Now what's the word I'm looking for?

Touche.

or

Touchy.

Egads! Now there are wolves among us. Or are they werewolves? I think some are really going off the deep end---all the way from human to a pack animal! LOL. Are we seeing the beginnings of a transmutation of the brain here or what?
Hmmmm--is it acid or the carnivorous "path" causing people to see themselves as canis lupes rather than homo sapien in their mind's eye (and maybe the mirror). This is sooooo interesting! Dang, where is Freud when we need him? All we have now is Dr. Phil.

Now you've hit the nail on the head!! Just what I have been saying all along.

In the original REAL (carnivore) HUMAN DIET post, Bear stated that he ate an all meat (except for spices and some dairy products) diet because that is what humans ate during the paleo era. He based his views on his reading of an article by the explorer Stefansson who lived among the Inuits during the first part of the 20th century. HOWEVER when some people (including a graduate anthropology student I might add) said that evidence of plant eating was found in excavations (and I can give you the citations if you wish) in North America, Bear said that there were no inhabitants on the North American continent before 12,000 years ago. Inuits live on the North American continent. If, as Bear believed the continent was not inhabited by humans until after the paleo era, why did he cite them as evidence that stone-age humans were totally carniverous? The other inconsistency of course is that Inuits didn't eat dairy products and it is hard to imagine any paleo era people eating anything remotely resembling dairy after being weaned. It is one thing to hunt a wild animal, it's another thing altogether to MILK it. I think that this entire thread would have gone down better (at least with some of us students of anthropology) if it had been called the "Eskimo diet." He then could have cited how the Inuits survived for thousands of years on an all meat diet and be done with it.

I'm curious, may I ask why this bothers you? If information is pertinent, isn't the manner in which it was delivered or listened to by certain individuals secondary, or even tertiary concerns?

It's not just about the style. A person who's views are not open to criticism, revision, or correction is not a teacher or a guide, in any positive sense of those words. And a large shadow of doubt is cast over the message when it is propped up by errors.

If the carnivorous diet is worth espousing, it's worth defending rationally. But that path is foreign to theBear. He made it clear that he would tolerate no questions not based on complete assent and devotion.

This is the same error that other people have used here. Most of the people who were interested in what Bear had to say saw through his flaws, and took away what they thought was valuable. They aren't looking for a "guide," per se, just a sounding board. There were, at most, 5 people who could be considered "disciples" of Bear, and three of them gave up on the "carnivore" diet within a short period of time, as they were just fad dieters, anyway.

As I have said throughout this thread, most people who were interested in this plan just don't like vegetables, and were happy to find someone who had gone for a long period of time without eating them and was still alive to tell the tale. Somehow, Ian and others have hysterically taken those 5 or so people and turned them into a third of the population. As bad as Bearism is, the knuckleheads wringing their hands about these non-existent sheep, and breaking their arms patting themselves on the backs for not being one of them, are worse. Essentially, what you people are doing is using the existence of a phantom group of people to attack Bear, because you don't like him, and because it's entertaining. If Bear baiting is how you want to entertain yourselves that's perfectly cool in my book; I just wish you could do it without the plain hypocrisy, and without insulting people who chose to eat all meat after actually thinking things through, or people who made the decision despite Bear, not because of him, which is the vast majority of them. If you want to deflate Bear and protect all these dumb sheep, just point out the errors in what he says, which is certainly easy enough to do. The attacks do no one any good, especially when you consider the number of people (2/3 of the population???) being attacked in posts like Superhero Ian's.

This thread taught me volumes about human nature and the tribal instincts that we cannot erase from our personal DNA. It taught me about patriarchal figures and how they galvanize those seeking father figures, whether via love of music or meat, and those who must destroy them at all costs.
The young wolves have circled the aging bear and brought him down. The archetypal prototypes are so deep and mythic, no one can act or speak neutrally. The hubris of the hero figure torn to shreds by jackals and wolves? Or modern reason overcoming the dark slavery of superstition?

Another archetype easily insinuates itself: We have the Joseph Conrad-like hero abandoning modern European sensibilities for his heart-of-darkness primal life in the jungle tropics clashing mightily with over-educated nerds of academe who must make house payments in suburbia. He lives among the birds cawing in the dense growth, keenly aware of the nuances of nature, his audience live in up-the-minute nuances of change and relativism from every side as they drive their car down the highway, passing the occasional tree.
Yet truth and transparency must be the heroes, despite our powerful tribal instincts.
Adieu as I eat my meat bleu. I have learned much from each.

If you really like to analyze group behavior you should visit some of the fan celebrity websites. On some of them there are middle-aged groupies who have been following their "star" for 30-40 years and will almost kill people who diss their favorite celebrity. I have also been on some message boards that feel the same way about Dr. Atkins and his diet.

And that's Ms Knucklehead to you

You get to name yourself. Personally, I think of you as the Superfriend "Hysteria," whose power is the ability to find great humor in any situation.

And notice what I said:




None of these sweeping assertions about 2/3 of the population, or 1/3 of the population, no inanities about dictatorships -- and I had the decency to restrict my criticism to my journal where it should have remained, not thrown out in the public where it would piss off large numbers of people. But when you're desperate to score points, class goes out the window.

Sorry I am late coming back, my cape was at the dry cleaners.

For those who took my assertion as 'chest beating' (and I must say that doing that while patting myself on the back was, I think, an heroic feat in itself), that was not the purpose.

It's hardly news that some people bridle at autocrats, others worship them. It's remains worrying that so many are prepared to buy into any old cult-like crap that comes their way.

Yup, I don't have much time for sheep, nor for wolves come to that, they are both dangerous.

Oh, I suppose I should respond.

The figures aren't generalisations, they are rough approximations.

My comments weren't about dieters, they were about a micro-society - not sure what your point was in mentioning that.

I'm not clear in what way referring to someone as dictatorial is an 'inanity'. If some one does not accept 'dissent', attempts to stifle opposing views and dismisses (rather than addresses) evidence which contradicts their views that sounds pretty dictatorial to me.

I have edited my post as you're right, it wasn't cricket to quote your journal in here. My apologies for that.

I have to say tho, that just because you kept your comments to your journal doesn't make you any less of a hypocrite.

According to the Encyclopaedia Galactica, it [the earth] was the mice's design.

cjl (7x7=42)

I don't think you get it there, Hysteria. My criticism was about a mindset, which I restricted to my journal. I didn't attack Bear, or any individual, for that matter, as have you Superfriends. I mentioned other diets, as an example of the mindset. The people who are now attacking Bear are using their alleged concern for the masses, and nonsense about dictatorships (a dictator on a message board???) as an excuse to do it, and are doing it out in the open, where many, many people, some of whom do an all meat approach to eating, will see it. Perhaps you can use your super powers and see the lack of humor in that situation? Or does it only work one way.