From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 15:38:07 MDT
Brian Atkins wrote,
> Harvey, which study are you referring to?
I was referring to the original URL being discussed:
<http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2003-05-02-2>
I was not referring to the URL you posted in response to the previous URL:
<http://www.ism.uit.no/kk/e/key_findings.htm>
You are applying my response to the wrong posting!
> This
> is not the only example recently of you misreading, for whatever reason,
> what either I write or what a URL wrote.
Be careful with jumping to conclusions. My comments make perfect sense when
applied to the proper study. It was your misunderstanding that made my
comments appear to be non-sequitur with what you thought I was talking
about.
> Go read the key findings page again:
>
> http://www.ism.uit.no/kk/e/key_findings.htm
>
> The first key finding is specifically regarding fruits and vegetables.
> Now perhaps they simply left out grains by accident. Who knows. What
> matters is that their key findings mesh perfectly with the paleo diet.
> Or to put it another way: if you eat what the paleo diet says to eat,
> you are doing all three things this study says will reduce your cancer
> risks. Do you want to dispute that? If not, why don't you retract your
> claim that this study does not support the paleo diet. Who exactly is
> doing the misrepresenting here? It seems like both you and Bill K. read
> the first sentence of the BH story without looking carefully at BOTH
> studies, and instantly jumped to your own conclusions.
That study has nothing to do with any of my comments. I have neither read
nor responded to that study. Looking at it now, I don't see anything there
that I would dispute.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 05 2003 - 15:55:44 MDT