6 thoughts on “Contact Me

    1. Haven’t we already discussed this on twitter Garry?

      I have no interest in discussing my identify or credentials and I am puzzled as to why this is such an obsession of low carber’s.

      The only thing I can think is that you believe my identity will reveal some amazing conflict of interest which can be used to dismiss my views, rather than addressing the substance of my argument using evidence and good reasoning.

      Am I wrong about this?

      If you knew my identity would you treat my views any differently? If so why?

  1. Thanks for blocking me on twitter Slipp 🙂 having an anonymous account and repeatedly condescending the likes of Nina Teicholz, Zoe Harcombe and others in your search for “flaws in logic” should ensure you get some emotive reactions. Please list the research and work you have done to advance science and make the world a better place – as these people will be remembered for their contributions to society.

  2. You were blocked not as you claim – for questioning my use of pseudonym – but for claiming I was a hypocrite by calling out some hideous fat shaming by a ‘banter’. Your ‘kettle pot black’ comment implied hypocrisy on my part and suggested that I too have been guilty of such disgusting abhorrent behaviour.

    Yet despite requests you produced no evidence to back up this claim, and in later posts subsequently admitted that you were ‘trolling’ me. I don’t like people who misrepresent me, or when called out on it think they should not put the record straight. This type of behaviour suggests a ‘win at all costs’ mentality.

    The fact that you cannot accept being blocked and wish to continue by bring it here indicates not only a degree of malice on your part, but also provides further justification for my use of pseudonym. In fact if you read the ‘about’ section here I state it very clearly that some will choose to attack the messenger.

    I’d suggest to avoid embarrassing yourself further you take the advice I have offered repeatedly which is: address the arguments not the person, and stop taking disagreement with your views as being a personal attack on you.

    As for Zoe Harcombe and Nina Teicholz it is not “condescending” to point out errors in their logic, or where they have made factual errors. They are not “the anointed” whose views are sacred. They are not immune from challenge.

    I have provided opinions and evidence based criticism of the claims they make, if you think I am wrong about any of the issues raised, or my criticisms are not justified then it is up to you to show, with evidence that I am wrong. You will see a “comments” box under each post, that is what it’s for.

  3. Slipp you continue to deflect, avoid the point of the discussion, and condescend those who make a meaningful contribution to society. The issue is and will always be:
    1. By sitting behind an anonymous twitter account, and blog, what do you have to hide?
    2. If you were known to society, as Eddie and Garry and I are, would you engage in the same level of questioning, condescension and borderline harassment under the banner of “intellectual reasoning” or other cleverly framed arguments? See link below for context
    3. Being hidden, my point has always been to engage you on this, and to determine if we should take you seriously i.e. give the above points does this lend to or detract from your online credibility? Its a valid question.
    4. Making comments over and over that “Nina Teicholz cancelled on me at the last minute”, or John Briffa refuses to answer my questions” sends the wrong message. These are people following meaningful lives, pursuing a purpose, and making a difference, who are no doubt busy individuals – would I, like them be interested in answering questions from an anonymous source that calls their reasoning, research and life’s work into question and casting doubt over it – um, like them, no I would ignore you too.
    5. There are many well known and respected critics online who do not hide behind pseudonyms and who take a different viewpoint to low carb high fat advocates, and yet enjoy levels of respect and credibility – would you not benefit in a similar manner, and would this perhaps lead people to actually want to read your blog? I think it would – the arguments about fear of recrimination etc simply do not hold up.


    1. Robin

      It’s a shame that you didn’t take my advice above and concentrate on the substance of what I say, and that you continue to believe that you can hijack this page of my blog to suit your own purpose. As a result of this, and your behaviour which led to me blocking you on twitter in the first place you are done here.

      However before I ban you I am happy to respond to each and every one of your rather bizarre claims below

      [SPOILER: you don’t come out of this too well]

      1. This is the fallacy of begging the question since your question assumes I do have something to hide and, that this can be the only valid reason for using a pseudonym. It is also curious you raise this question again, since I already pointed you to my answer on twitter. Perhaps the issue is you don’t understand the difference between using a ‘pseudonym’ and being ‘anonymous’? (see point 5)

      2. This is just too funny. You have confirmed in your own words that you were trolling me “for a bit of sport” and have been “consistently trolling” me. This discussion is occurring solely because you could not accept being blocked on twitter and wished to continue making personal attacks on me on my own blog.

      Eddie was blocked for being aggressive and abusive to me and has also – it appears – been banned from other discussion forums due to his behaviour.

      Tell me again about how being “known to society” leads to more restrained online behaviour.

      Your assertions about ‘borderline harassment’ are baseless and weasel worded, made without any evidence. I refute them entirely, as for asking people questions – this certainly seems a heinous crime in the LCHF movement! I mean god forbid one of your ‘gurus’ claims should be critically evaluated, and found to be wrong, eh?

      3. Your claim to wish to instigate a serious discussion about my identity is entirely disingenuous. You have clearly stated the purpose of your engagement was trolling (see tweets in point 2) and there were many opportunities to engage with me and be reasonable in the past which you chose to ignore. You have also misrepresented my position and failed to correct this when raised (more of that below) and mislead about why you were blocked.

      I’d have been happy to have that discussion about online identify in the first place but you made unfounded accusations about my behaviour, disappeared and never re-engaged so please forgive me if I treat your sudden desire to be reasonable as an arse covering exercise.

      4. I have never claimed that “Nina Teicholz cancelled on me at the last minute” I think you are mistaking me for someone entirely different.

      Why is it the “wrong message” about Teicholz or Briffa if it is accurate? I think what you mean is you don’t like the message: that these two exhibit the same double standards and bias as those they accuse of bad science. I suppose Briffa was too busy to publish my comment, but managed to find time to publish every other positive comment submitted to his blog around the same time? Really?

      Or course it is their prerogative to ignore me, but when there is compelling evidence put forward that they are wrong e.g. correction in BMJ of Teicholz’s source, then they have a responsibility to correct or at least acknowledge those errors. That’s all I ask.

      Your judgement that they are leading “meaningful lives, pursuing a purpose” is entirely subjective and biased by the simple fact you agree with many of their views. It is by the way staggeringly arrogant to think that you could (or should) pass judgement on whether I am leading a meaningful life and telling me what to do – what gives you that right?

      You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that advocating skepticism, reasoning and use of evidence is a fine positive endeavor which arguably does the make the world a better place. So thanks – I’m sleeping well tonight in the knowledge that due to me some people might stop arguing using fallacious logic (see point 1) and perhaps no longer read the Harcombe Diet’s claims about Candida without an evidence based counter argument to show its weaknesses.

      5. The concern troll act is a new one for you, but is lazily transparent. To be clear I don’t care about other critics, only that I act in a manner in which I and the community I am part of think is reasonable (and you have never provided any evidence to the contrary). But thanks for confirming that I am having an impact.

      With regards your link, this is yet another weak argument.

      Online disinhibition is the “abandonment of social restrictions and inhibitions”. You don’t know me and you have not provided anything to show that my behaviour online breaches these.

      It should be clear from my posts that I value being a part of the skeptical community and care about the opinions of those who I follow and who follow me: these are reasonable people. There are social consequences to my behaviour and of course still legal consequences should I commit libel. This is one reason why I created and maintain a consistent online identity – precisely so that there are consequences to my actions.

      You seem to think using a pseudonym = being anonymous, but it certainly doesn’t – I cannot behave without consequence and, as I have explained already revealing my name would lead to my full personal details (home address, mobile numbers, work email, work address) being effectively published online.

      Is it reasonable to need to disclose all of that just to contribute to a rational, evidence based discourse about diet? I don’t think it is, and you have never given any good reason why it should be.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s