This is not meant to be offensive, but I notice on raw boards, especially lower-fat ones, people will post a question and it will be completely ignored and someone will post a response to that question, but it will be completely off-topic, usually telling what hte poster does in their day-to-day life. I read the other day that supposedly 811 followers have great mental clarity, but honestly, I've seen the opposite. I've seen a general inability to have a decent conversation; an inability to focus or understand the English language, etc.

Even when Debbietook posted a question on here, she had to remind the responders about 5 times that she wanted her question answered, not some other topics brought up in the responses.....it's like people have about 5 things they want to say and they say them in response to some other topic, like they are a broken record and/or all they want to talk about is what they do and how it's superior.

I just notice it and it's really hard to have convos online due to it. I'm not abandoniing the raw food diet because of it; and I'm not saying SAD eaters have any great focus; I just think the claims of mental clarity have been shown, TO ME AT LEAST, not to be true.

Utopian Life,

This is not a low-fat raw foods board, is it? Also, most of us don't identify our regimen with each post, as if we are partisans meeting at midnight at Checkpoint Charlie, 1963. You know,

"Halt! Who goes there?"
"Um, one Wolfeist and two Cousensites"

I get what you are trying to say; I, too, noticed respondents wandered far afield from Debbie's query about confirmed vegan societies. But I cannot conclude that their diets were responsible. You're just speculating here, right? I mean, you haven't done a statistical analysis beginning with January 2007's posts to determine who is what and how coherent their messages tend to be, right? For my part, I cannot recall what your diet consists of. Neither do I care; your posts are useful/interesting/topical and I enjoy reading them. I'm guessing you're just "puttin' it out there" for our consideration, so that's me having considered it : )

I think it is human nature, not diet, that is the cause for people veering off topic.

I think it adds color to most conversations, not necessarily debates though.

As in the case with Debbie's thread, she was doing research and trying NOT to get into a philosophical debate that, as she stated, could create hundreds of posts to sort through.

Try to imagine how stiffled our brains would be if we were to stop veering off subjects. I imagine some of the most enlightening conversations have occured that way.

I see it in all walks of life, less here than most places. I actually thought that when I first found this site.

It is human nature to want to teach and impart knowledge and also learn from others. I think that is why it is part of our nature. It is how we teach and learn more than just what is asked.

This lack of focus is not uncommon for web forums, regardless of the topic or the community involved. Particularly, when really difficult questions are proposed, you are bound to get a lot of responses that talk around the central question. People who are unwilling to respond to the question without knowing the answer tend not to participate, and in the end this is not a customer-service forum. Though there are quite a few very helpful active posters on the forum, there is no one who is ultimately responsible for making sure that questions are dealt with usefully.

The question of verifiable vegan societies is a great example of nearly unanswerable question. Since veganism is a negative state, that is, it is defined by something one does NOT do, it is almost never provable, any more than the non-existence of the tooth fairy can be verifiably proven. But to say that no one has ever proven the existence of a truly 100% vegan society is another unprovable negative. All I can say is that it seems difficult to prove and I doubt anyone has done so. Is there any wonder that this conversation ended up drifting off topic repeatedly?

I'm glad you aren't being driven away from raw foods by the fact that some of the questions posted here don't ever get good responses. If you feel that a low-fat diet makes you personally feel unfocused or unhealthy, then that is definitely the type of discussion you could raise!

i wasn't talking about this board specifically; i realize this isn't a low-fat vegan board.

Eeek...as I've been mentioned...

I suppose it should, generally, be cool for people to digress a little, as it's all about exchange of info/chat etc,

but it can get quite frustrating when people miss the point of the original question...(either accidentally or intentionally).

For instance, on the Doug Graham vegsource forum once I asked a question about bio-availability/absorption of sodium from sodium chloride. That's all I was asking, as there are a lot of conflicting opinions out there, even from those with a high level of chemistry knowledge. However, several people gave me instead a lecture on the evils of salt (which I was well aware of, and didn't need 'educating' about at all!).

I suppose it's all down to the poster who started the thread. If we're happy that a thread is digressing, meandering...let it. If we're not, we just have to play Mr or Mrs Bossy Boots (as I did!).

I like your Bossy Boots, but I think it's sad that you had to couch your question knowing that people would go so far off-topic or that lectures begin. Like, if I ask a question about what to do with X, Y, or Z, what's the best way to prepare them, if someone doesn't like them or doesn't eat them, then they might not have an answer, so why not NOT answer?

I do see a lot of negativity, such as, "Oh, this diet is the best" (meaning for that specific person), and then the whole point of every post is to focus on that.....it's just hard to have a meaningful conversation.

And I knwo it's speculation, just as the person who speculated that low-fat raw fooders have MORE clarity.....I guess I just read that person's statement and thought, "Uhm, not in my experience." And then I started thinking about it and some of the raw foodists I've interacted with. I could see how it would be offputting to mainstream people, too.

And also you have the history of the conversations that have occurred over years, and some people are reactionary based on that. Like assuming Debbie was wondering about B12, even though she didn't mention it and didn't want it debated.

frances Wrote:
> I'm glad you aren't being driven away from raw
> foods by the fact that some of the questions
> posted here don't ever get good responses. If you
> feel that a low-fat diet makes you personally feel
> unfocused or unhealthy, then that is definitely
> the type of discussion you could raise!


I have no focus problems as of yet, thankfully.

I used to think it was funny when I was a vegan (cooked & raw) and people would encounter a vegan who wasn't so nice, and then say DUE TO THAT PERSON, they weren't going to be vegan. I thought that was a joke and that the person just didn't have the heart/concern for animals to do it, and was looking for an excuse.

This is not the case with me and raw. I definitely love it; it's been over a year. I feel great! I just wish conversations were easier online. Oh, well. This thread has gone well so far.

I know what you mean, Utopian Life.

It's like...someone asks a question, and others (often incorrectly) assume there's some sort of 'agenda' behind it, eg it was clear that some were suspecting that perhaps I was out to prove some sort of point against the vegan diet, which was absolutely not the case.

Frances...there are lots of cultures that don't eat animal flesh, don't eat cows etc - I was just asking if anyone knew one that (apparently - we can't monitor every individual) didn't eat any animal products, so I'm not sure why the thread was destined to meander.

One of the reasons it did is that once the 'B12' thing is mentioned, people will jump in immediately, especially those who think that any vegan that doesn't take a B12 supplement is nuts and feel it their duty to point that out (and I can understand why - they are speaking because they love their brothers, as it were...).

Anyway...Utopian Life, your thread is DIGRESSING :-) And I'm partly responsible!

But, COMING BACK TO THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD, forum communication can be frustrating sometimes.

But also fascinating.

For example, anyone who has been posting on forums for a few years will be familiar with this phenomenon. You post something. The next person misinterprets it (either accidentally or intentionally), implies you've said something that really you haven't, and...aargh, what do you do? Do you put it right (having been 'misrepresented'), or leave it?

Also, I witnessed recently a thread on another forum where someone posted something that suggested something, tentatively and tactfully, I thought...but clearly others were very upset, and it turned into one of those 100-repliers...
the moral of the story being that...when you post on a forum, there is very likely someone, somewhere, is going to be offended by your post, however carefully worded.

(so - sorry - whoever you are :-)

I don't think raw vegans answering the questions they think/wish had been asked rather than the actual question is being fuzzy - happens in real life all the time. It's more to do with e-mail communication per se. It's a minefield fraught with potential 'tricky' situations. In real life, when we say something and sense a misunderstanding, or even a negative reaction via facial expression, we can clarify, we can 'negotiate', and we can even apologise, 'take it back'.

Once it's on a forum, it's 'out there', or at least it is on this forum and will be out there...forever, ever, ever.... On the 'ning' forums (eg gi2mraw and 30Ban) at least we can delete our own posts.

But, I must say, all posts on this thread to date have been incredibly polite, considered and thoughtful. But suppose I would say that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2009 06:49PM by debbietook.

I agree, Debbie, about the limitations of online communication. I've heard disagreeing numbers about how much human communication is non-verbal, and I don't really understand what it means to apply a number to that. How do you count a "communication", anyway? Still, non-verbal communication is a big part of how humans relate, and text-only communication loses a lot. Some of the things we add to text, like simulated SHOUTING and little winking faces add depth but no where near enough to close the gap.

We may have had an example of this in this thread. When you originally asked your question about vegan societies, you used the words "truly", "verifiably", and "100%". To me, your use of all three meant that you were strongly emphasizing that you were looking for provably perfect veganism. You didn't just want to learn about "truly vegan societies", or "truly, 100% vegan societies", but actual "truly, verifiably, 100% vegan societies". I thought of some traditional thought-to-be-vegan societies where it has been revealed that people sometimes eat insects or like to let certain kinds of fruit go maggoty before eating, and I decided that if the perfectly vegan society exists, it wouldn't be provable to the level of emphasis you were putting on it. If I had seen and heard you pose the same question, I would have likely gotten a different and much clearer impression of your emphasis, if nothing else.

I think that goes a long way toward explaining the lack of focus that Utopian Life originally noted. Obviously there are other factors. Knowing that I don't have an answer to your question, do I still jump into the conversation to share the tangential information that I might have? Does the next person respond to something I said despite the fact that it's no longer even tangentially related to the original topic?

The of course, there are the people on any forum who will share anything they think of, wherever they happen to be when they think of it. For example, I took this photo of the root hairs that grow on young radish sprouts.

You must have a good camera, Frances.

Another off-topic - my guess is that if there are vegan societies, they don't much care about the internet or interaction with other people who cause so much harm to the earth, so maybe they don't let it be known that they are a vegan/peaceful society.

If a society does condone eating maggots, I don't see that as marring their moral fiber as a society. I guess it's because I can't conjure any sympathy for the maggots. After all, they show less self-awareness than most plants. My personal reason for not eating maggots is the same as my reason for not drinking urine. I don't think it's evil, it just sets off my "eww" meter.

Still off topic, but my camera is a middle-of-the-road Canon digital point-and-shoot model from a few years ago. Nothing to write home about. It does, however, allow you to attach specialized lenses. I got a macro lens for doing extreme close-ups. (The lens is an off-brand, and cost about $50 a couple years ago.)

Here's another off topic concerning veganism. The concept of veganism was invented in 1944. Given that 1944 was only 65 years ago, there hasn't been enough time in the last 65 years for there to have been societies who met the requirements of a concept so freshly invented.

So this is why no one could come up with any verifiable proof

regaurding lower fat

its been said that when one begins this diet,you may crave more fat.arent we all beggining,transitioning and at one level or another?

i thought eating regaurds to your heritage to and how active you are too.

I like a free form forum where everyone feels comfortable expressing their thoughts and ideas. Sometimes I read a post and it starts a thought process that ends up being communicated via my keyboard as I am moving through that thought process. I hadn't considered how frustrating that might be to some people who don't want that kind of a forum. I will try to stay more on the topic of the OP or as mentioned above just not say anything. My apology to anyone who has experienced frustration reading my posts.

I think there's a difference when threads get off-topic versus ....negative responses that don't much apply to the thread. But it's true that people do talk about themselves and it feels good to talk about yourself, so maybe that's part of the reason. It's not a big problem, and it probably is internet-wide.

EZ, I certainly don't remember feeling frustrated reading your posts :-)

I think there should be lots of room for saying anything we feel like saying (within reason...).

Best rule of thumb I think is to look at the opening post. If someone's asking for specific information, probably best just to answer the question (if one can), and if something comes to mind that could be an interesting and potentially big discussion topic, start a separate thread.

On the other hand, if someone isn't asking for specific information, and it's a 'what do you all think?' type of question, way-hay - anything goes!

I seriously would love to have that sprout picture really large above my bed!!!

debbietook

Quote

Best rule of thumb I think is to look at the opening post. If someone's asking for specific information, probably best just to answer the question (if one can), and if something comes to mind that could be an interesting and potentially big discussion topic, start a separate thread.

I like that and I'm going to practice that from here forward.

pakd4fun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I seriously would love to have that sprout picture
> really large above my bed!!!

If you want the full resolution original you can have it, but just don't tell me anything about what you do with it in the bedroom!

The above discussion is great. Uptopian:

I hear you. This post reminds me of the standard sort of religious complaint (which I myself have had): the people in church are jerks....ergo religion sucks. It's not exactly refined logic.

It depends on what you think a raw vegan diet is good for. I never expected increased 'genius' or 'mental clarity' but rather better weight control and over-all health....and I think a mostly raw (or all raw) diet can deliver this is spades.

I'm not discounting your claim, but my personal feeling/opinion is always that folks should concentrate 99.9% of the time on focusing on the positive results that they ARE experiencing....and praising those....rather than pointing out what does NOT exist...and the various failures of various people. Just my take.

-David Z. Mason

WWW.RawFoodFarm.com

Cool Frances! I will PM you.

To the original poster (Utopian Life):

Something to keep in mind is that possibly upwards of 90% of the people following any particular diet (low fat raw veganism, for example) spend little to no time posting or reading message boards.

Therefore, to use those posting on message boards as a sampling of how a particular diet affects mental clarity or comprehension skills will probably result in a flawed analysis, as it most likely leaves out a massive portion of the sample population.

It could even be suggested that those posting regularly on message boards may be among those more likely to exhibit certain of the traits that you mentioned, as they are probably new to the diet and may be overly excited, judgemental, evangelical, or experiencing traumatic emotional upheavals and reactions due to changes in belief system, ideas about the world, etc.

Sometimes I think we overestimate just how many of the people following these diets post on the various message boards. Most long time raw foodists that I know (including low fat raw vegans) spend very, very little time perusing them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2009 05:52AM by doghouse reilly.

Yes I've notice that maybe its just lack of focus and determination in dealing with such.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2009 10:15AM by noload.