Should we Inject Skepticism Into The Way of Peat?

Discussion in 'Rant or Rave' started by 4peatssake, Mar 31, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 4peatssake

    4peatssake Member

    Feb 7, 2013
    Re: Food variety

    OH boy, not this again. :hanginground

    For the life of me Naroux, I cannot understand why you keep harping about this. I find it offensive to continuously be called a liar or coming from a place of ego because I happen to like the foods suggested by Ray Peat for achieving optimal health.

    I do not question your experience and take on your word that what you believe and experience for yourself is true. I do not naturally assume you are lying to yourself.

    Can you not afford the rest of us this common courtesy? - instead of yet again bringing up this ridiculous ranting on what this diet is or is not and how the rest of us are just lying to ourselves if we don't think like you. I've come across posts with this same tirade as long ago as September - maybe earlier - and you still have not let it go.

    Let it go - man!

    Our experience is our experience and is for each of us to determine - for ourselves.

    Self suspicion? I'm all for honest self appraisal but to approach myself or others as being suspect is both self defeating and spoils healthy relationships. My strong objections to your posts on this "prove" (to me) my point. I find your arguments to be offensive and argumentative - and condescending - as if we do not know for ourselves our true feelings and experience of adopting this way of eating.

    I hated the food on other diets I tried, notably raw vegan. I hate greens. Let me say that again, I HATE greens!! :mrgreen: Sorry, not directed at you, that just felt good to say that - :lol:

    No, this thread is asking a simple question - if we found it easy or difficult to transition to the Peat diet which for many of us has less variety than our previous way of eating.

    We were asked about our individual experience in making the transition to eating a Peat inspired diet. You didn't answer that at all - instead you are back to determining in your own estimation the truth of what our collective experience is and what this diet is or isn't.

    For me, it was easy - a smooth transition. I don't give a hoot that it has little variety - I welcomed that, others may have found it difficult. That is the question being asked here.

    Maybe that won't last, my satisfaction of eating as I am now - but I don't know that and won't know that until that happens, if it even does. Meantime, I'm not suspicious of myself or my actual experience. I am able to determine what I experience for myself - without any input from anyone else.

    I don't have to pigeonhole this way of eating - I simply am enjoying it. And that's a far cry better than spending copious amounts of time and energy trying to figure this out for everybody else.

    :threadjack This is not what this thread is about. It is what a slew of your threads have been about. I am perfectly clear about my experience and by its very nature experience is subjective. That does not make it less true - although you can argue that all you like - then again, that is also NOT what this thread is about and I don't care to debate that either.

    That is YOUR question and your position, Naroux. I got it and expect that most everyone else does too. I respectively ask you to stop pushing this on the rest of us. I simply don't care what the rest of the world thinks about a Peat diet and what label or category the rest of the world places Ray Peat and his recommendation in.

    I have in effect, opted out of the worldview so why would I now care what the so-called world thinks of Ray Peat and his dietary recommendations! I am simply not interested in that. You are. That's cool.

    I'm far more interested in learning what works best for me, share that with others should it be helpful to them and enjoying the foods I am eating.

    Please, play nice and have some respect for others and their points of view. :pillowfight
  2. narouz

    narouz Member

    Jul 22, 2012
    Re: Food variety

    I take your points 4peatssake. :shock:
    I offer my apologies for offending you.

    Honestly, I didn't mean to.
    I didn't call you (or anyone else) "a liar."
    And I did not direct my "rant" at any individual.
    But I see how you might construe it that way.

    Yes, the point of view I express is a bit of a hobbyhorse for me.
    I can't say I agree that it is a "ridiculous" one,
    though I do understand that you find it tiresome.

    I think it is an important alternative view on a forum such as ours--a general corrective.
    I do believe we need to be on guard to the lures of ego, pride, supposed Certainty,
    as "Peat followers,"
    just as I think other diet forums would do well to nurture a similar vigilance.
    Any group that conceives of themselves as "followers" of an exalted "leader"
    is susceptible to getting carried away with themselves.
    And I include myself in that category.

    Now, again: because I say that,
    it does not follow that I am making any judgement about you personally, 4peatssake.
    I'm not.
    Nor about any individual.
    I am just making the point about us Peatians and human nature in general.


    I am going to have to plead innocent to that.
    Yes, ttramone did conclude with the question:
    "Have other people found the trasition harder? Or easier? Or neutral?"
    Well...I responded with my experience of the transition.
    I guess I do a lot of meta-thinking during the experience. :)
    The thread is called "Food Variety."
    ttramone wrote of his struggles transitioning to a Peat diet,
    and noted certain interesting mental/attitudinal shifts which influenced his perception:

    [ttramone wrote:]
    "A short time ago, I would have said "I can't eat like this all the time"! But I'm actually finding that having this foundation of eating is so much easier than preparing different meals each day. And I love looking into the pantry and seeing the shelves getting emptier and emptier bar the gelatin, sugar, coffee etc standing front and centre. I feel less stressed in many ways. I never realised how full my fridge and cupboards were of foods and spices and condiments that I never really eat. And I used throw a lot of food out, which I don't do now. That used to do my head in.
    I also realised after cooking some lamb the other day that I hate cooking. I have better things to do with my time."

    ttramone describes how he grew to like the lack of variety, rather than bemoaning it.
    He discusses how he likes not having to cook lamb, etc.

    There are many legitimate tangents suggested by ttramone's narrative.
    My response just reflected how my mind reacts to such data.
    Peat says it is always good to be mindful of our thinking. :)
    I don't see that adding those thoughts and reactions amounts to "thread-jacking."
    True, I do not reinforce ttramone's experiences with a similar narrative of my own.
    But...there's no rule or expectation here saying that is necessary or even desirable.


    That cluster of related sentiments and attitudes is perfectly understandable, 4peatssake.
    I even sympathize and feel somewhat similarly myself.
    At least with part of my brain.

    But here's another perspective on the same experience,
    a perspective which forms part of the impulse for my "rant":
    On a public forum like this,
    I think it is a good idea to keep part of our brain focused upon
    "what the so-called world thinks of Ray Peat and his dietary recommendations."
    I think it might not be a good idea to cultivate the attitude
    that it is not worth caring about what 99.99% of our fellow humans think.
    Not saying we should do what they do or think what they think.
    I'm just saying there may be a value to remaining conversant,
    to sortuv "fact-checking" ourselves against them.
    That requires some degree of respect.

    I think there may be some danger in habitually cultivating the view
    that we are just going to retract the boundaries of our world to PeatDom,
    and only answer to those within that realm.
    That way of "being a Peatian"...
    mightn't it get to be a kinduv lonely, insular place
    where We are the only people who Know The Truth?
    And everybody else is, what?...I guess, presumably, stupid?

    I think it would be smart for us to sortuv have some respect
    for the unwashed 99.99% non-Peatians of the world
    and to at least try to be able to "talk the same language" they do--about food.
    Not that we would believe what they believe.
    Just that we would know how to communicate with them.
    That might inject a bit of doubt into PeatWorld,
    but maybe that's a good thing.

    If we get into the habit of only talking amongst ourselves,
    agreeing amongst ourselves,
    telling ourselves how right we are,
    reinforcing our wonderful stories of Peating with layer upon layer of other wonderful stories,
    until it becomes an echo chamber,
    and we only feel it necessary to make sense within our tribe...
    ...well...there could be some drawbacks.

    My strange view is that it is good to be careful when we're redefining food experiences
    like "delicious" and "satisfying" in PeatWorld.
    When we're congratulating ourselves on the lack of variety of our diets.
    When we make assumptions--sometimes explicit, sometimes implied--
    like that we are getting back in touch with our Natural or Instinctual appetites, etc.

    Those things might be true!
    I am not saying they are not!
    I am simply asserting the value of maintaining some skeptical mindset in our Land O' Peat.

    Skepticism is my hobbyhorse, and it is not focused upon you, 4peat. Nor ttramone or any individual poster.
    I just think it is healthy to have some skepticism about our experiences with Peating.
    Because I have that kind of impulse,
    I'm afraid I turn up like rain at a lot of Peat Parties.
  3. j.

    j. Guest

    Re: Food variety

    The hijacking charge is for changing the question. You said: the question is what most people think, whereas the OP talked about her experience and asked about our experiences. So you completely changed the topic.
  4. narouz

    narouz Member

    Jul 22, 2012
    Re: Food variety

    I do think my statement was wrong.
    I do not think my question should be "the" question.

    On the other hand, I don't think your implied alternative is "the" question either.

    That is to say:
    while I'm all for us Peatians following our own Peat-tuned drummer,
    I don't think we should become too comfortable with "not giving a f***"
    about what the rest of the [non-Peatian] world thinks or does.

    It is very easy to withdraw into the castle of PeatDom,
    pull up the bridge,
    and feel pleasantly Certain surrounded only by fellow Peatians.
  5. narouz

    narouz Member

    Jul 22, 2012
    Re: Food variety

    You're misinterpreting me.
    When I said...

    ...I was not referring to ttramone's concluding question...

    So I was not proposing a substitution, my question for his.

    When I said "the question should be" I was trying to get at the notion
    as I just said in my post of a few minutes ago,
    that I don't think we should necessarily be too hasty in congratulating ourselves
    for redefining "delicious" as an exclusive Peat province.
    And I don't think we should necessarily be so hasty in derrogating what
    the 99.99% of non-Peatians in the world consider "delicious."

    It's not quite the same as saying that those 99.99% "can't all be wrong."
    They could.
    But I think it is good to have some degree of respect and consideration for their views
    because that is one way to cultivate a bit of skepticism about ourselves.
    Which I think is a good thing.
  6. narouz

    narouz Member

    Jul 22, 2012
    Indeed I do!
    Peas with salt, butter, and pepper are a tasty treat.
    Spinach and butter and salt is yum-my.
    Broccoli with cheddar cheese and garlic is a palate pleaser!
    (Somewhat sadly, though, I've had none for a year. :cry: )

    Your statement is condescending, offensive, insulting, and argumentative! :lol:
  7. OP

    4peatssake Member

    Feb 7, 2013
    Re: Food variety

    No worries Narouz. I appreciate your response and accept your apology.
    Here's the thing. When you generalize and lump everyone into a viewpoint that we're "fooling ourselves" into thinking something or another, well you run the risk of offending folks. That said, I also think that having the skin of an elephant is very helpful at times so one does not take things personally. BTW, as far as I'm concerned "fooling oneself" is a form of lying.

    We can all learn from one another if we so choose and we don't have to agree. But a great measure of civility is in order - in my view - and perhaps being more careful how we say what we wish to say. And that includes me too.

    You don't say. :lol: And I apologize for calling it ridiculous :oops: that is rather judgmental of me, however, yes, I do find it quite tiresome. ;)

    I don't agree with this. I believe in free will and in keep one's own counsel. I don't want to be ruled - I am an advocate of freedom and I don't need nor desire a "general corrective" to be ruled by - especially one that is derived from outside of my own consciousness.

    I believe vehemently in our right to choose. Quite frankly the idea of a "general corrective" of any sort scares the ***t outta me. If I want to follow Ray Peat's dietary advice or anything else for that matter, provided it does not harm anyone - who has a right to interfere with that. You? The government? My friends and family?

    It's all well and good to say you are not directing your comments at any particular individual but let's face it, one doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to determine whether they are among those who have made comments contrary to your beliefs about which you make claims that they are fooling themselves. This isn't a very big forum. I was just tired of it and chose to speak up.


    My point about the thread jack was that your "hobbyhorse" was, in my view, directing this thread down a path that has been well traveled in many of your previous threads and not what this thread was about. It was a simple question ttramone had asked. You turned around and claimed to have a better question.

    I have a solid understanding of this world. I have no personal need to keep part of myself focused on what other people think of Ray Peat. If I ever do, well, then I will do that. I also have no need to set up a system of checks and balance to "fact check" myself. I believe I am far more intelligent and aware than that.

    I am happy to be among the 1 per cent who opt out of this world, one way or another. I follow a different path. That is my choice. My head is not buried in the sand. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I also don't choose to be angry or fearful - despite the horrific state of this world.

    It is all just too negative for me Narouz. I am not into making sweeping generalizations and assumptions. I don't see myself doing any of these things you are saying. I read these words and do not connect with them at all.

    That is not my way - I choose a different experience for myself. I also have no need to put restrictions on myself - checks and balances derived from a world gone mad so I do not find myself in an some echo chamber. :roll: If I had to choose between the world and an echo chamber, I'd probably choose the echo chamber. :lol:

    I prefer to live in a state of consciousness much higher than one that embraces skepticism as a hobby or even a need. I trust myself more than that and I am OK with making mistakes. I dare say most of us here have found the world lacking - particularly when in comes to information about our food supply, our health and our happiness.

    Like all of us, Ray Peat is not above making mistakes but he shines a very bright light on this world. He has fully exposed Big Pharma as well as those "powers that be" who have lied to us about our food and what constitutes good health.

    Ray Peat is someone who embodies a way to be in the world but not be of it.

    If I "follow" anything, I follow that.
  8. OP

    4peatssake Member

    Feb 7, 2013
    Re: Food variety


  9. narouz

    narouz Member

    Jul 22, 2012
    Re: Food variety

    If you can believe it, my first impulse in response to ttramone's thread-starter was:
    "You know...I feel something like that too, sometimes!" :eek:

    But then the "other part of my brain"--the skeptical--sniffs and asks something like:
    "Okay, but couldn't there be another explanation?
    If I eat the same limited, basic foods invariably for over a year now...
    ...mightn't the explanation just as likely be:
    -I've trained/habituated myself to eating only these foods.
    -I've indoctrinated myself to eating only these foods; that is to say,
    I have filled my head full to bursting with Peat stuff promulgating the healthiness of this set of food,
    and the destructiveness of other foods,
    and I know from past experience that the mind and imagination can override or control
    other food cravings."

    In other words, I took the same kind of experience ttramone had with a Peat diet
    but I interpreted it, explained it, rationalized it differently.
    I was somewhat self-skeptical when I tried on for size the interpretation:
    "Oh! This is really a good thing that the variety of my diet has vastly shrunk!
    Oh yes: I like this much better!
    No more confusing food choices!
    No more fixing of meals!
    This is heaven being limited to mostly just oranges and milk!
    Freedom was just another word for nothin' left to lose!!"

    Now, I do mock some, but you should realize that it is a kind of self-mocking.
    I am susceptible myself to such facile--and perhaps also true!--interpretations.

    I just hope I have clarified some the nature of my skepticism in regard to ttramone's first post:
    She (is it?) rendered her experience with her transition,
    and it featured the notion that the lack of variety in a Peat diet
    is actually a good and even very enjoyable
    and practical (because time- and effort-saving) thing.
    To me, this suggested that some attitude shifting might've taken place.
    "When you can't change reality, change your attitude towards reality."

    Let me state this clearly here because I did, unfortunately, omit it from my original post:
    I do believe there are people who immediately love the Peat diet,
    and make the transition easily and even rapturously.
    This is why I say my skeptical views are not directed to any one in particular.

    ttramone very well may be one for whom such attitude adjustment was completely natural
    and flowed from a deep and authentic visceral love of Peat foods.
    I can't know what exactly might've gone on with ttramone.

    But I don't think it is wrong or condescending or insulting
    to tease out the general possibility of such rationalizations.
    I have witnessed the process of constructing them--sometimes subconsciously--within myself
    over the years of different diets.

    And--surprise--the rationalizations have always been without exception--surprise!--flattering to moi.

    Well, I take the "without exception" part back:
    After having tried so many different diets,
    and after always patting myself on the back that I was doing a particular diet
    because I was smarter than most,
    and after accepting all manner of, I now see, unreasonable justifications for eating those diets...

    ...well, I think it has been different this time around with Peat.
    4peatssake bemoans my skepticism and doubting,
    my unwillingness to disregard what 99.99% of non-Peatians think and feel and crave...
    but those attitudes mark how I've changed, I think,
    in approaching and considering this diet, this Peat diet.

    I always have that little component of my brain asking:
    couldn't there be another explanation,
    one that is less flattering to my sense of certainty and self-value?

    Is it really so shocking and heretical and wrong to inject that skeptical stream of thought
    into some of the many Peat-Lovin' threads!? :lol:

    To my mind, that is a good kind of stream to flow through a Peat forum.
    After all, as another poster just PM'd me, Peat himself says:
    "You are less likely to do the wrong thing if you believe that ‘the authorities are always wrong, because then you will begin to question their assumptions, evaluate their evidence, and examine their reasoning.”
    And I know he says that should be applied to him as well.
    Peat is very skeptical himself, and urges others to be.
  10. narouz

    narouz Member

    Jul 22, 2012
    Re: Food variety

    Okay. Thank you.

    Well...I hesitate to belabor the point, but since some accuse me of "thread-jacking" I guess I will.
    I think I should only have to say,
    that when we talk about happy or break-through or very positive experiences
    with a given diet--as you were--
    things like appetite and taste and satisfaction and deliciousness and desire are heavily implicated.
    If that seems an unsatisfactory explanation, I submit that those phenomena were
    heavily and reasonably implicated, in any case, for me.

    I do accept your explanation, and I addressed this in the post I made a few moments ago.
    I was negligent in leaving out such a note of acceptance from my first post.
    I can not know what goes on, exactly, in a given individual with regard to
    the complex and mysterious subjects of appetite, desire, taste, satisfaction, etc.
    And I do grant that some immediately fall in love with a Peat diet "from the inside out":
    it requires no "attitude adjustment" or "self-propagandizing."

    I only maintain that it should not be verboten to speculate, in a general sense, about such matters,
    and to exert some skepticism.

    I sympathize and agree entirely.
  11. narouz

    narouz Member

    Jul 22, 2012
    Re: Food variety

    I have no craving to be ruled either, 4peat! :lol:
    I certainly did not mean so say that by exercising skepticism one should be "ruled" in any way,
    except I guess by reason.
    And in that case I would put it more like "governed" or "influenced by" reason.
    The "rule" thing sounds so tyrannical.

    I suspect we must be assigning different meanings to the concept of "general corrective."
    As I say above, it surely does not denote some kind of tyrannical "rule."

    And, I hesitate to respond to this--because I hope you must know it can't be true:
    of course I have not the slightest wish "to interfere" with you following Peat. :?

    If I may ask you to trust me on this:
    I honestly have a very dim recollection who has disagreed or agreed with me on this topic.
    Especially with regard to someone with a handle containing something with "peat" in it:
    there are so many like that and I can't keep them straight. :D
    I was not directing my skeptical views toward you, 4peatssake.
    And while I was stimulated to chime in by ttramone's description of her experience,
    I did not even have her specifically in mind with my comments--
    though I confess I did neglect to make this clear
    and I see how I might've left that impression.

    I really have no idea what either of you have posted in the past regarding the topic.
    I don't mean to insinuate an insult in saying that.
    It's just that my memory is not so great and I write a lot of stuff here. :oops:

    I understand why you could see it that way
    but it is misinterpretation of my thought process in that post.
    The liberty loving poster "j." also made the same misinterpretation
    and I responded to him above.
    It is my fault for causing the confusion I'm sure.
    Here is the explanation I've copied from my response to j. earlier:

    When I said in my post that "the question should be"
    I was using the phrase in the general, rhetorical, framing sense of:
    "This is the question we should be asking...."
    I was not referring to the question at the end of ttramone's original post.

    Where I meant to go with that rhetorical phrase was:
    I think it is somewhat suspect
    that we seem to feel the necessity to redefine the experience of, say, variety in food/diet satisfaction.
    Are we now defining variety as a bad thing,
    and, conversely, a diet with very limited choices is now the most satisfying/delicious/desirable?

    I was arguing (in saying "This should be the question...)
    that we should just objectively answer the question
    with the objective data we have plainly and abundantly at hand,
    rather like a Martian would
    if he/she/it came to Earth and collected data on what humans generally considered
    the best/most satisfying/most enjoyable diet.
    The Martian would download human data storage banks, libraries, TV show, etc,
    locate information on what humans loved most to eat
    and form a conclusion.
    I submit it would not be the Peat diet.

    I think we should first just answer the question, objectively, with that kind of rough methodology.

    Then we can move on to argue why that might be a terrible, unhealthy diet.
    Or how it might be most humans' favorite diet because most humans are f**ked up.
    Or because humans have lost touch with their instincts.
    Or whatever.

    But first walk up to that question and answer it objectively.
    Respect the abundant objective evidence enough to do that.
    Grant those facts their reality.
    Then propose away with all the Peatian interpretations
    of why that fact of human diets is screwed up as all get-out! :lol:

    That larger, rhetorical usage was what I had in mind with "The question we should be asking...."
    I had nothing of ttramone's concluding question in mind when I used the phrase
    and intended or implied no substitution.
    But I should have been aware that this confusion would arise:
    late, sloppy writing, blurry thinking. :oops:
  12. charlie

    charlie The Law & Order Admin

    Jan 4, 2012
    Re: Food variety

  13. narouz

    narouz Member

    Jul 22, 2012
    Re: Food variety

    I think you meant this one:


    Attached Files:

  14. OP

    4peatssake Member

    Feb 7, 2013
    Re: Food variety

    Nah, I don't bemoan it - I just don't share it. ;)
    And I defend your right to it and mine to object to the notion that I "should" think this way too!

    Narouz, your thoughts, perceptions and feelings are yours and you have a right to them. I think honest self appraisal is important. I also question my thoughts and their origins - I don't let them run amok.

    It changes the energy of the conversation. In this example from "love" to "doubt."

    Far be it from me to tell you what to think and say. Please don't misinterpret my actual concerns with any suggestion that I wish to stifle free thinking and expression.

    I agree completely with Peat and his statement.
    I don't agree that it is a good thing to spread skepticism and doubt through the forum. The great thing is we can both express our views freely provided we do it civilly. ;)

    We can agree to disagree without any mudslinging :dancenanner

    Coming from a place of doubt makes it much harder to find the truth because the energy is just so poopy.
    That said, I understand the dangers of wearing rose colored glasses - it is the opposite side of the coin. Again, much harder to find the truth.

    Perhaps this may be what you cautioning "us" against - the wearing of rose colored glasses.

    Where does he say that? Or is that your assumption?

    There is an enormous difference between truth and doubt/skepticism.

    The energy of doubt is very low and Peat has very high energy. I do not view him as a skeptic. To me he is a truth seeker. He speaks and advocates for truth. Hallelujah I say!

    BTW, perhaps we can move our conversation to a new thread as this is not what this ttramone's thread is about. Sorry, ttramone :oops:
  15. narouz

    narouz Member

    Jul 22, 2012
    Re: Food variety

    I meant the Peat quote I included:

    You don't think that expresses a valuing of skepticism?

    To my mind, being a truth seeker necessitates doubt, skepticism.

    Well...I wouldn't say that a survey of my input here nearly fits that description.
    But, since you raise the question, I don't think it is a bad thing to balance our Peat love with some measure of appropriate skepticism.
    One thing I would note here in relation to this thread is:
    some things get held up as "Peatian" here
    which are not well-substantiated as being so.

    For example: has Peat ever said that his dietary suggestions represent the most delicious or varied diet?
    Set aside the "most":
    Has he even said that his diet is delicious or varied?
    Not that I know of.

    I agree.


    Yes, that conveys much of what I've been saying. :)
  16. OP

    4peatssake Member

    Feb 7, 2013
    Re: Food variety

    I meant the Peat quote I included:

    No. His advice is based on evidence, what he discovered going on within the scientific community - what he has found to be true. So he is letting everyone know there are things terribly wrong within the scientific community so we don't have to re-"peat" his efforts to discover this truth as a starting point, unless we wish to of course.

    He does not carry with him an energy of doubt - he questions and researches but he appears very much in balance as he does so. I do not pick up an air of suspicion in his work - he speaks plainly (well, as plainly as a scientist does, :lol: ) He is refreshingly free from negativity and his capacity to give is astonishing.

    He may have spent years head butting "authority," trying to work within the system - now I see a man determined to bring forth the truth and set right some terrible wrongs. I thank him.

    I disagree.

    I never said that. You made the statement that injecting a skeptical stream of thought into the threads on the forum is a good thing. My statement was in response to that. I never spoke about your input. I find you to be a valuable member of this community. So please, be careful here.

    OH man, you're killing me. :lol:
    I didn't raise a question, I was replying to the exact same argument that you are making again - that it is good to inject skepticism into the forum. I don't agree with that. I do not feel there is a need for it.

    I also have no idea if Peat or anyone else has said that his "diet" is delicious or varied. You presuppose that I am to care about this when it is not something that is of huge importance to me - not by a long shot.

    Clearly this is of great importance to you, I just don't get it.

    Cool beans. Common ground. :woo
  17. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Jan 1, 2013
    Re: Food variety

    Truthseeking requires you investing time and effort in doing one's homework, as opposed to relying on third party opinions.

    Also, i wonder how much Peat material you have actually studied.
  18. narouz

    narouz Member

    Jul 22, 2012
    Re: Food variety

    Why, thank you for your skepticism about my Peat reading attainments, burt!
  19. OP

    4peatssake Member

    Feb 7, 2013
    Re: Food variety

    "Sarcasm is skepticism mixed with equal portions of anger and humor."

    — Michael Kindt


    A good article about how self limiting cynicism, skepticism and sarcasm are.
  20. narouz

    narouz Member

    Jul 22, 2012
    A new thread has sprung up!
    I would add a word about the title:
    it would seem to derive from a poster other than myself.
    I don't mean to quibble and I thank Charlie for creating the thread,
    but the title does have some unfortunate nuances from which I would like to separate myself.

    I have been interested in the place of skepticism on a board such as ours.
    My preference as a reader, member, poster is that I like to see some skepticism.
    I think it strengthens our forum.
    Without it, we run the risk of our site becoming something like "The Peat Belief Forum,"
    where only true believers are welcome or tolerated.

    I have no problem with the way our valiant administrator has handled this issue.
    So my views about the place of skepticism are not a complaint about this forum.
    Rather, one could think of them as a dialog about our mission statement, if we had one.
    (Do we? We might for all I know!)

    Now back to the title.
    Personally, I don't conceive my role as a member to be
    "injecting skepticism into the Way of Peat."
    I think it is the word "inject" that troubles me a bit.
    An injection is usually somewhat painful and artificial. I say, personally, I'm not all about injecting skepticism.
    The way I prefer to phrase it and think of it is:
    I believe there is valuable role for skepticism in our Peat inquiries.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.