Re: Comment, and one pitfall of alkalizing.

I agree that we should all try to be more objective!

But I think we've created a vicious circle, of attack and defence and a sort of 'fear of ideas'.

I mean, if everytime someone denigrates the ideas and the drink, you attack them and then in responce more people look for reasons to attack the ideas expressed and the contents of the drink, both sides LOOK for situations where there may be an argument.

Perhaps if we could JUST return to the ideas expressed, if someone disagrees with ML then do so by showing the logical fallacy and if this person is valid, we must accept the criticism.

Either way, it appears that despite the troubles here people are using the drink to restore health, I guess the essential problem will always be one of the divide between the 'natural' and the 'artificial' or the 'orgnaic' and the 'inorganic' some people will never want to use inorganic, some people will use it liberally.

It doesnt appear that we've ever really answered the question as to whether the drink changes the nature of the inorganic-ness (hehe) of the CH. Or even if the problem of calcification is related to artifical calcium, or rather a lack of EFAs or a lack of magnesium in balance to the calcium!

Maybe we could all agree for two weeks to keep personal attacks out of the forum and just look at the ideas and see how we get on? Tweet