The orthorexic John Coleman wrote:

>>LEAVE the horseshit in, John. There was no legitimate
>>rhetorical purpose served in cutting it out; you cut it
>>out because you're embarrassed to be a slavish follower
>>of a crackpot.
>
>
> Perhaps you really do think you can read everyones mind and pretend they are
> as shallow and obnoxious as you.

I just want you to stop with the unethical editing,
Orthorexic John, and also stop removing the name of the
person to whom you're replying. It shouldn't be so
hard for you to be more ethical.

>
> Ehret was somewhat ignorant, fine. I don't follow his ways at all. And I
> have never even read his damn book, a friend told me about it, so how did
> you have me figured as a "follower".

Because you cited him, and because you follow a
so-called "raw diet" regime, and he was one of the
first to advocate it. You may have begun your descent
into orthorexia ignorant of Ehret, but you learned of
him and cited him.

> You just had to jerk off before you
> knew any facts because you are so prejudiced.

Oh, now the thin veneer of civility slides right off
you. Nice.

> Your volume of prejudice
> precludes you from useful reasonsing. Professor Ehret

I thought you admitted he was no scientist?! Why are
you now emphasizing his academic credentials, when they
undoubtedly are not related to his blathering about diet?

> allegedly received his
> degrees at the age of 21, I bet that makes him smarter than you.

Allegedly, it might. It's also irrelevant. Lots of
very smart people get things very wrong because of
fundamental flaws in their reasoning ability. He was one.

>
> Ehret was a white German anyway, so you cannot possibly call him racist with
> credibility - perhaps you could call him an "inverted racist"?

That's not unknown. Read Tom Wolfe's outstanding book,
"Radical Chic / Mau-mauing the Flack-Catchers".