Going Paleo: Week 4
by Jason Godesky
Download new Excel spreadsheet
Burlay’s Foundation Diet challenges its readers to try the diet for four weeks, and judge the results for yourself. Four weeks out, and I’m already 25% of the way to my goal. Starting at 300 lbs, I want to reach 200, and after four weeks, I’m at 272.5 lbs. In four weeks, I’ve lost 27.5 lbs. Where most diets are content with a pound a month; I’m usually losing half a pound a day.
The up and down has evened out into rather consistent weight loss. I haven’t yet noticed any of the other effects attributed to the paleo diet, but this isn’t entirely unexpected. Burlay’s version is a low-carb form of the paleo diet that is maximized for weight loss. The flip side is, without a normal carbohydrate intake, I won’t enjoy any of the other benefits of the paleo diet until I reach maintenance.
I’ve hit a significant snag today, though. Tomorrow, I’ll be taking a train to New York City, to spend Passover and Easter with Giuli’s family–that doesn’t give me a lot of choice in my menu. Even worse, the recent strife on this website provided me with a great deal of stress already, before I even started doing my taxes earlier today. I made a math error, and for a while, I thought I owed the government more money than I have. Work, the website, and finally taxes had me strung out. I was actually hyper-ventilating. I resorted to a big, chocolate cake for immediate psychological care. Monday, in Poughkeepsie, I’ll need to undergo induction all over again. I’ll resume keeping track of my meals and statistics then. Which, just goes to show that stress cannot be seperated from issues of diet and health.
Is this one of those diets that requires about 20 hours a week of grocery shopping and cooking of specialized meals?
Comment by Peter — 9 April 2006 @ 2:10 AM
“Which, just goes to show that stress cannot be seperated from issues of diet and health.”
What I always love about most of the Taoist health advice I’ve followed for years is that they are so bang on with the links between nutrition and health. Mainly the understanding that general wellbeing is a combination of physical and mental health. This is pretty common sense, but it doesn’t stop most people seperating diet, nutrition, exercise, stress management and all things like that into seperate spheres. Understanding them as all interlinked brings the coolest result of being healthy: happiness and feeling good about yourself :0)
Comment by Dan — 9 April 2006 @ 9:50 AM
Not my version of it. I still eat out way too often for my budget, and G-d knows I’d never be able to spend that much time cooking.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 9 April 2006 @ 9:57 AM
Even worse, the recent strife on this website provided me with a great deal of stress already, before I even started doing my taxes earlier today. I made a math error, and for a while, I thought I owed the government more money than I have.
Please don’t pay your taxes: it only encourages them. ’tis the season for War Tax Resistance.
Comment by Eddie — 9 April 2006 @ 1:01 PM
Pay your taxes! It is foolish not too.
I’ve slipped lately, so can’t rebuke your failure. Ha!
Comment by Rick Larson — 9 April 2006 @ 9:03 PM
Better than paying taxes is to pay them more wisely. First, don’t get paid wages, unless you are paying yourself and paying yourself less than the dollar amount that requires you to pay them. Donate the rest of your profits to the cause.
A community land trust to own all of your property can be combined with an education program for making your own charity. For those in Northeastern USA, particularly the Hudson Valley and NYC area, we are almost at charitable status. There are other groups around the country deploying similar strategies. If you don’t trust us, start your own charity, as we don’t recognize the concept of competition to worry about another charity doing the same things. We have added sustainable business development, as we are in NYC and need to raise considerably more funds to “own” our own land and begin the anti-economy here at it’s heart.
-Sean.
Comment by -Sean. — 12 April 2006 @ 12:03 PM
thought you might find this amusing:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=InwsLaTvhzY
Comment by Urban Scout — 12 April 2006 @ 8:36 PM
Right on, myth buster!
Comment by JCamasto — 12 April 2006 @ 9:23 PM
Where’s week 5? Don’t keep us in suspense, Jason!
Comment by Viking Dan — 19 April 2006 @ 3:24 PM
Like I said, I was off the diet last week. Didn’t even keep track. I’m only getting back into it now, with another induction period starting today. But I won’t be making any more weekly updates, or keeping a food log. I consider the experiment over, and the results pretty clear: the Foundation Diet is clearly a good way to lose weight. Whether or not it’s a good way to live–I’ll get back to you on that when I’m another 75 lbs. lighter and entering maintenance.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 April 2006 @ 3:27 PM
One of these days I’ll learn to read. Doh!
Good luck with it, Jason.
Comment by Viking Dan — 19 April 2006 @ 3:51 PM
Wiking Dan, I can conclude only four things from your website.
One: You are a wiking.
Two: You are a bodybuilder.
Three: You like bukakke.
Four: It is fun to say “wiking.”
I know nothing else about you, but those four things alone terrify and disturb me. Except the last one. That one’s just funny.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 19 April 2006 @ 4:12 PM
My rebuttal:
1. I am a viking.
2. I’m not a bodybuilder…just a genetic throwback who’s vaguely related to a bodybuilder.
3.I don’t like bukakke actually…just insane flash animations about bukakke.
4. It is fun to say wiking.
Sheesh. If those 4 facts disturb you, imagine what you’d think if you looked at my artwork. :p
Comment by Viking Dan — 19 April 2006 @ 5:57 PM
You are mistaken. You are, in fact, a wiking. And your denial of this indisputible fact is wery wery suspicious. As is your apparent fondness for boobies and decapitation.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 19 April 2006 @ 6:07 PM
I have it on good authority that Wiking Dan is also hunting wabbits.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 19 April 2006 @ 6:16 PM
“I have it on good authority that Wiking Dan is also hunting wabbits.”
How wiww I kiww da wabbit?
With my speaw and magic hewmet!
Comment by Viking Dan — 19 April 2006 @ 6:25 PM
“…As is your apparent fondness for boobies and decapitation.”
Guilty as charged.
Comment by Viking Dan — 19 April 2006 @ 6:47 PM
http://www.TheFatManWalking.com
Comment by ov — 21 April 2006 @ 11:50 AM
“stress cannot be seperated from issues of diet and health.”
Holy shit. Ain’t that the truth. Just be glad you’re not a smoker too! I was paleo for 9 months when I was 20, had some fucked up life experiences, and have been trying to get back on the paleo wagon for 4 years. I’ve been on the diet again for a few days and already feel better.
The smoking thing though… that’s a little tougher for me to quit then bread. I don’t even like bread.
But I love smoking.
Comment by Urban Scout — 26 April 2006 @ 6:59 PM
I quit smoking two months ago. I managed to stay on a diet at the same time, but for most I recommend only giving up one vice at a time. :p
Also, pick up as much sugar free gum as possible in the interim.
Comment by Viking Dan — 27 April 2006 @ 7:18 AM
what is strange for me is that after smoking cigarettes for years I had no problem whatsoever quitting (same with other supposedly addictive drugs), but for some reason I find it much more difficult with “non-addictive” ganja. I can even smoke a cigarette a few times a year without any sort of craving returning.
I guess the moral is that my body deals with physical addiction well, but mental addiction is a different can of worms. The only thing I’d say I ever had an addiction to besides herb is mushrooms. Weird, I know. I guess I am (or was) just a junky for gratuitous and effortless communion with nature and spirit. :S
Comment by limukala — 27 April 2006 @ 1:35 PM
I’ve met a number of people who can just smoke socially. Its heavily genetic I suppose. The cravings are all gone at this point. The trick is keeping busy.
Comment by Viking Dan — 27 April 2006 @ 5:15 PM
So, Jason, still on a break from the diet?
I’M GOING THROUGH SPREADSHEET WITHDRAWL, MAN!!!!
Comment by Viking Dan — 11 May 2006 @ 1:21 PM
Well, he already said that he’s not going to be making any more weekly updates:
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 May 2006 @ 1:41 PM
..but I’m back on, nonetheless. It’s been a bumpy ride with … three abortive attempts? But I’m finishing my third day of induction today, and I think this one’s going to stick. When I checked my weight this morning, it was 275 lbs., right where I left it before I went to Poughkeepsie in mid-April.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 May 2006 @ 1:51 PM
@Mike: BUT INQUIRING MINDS NEED TO KNOW!
Comment by Viking Dan — 11 May 2006 @ 2:13 PM
Jason,
FitDay is a free online diet and exercise journal. If Excel is too troublesome to use, this can keep track of your diet for you(total calories, etc.)
Comment by Viking Dan — 11 May 2006 @ 2:26 PM
Well, firstly, I’m contaminating my data–I’m exercising now. So, my results from here on in will be contaminated with two possible causes. So, as an experiment, it’s no longer useful. And that means that the effort involved in recording all of my calories and carbs, in and out, no longer pays off. It’s not a trivial nuissance, after all.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 May 2006 @ 2:34 PM
Either way, best of luck. I hope you hit your goal.
Comment by Viking Dan — 11 May 2006 @ 2:38 PM
I’ll let you know when I do. When I can eat fruit again, that’s when things’ll get interesting.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 May 2006 @ 2:44 PM
i lost a buncha weight when i became diabetic. to lose weight and keep it off requires a total lifestyle change no matter what diet you choose. you can do it good luck{;
Comment by peachy — 19 May 2006 @ 5:06 AM
I became extremely interested in the paleo diet based on this site. Just as I was preparing to start it up, I came down with a pain in my foot which was diagnosed as gout arthritis. The paleo diet is made up of foods which would exacerbate this condition. While I still intend to limit processed flours and starchy foods, the high volumes of meats and especially the more “paleo” meats such as organs are to be avoided. Just wanted to make sure you are aware of this possibility; note that I am in my early 30s and was not significantly overweight.
Comment by hurt toe — 26 May 2006 @ 4:14 PM
I’m not too familiar with gout arthritis, but a brief search says it’s a metabolic disorder caused by a build-up of uric acid? Does that suggest that it might actually be related to diet? Wikipedia says that obesity may be a contributing factor, and:
Interesting–even moreso because while the Australian aborigines are hunter-gatherers, the Maori are the horticulturalists that killed off so many of the Moriori in one of the most vivid displays of extra-European genocide.
So, getting back to your big toe, I’m no doctor, but my first instinct would be to do more research into the causes of gout, as it may have a great deal to do with the paleo diet after all. It might be too late once you have it, but could it be that the paleo diet could prevent gout arthritis from occurring in the first place?
The Wikipedia entry on gout says this:
While it’s true paleo tends to go heavy on the meat and fish, it totally eliminates beans. More importantly, it entails a lot more of some of those purine-neutralizing foods: fruits, vegetables, lots of water, and all kinds of B and C vitamins. I wonder what the balance would be?
I wish you well, hurt toe; I’m sorry to hear about your ailment. It certainly raises a lot of questions. I just did a few minutes’ research on this, though; I’d love to hear a doctor’s take on this … especially a doctor with a healthy respect for evolutionary theory, which seems (oddly enough) a little hard to find anymore.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 May 2006 @ 4:40 PM
Hey –
Another view on gout… not so much contraty to common opinion, as it is more complete, perhaps.
Comment by Janene — 26 May 2006 @ 4:46 PM
Many of us have been conned by the idea that so called “Australian aborigines” are exclusively hunters and gatherers and even exclusively nomadic, rather than recognising semi-nomadic/semi-nomadic transhumance practices in arid areas (no alternative works for any human today), practicing fixed transhumance (multiple sedentary homes) in many of the more productive places and having sedentary populations in some places that have the most land productivity and about the productivity of, or more than, places in the northern hemisphere with soils, climate & landscapes that have been renewed by recent enough glaciation or volcanism. (I was a misled subscriber to this fallacy when I was studying Environmental Science at Uni and it took alot for me to get me back to understanding the diversity of peoples…sss). We’ve been conned by the indoctrination of that above as an additional example of European smug ethnocentrism and/or racialism & its simplistic essentialising caricature of the many & varied 260+ different nationalities, languages and hence peoples, religions & cultures of Oz. I don’t blame you, myself, even Jared Diamond or anyone for being misled because there are masses of apparentlty credible scholarly writings repeating this lie in addition to Hobbes lie of “[natural human condition being] nasty, brutish and short [lived]…”. Contemporary Ozzies & US Americans have been saying directly to me at times quotes of Hobbes, Locke & Spencer or their derivatives as their preconception for re-asserting that Indigenous Ozzy peoples were such as ‘primitive nomads who aimlessly roam the land in an agonising search for food’ or ‘never used the land’ or ‘parasites on the land’ or terse pretensiousness about European superiority such as ‘god made this land to be used’ implying that Indigenous peoples of Oz didn’t do use or fully use of the land.
See J Peter White (2003) “Agriculture: Was Australia a bystander?” for a highly credible European-Australian scholar’s recent correction on this.
I’d like to give more scholarly ref’s on this but don’t have internet time right now.
Best wishes to you (all),
Jase
Comment by Jase — 26 May 2006 @ 11:58 PM
Ummm … them’s some unique definitions of “agriculture” you’ve got there.
They hunted. They gathered. They’re hunter-gatherers. Pure nomadism is an exceptionally rare thing, and foraging, like agriculture, horticulture, carnivorism or scavenging, is rarely a pure thing. Purity in general is uncommon in the real world. Australian aborigines practiced some cultivation. In exceptional areas, they were even primarily sedentary (rather than primarily transhumant). However, most aborigine groups were at least transhumant, and though they had a number of (often ingenious) ways to favor the regrowth of their favorite plants, the scale falls far short even of horticulture. The bulk of their diet was hunted, or gathered from wild plants–wild plants they may have tipped the balance for, but wild, nonetheless.
So, I’d hardly call it a “con” to say that aborigines were hunter-gatherers. The statement comes with the caveat of “impurity,” if you will, but then, so should almost any declarative statement. I think it’s far more of a con to suggest otherwise, frankly, because it elevates exceptional and supplementary activities to the level of primary and central ones. For example, while I have been known to enjoy an occasional trashy fantasy novel, it would be far more misleading to call me a reader of fantasy, than a reader of archaeology texts.
Aborigines were hunter-gatherers. The rest of it, with the “parasites” who “aimlessly roam,” etc., is the usual European garbage, but none of that was implied in the basic statement that the aborigines were hunter-gatherers.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 May 2006 @ 12:17 AM
Thanks Jason G. for the fast enough reply for a conversation,
I’d like to know that you’ve read and considered that academy-self-correction entree paper of J Peter White’s “Agriculture: Was Australia a bystander? (World Archaeological Congress. Washington DC. 2003) first before we go over what is old ground for both of us, and you defend yourself possibly backing yourself into a corner, as I’m putting this subject as supportively & non-provocatively as can be, as I do support your project at Anthropik and am not attacking you - Hence your reply is OK based only on what I wrote myself here but not OK based on the quoted writing of J Peter White’s; Which also is a good entree into some the body of scholarly work in its references on the indigenous Australian peoples/nationalities who were/are Agricultural. Then based furthermore on additional recent review type writing by Tim Denham, John Terrel… (et. al.)
Based on my references not just on what I wrote here, and especially the introductory ref’ by J Peter White, I stand by what I wrote here that some, not all, nationalities/language-groups of people (peoples) Indigenous in Oz were/are agriculturalists in the full (Eurocentric) sense, not only having the faculty of cultivating a few species of plants but relying on cultivation of plants or animals for most of the diet, not to mention that all Indigenous peoples generally of Oz are often described in scholarship as domesticating landscapes.
I’d like to quote from papers mentioned so I’ll see how I go on this computer I’m writing on and also how much text I can send to Anthropik, as I wrote alot more about this and the best papers of Loren Cordain on nutrition that I’ve read recently, but I lost all that writing two hours ago because another organisations computer was crap - kept throwing exceptions with IExplorer - pissed me off.
I am Ozzy, I have OZ Indigenous personal friends & many contacts including Indigenous Ozzy PhD qualified academics, this is my major research subject so I check my ref’s out thouroughly and have read nearly all of the papers cited in J. Peter White’s key paper, I’ve read hundreds of papers in this area and Oz ecology, botany, conservation biology and indigenous Oz history’s, ecosystem management & economy’s, so I’m not some internet blow in coming to upset you 30 ‘apple cart’ (thesis’s). Actually I just hope to consolidate you often excellent work by helping fill gaps! I think you should believe me on this one if you haven’t had time to do the reading and research.
Best wishes,
Jase
Comment by Jase — 27 May 2006 @ 1:38 AM
Yes, I’m familiar with that work–and quite a bit more, which suggests that White’s … exaggerated his case, somewhat. Understandably, in that he’s writing against the “prevailing wisdom,” but an exaggeration, nonetheless. As I implied in my response, I’m aware that there are some aborigine groups that were sedentary, full-blown agriculturalists. But these were the exception, not the rule, and while the early European accounts were obviously very, very faulty, we don’t do the aborigines any service by going so far in the other direction that we label them agriculturalists as a whole, when this was clearly an exceptional (though present) behavior among them.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 May 2006 @ 1:53 AM
Also, I think White’s work has more to do with modern politics, than serious scholarship.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 May 2006 @ 1:53 AM
Dear Jason Godesky,
(All in good humour and supportive of yourselves:)
Evidence? Reference citations? Blogs? … on J Peter White’s paper, I’ve certainly searched extensively for this online and found nothing. Where is your thinking coming from really truly? I have plenty of evidence for my skeptical thinking to know that the many peoples, nationalities, languages (260+), dialects (6-700+), clans (ca. 3000+) in Oz can not be pigeon-holed en bloc into either just hunters & gatherers or into agriculturalists, not to mention that these categories are European ethnocentric then largely bigoted agriculturalist’s inventions anyway - and Maori and Moriori are each one people, culture, language-people, nationality, with variation, dialects, tribe/clans within them, whereas so called “Aborigines” (Ab Origine=Original from/upon/in - simplistic identity-less Latin) are peoples, cultures,… , not one people, culture, language-people, nationality. To revisit an earlier posts metaphor in this context, you compared one singular different type of apple each for Maori & Moriori with a different logical category of what is actually a massive plurality for so called “Aborigines” of a cart full of 260+ different types of apples. For example Eora (Yura spelling also) people, Kalkadoon people and so on in Oz are known to have been or had some famous warriors such as the individual Pemulway for Eora, amongst many more, while some peoples, nationalities, cultures where only known to be non-warriors.
As you also already know http://savageminds.org/ has some good writing, and more examples of this are some good improvements and corrections they’ve made to:
1) the fallacy of the categories of Hunter-Gatherer as dichotomised from Agriculturalists where they also cite Terrell’s good paper and
2) Jared Diamond’s book “Guns, Germs and Steel”.
Looking forward to your ‘informational’ reply - as I said before I’m merely wanting to fill some gaps, on evidence in my hands, in what is your often good writing.
Best wishes to you,
Jase
Comment by Jase from Oz — 3 June 2006 @ 12:02 PM
The categorizations of forager, horticulturalist, and agriculturalist have often been used in Eurocentric oversimplifications of the world, but they themselves are no more Eurocentric than, say, skin color is. The presumptions Europeans made about “foragers” were as baseless as the presumptions made about people with dark skin, but that no more negates the reality of hunting and gathering than it does melanin. There’s no pigeon-holing necessary in that; I’m quite away of the vast diversity of Australian Aborigines. The vast majority of human cultural diversity is accounted for by foragers, an enormous catch-all that basically means “everyone who doesn’t actively grow their food.” Yet it is a very useful term, because there are certain things foragers share in common, because they do not grow their own food. They have greater respect for the world around them; they are far more stable; they have far more liesure time; they have less illness; et cetera. Agriculture is an extremely narrow strategy. It is so marginal and brutal that it cannot afford anything but the most superficial differences. Feudal Japan and modern America differ primarily in aesthetics–when compared to the diversity of foragers, they are nearly indistinguishable from one another.
That said, nothing in the real world is every cut and dry. Does spreading some seed as you walk back to camp count as “agriculture”? In fact, most foragers existed on a sliding scale from foraging to permaculture, and in practice, neither was ever “pure.” We talk about “foragers” and “horticulturalists” in terms of where they land on that scale–closer to one pole, or the other? Most Australian Aborigines were on the forager end of the scale–some of them were the closest to “pure” foragers we’d ever seen (though, even then, not entirely). Others were more horticultural. There were even a few full-fledged farmers, who looked and acted and talked and thought just like farmers everywhere else in the world (because farming anywhere is so nasty, brutish and short that you simply can’t do otherwise).
I thought that Savage Minds‘ campaign against Diamond was, frankly, petty and misguided. Swatting gnats and completely missing the much more important point. As for the “dichotomy” of foraging vs. agriculture, you’re projecting an earlier, flawed understanding of these notions onto me, and that seems to be the root of the problem here. There’s no “pure” hunter-gatherer, but if you’re suggesting that there’s no material difference between the !Kung and the modern U.S., then I’d say that one of us is guilty of letting theory interfere with our perception of reality far more than the other.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 5 June 2006 @ 10:49 AM
Jason G.: This writing of yours is the doubly offending article:
(for this mistake Jason previously ‘Out of shape’ got it right-on-to the
point, with their criticism - don’t know who you are ‘Out of shape’ - but
perhaps you’d come back to give some more of your beautifully unconditioned
thoughts)
Jason G., You made the gross mistake of trying to compare a single
language-culture "the Maori" at once to ~300+ distinct language-cultures, each
one of which legitimately can be individually compared & contrasted to Maori
people. If you’re more than just an academic, as ‘Out of shape’ more-or-less accused you of
just being, then this would matter to you, but if not, then to you this may only be
a "swatting gnats" form of what Toby Hemenway tried to accuse me of: wrongly
comparing different logical categories (Permaculture with Shizen Nou Hou).
When comparisons are made between apples & apples, then you will find some
individual whole language-peoples-cultures, in Oz, perhaps Paakantyi, who
were/are just as horticultural and as economically active (trading etc.) as
Maori, even though recently (1000 years) an immigrant culture to their lands,
with forts and a lot of fighting, as the Maori are in NZ, relatively speaking
compared to Indig Ozzies and on the other relativity compared to much more
recent again Europeans. The dupli-hypocrisy (?duplicrisy? can I coin a word) of how you cover for the
credibility of your words here on your group, is only OK, in relative terms compared to
the written gross duplicrisy & shiftiness of self-promotionalists like Toby
Hemenway, and many so called permaculturalists like Bill Mollison & David
Holmgren. For example, I ask you to compare what you wrote in “On Violence”, including in reply to me, with what you wrote more recently - with no explanation of your shift of postition such that now your postition does not agree, thankfully, with Steven Pinkers recent woolly-thinking-writing article.
Heeding the message of
Loren
Cordain, Ph.D. below, in what you refer to as "Paleo-diet" may have more
clarifying effect on your thinking than about this and everything, than any good
argument I can muster; as is my own & many friends experiences over several
years, with exorphin/gluten/cereal-diary free diets, fitness & preferentially
wild-meat eating.
Cordain, L. (1999). Cereal grains: humanity’s double-edged sword. World Review
of Nutrition and Dietetics. 84:19-73.
Cordain L, Eaton
SB, Sebastian A, Mann, N, Lindeberg S, Watkins BA, O’Keefe JH, Brand Miller J.
Origins and Evolution of the Western Diet: Health Implications for the 21st
Century. Am J Clin Nutr 2005;81:341-54.
O’Keefe J.H., Cordain L. Cardiovascular disease as a result of a diet and
lifestyle at odds with our Paleolithic genome: how to become a 21st century
hunter-gatherer. Mayo Clin Proc 2004;79:101-108.
Jason G.: your recent "The
savages are truly noble" is an excellent piece of work. You are perhaps one
of that small proportion of writers who has gotten to be a better writer the
longer your pieces of writing are, so far - there must be a too-long also. I’ll
us it, not least, to try to debunk the recent Steve Pinker article for which an
extract was reprinted in Oz SMH last week, to my dissappointment - in one
paragraph of Pinker’s article the clear-thinking reader can read a gross error
of comparing apples with oranges, which turns out to be the central detail-tenet
of his thesis. If those of writing on these subjects get the basics right &
assailable, then these become the building blocks for all the world to change -
you’ve taken on a mighty challenge if I consider you as more than an academic. I
certainly am a practitioner of what I say, I take this for granted, and I
somewhat ambitiously expect other people such as Toby Hemenway & you to practise
them same. I add humility & respect as givens, to this practicing also. For
example I should not have to show-of at Toby Hemenway that I am already
sustainable within the unsustainable societal context in which I live in Oz, in
order to receive respect from him. This respect, he has yet to show me; He seems
to think that when ignorant of some-one then assume the worst of them, whereas
when I am ignorant (obviously & openly-so) of knowing him (or you Jason) then I
assume the best of him (or you). The lack of this given respect for me on this
forum from Toby up to now, & instead the arrogant assumptions with which he
attacked me in reaction to my honestly given Oz-experience-based criticisms of
Permaculture, gives me rationale for reducing my assumption of the best of Toby.
I can only feel sorry for him on that, but…
…best wishes to him & to all, at the same time.
Jase from Oz.
Comment by Jase from Oz — 20 May 2007 @ 12:24 PM
I can’t say I really understood most of what you wrote, Jase, but it sounds like you’re taking issue with my statement that the Maori are horticulturalists, and the Australian Aborigines are hunter-gatherers? I think I read in the above that you agree about the Maori, though, so is your argument that the Australian Aborigines are not hunter-gatherers? It’s certainly true that all hunter-gatherers (including Australian Aborigines) practice certain methods of promoting the regrowth of favored plants, and thus exist on a continuum with horticulture, and it’s also true that there is a good bit of diversity of cultures covered under the umbrella of “Australian Aborigines.” That said, I don’t think there’s much need to defend the characterization of Australian Aborigines as hunter-gatherers. Most Aboriginal cultures exist at some of the most extreme ends of that continuum ever observed, and very few of them (mostly along the northeastern coast) even begin to approach the levels generally associated with horticultural cultures.
As to what your problem with Toby Hemenway might be, I wasn’t able to tease that out at all.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 May 2007 @ 11:29 AM
Well Jason G. my words there were enough to make the point, but confusing (perhaps) because of the terrible typos I made in my rushing it, and I was writing it in the middle of the night, in the University Library, in the 24/7 ‘Info Common’ room, after reading your long & good blog “The savages are truly noble”.
So sorry for the writing lacking quality, & particularly those terrible typos that I’ve found. If I post a corrected version again soon, I’ll try marking the terrible typos in red font. (BTW: please, where is the list of XHTML tags you allow in Anthropik-Wordpress comment posting? -for me HTML is just a sideline of work-life)
Jase
Comment by Jase from Oz — 26 May 2007 @ 2:23 AM
The typos weren’t so bad as, well, the content. Is English your first language? You seem to have a very hard time with it.
As to XHTML tags permitted: a, em, i, strong, b, blockquote, p should cover just about everything.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 May 2007 @ 12:26 PM
XHTML OK,
So, as implied, how would I do red font, or better still red strikethrough font, in an acceptable way?
Comment by Jase from Oz — 17 June 2007 @ 11:47 PM
A red font with a strikethrough would be pretty unacceptable just on basic principle.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 17 June 2007 @ 11:52 PM
So then…? A red font orstrikethrough font then - how, acceptably?
Comment by Jase from Oz — 17 June 2007 @ 11:56 PM
I believe the strikethrough tag works for the strike, but that should be used sparingly.
Example.Differently colored text is never acceptable. It’s distracting, difficult to read, and generally inconsiderate of your readers.Comment by Jason Godesky — 18 June 2007 @ 12:08 AM
Fair-enough, thanks. Strikethrough is what I’ll use then, for correcting, and at the same emphasising, the terrible-typos.
Comment by Jase from Oz — 18 June 2007 @ 12:14 AM
Strikethroughs really shouldn’t be used for typos. Quoting is quoting, and you should correct any typos in your own comments before posting. Typos aren’t a very big problem, though, so there’s really no need to highlight them that much.
The proper role of the strikethrough is … well, frankly, I don’t know.
I guess it’s mostly for snarking, but that would make it offensive in nature.Comment by Jason Godesky — 18 June 2007 @ 12:43 AM
What’s snarking?
Comment by Jase from Oz — 18 June 2007 @ 3:06 AM
The word “snark” is relatively new, I think… if it existed before the rise of the internet, it at least wasn’t very popular. Anyway, I’ve read that it’s a combination of “snide” and “remark.” Snarking on someone/being snarky means being sarcastic, usually in a really mean way.
An example of using strikethroughs in a snarky way would be something like: “The film Without a Paddle was greatly enjoyed by
stoners and Seth Green’s moma wide variety of people.” The joke being that the writer almost said something really nasty, then decided not to.I don’t see why you’d want to call attention to your typos. If you know they’re there, why not just fix them? This isn’t pencil-on-paper. Just delete whatever mistakes you made and type the word again more carefully. That takes far less energy than turning all your typos red and crossing them out.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 18 June 2007 @ 8:35 AM
Also, how do you bloggers preview/proof-read your writing before posting, when it includes xhtml? - I mean what tool can I use for this?
Anthropik doesn’t enable the Word-Press preview button, which Savage-minds has enabled. So, odd as it sounds, i have been known to use the Savage-minds > post a comment window > preview button, to preview what would be my Anthropik post before posting here.
I’m guessing you regular-posters and blog-owners have a better way to do this, and on the down-side you probably take these methods, in writing blogs, for granted.
Perhaps somewhere on the wordpress website there’s generic post-preview functionality – I thought I found this there once before but have know lost the page.
Please advise me on the best method for previewing/proof-reading, as I’m someone who doesn’t have my own blog (eg. wordpress setup) to use for previewing.
Comment by Jase from Oz — 18 June 2007 @ 8:32 PM
Admittedly, the comments have required a fairly high level of computer literacy. I’ll add the preview to the specs for the redesign we’re working on—and a bigger typing window, while I’m at it. Does a WYSIWYG go too far? Yeah, if only because no WYSIWYG ever produces good markup. But perhaps some buttons to create tags….
Personally, I don’t use any kind of preview for proofreading, even for blog entries. I just read what I’ve typed, tags and all. But then, I’m a programmer. I’ve actually had dreams in computer code, so I may not be the best person to ask….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 18 June 2007 @ 8:48 PM
My suggestion (advice I should probably heed myself) would be to type your post in a text editor then copy and paste it into the submission box.
Make sure you use a text editor though, and not a word processor. A word processor may use crazy character encodings and cause your post to look like this.
Comment by locke — 18 June 2007 @ 9:21 PM