Are Vegetarians Smarter? Post Your Opinion....

[zyzzyvette 0]

Just because some study finds a correlation, doesn't mean one causes the other. One study found a correlation between shoe size and intelligence- people with larger feet got higher test scores. This was because the study was performed in a k-12 school. Kindergarteners, on average had the lowest scores, and the smallest feet. You really have to take such studies with a grain of salt (heck, a shaker); not only are many of these studies highly flawed, so are the IQ tests themselves. Sometimes this is done on purpose by those who want a certain result (like my example), and sometimes it's simply an error on the part of the researchers who design and interpret these experiments.

This article explains it much better than me, if you're interested in reading it:
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

One of the strongest correlations you will find is the relationship between foot size and IQ, where IQ is measured by some standardized intelligence test. It will be a perfect or near perfect correlation, in other words you are not going to find a stronger correlation.
But does having bigger feet cause one to have a higher IQ? The answer is a firm no. The reason for that relationship existing is that when we are newly born we are not capable of taking an IQ test. As we grow and mature and our brain forms then our IQ also grows. The other thing that is growing is our feet, they become larger over time until they settle to a size once we are fully grown. But the fact that our feet grow doesnt cause our intelligence to grow. For instance, a birth defect may see a baby born without feet, yet this would not impair the development of their IQ in the slightest.

One of the commonest things you will find bandied about in society is using correlations as evidence of causality and that is as big a no no as you can get.

[Misanthrope 0]

Hmm vbritton, This is actually getting tedious. Very nice that you put in a provocative topic to gather more interest, but I think most advertising (and this is advertising, believe me) is vaguely dishonest, and so I personally tend to refrain from it.

Yrortarm! I see youre back. I thank you for posting again, but no one, least of all me, is forcing you to continually make posts on this topic. You did, after all, state that your last post was your final word at this thread. If you find the process of posting on this topic tedious, by all means, feel free to stop anytime. Youve obviously been tracking the status of this particular post hardly the behavior of someone who finds the subject matter tedious and without merit. Further, I believe I have the right to title my posts in any way I choose, within forum guidelines. Its really not up to you to pass moral judgement regarding whether my title is up to par, or good enough for your implied standards. None of us are perfect here. I wouldnt think of passing moral judgment on any of your topic titles.

About dietitians - I'm sorry, but I probably know a great deal more about diet.

Lets strive to leave bruised and fragile egos out of this thread. It makes for a much more logical debate.

Our history in these things goes back hundreds of years - your 'reputable sources' are dust in the winds of time before the knowledge of the Ryu.

I respect your personal philosophy, so please respect mine. Surely we can differ on opinion and still maintain some semblance of adult composure. So lets leave ego and sophomoric jabs out of this and introduce logic and reason, for a change.
Now then, the reputable sources I mentioned are just that reputable. They are documented and based on SCIENTIFIC studies. Im not so sure you can provide scientific data to support your personal beliefs and experiences.

Do you know that among those who train in the Ryu, problems with being 'overweight' are unknown. That we do not develop hypertension or diabetes. That we can run ten miles in the plains without even breathing hard? That a man of 60 or 70 among us looks (and has the capabilities of) a man of 35.

I think thats incredible! Ive always heard rumors of people with great endurance, health and longevity who populate areas of the Himalayas, specifically, the Hunzas. As we discussed in previous correspondence, this is due largely in part to the clean air, lack of garbage in the food supply, etc. Someday, I hope someone documents all this and puts forth scientific data to support these claims. Thus far, they remain unproven to the Western world. I also think it would be fascinating to visit someday. I always find it strange there isnt more talk of these mysterious people in the mainstream media. Maybe they dont want the rest of us to discover this Nirvana - this Heaven on Earth, you've apparently stumbled upon.

We are a cold, patient people, we of the high mountains. Drop this topic for 30 years, O valiant heart, and then come and speak to me, and we will see whose knowledge (and sources of knowledge) was truly greater - which of us is younger, which is still strong, who ails and which of us is healthy. Wait thirty years, while your body withers and dies before inexorable time, who will not listen to your arguments, will not consider your beliefs. And then come to me, and see one still young, as my masters are young before me.

Wow! I love this paragraph. It has the makings of an enlightened book, poem, or even movie written all over it. But your opinions on vegetarianism fall very much within the status quo, and lead me to question various claims you've made.

Starve yourself for a considerable period of time, until death knocks on your door - then have meat placed before you and see what your body says to your mind.

This faulty logic is often placed before the vegetarian or anyone trying to follow a path of discipline. Im sure others placed the seeds of doubts before you when you chose your given path. One can always make excuses and choose the path of least resistance. But when it comes to diet, the reality is:
1. I am not starving, and
2. Im not living in the Dark Ages when choices were few.
Today, choices are many. So, I say we take the progressive opportunities given us, and move forward, not backward.

In this study, twenty years of time and effort that could have been spent on finding alternate food sources was spent on 'proving that vegetarians are right' and you call that intelligent.

These findings are the result of a scientific, IMPARTIAL study conducted at Southampton University in Great Brittan. The fact that you personally find the study without merit does not discount its credibility.
Edited January 24, 2007 by vbritton (see edit history)

[Watermonkey 0]

I'm not a vegamite sandwich, but I sure wish all the topics at this forum were as intersting as this one. It's sure got a lot of intelligent debate going on. I like that. i thnk we need more of posts like this one at the trap. I don't see how you can really argue with a scientific study, I guess you should be able to duplicate the study with the expectation of getting the same results. I'll get right on that and we'll pick up where we left off in about twenty years. Yeah -right! Some of you should stop pretending you know more than the experts.It kinda looks like some posters have been picking on vbriton because she's not a meat eater like they are. I looked at her posts and she never got emotional or angry with the some of the insulting posts aimed at her. And then she even agreed with some of the people who disagreed or insulted her. Some of the people who pretend to be smart just come out looking like bullies trying to pick on one person who has a differnt opinion. Maybe they were jelous that they aren't getting as much attention at their posts? Questions. Questions that need answers...

Edited January 21, 2007 by Watermonkey (see edit history)

[jhsmurray 0]

Now, the quote at the beginning of this thread specifically said that vegetarianism was the cause of higher IQ, according to the study.

It wasn't a misquote - a couple of newspapers really were reporting it that way. But it is innacurate. It wasnt saying it proved that a veggie diet increases intelligence, but it was likely that intelligence might cause a veggie diet.

 

So, if you read the actual study, they explained that that conecept was mere conjecture. Here are a couple of quotes:

Although our results suggest that children who are more

intelligent may be more likely to become vegetarian as

adolescents or as young adults, it does not rule out the possibility

that such a diet might have some beneficial effect on subsequent

cognitive performance.Might the nature of the vegetarians? diet

in this cohort have enhanced their apparently superior brain

power? Was this the mechanism that helped them to achieve the

disproportionate number of higher degrees? Benjamin Franklin

and George Bernard Shaw, both ardent vegetarians, would have

us believe so.

...

Alternatively it is possible that the link between childhood IQ

and vegetarianism in later life is not on a causal chain of mechanisms

related to health.P eople with a higher IQ may well differ

from those with less superior brain power in many of their

lifestyle decisions: for instance, choice of newspaper, type of

books read, preferred form of entertainment.The association

between IQ and vegetarianism may be merely an example of

many other lifestyle preferences that might be expected to vary

with intelligence but which may or may not have implications for

health.

Kudos to all you people who said that kind of thing already in this thread.

 

Now, I wouldnt expect that to changeanyone's personal opinion on the matter, but I thought that might clear the air a little bit.

 

Moo.

Edited January 21, 2007 by jhsmurray (see edit history)

[Misanthrope 0]

(my quote option is suddenly not working, so pardon the manual quotations)

 

"Now, the quote at the beginning of this thread specifically said that vegetarianism was the cause of higher IQ, according to the study."

No - the quote at the beginning of this thread does not SPECIFICALLY state vegetarianism in and of itself causes higher IQ. What it does state is that those who chose a vegetarian diet have higher IQ. It does not say why. What it does do is leave the door open to further scrutiny and debate.

 

"they explained that that conecept was mere conjecture."

No - I found nothing in the study to leave the impression the scientific results were "mere conjecture." On the contary, they are the result of a 30 year study involving more than 8,000 subjects. The quotes you posted were taken form the study's discussion section, and not the actual scientific conclusion.

 

To clarify the study's validity, I'll quote the following taken from the same source:

The strengths of this study are it's size, resulting in high statistical power; the representativeness of the sample, resulting in a high degree of generalisabilty for the British population born around the same time; and the breadth of data on socioeconimc status, allowing an examination of the role of potential confounding and mediating variables.

 

That does not sound like mere conjecture to me.

Edited January 22, 2007 by KuBi (see edit history)

[jhsmurray 0]

To clarify

 

The quote says the following:

A study of thousands of men and women revealed that those who stick to a vegetarian diet have IQs that are around five points higher than those who regularly eat meat

I read it that if one "sticks" with something, it implies causality, because the outcome is apparent over time. Did you read it differently, like smarter people have the ability to maintain a vegetarian diet, because they are smarter? I didnt really get that out of the article. Heres another quote:

Alternatively, a diet which is rich in fruit, vegetables and wholegrains may somehow boost brain power.

 

Dr Gale said: 'Although our results suggest that children who are more intelligent may be more likely to become vegetarian as adolescents or young adults, it does not rule out the possibility that such a diet might have some beneficial effect on subsequent cognitive performance.

 

The high statistical validity only means that the point difference is significant because so many people were tested, and is not likely a random phenomena. But it still doesnt prove anything. As far as the journal itself says, it does not have the proof to claim causality. If one cant prove causation, one is guessing. Conjecture defined:

a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

The evidence is only complete if you are trying to establish correlation. But thats not really the point that I'm trying to make. It could be simple circumstance that vegetarians are statistically smarter. If the study shows that particular analysis then fine, I suppose I might accept those results for what they are.

 

My issue is that the news article appears to me to be aggrandizing over the idea that people who eat a strict veggie diet over time will get smarter because of the vegetarian diet - but the study is not saying that. That is where a major discrepancy lies, as I see it.

 

What if the next study, conducted the same way, showed that statistically vegetarians scored with lower IQ's than the meat eaters? Like suggested causation of food intake and IQ, that cant be ruled out as an impossibility either, right?

 

[yet another edit]

I forgot about a fairly equatable example of selection bias from history, that might help explain my skepticism. I wish I could find a link to it. Anyways, at some point when phone books were first distributed, census was based on the entries in them. The figures were consistently surprising in that they showed a dramatically higher family income than expected. It turns out that not all of the population owned phones, only the relatively richer families owned them when they first came out - hence the innacuracy of the results. This experiment in question is of course more thoroughly designed than that to avoid selection bias - but have all the confounding variables really been addressed? I mean, they've taken measures to address this with socioeconomic factors in mind and have used both men and women in the study, but surely there must be more factors involved.

 

Anyways, I know the article is intended as a launching point for a hot topic, theres no denying it is. I am just trying to point out one potential interpretive pitfal in about 30 different and certainly valid interpretations and opinions.

Edited January 21, 2007 by jhsmurray (see edit history)

[Watermonkey 0]

Perfectly right, vbritton.

 

I believe that in the future, as our mastery of science progresses, we shall eventually (as I mentioned a little earlier in this thread), SYNTHESIZE all the raw materials our bodies need FROM MINERAL SOURCES. I also believe that instead of 'eating' these synthesized materials, we shall have them injected directly into our blood streams, to maximize absorption and use. A device worn on the body will monitor the levels of such materials in the blood stream to ensure that we don't take in 'too much' or 'too little'.

 

Simple synthetic 'bulk' materials with various 'tastes' added will be what is actually eaten, these materials will contain nothing that the body can absorb, but will serve merely to keep the bowels healthy.

 

This is the future.

That may be your future, but I can't imagine anyone of your alleged intelligence saying, straight-faced, one should bypass the human digestive system altogether and just inject nutrition. You've got an "American" attitude toward eating, it would appear. Americans view eating as a task, a chore, something to be ashamed of and not to be enjoyed. Americans are notorious for having health problems relating to their diets. Coincidence? I think not. You can go all day long injecting things into your bloodstream thereby bypassing the bodies defenses, that's your right, but I'll trust the Creator put my mouth, teeth, stomach, etc. in my body for a very good reason. (not just to "chew" you out. get it? "chew"...)

[rant]

I am not a vegetarian. I have very nearly cut off my intake of red meat. I eat fish and chicken. Not because they're good for me, but because I like the taste of them. I'm quite sure if I spent any time around a factory chicken farm, I'd either cut chicken out of my diet, or make a decision to only eat chicken that's free-range and hormone-free. (I do that anyway, but not exclusively like I probably should.) I doubt I'll ever stop eating wild salmon or lake trout, but if I do, I assure you, I won't be missing anything in my diet I can't make up through a healthy vegetarian diet. Think Omega-3 can't be found in the world of plants? Think again. -edit: I believe the study defines "vegetarians" as those who eat fish as well as grass.

 

Eating a mostly vegetarian diet has opened my olfactory awareness to a wonderful new world of pleasure, not just in smell, but in taste too. Americans' blood lust for the primal red meat diet is completely out of control and way out of proportion to what is healthy or necessary. It's not just smart to leave the primal world of the carnivore or omnivore (more accurately), it's evolved. I'd encourage folks who want to make a change that matters in their lives to make that evolutionary leap. Stop the sensless slaughter of the creatures they share this little ball of mud with. Eat grass! It's good for you and it doesn't scream when you kill it!

[/rant]

Edited January 21, 2007 by Watermonkey (see edit history)

[Misanthrope 0]

It appears the author, jhsmurray, put a fair amount of time and energy into this post. A cursory glance at his posts elsewhere on the forum show this is one of his longest, and he?s posted no less than three times on this thread. Why do I mention this? To illustrate the point that vegetarianism puts many on the offensive, often illiciting strong emotion. Even in those who would have us believe otherwise. We are, after all, flesh and blood? not machine.

 

I question weather certain points as presented in this post are appropriate for a forum that caters to laymen. I am neither an accredited statistical anyalist or social scientist, and I imagine the same is true of most at this forum. Still, I will do my best to respond to this post, including it?s pre-edited version:

 

Did you read it differently, like smarter people have the ability to maintain a vegetarian diet, because they are smarter? I didnt really get that out of the article.

I deducted several things from the study, most importantly the fascinating link between IQ and lifestyle choice; in this case ? vegetarianism. I cannot speak for what you got out of it, though I can?t discount your personal interpretation.

 

It could be simple circumstance that vegetarians are statistically smarter.

Define "circumstance" as used in this statement. I'm guessing the word "coincidence" may have been the word intended? Still, I?m not sure how the results of a 30 year study can be mere circumstance or coincidence.

 

My issue is that the news article appears to me to be aggrandizing over the idea that people who eat a strict veggie diet over time will get smarter because of the vegetarian diet

Several articles were published on the subject, both in alternative and mainstream sources. I'm not sure which one is being referred to in this statement. At any rate, I see no reason why some enthusiasm is not in order given the results of this study. Aggrandizing, on the other hand, would hardly seem necessary for the same reason.

 

Further, the fact you have issue with how the study was portrayed in some news sources does nothing to discount the credibility of the study itself.

 

What if the next study, conducted the same way, showed that statistically vegetarians scored with lower IQ's than the meat eaters?

But the study did not reach this conclusion. If it had, I doubt it would be so quickly discounted among those horrified at it?s results. What if I were starving and the only thing available was a rotting carcass? I?m sure you get the point.

 

have all the confounding variables really been addressed? I mean, they've taken measures to address this with socioeconomic factors in mind and have used both men and women in the study, but surely there must be more factors involved. I am just trying to point out one potential interpretive pitfal in about 30 different and certainly valid interpretations and opinions.

I am not a social scientist, and if I were, I wouldn't be discussing it's anal details on this site, but one that caters to them. My humble credentials lie in the liberal arts. I suppose I could post a topic on Bach, then ramble on about his use of counterpoint and parallel thirds. But I suspect that would not spur on meaningful debate at this forum. I would make better use of my time debating the tedious details of music theory on a dedicated theory site.

 

The high statistical validity only means that the point difference is significant because so many people were tested, and is not likely a random phenomena. But it still doesnt prove anything.

What does constitute scientific proof? A brilliant man once answered this question as follows: "The question," he wrote, "is much too difficult for me." His name was Albert Einstein.

 

a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

I?m not seeing how the results of a 30 year scientific study can be downgraded to a mere ?opinion.?

 

The evidence is only complete if you are trying to establish correlation. But thats not really the point of this thread.

If ?that?s not really the point of this thread,? one has to wonder why this has been the major focus of this author's post.

[jhsmurray 0]

Yes, I think this thread is worthwhile talking about. I hope I'm not appearing hot-headed about this, and my opinion is indeed my own, I just wish I could express it so that it was easier to understand. I'm not on the offensive. I am taking a stand based on my opinion, is that wrong? But I'm not sure what I can add to it to clarify my point. So, unless I'm invited to respond, this will be may last post on the matter.

 

Dont let news articles give you the wrong idea. Thats it. And thats what appears to be happening here. Everything else I was trying to say points to that single point.

 

I'm not arguing that the study is was poorly conducted, and I'm sure these scientists are perfectly competent. I'm pointing out the danger of not understanding the results because of the language of a few news articles. Look them up and you'll see what I mean.

 

What does constitute scientific proof?

Succesful experimentation determines a direct cause and effect relationship, from what I understand. Without that, you do not have proof.

 

Still, I?m not sure how the results of a 30 year study can be mere circumstance or coincidence.

Thats why I added the story of the census at the bottom of my last post.

 

Several articles were published on the subject, both in alternative and mainstream sources. I'm not sure which one is being referred to in this statement. At any rate, I see no reason why some enthusiasm is not in order given the results of this study. Aggrandizing, on the other hand, would hardly seem necessary for the same reason.

My issue here is that the enthusiasm here might be misconstrued - see note above. Aggrandizing in the sense of exagerrating. Exagerrating the significance of the find without solid proof of the significance of the find.

 

But I suspect that would not spur on meaningful debate at this forum. I would make better use of my time debating the tedious details of music theory on a dedicated theory site.

Sorry if I sounding tedious. I'm just trying to give you as much information to explain why I am saying what I am saying. Don't worry, I've gone past the level of granularity that I wanted to, and will go no further. The information is there if anyone cares to explore it some more.

[Misanthrope 0]

Yes, I think this thread is worthwhile talking about.

I don't recall asking this question in any of my posts, but thank you.

 

Dont let news articles give you the wrong idea.

I agree completely. The collective mentality seems to want to accept anything in print or on TV as truth. I become especially skeptical when the subject matter involves politics or is funded by pharmecuetical and other big business. That is why I place so much creedence in the results of the study in question. It was not funded by drug money, so to speak.

 

I am taking a stand based on my opinion, is that wrong?

No, absolutely not.

 

I'm not arguing that the study is was poorly conducted, and I'm sure these scientists are perfectly competent. I'm pointing out the danger of not understanding the results because of the language of a few news articles.

It appeared to me you were implying a lot more in previous posts, and you certainly have every right to if that's your opinion.

 

Regardless, journalists have the burden of presenting information in a venacular the population at large can understand. With that in mind, it is my opinion the study in question was acurately presented. And I say that from a critical perspective.

 

Succesful experimentation determines a direct cause and effect relationship, from what I understand. Without that, you do not have proof.

Einstein himself could not answer this question. And I think you and I will have to respectfully disagree with the definition, as there are apparently more than one based on the discipline.

 

My issue here is that the enthusiasm here might be misconstrued - see note above. Aggrandizing in the sense of exagerrating. Exagerrating the significance of the find without solid proof of the significance of the find.

Well, my issue with your issue is the potential hypocracy inherent in the argument. I suspect you might not have these concerns if the study's results concluded meat eaters are smarter.

 

Sorry if I sounding tedious. I'm just trying to give you as much information to explain why I am saying what I am saying.

No apology is necessary, and I don't think you sound tedious. Thank you for posting on this thread.

Edited January 24, 2007 by vbritton (see edit history)

[Yratorm, LightMage 0]

Vbritton, I have not been tracking your topic - I have little interest in it, it just happens to be in the health and fitness section, in which I DO have a definite interest. My reason to be here is to help people, and I admit don't particularly like this topic of yours because (in JUST my personal opinion) it has been put up more to propagate your particular brand of belief than to truly help anyone. This is JUST my personal opinion, and I agree that it may be wrong.I have deleted any of my posts in this thread that were in any way impolite to you. Whatever logical points I had to make were made in my earliest posts.All I can say is the best diet for the human body is a balanced diet - one with meat, vegetables, fruits, etc. The human body sometimes extracts a minute amount of necessary material from one aspect of the diet - to restrict one's diet is to restrict one's health.If anything I said earlier disturbed you, vbritton, I tender my sincere apologies. I am not here to fight with anyone, but only to help people to the best of my abilities, in any way I can.

Edited January 22, 2007 by Yratorm, LightMage (see edit history)

[Misanthrope 0]

My reason to be here is to help people, and I admit don't particularly like this topic of yours because (in JUST my personal opinion) it has been put up more to propagate your particular brand of belief than to truly help anyone.

The helping people phrase sounds vaguely familiar, similar to something in my disclaimer (see below).

Regardless, we are not here to judge each others reasons for posting topics at the Trap. In my book, thats akin to targeting a specific individual for insults because you dont agree with her opinion. It has nothing to do with reasonable disagreement and is based on an emotional trigger. Some might refer to it as flaming.

If you are not here to fight with anyone, as you claim, you may want to refrain from insulting my personality in the future, as you just did in the above quote.

All I can say is the best diet for the human body is a balanced diet - one with meat, vegetables, fruits, etc. The human body sometimes extracts a minute amount of necessary material from one aspect of the diet - to restrict one's diet is to restrict one's health.

I respectfully disagree with this argument. So do the experts. I plan to post information on this subject in coming topics on nutrition.

[Kubi 0]

I see a topic here, started to talk about Vegetarians diet, in relation to there intellect and "IQ" in some cases. It seems what I find now if people bickering about who's smarter, instead of looking to the actual post. You can tell a lot about a person by there post quality, how they talk, and act. It seems quite simple correct?When I see topics like this, I mainly see other people, trying to describe the opposite side of the story.For example:Short people are coolerTall people are coolShort Person: Well you know, tall people sometimes have to duck to get into doors.Tall Person: Short people are made fun of.Instead of actually describing THERE OWN side of the story, it's always trying to put words into the other sides mouth. There's another topic here, about males and females, and there.."personal time" habits. All the males are saying "well females do it, but they just lie", and the females state that "Well, all guys do it, and tell everyone".When it should be more like "Well, I'm a girl, and this -- blah blah".My point here is "DON'T PUT WORDS INTO OTHER PEOPLES MOUTHS!". State your side of the story, and your side alone, and let someone else fill in the other side.

[Yratorm, LightMage 0]

Hmm, vbritton, I really do believe you've been quite as emotional as I. No more comment from me there.

 

 

You cite western experts. I cite eastern experts. Your experts have convenient links on the net - institutions in some parts of the east do not post a fraction as much on the net. As a matter of fact, my own connection leaves much to be desired, and breaks down completely a lot of the time. You might note that there are times I'm absent from this forum for days. The simple fact is, you are receiving information from a distant and secluded part of the planet, and choosing to disregard that information completely. Suppose, JUST SUPPOSE that I'm right. Then is not disregarding my statements a reasonably serious omission? We really do not have half the health problems of the west, and age slower - and the reasons we age slower are NOT the ones you give, they're the ones I give. I should know, I live here.

 

See, if a vegetarian diet is healthier in conditions in the west, perhaps you know better than I. However, where I am, we eat foods from a great many sources, and it is only beneficial to us. There's another important thing - we 'listen' to what our bodies tell us - the body, if you learn to be sensitive to it, will tell you exactly what it requires at any present time - and at some times, that requirement IS meat. At least among us it is so. And being attuned to the real wants of our bodies is one of the reasons we remain healthy. As for remaining young longer and living longer - that is the result of special exercises AND a correct diet

 

 

And I do try to help people here, there's no need to call that into question, certainly - most of my threads have been put up either at someone's specific request (like the mass-increasing exercise thread) or to answer a specific question directed at me - that's just helping people. A few more threads have been requested, but I have to balance making them with my daily schedule, which isn't easy. You may have noticed that I put a lot of effort into them, which is why I haven't been able to get the new ones up yet.

 

--------------------------------------

kubi, I appreciate you getting your point across in a very diplomatic manner
Edited January 23, 2007 by Yratorm, LightMage (see edit history)

[Misanthrope 0]

I see a topic here, started to talk about Vegetarians diet, in relation to there intellect and "IQ" in some cases. It seems what I find now if people bickering about who's smarter, instead of looking to the actual post. You can tell a lot about a person by there post quality, how they talk, and act. It seems quite simple correct?

 

Instead of actually describing THERE OWN side of the story, it's always trying to put words into the other sides mouth..

 

My point here is "DON'T PUT WORDS INTO OTHER PEOPLES MOUTHS!". State your side of the story, and your side alone, and let someone else fill in the other side.

 

Brillianty put, KuBi! I can see why you're a moderator as you have a keen ability to remain impartial.

 

Thank you for helping me explain what I've obviously been too stupid to put into words thus far. Personally, I find it very unproductive when a virtual stranger claims to know me better than I know myself - which is exactly what happens when you put words in someone elses mouth.

 

To illustrate, a poster recently claimed to know my personal reasons for starting this thread. They were derogatory accusations aimed at me as a person (as opposed to general comment about humanity at large). I didn't feel this attack on my personality did anything to further a good debate.

 

I hope we can all follow KuBi's excellent advice, and stick to the topic at hand. I know I will try my best.

Edited January 23, 2007 by vbritton (see edit history)