keep eating, and did keep eating, just for the taste (my girlfriend is an excellent cook). I even frequently overate. But I still lost the weight.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on September 11, 2011
at 05:18 PM

i don't give oz any credit at all. i blame gary for not being as prepared as he should be.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 11, 2011
at 02:59 AM

You give Oz way too much credit.....he has no clue about science unless his sponsors paid for it

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 11, 2011
at 02:58 AM

Depends upon the perspective and their optic

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 10, 2011
at 10:04 AM

"In my case it was either the fructose or the total carbohydrate" Why?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 10, 2011
at 10:03 AM

I know people who have lost weight on a wide variety of diets but i have yet to see someone lose weight on a ad libitum cafeteria diet

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 10, 2011
at 10:02 AM

Paul the diet you described is not a high food reward diet. You lost weight because you eliminated a whole macronutrient and the highest food reward combo(carbs+fat). Your not on a high food reward diet unless you go to home town buffet and eat everything they have.

0c939bdddc3d8f8ef923ba8a72aeda71

on September 10, 2011
at 09:43 AM

Okay I edited it. Seems weird you had a problem with it and not the question given the whole point of my answer was replying to that phrase used by the OP.

9a5e2da94ad63ea3186dfa494e16a8d1

(15833)

on September 07, 2011
at 04:02 PM

Totally agree. Many of these folks are probably genetically predisposed to have a lean physique. I'd be more interested in hearing from those that have transformed their physique, and from women too (who tend to be less bitchy, at least in public forums).

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on September 07, 2011
at 02:45 PM

Wait, Cliff, really? I don't think that's true, and I even think most people would disagree with you; everyone knows someone who lost a lot of weight on Atkins eating bacon and cheese. I certainly lost weight eating "a wide variety of highly rewarding foods." And really gorging myself on meat and fat, too. In my case it was either the fructose or the total carbohydrate, there's really nothing else it could have been.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 06, 2011
at 10:33 PM

Maybe the whole thing is a conspiracy between all those involved to produce a manufactured controversy to bring in more blog traffic :) j/k

8e3782b68e033763485472f414f507a5

(2433)

on September 06, 2011
at 10:16 PM

@Rose, you're kidding? You mean it wasn't a conspiracy by Peter to censor Stephan? Wow, who'd of thought? :-)

8e3782b68e033763485472f414f507a5

(2433)

on September 06, 2011
at 09:56 PM

@Rose, you're kidding? You mean it wasn't a conspiracy by Peter to sensor Stephan? Wow, who'd of thought? :-)

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on September 06, 2011
at 09:12 PM

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2011/08/i-have-read-good-calories-bad-calories.html

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 06, 2011
at 09:12 PM

Maybe us fatties and ex-fatties are just lonely, and need to make more friends: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110906121242.htm

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 06, 2011
at 09:11 PM

Peter says that Stephan's comment showed up in another post. He's copied and pasted it into the comments on the current post.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 06, 2011
at 09:01 PM

We have lots of counter examples to the CHO theory though, I personally lost weight eating pretty high carb. I have yet to see anyone lose weight eating a wide variety of highly rewarding foods ad libitum.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on September 06, 2011
at 08:46 PM

70 lbs here. Did some through low carb and the rest ignorantly thru food reward

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 06, 2011
at 08:40 PM

Yep, my fault. I have editted it.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 06, 2011
at 08:38 PM

Just want to point out that "confirmation-bias circle jerk" appears in the question, and seems to be added prior to whakahekeheke's response.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on September 06, 2011
at 08:20 PM

God damn. I can't believe i didn't refer to him as master hacks. Epic fail.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 06, 2011
at 08:18 PM

It is pretty annoying though to jump through hoops on some blog sites to post a comment and then never see it show up. You never know if it is just a buggy spam filter or if someone just decided to block it.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 06, 2011
at 08:16 PM

Dang it, Melissa; I've cut all my carbs out. Now I guess I'll have to stop eating entirely, and crumble to a pile of bone dust. *Then* I'll win! XD

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on September 06, 2011
at 08:12 PM

Wait! Rose! I lost 111 lbs and I like Food Reward as an explanation as to why I became obese. \o/ But honestly, I believe it's a combination of multiple factors, no one explanation is THE explanation.

8e3782b68e033763485472f414f507a5

(2433)

on September 06, 2011
at 08:08 PM

I don't know what's up with Stephan. He has -- quite suddenly -- turned into quite the baby. Probably due to hanging out on CarbSane's blog. Remember how mature and professional he used to be? Comment moderation is not enabled on Peter's blog -- I just confirmed it.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 06, 2011
at 07:38 PM

And having actually lost 70+ lbs it is my opinion that GT's CHO theory makes the most sense. I lost 10 more pounds; do I win? :P

Medium avatar

(10611)

on September 06, 2011
at 07:35 PM

Mixing metaphors, where there's smoke there's fire and moths are drawn to a flame. Infighting creates new interest, as well as a perception that paleo is an open subject.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on September 06, 2011
at 07:33 PM

Agreed. And if he does a particularly good debunk he is to be refered to as Chris MASTERBLASTER, the explodinator.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on September 06, 2011
at 07:07 PM

Multiple hammers!

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on September 06, 2011
at 07:06 PM

Whakaheke -- remove circle jerk from your answer. This is considered foul & aggressive language. Or I gotta do it, then I might suspend you.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on September 06, 2011
at 07:02 PM

New rule: Henceforth, Chris Masterjohn to be only addressedor referred to as Chris Masterhack.

007c02eea7bdf63422562667aaf81f0f

(100)

on September 06, 2011
at 06:40 PM

Wait, we have a "cause"? Guess I missed that memo.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 06, 2011
at 06:39 PM

Having actually lost 60+ lbs it is my opinion that SG's food reward theory makes the most sense.

7c9f81d68c78de1a31eab9c91c17b4b8

on September 06, 2011
at 06:06 PM

Nice Travis. And you have won over Rose again.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 06, 2011
at 06:03 PM

Holy cow, Travis, there you go again, saying things I agree with. ;) Yes, stepping away from the (important, but obviously fallible) world of bench science, this captures exactly the view from the mundane world of ordinary humans.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on September 06, 2011
at 03:22 PM

The Rush Limbaugh entertainment-by-baiting technique. Hunkered in with the true believers and the one true Idea.

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on September 06, 2011
at 03:00 PM

I think the conflict-avoidant part is spot on. Even folks sympathetic to his theories are not happy about his yanking posts down.

7c9f81d68c78de1a31eab9c91c17b4b8

on September 06, 2011
at 01:37 PM

Yes I agree...I hate to say it..I think that is the journalist/intellectual elite side of Taubes...to give "context and parameters" to the life of the debate rather than just get down to it and debate.

7c9f81d68c78de1a31eab9c91c17b4b8

on September 06, 2011
at 01:32 PM

Cool handle Uncle LongHair. I hear you about spending time on it--(I should sleep/work/relax more.) I would just say this is no different than reading in history books say the Lincoln-Douglas debates, correspondence of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, letters between Tolstoy and Gandhi...it's just in our paleo microcosm and in real time since it's online. It may be less pleasurable to review in real time I grant but it's still history in the making.

7c9f81d68c78de1a31eab9c91c17b4b8

on September 06, 2011
at 12:47 PM

Kerfuffle is a great word.

7c9f81d68c78de1a31eab9c91c17b4b8

on September 06, 2011
at 12:46 PM

Plus one for using the phrase "confirmation-bias circle jerk."

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 06, 2011
at 12:39 PM

Daniel......plus one. It's about egos now and not science. I think everyone reward tracts are on fire over this. Much ado about nothing.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 06, 2011
at 12:38 PM

Plus one.......for honesty

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 06, 2011
at 05:50 AM

Oh, you're gonna get downvoted all to hell. But I laughed at what you wrote, and if I take my Mr. Spock hat off, I think it's mostly correct.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on September 06, 2011
at 05:13 AM

I think the "carbs don't have anything to do with it" gang are shocked that the "carbs really matter" gang is fighting back. They thought they had it all tied up with a nice pretty bow and we'd all walk away cause they had. Wrong.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on September 06, 2011
at 04:51 AM

i was wrong about that on second thought. It was gary he was toying with. It was in good fun.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 06, 2011
at 04:08 AM

wait, where has Masterjohn been criticizing Peter?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on September 06, 2011
at 03:53 AM

The cause is knowing more than everyone else and letting them know it! Yes!!!1

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on September 06, 2011
at 03:32 AM

Masterjohn and Kresser have been dog piling Peter from hyper lipid. There's also been a fun back and forth (non-hostile) between eades and emily deans.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 06, 2011
at 03:24 AM

Can someone point me in the right direction to see this - I have never been much of twitter kind of guy.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on September 06, 2011
at 03:22 AM

I love the twitter brawling. It's fun. You can't be too mean in 140 characters.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on September 06, 2011
at 03:18 AM

If you think the blogging is bloody, you should follow the bloggers on Twitter - not so much these guys, but the bloggers talking about these guys.

  • 7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

    asked by

    (2861)
  • Views
    2.3K
  • Last Activity
    1256D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

9 Answers

13
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on September 06, 2011
at 01:19 PM

It wasn't that long ago that none of these people would really criticize anyone in the name of some kind of civility. To be honest, I thought that was bad. There were undercurrents of disagreement, but no one would really put out an honest debate. I admit I had some role in encouraging debate.

It's hilarious that people are now calling it a confirmation bias you know what when that's exactly what it was before. What I never expected was the amount of people who are freaking angry that their carbohydrate hypothesis is being questioned. The amount of conflict from the bloggers is dwarfed by the vitriol from these people. Honestly, I have no interest in their angry comments, as they don't have a substantive defense, they are just angry because low-carb has morphed into an ideology and their ideology is now being threatened. I was quite annoyed that Gary Taubes just fed into this by posting an intro post with no scientific argument that just fed into this, so that people could froth without anything real to talk about. I was grateful that Peter actually posted a real argument.

7c9f81d68c78de1a31eab9c91c17b4b8

on September 06, 2011
at 01:37 PM

Yes I agree...I hate to say it..I think that is the journalist/intellectual elite side of Taubes...to give "context and parameters" to the life of the debate rather than just get down to it and debate.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on September 06, 2011
at 03:22 PM

The Rush Limbaugh entertainment-by-baiting technique. Hunkered in with the true believers and the one true Idea.

12
Medium avatar

on September 06, 2011
at 05:58 PM

Seems like a bunch of always-lean people bickering with each other over what condescending advice to give to rarely-lean people. I too am guilty of this. We all mean well and genuinely want to "solve" this problem with a single approach, but it may be too big a beast to slay with one sword.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 06, 2011
at 09:01 PM

We have lots of counter examples to the CHO theory though, I personally lost weight eating pretty high carb. I have yet to see anyone lose weight eating a wide variety of highly rewarding foods ad libitum.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on September 07, 2011
at 02:45 PM

Wait, Cliff, really? I don't think that's true, and I even think most people would disagree with you; everyone knows someone who lost a lot of weight on Atkins eating bacon and cheese. I certainly lost weight eating "a wide variety of highly rewarding foods." And really gorging myself on meat and fat, too. In my case it was either the fructose or the total carbohydrate, there's really nothing else it could have been.

7c9f81d68c78de1a31eab9c91c17b4b8

on September 06, 2011
at 06:06 PM

Nice Travis. And you have won over Rose again.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on September 06, 2011
at 07:07 PM

Multiple hammers!

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on September 06, 2011
at 08:12 PM

Wait! Rose! I lost 111 lbs and I like Food Reward as an explanation as to why I became obese. \o/ But honestly, I believe it's a combination of multiple factors, no one explanation is THE explanation.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on September 06, 2011
at 07:35 PM

Mixing metaphors, where there's smoke there's fire and moths are drawn to a flame. Infighting creates new interest, as well as a perception that paleo is an open subject.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 06, 2011
at 07:38 PM

And having actually lost 70+ lbs it is my opinion that GT's CHO theory makes the most sense. I lost 10 more pounds; do I win? :P

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 06, 2011
at 09:12 PM

Maybe us fatties and ex-fatties are just lonely, and need to make more friends: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110906121242.htm

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 06, 2011
at 06:03 PM

Holy cow, Travis, there you go again, saying things I agree with. ;) Yes, stepping away from the (important, but obviously fallible) world of bench science, this captures exactly the view from the mundane world of ordinary humans.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on September 06, 2011
at 08:46 PM

70 lbs here. Did some through low carb and the rest ignorantly thru food reward

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 06, 2011
at 06:39 PM

Having actually lost 60+ lbs it is my opinion that SG's food reward theory makes the most sense.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 06, 2011
at 08:16 PM

Dang it, Melissa; I've cut all my carbs out. Now I guess I'll have to stop eating entirely, and crumble to a pile of bone dust. *Then* I'll win! XD

9a5e2da94ad63ea3186dfa494e16a8d1

(15833)

on September 07, 2011
at 04:02 PM

Totally agree. Many of these folks are probably genetically predisposed to have a lean physique. I'd be more interested in hearing from those that have transformed their physique, and from women too (who tend to be less bitchy, at least in public forums).

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 10, 2011
at 10:04 AM

"In my case it was either the fructose or the total carbohydrate" Why?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 10, 2011
at 10:02 AM

Paul the diet you described is not a high food reward diet. You lost weight because you eliminated a whole macronutrient and the highest food reward combo(carbs+fat). Your not on a high food reward diet unless you go to home town buffet and eat everything they have.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 10, 2011
at 10:03 AM

I know people who have lost weight on a wide variety of diets but i have yet to see someone lose weight on a ad libitum cafeteria diet

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on September 15, 2011
at 10:06 PM

@Cliff, sorry, just seeing your responses. How can a low-carb diet not be rewarding? Just because I eliminated the carbs + fat combo doesn't mean I wasn't eating high-reward food. I was still eating things that I wanted to keep eating, and did keep eating, just for the taste (my girlfriend is an excellent cook). I even frequently overate. But I still lost the weight.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on September 15, 2011
at 10:11 PM

How do I know it was either the fructose or the total carbohydrate? Well I don't know of course, but it seems like the logical answer, because when I started paleo I basically interpreted it, for all practical purposes, as Atkins + pastured meat. I was still eating lots of O-6, chugging almond butter and pork for example. Granted I was cutting out gluten along with everything else, but no one really suspects the gluten -- especially for people like me who have virtually no reaction to it; I've done several reintroduction experiments, after one-month and three-month periods of elimination.

10
66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

on September 06, 2011
at 01:47 PM

fighting with wooden sticks with your friends helps sharpen your skills for the real enemy. maybe if taubes had this back and forth with stephan before oz, he wouldn't have embarassed himself.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 11, 2011
at 02:59 AM

You give Oz way too much credit.....he has no clue about science unless his sponsors paid for it

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on September 11, 2011
at 05:18 PM

i don't give oz any credit at all. i blame gary for not being as prepared as he should be.

9
7c9f81d68c78de1a31eab9c91c17b4b8

on September 06, 2011
at 03:54 AM

Verbal infighting, I would "argue"...builds good nations, good marriages, friendships, technology, literature, world peace AND better science. I doubt it will get so bad they will start throwing hot sweet potatoes at eachother.

8
0c939bdddc3d8f8ef923ba8a72aeda71

on September 06, 2011
at 05:45 AM

Seems to me confirmation-bias circle [sexual self-stimulation session] better describes the bloggers uncritically agreeing with Guyenet's post rather than those more-or-less criticizing it -- which is blogger-wise only Pal Jabekk, Peter Hyperlipid, and dietdoctor as far as I can tell. So you've got that last remark backwards imo. It's pretty hard to get your confirmation-bias circle jerk on when you're being interrupted by swarms of vacuous strawman zombies. Personally, I couldn't care less about the wholefoods/WPF/ancestralvore2.0 bloggers as I doubt they'll ever do much for anyone, scientifically speaking, and I'm finding them increasingly annoying.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 06, 2011
at 05:50 AM

Oh, you're gonna get downvoted all to hell. But I laughed at what you wrote, and if I take my Mr. Spock hat off, I think it's mostly correct.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on September 06, 2011
at 07:06 PM

Whakaheke -- remove circle jerk from your answer. This is considered foul & aggressive language. Or I gotta do it, then I might suspend you.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on September 06, 2011
at 08:38 PM

Just want to point out that "confirmation-bias circle jerk" appears in the question, and seems to be added prior to whakahekeheke's response.

7c9f81d68c78de1a31eab9c91c17b4b8

on September 06, 2011
at 12:46 PM

Plus one for using the phrase "confirmation-bias circle jerk."

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 06, 2011
at 08:40 PM

Yep, my fault. I have editted it.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 06, 2011
at 12:38 PM

Plus one.......for honesty

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 11, 2011
at 02:58 AM

Depends upon the perspective and their optic

0c939bdddc3d8f8ef923ba8a72aeda71

on September 10, 2011
at 09:43 AM

Okay I edited it. Seems weird you had a problem with it and not the question given the whole point of my answer was replying to that phrase used by the OP.

4
25b139cc1954456d9ea469e40f984cd3

on September 06, 2011
at 06:04 AM

I do not know Stephan personally, but from the little I know he reminds me of another member of the "paleo community" who is brilliant, yet somewhat conflict-avoidant. While I believe the long term upshot of this kerfuffle will be positive, I think an identical result could be achieved with less strum and angst. If Gary would stop being so bleeping lawyerly, arguing for the defense of a guilty client, and if Stephan would just accept what comes with this territory...

MDMA might help;)

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 06, 2011
at 12:39 PM

Daniel......plus one. It's about egos now and not science. I think everyone reward tracts are on fire over this. Much ado about nothing.

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on September 06, 2011
at 03:00 PM

I think the conflict-avoidant part is spot on. Even folks sympathetic to his theories are not happy about his yanking posts down.

7c9f81d68c78de1a31eab9c91c17b4b8

on September 06, 2011
at 12:47 PM

Kerfuffle is a great word.

3
9a5e2da94ad63ea3186dfa494e16a8d1

on September 06, 2011
at 01:11 PM

Speaking for myself, I tune out when blogs start to talk a lot about other blogs. The catty fighting and "he said, she said" amounts to sub-celebrity gossip for me... 100's of other things I'd rather spend my time on.

7c9f81d68c78de1a31eab9c91c17b4b8

on September 06, 2011
at 01:32 PM

Cool handle Uncle LongHair. I hear you about spending time on it--(I should sleep/work/relax more.) I would just say this is no different than reading in history books say the Lincoln-Douglas debates, correspondence of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, letters between Tolstoy and Gandhi...it's just in our paleo microcosm and in real time since it's online. It may be less pleasurable to review in real time I grant but it's still history in the making.

3
51b472fa449ab0e5433f27dcd799fedd

(1091)

on September 06, 2011
at 03:04 AM

From my own experience of being a moderator on several forums (including moderating for almost 9 years on a forum with nearly 200k members), I find that infighting tends to moderate itself over time. Even in your own post, you point out how Taubes contacted Harris ??? right there is an internal feedback mechanism happening which will hopefully push the conversation closer to homeostasis. As long as it doesn???t spin wildly out of control I think there isn???t anything to worry about.

2
40449b985898b088a64660b40f329f0f

(951)

on September 06, 2011
at 06:48 PM

Don't know much about the whole thing, but it sounds like at its most basic level, it is good to have people question each other, instead of everyone accepting information because it sounds good, fits with what simply feels write, or falls in line with what we have already been doing.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!