The poster defending their use of a questionable source to make a point is not looking objectively at the forum, they are defending a bad choice. They are thinking that I am “inferring” things I am not and missing their point. That is a complete misunderstanding of what’s going on here. I have repeatedly agreed with what they say is their point. I have made my own point, however. The use of links to websites and blogs run by people who are well known for exploiting the scientific ignorance and fear of her followers to sell her services, blog and books, as well as products containing the very things she says she’s concerned about if they pay her enough is poor communication that has the potential to do real harm. The source is not reliable even if the specific graphic used is accurate. That’s how scammers succeed, but mixing accuracy into the scams with lack of context. The continued defense of the tactic is either “nonsensical” or a refusal of the poster to admit they could be wrong about my point. After all, I agreed with theirs about the dangers of ingredients in highly processed foods. They dig the hole deeper with sarcasm like “Welcome to the 21st Century” when their whole defense if built on obviously not understanding effective communication that does no harm in the context of the 21st Century. It’s kind of sad, really.
Menu
