From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:58:42 GMT

Rich Young writes:


>[...ravings deleted...]

Another one of Rich Young's non-intellectual remarks.


>	As I said, I believe he gave you all that in the r.f.v. exchange;
>	if you've subsequently forgotten, it's not Mr. Dyer's duty to
>	refresh your memory on demand.

Sorry, but you are mistaken as this question was left unanswered
at that time.   


>>Second, no rebuttal of my "interpretation" occurred since at that time
>>no one had even read the study except for myself.

>	Indeed, then it HAD to be a rebuttal of your "interpretation," for the
>	very reason that no one but you had yet read Moon's study.  

This is quite a confused remark.  Think about it.  How would anyone
know whether or not I had correctly conveyed the gist of Professor's
thesis as published in his paper and as voiced in his two presentations
which I made explicit reference to?   Hence, until somebody bothered
to even read Moon's paper or had also attended Professor moon's
academic presentations, then no such "rebuttal" of my report of Moon's
thesis could be possible.

In any case, this is a moot point which is irrelevant to the
issue of Mr. Dyer again rudely referring to Professor Moon as
a "crank".  Rich, please try to stay on topic.


>	recall, several people read it shortly thereafter, however.

And?


>>Instead, all that I saw were the mere quibbles about terms and vilification
>>of a an accomplished researcher and professor of toxicology/nutrition teaching
>>at a major Canadian University.  Hardly a very credible "refutation".

>	Oh, I don't know as I agree with that...it was fairly well established
>	that your frenetic references to "anabolic steroids" were, shall we
>	say, "misguided."

As I had explicitly pointed out, the refence to the term "anabolic"
came from one of Dr. Moon's oral presentations.  I am simply reporting
what he said.  Please try to be equally accurate in your reportage of
what I said.



>     It was also fairly well established that the mere
>	fact that calciferol is a steroid is not a heart-stopping revelation.

No one said that it was Moon's original discovery, but it is news
to the ordinary layperson.  Again, please try to be accurate in
your reportage.

>	And it was fairly well established that it was fortification of food
>	with vitamin D which essentially eliminated rickets from the Western
>	world.  Sounds like a credible "refutation" to me.

A refutation of what?   Again, if you read what Professor Moon
actually said, instead of what you seem to want to believe about him,
you will discover that he does not rule out the vital use of 
a prophylactic delivery of exogenous supplied calciferol (vitamin D),
only that the present shotgun approach is not necessary and may
indeed be incurring some unnecessary health risks.  Note also, that
professor Moon is not alone in saying this.


>	As I recall, you left in a self-righteous huff to go nurse your
>	wounds in GRANOLA for several weeks right after said rebuttal.

I really don't know what you are here talking about, but in any
case this kind of personal attack is really irrelevant.  Now,
have you bothered to read Professor Moon's paper?



>	By the way, how many times did Moon use the phrase "anabolic
>	steroid" in his paper?  How many times did _you_ use the phrase
>	"anabolic steroid" in your "interpretation" of his paper?

Again, you are being a sloppy reader.  I didn't say that Professor
Moon used this term in the paper he recently published.  Can you
cite some sentence of mine that says otherwise?  Of course you can't.

To state what already was said, Professor Moon used this
phrase in one of his oral presentations, of which I have a copy of
the outline he used for that lecture.   What do you have?




Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition