From: drew@cs.anu.edu.au (Drew Corrigan)
Subject: Re: an idea
Organization: Computer Science Department, ANU, Australia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:19:55 GMT

young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>	Just a small point: if the "side of the fence" can't be determined
>	after a period of weeks, perhaps the highly touted animus isn't as
>	clear as some of the more pretentious posters would like to believe,
>	and perhaps there isn't really any good reason to assign "sides of
>	the fence".  It should be assumed that everyone is looking for truth,
>	not simply "truth which pleases", and in that context, there are
>	no "bad guys" based on whether one agrees or disagrees with the
>	content of a posting.

Well I know which "side of the fence" Ted, Michael, and Tara are on (to pick
examples), but I do not know about yourself (to pick another example). 

As I said, I have only been reading for a few weeks and it takes time to 
discern a person's orientation towards vegetarianism. If the discussion does 
not centre around "I eat meat/I don't eat meat" but more distant things such 
as the effects of eating nutrasweet, it is not easy to determine where any
given poster lies in the spectrum of things. Further, I haven't followed
every thread closely - so a guide to those who at least identify themselves
as vegetarians would have been (and still would be) useful.

>	The true idiots are easily distinguished, since they usually resort
>	to such statements as "all omnivores are hostile to vegetarians" or,
>	on the other side, provide graphic descriptions of the consumption
>	of raw meat.  These people can safely be ignored...the rest are
>	simply expressing honest opinion or offering facts, and the "side
>	of the fence" shouldn't matter.

Hmmm. I don't think I agree with you here. When I pick up a book on some
contentious issue I like to find out a bit about the author - their back-
ground, their biases, their qualifications etc. Personal attitudes towards
a topic do cause most people to emphasize, de-emphasize points relating to
the topic. Two people can approach the very same facts and offer very
different interpretations. (Political talkback shows are wonderful examples
of this.) Personally, I think it is useful to the reader or hearer to
know the background and orientation of those presenting information.

For example, there is "report" going around down here (in Australia) that
moderate consumption of eggs will LOWER cholesterol levels. I find that 
claim hard to believe and would like to know who sponsored the report, how
it was produced etc. There was a campaign several years ago by some red
meat industry producers that their new cuts of beef were contained less
fat than the equivalent weight of chicken. This claim was examined and it
was found that the red meat advocates were weighing chicken complete with
skins etc. while the beef was very thoroughly "de-fatted".

My point is that it is useful to know the background and qualifications of
people presenting opinions and or facts in net.discussions.

Drew.

PS For the record, I have recently adopted a mainly lacto-vegetarian diet,
   but I claim no expert knowledge of anything relating to vegetarianism
   or nutrition. (Still in the learning phase.) I am sympathetic towards
   veganism but have yet to find an inexpensive soy-milk.