Go where i referred u & u answer ur own unfounded question..what Ive said is entirely supported;
aside, r there scores of GeneralMills & Nabisco reps here, or just detractors, or what?
Probably the or whats…
It is false that nobody doesnt like sara lee…
no comment:smack:
Here is a hint…and it’s gluten free! Your cites weren’t acceptable. They weren’t scientific and peer reviewed studies. An obvious hint is that if it has Gluten Free or is a BOOK REVIEW (with a convenient link so you can order said book on the page), it’s probably not an unbiased site. 
-XT
I did and it wasn’t. If you make specific claims like, “gluten is a neurotoxin,” I explect specific cites with a quotation here in this forum.
www.recognizingceliacdisease.com,
www.glutenfreeworks.com
www.celiaccentral.org
www.enterolab.com
& whatever the national institutes of health website is for digestive disease info, which may link back 2 some of these…
& u r correct, i had not demonstrated sh×t, but am correcting that officially, here…as, enterolab does stool testing.
i cited the source of this correct info as the author & pub for the book i cited…it is contained in the research they compiled in2 the compendium mentioned & was stated during a presentation…orally conveyed & not without basis but if u want 2 verify it, either go grab a copy of the publication, contact the auth/pub or, hire me as a research assistant & i’ll consider doing it 4 u…
gluten free, if you are in too much pain to type out coherent words, you shouldn’t be wasting your time typing at all. I read half of your first post and won’t be bothered to read the rest. I know you don’t care whether or not I’m reading what you write, but my opionion is that of the majority.
The majority of the people on this board are either going to mock or ignore your posts. So, if you aren’t going to attempt to write properly you may as well not type at all.
FWIW, there’s a poster on here named Blinkie. He has been mentioned up thread. The guy is completely paralyzed. All he has can move is his eyes and I think his tongue to some degree. His posts are perfect English. Unless your disability is worse than his, all you have is made up excuses.
[QUOTE=gluten free]
www.recognizingceliacdisease.com,
www.glutenfreeworks.com
www.celiaccentral.org
www.enterolab.com
[/QUOTE]
www.recognizingceliacdisease.com - This is a book review site, so not only is it obviously biased but I’m not going to read the book to figure out whether there is anything in there. Cite what you think is relevant instead of drive by links.
www.glutenfreeworks.com - Obviously biased (the URL is ‘glutenfreeworks’ for the sake of the gods :smack:). If you think there is anything relevant in there feel free to cut and paste it into a post and then back it up with your thoughts on WHY it’s relevant. Again, drive by link from biased, non-scientific/non-peer reviewed site.
http://www.celiaccentral.org/ - Drive by link to simply a web page (with ads for gluten free diets and such on it). If you think there is anything relevant to your argument in there somewhere, feel free to take some time and actually pick it out and quote it in a meaningful post. Possibly try and use real sentences with punctuation and perhaps attempt to actually spell out all the words. Just a thought.
http://www.enterolab.com/ - Drive by link to a companies web site simply talking about what they do. How is this relevant? WHAT is relevant here? Again, perhaps try and find some relevant information and take the time to cite it in your next post.
Overall, you don’t seem to be catching on. If you make a claim then it’s up to YOU to back it up with more than a few drive by links. It’s not up to me to hunt through YOUR drive by links to try and piece together whatever argument you think you are making and make it for you.
Epic fail.
You have not demonstrated shit as yet, except that you can toss up some google vomit and still can’t grasp the basics of sentence construction.
-XT
Thats unfortunate, because I take my word;
The book i referrenced, contains uncorrupted, scientific & reviewed info; does it APPLY in all cases that recovery is complete, that all efforts 2 counter effects r successful totally in every case post recognition? perhaps not; especially not post mortem.
This does not negate efforts. CRITIQUES ought b directed there, lodging them with me will not SERVE their intended efforts, will it?
& if the sites contained biased info, it is no more or less ‘biased’ than this site, which serves 2 combat ignorance…unless u r calling the national institutes of health ignorant &/or biased on THIS subject (gluten), for supporting the data ive supplied…in which case I suggest u take that up with them…
This generalisation wouldn’t hold in India, where 30% of the population identify as vegetarian. It also wouldn’t hold for the working class of England perhaps two centuries ago, where meat was a luxury. Of course, they’d probably have no ethical objection to it and their diets would have improved if they had the ability to secure some.
We have the capacity to lead healthy lives while consuming meat and the capacity to lead healthy lives while abstaining from it.
[QUOTE=gluten free]
The book i referrenced, contains uncorrupted, scientific & reviewed info; does it APPLY in all cases that recovery is complete, that all efforts 2 counter effects r successful totally in every case post recognition? perhaps not; especially not post mortem.
[/QUOTE]
That’s nice. I’m not planning to read it, however. You will need to find online sources that have been peer reviewed and then cut and paste the relevant parts ALONG with the links if you want to convince anyone. And, frankly, you are starting from a pretty large hole in the ground already just based on your posting in this thread, so it’s going to be an uphill struggle at this point. By and large you’ve already been dismissed at this point.
You’ve yet to demonstrate any of this. You posted a link to a book that had a few props for it from persons unknown.
It’s not up to me to take it up with them. I’m not the one asserting anything in here…YOU are. And you’ve yet to back up any of your assertions with anything except bad writing and drive by links, several of which were to obviously biased sites. Again, if you want to make a real point and be taken seriously then find some peer reviewed online journals, read through them, cut and paste the relevant sections, explain why you think they are relevant (in full sentences devoid of l33t sp33k bullshit) and you might have something. Right now you have nada. So sorry, but we have some nice parting gifts if you want to keep playing this same game. For instance, there is the Straight Dope board game where you might learn to play. Also, this nice (and gluten free) ceramic dog!
-XT
You’ve now braved your chronic pain again and again to present the same flawed argument. One can find a handful of books, websites and self-described experts for any nonsense claim, so if you really have reason to believe these are reliable, other than them being books and websites, you would have spared yourself a lot of painful typing if you’d:
As it is you’re coming of as a convert who has no real knowledge of the subject but just parrots the words of what you perceive are authorities. You need to change your approach or spare yourself the pain.
You seem to think the burden is on us to prove your claims by researching the books and websites you point to. Post relevant quotes here, else you are just making wild, unsubstantiated claims. If you were serious about enlightening people, you would do the legwork; apparently it just isn’t that important.
[quote=“xtisme, post:68, topic:609381”]
www.recognizingceliacdisease.com - This is a book review site, UNQUOTE]
reply:
a compendium, not merely about a book, it is contact information 4 the compiler of the information IN it & the best person 2 respond 2 criticism
www.glutenfreeworks.com - Obviously biased (the URL is ‘glutenfreeworks’ for the sake of the gods :smack:). If you think there is anything relevant in there feel free to cut and paste it into a post and then back it up with your thoughts on WHY it’s relevant. Again, drive by link from biased, non-scientific/non-peer reviewed site.
reply:
hire me & i might & that is the pub for the book & has relevant info which expands on info in the book.
JUST a book = kindling, a seat booster…
this a bit more valuable. it intends 2 eradicate ignorance…
so, saying that is merely a book is no different than saying this is only a site…& if u feel that way, y r u here?
http://www.celiaccentral.org/ - Drive by link to simply a web page (with ads for gluten free diets and such on it).
reply:
an advocacy & information, non 4 profit organization
& have u noticed the ads on THIS site? Whom ELSE is going 2 support valid advocacy efforts relating 2 that, the council 4 continued gluten consumption?
http://www.enterolab.com/ - Drive by link to a companies web site simply talking about what they do. How is this relevant? WHAT is relevant here?
reply:
they do research in food allergies & intolerance, also testing.
Overall, you don’t seem to be catching on.
reply:
when people r prying fingers loose, yes, it is difficult 2 maintain a grasp, thanks 4 pointing that out!
Epic fail.
reply:
when u point finger @ me, there r 3 pointed right back @ u.
You have not demonstrated shit as yet,
reply:
they do provide stool testing.
mangetout neverminded that referrence.
unwarranted.
“Unwarranted” is the one thing you know something about.
[QUOTE=gluten free]
unwarranted.
[/QUOTE]
I dinna thin’ that word means what you thin’ it means, kimosabe.
-XT
[quote=“naita, post:72, topic:609381”]
You’ve now braved your chronic pain again and again to present the same flawed argument. One can find a handful of books, websites and self-described experts for any nonsense claim, so if you really have reason to believe these are reliable, other than them being books and websites, you would have spared yourself a lot of painful typing if you’d:
there r more sales pitches on this site, actually which r unrel8d 2 content, u bother 2 read thru & critique my posts & not verify the truth behind what ive said, i m not ur research assistant, u asked 4 verification & ignore it when its handed u on a silver platter, u r continuing 2 digress 2 disprove something u have not disproved…r u a vegetarian angry with me 4 suggesting an omnivorous diet earlier, or just attacking me because u can? I m not impressed…& yes, i m brave, thank u 4 noticing.
if i responded in kind/ 2 tone of verbal assaults (responses) ive been getting, id have 2 ask ‘where r u getting this data from, where is ur nettiquette manual, what r ur accreditations, who do u think u r’ etc etc but it is unneccessary; the point is taken, if not followed, but i do not feel its neccessary 2 attack the suggestion…some of these responses are fittingly on the vege/meat debate area, because ive seen wildlife specials where a group of animals tear apart a single defenseless one & consume it…congratulations.