From: Chuck (ip446-15.dialup.edisontel.com)
Subject: So ... we agree eventually !!!!!! :-)
Date: April 9, 2003 at 7:21 am PST
In Reply to: Oh boy! I didn't mean to start an argument here... can I just say posted by Groundhog on April 9, 2003 at 5:42 am:
______________________________________________________________________
that my gut feeling for Mr. Wolfe was that he was phoney and did anything he could to avoid the true issues...that is, any EVIDENCE FOR RAW.
______________________________________________________________________
YES !!!!!!
Wolfe is lacking in scientific knowledge and therefore is not able to use biochemistry, physiology, anatomy and nutrition to explain and prove the scientific superiority of a raw vegan diet.
_______________________________________________________________________
I guess Dr. McDougall could'a been wearing a speedo and I wouldn't have noticed becuase the content of the lecture was so great!
_______________________________________________________________________
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!
That was what I meant !!
Why is it so difficult to share my ideas ?!
What I meant is that the cloths are not important.
This means that you can say that Wolfe is phoney despite his looking and that McDougall is accurate and scientific despite his looking.
That was I meant in the first place !!!
Hence, you have to judge the substance nor the looking.
So, if Wolfe had weared jacket and tie with short hair but he had showed to be phoney and lacking in science, do you think you would have been misled by his looking that he knew his science.
No ! I'm sure you wouldn't, that's because what really make you consider Wolfe a phoney has been the "substance" (or lack of substance) of his lecture NOT WHAT HE WAS WEARING.
That was my point: cloths do no make the man.
And you agree since you said that a weird-looking McDougall but with the same accurate and scientific lecture would haven't make you believe that he was lacking scientific knowledge.
So, let's invert the issue.
If David Wolfe had worn a jack and tie, glasses and short hair would you have thought that his information were accurate despite the lack of scientific knowledge and proofs ?
And If David Wolfe had worn jeans-shorts, with black glasses and long
pony-tail hair but he had showed that he had scientific knowledge and proofs would you have thought that his information were inaccurate just because of his LOOKING, despite the solid science ?
I don't think that WEIRD LOOKING detracts from your SCIENTIFIC message, as nothing specific in science is related to JACKET and TIE
Namely: for what SCIENCE is concerned WEIRD LOOKING is as much scientific as a WHITE COAT as clothes and looking has nothing to do with science, just has being MALE or FEMALE has nothing to do with being a good or a bad scientist.
I think, on the other hand, that an person who lack scientific knowledge (and he/she knows it) may rely on weird looking to DISTRACT people from the TRUE issue (as he/she has nothing interesting to say)
So I believe that you instinctively understood that all that weird looking was not SPONTANEOUS but created to divert people from the evident lack of knowledge or proof about the PRINCIPAL ISSUE
I agree with anything you say and said, I was just trying to explain that if McDougall had worn speedo in his lecture, you wouldn't have cared as SCIENCE, and SUBSTANCE is what tells a good scientist for a blatant phoney NOT HIS LOOKING OR CLOTHES
