Understanding ketogenesis, mitochondria and ATP production
I just wanted to chime in from a Forum Philosophy angle.
On the one hand, I enjoy reading points of view that are different from Peat's.
On the other hand, if ANY point of view can be posted on the forum,
the forum loses its focus
and any weird hack can use it as a platform for espousing or even selling their own stuff.
So, what to do?
I think it's a bit of a balancing act.
Personally, as I say, I like to hear ideas, even if they violate some of Peat's basic notions.
For instance,
I like reading kineticz's stuff,
even though there's no way in hell I'm downing a tablespoon of pure PUFA daily as an experiment.
Now, continuing on a bit with kineticz' as an example,
he has said in no uncertain terms to the mods here
that he is all about improving his health
and not much at all about learning about Peat.
One the other hand, he does make some nods to Peat, respecting many of Peat's ideas, etc
Or we could consider the case of the late VoS.
Very similar to kineticz's example:
respectful nods to Peat
but at the same time violating some key Peat ideas (or at least methodologies).
Or the example of Stuart,
the guy who asked why there is so much soluble fiber in mothers' milk,
who made some respectful bows to Peat,
but who also got a bit carried away when dogged by a certain moderator
and as a result lashed back at said mod by sortuv calling out the forum as a "Peat Zoo" and suchlike.
And then there was the mysterious case of Mr. Goldbluev.
He too fled when a certain mod started bothering him.
He was outspokenly anti-Peat in most ways, but...\
I still wanted to hear what he had to say.
Or there's the case of the thread questioning if PUFA is all bad,
which got flat locked
simply because it was deemed outrageous on the face of it
(again, I am vehemently anti-PUFA and avoid it at every turn,
but isn't it kinda weird, on a Ray Peat forum,
to be locking down threads simply because they challenge a main Peat view...?)
I don't mean to pick on the mods.
It is part of their job, as they understand it,
to monitor threads and posts and see if they detect anti-Peat stuff
and to kinda smack, reprimand, threaten, or otherwise Defend the Forum.
And, in the absence of a more nuanced forum philosophy, how can the mods be blamed?
So...
what to do?
What if Charlie made a kind of containment tank or restricted zone or whatever.
I have jokingly suggested this before
and have suggested naming such a tank or zone things like
"Peat AntiChrists"
or
"Peat Infidels"
Maybe there could be a couple different Circles of Hell, ala Dante.
Perhaps there could be a first, mildly evil, circle of hell
that might be called something not too flaming
like "Somewhat UnPeat Ideas But Perhaps of Some Interest to Peatians."
Okay...rather clumsy, I grant; but I'm sure others could improve--just tossing out rough notions.
And then you might have deeper circle of hell called something like what I noted above,
something connoting "X-Rated from a Peat Perspective but Take a Look If You Are Evil"...
I think such a system might improve the forum.
1. ideas that are not strictly Peatian--or even flamingly UnPeatian--could still be made available
2. we could believe, with some good reason, that we are participating in a pretty open-minded, non-authoritarian forum
3. the mods wouldn't have to waste their time monitoring and ferreting and Defending the Realm; they could just move the offending threads to some PUFA-Smelling restricted zone and be, mostly, done with it
This is just a rough first proposal.
My aim is to try to preserve as much worthwhile discourse while still maintaining some forum focus.
I am also motivated to suggest such options because I'd like to be able to check in and see
if you hemp oil drinkers are still alive in a few months.
As it is, I can't help thinking this thread will simply be locked down.
I think there are better, more Peatian options.
I just wanted to chime in from a Forum Philosophy angle.
On the one hand, I enjoy reading points of view that are different from Peat's.
On the other hand, if ANY point of view can be posted on the forum,
the forum loses its focus
and any weird hack can use it as a platform for espousing or even selling their own stuff.
So, what to do?
I think it's a bit of a balancing act.
Personally, as I say, I like to hear ideas, even if they violate some of Peat's basic notions.
For instance,
I like reading kineticz's stuff,
even though there's no way in hell I'm downing a tablespoon of pure PUFA daily as an experiment.
Now, continuing on a bit with kineticz' as an example,
he has said in no uncertain terms to the mods here
that he is all about improving his health
and not much at all about learning about Peat.
One the other hand, he does make some nods to Peat, respecting many of Peat's ideas, etc
Or we could consider the case of the late VoS.
Very similar to kineticz's example:
respectful nods to Peat
but at the same time violating some key Peat ideas (or at least methodologies).
Or the example of Stuart,
the guy who asked why there is so much soluble fiber in mothers' milk,
who made some respectful bows to Peat,
but who also got a bit carried away when dogged by a certain moderator
and as a result lashed back at said mod by sortuv calling out the forum as a "Peat Zoo" and suchlike.
And then there was the mysterious case of Mr. Goldbluev.
He too fled when a certain mod started bothering him.
He was outspokenly anti-Peat in most ways, but...\
I still wanted to hear what he had to say.
Or there's the case of the thread questioning if PUFA is all bad,
which got flat locked
simply because it was deemed outrageous on the face of it
(again, I am vehemently anti-PUFA and avoid it at every turn,
but isn't it kinda weird, on a Ray Peat forum,
to be locking down threads simply because they challenge a main Peat view...?)
I don't mean to pick on the mods.
It is part of their job, as they understand it,
to monitor threads and posts and see if they detect anti-Peat stuff
and to kinda smack, reprimand, threaten, or otherwise Defend the Forum.
And, in the absence of a more nuanced forum philosophy, how can the mods be blamed?
So...
what to do?
What if Charlie made a kind of containment tank or restricted zone or whatever.
I have jokingly suggested this before
and have suggested naming such a tank or zone things like
"Peat AntiChrists"
or
"Peat Infidels"
Maybe there could be a couple different Circles of Hell, ala Dante.
Perhaps there could be a first, mildly evil, circle of hell
that might be called something not too flaming
like "Somewhat UnPeat Ideas But Perhaps of Some Interest to Peatians."
Okay...rather clumsy, I grant; but I'm sure others could improve--just tossing out rough notions.
And then you might have deeper circle of hell called something like what I noted above,
something connoting "X-Rated from a Peat Perspective but Take a Look If You Are Evil"...
![Icon Lol :lol: :lol:](/community/styles/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
I think such a system might improve the forum.
1. ideas that are not strictly Peatian--or even flamingly UnPeatian--could still be made available
2. we could believe, with some good reason, that we are participating in a pretty open-minded, non-authoritarian forum
3. the mods wouldn't have to waste their time monitoring and ferreting and Defending the Realm; they could just move the offending threads to some PUFA-Smelling restricted zone and be, mostly, done with it
This is just a rough first proposal.
My aim is to try to preserve as much worthwhile discourse while still maintaining some forum focus.
I am also motivated to suggest such options because I'd like to be able to check in and see
if you hemp oil drinkers are still alive in a few months.
As it is, I can't help thinking this thread will simply be locked down.
I think there are better, more Peatian options.