On Jul 31, 12:46*pm, Greg Esres > wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> <<read his posts in other newsgroups>>
>
> I skimmed a few and he seems to be a strong voice for rationality.
> I'm sure an alternative medicine newsgroup needs just that and hates
> it all the more. *Go Mark!

Hey Greg -- Check out his line above, where he starts bringing in some
religion to the group, and tell me if that sounds rational? Here's
what he said,

"His strategy is to attack the critic, not the criticism. This is one
of two lines of evidence which leads me to suspect he may be a
Scientologist, but I will not make that accusation without a
reasonable degree of certainty that it is true."

He sounds so reasonable here, doesn't he? But why in God's name (of
any religion, pick one - personally, I'm not a scientologist) would he
bring "religion" into a newsgroup discussion about foods?? That's just
a part of Mark's agenda. If he thinks that calling someone a religious
name is going to "smear" them, he begins it quietly, with so much
grace. He certainly wouldn't do anything "without a reasonable degree
of certainty that it is true." And yet, as you watch here, if the
discussion continues, it will move from there into other areas of
strange, strange attacks.

Mark has literally been kicked off of newsgroups because of his attack
dog posture. Here, on this forum (must be one of his favorites), he
starts slowly, with smears that begin as insinuations of religion, and
then he will move from that into other categories of smear, but oh so
gracefully . . .

Dave