Now that I've weighed in with my thoughts on Stephan Guyenet's disassembling of Taubes' "Carbohydrate Hypothesis", I thought I'd share some of my thoughts on the reactions of others to his posts (including the first one responding to the "drama at AHS").
First, although clearly many still (as well they should and hopefully always will) hold Stephan in high regard, the mere fact that he addressed the altercation at all has drawn the criticism of some. I found the seemingly well-meaning-sounding comments of Andreas Eenfeldt to be especially bothersome in this regard. Honestly folks, how many of you have been in a situation where you were caught by surprise by something only to think later -- gosh, I should have said that! Or perhaps, I wish I had the time to look into that for a better response, or merely had more time to respond period. Don't get me wrong, Stephan did well in that exchange. But clearly he had more to say in response to Taubes' questions and/or wanted to share more thoughts with his readers. For the life of me I can't see what's wrong with that, nor do I see what is so wrong with the "people who live in glass houses" written/online response vs. the "thanks for the advice" live one. I thought the live one was witty and cool, but the glass houses one is actually more to the point as it calls Gary out on his hypocrisy -- much needed to say the least. Why is it a one-way street for so many of these LC promoters? Why was it OK for Gary to offer that advice, even if he apologized, and not for Stephan to essentially stick up for himself and point out that Gary is guilty of his charges? Is it that somehow any who disagree with LC dogma are expected to take some stratospheric road all the time while these guys (and gals) muck around in the trenches ruthlessly abusing anyone who doesn't agree with them? Oh ... and it is sooo funny when they do it too, right?
Read more »
First, although clearly many still (as well they should and hopefully always will) hold Stephan in high regard, the mere fact that he addressed the altercation at all has drawn the criticism of some. I found the seemingly well-meaning-sounding comments of Andreas Eenfeldt to be especially bothersome in this regard. Honestly folks, how many of you have been in a situation where you were caught by surprise by something only to think later -- gosh, I should have said that! Or perhaps, I wish I had the time to look into that for a better response, or merely had more time to respond period. Don't get me wrong, Stephan did well in that exchange. But clearly he had more to say in response to Taubes' questions and/or wanted to share more thoughts with his readers. For the life of me I can't see what's wrong with that, nor do I see what is so wrong with the "people who live in glass houses" written/online response vs. the "thanks for the advice" live one. I thought the live one was witty and cool, but the glass houses one is actually more to the point as it calls Gary out on his hypocrisy -- much needed to say the least. Why is it a one-way street for so many of these LC promoters? Why was it OK for Gary to offer that advice, even if he apologized, and not for Stephan to essentially stick up for himself and point out that Gary is guilty of his charges? Is it that somehow any who disagree with LC dogma are expected to take some stratospheric road all the time while these guys (and gals) muck around in the trenches ruthlessly abusing anyone who doesn't agree with them? Oh ... and it is sooo funny when they do it too, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment