4peatssake
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,055
- Age
- 63
Wow, narouz. You spin a mighty fine yarn. Unfortunately, most of your tale is fiction.narouz said:Many of the criticisms of gbolduev are hard to refute.
But let me focus on why I kinda liked him.
I think he has some extreme passion for and intelligence about the world of health.
Sure, a surplus of ego.
A deficit of Peat reading (it would seem),
etc.
And, sure, we can mock the applicability of his credentials, stock trader, to health.
But...ask yourself...
why would a guy like gbolduev be pulled into intense debates
with our illustrious haidut
about the actions and effects of minerals at a cellular level?
I would note that haidut seemed to enjoy the exchange himself.
Seems to me both of those guys have a lot of passion
for a subject area that is extremely obscure for most of us.
gbolduev seemed absolutely convinced he knew what was right in that arena.
That, actually, was something that made me laugh at first
and distrust him.
But...after following him and haidut's talks a while,
I kinda went past the bluster and ego and overstatement
and said to myself:
you know...this guy really seems to have delved deeply into cellular mineral biochemistry.
He may be completely wrong,
but...he really seemed to me to have spent a long time studying his particular Eckian approach,
and, apparently, to have spent a long time looking at very specific Eckian labs
(and his own even more specific labs, like ABGs.)
I would like to have explored his ideas,
and how they might fit into Peat's ideas,
more carefully.
And it is interesting and maybe telling
that gbolduev was attracted to this Ray Peat forum
even though he strongly disagreed with a lot of Peat's ideas.
To my mind,
that shows a kind of unique potentiality for this forum:
it should be all about inquiry, questioning, breaking down barriers, making connections.
And Peat's ideas send out that kind of signal, that kind of allure--
of freedom, free inquiry, exploring new ideas, questioning accepted ideas--
even Peat's.
That is the potential of Peat and this forum.
I am sad that our forum could not find a way to be more relaxed toward and tolerant of
a somewhat difficult poster like gbolduev.
By making him feel unwelcome and pushing him out,
have we accomplished the moderator's goal--
"we endeavor here to have Peat's views clearly articulated and discussed"...?
I must confess, to my mind a rather uninspiring, timid mission statement.
Does "discussion" include real and vital challenges to Peat's ideas?
Or just promotion, clarification, and understanding?
Are we here simply to get Peat Programmed?
gbolduev was different.
I can't say we demonstrated much spunk or vision or daring
in how we deal with difference.
Here are the facts:
gbolduev has never once been warned for any posts to the forum. You brought him into this. If I were him, I would have ignored the brief exchange I had with you on this thread. In my mind, it had absolutely nothing to do with him and it's unfortunate he didn't recognize that from the get go and avoided the argument.
If you want to point fingers at anyone for making him feel unwelcome, I suggest you look squarely at yourself. It is you who have insinuated that he may not be welcome here. I have never once said that nor has anyone on the moderating team.
It is you who used incendiary terms like the Peat Anti-Christ or Peat Infidel in reference to him. Among the members of the forum's moderating team that is not at all how he has been viewed. In fact, he's never been discussed among us insofar as him causing any sort of problem. Rather his contributions have inspired conversations and possibilities that the forum administration is currently exploring.
So the suggestion that the big bad authoritarian forum administration has succeeded in forcing him out, is false. If he chooses to leave over a personal quarrel you have with me, it will be too bad. But it's ultimately his choice.
I was already on record on another thread saying I had little issue with gboldeuv's posts and meant it.
When I did answer his post directly on this thread after he chose to comment, I mentioned the one thing he has said that caused me pause. The comment I was referring to was him saying that he didn't know how Ray "could sleep at night" giving people nutritional advice. I used his own words that he was "a stock trader (I said broker, my bad), not an MD" to illustrate the irony of him finding it OK for him to provide nutritional advice to others but questioned Peat for doing the same.
I stand by those remarks and was surprised by the emotional response it elicited from him as I expected a more measured response than to suddenly characterize the forum as "Zombie Peatland." :?
Both you and he took my remarks to mean I was criticizing his credentials which I would never do. I would never consider a person's "credentials" as the basis upon which to consider their level of intelligence or emotional maturity. It comes downs to what a person says and does. And I don't judge you or him either although I may disagree with your point of view. You are doing what you are doing and experiencing what you are experiencing, just as I am, just as he is - just as everyone here is.
How anyone responds to a situation is up to them. Knee jerk emotional reactions tell a story but developing an ability to ponder and explore one's inner terrain in emotional balance yields more fruitful results in my experience.
The truth of the matter and the issue all along is that the forum is not going to allow troublemakers or people who wish to disparage Ray Peat to dominate the conversations of the forum. The only person I am aware of to put bgoldeuv in that group - is you.