If that’s true, I would hate to see you trying to be unpleasant. You could have easily said—right from the beginning—“based on your previous posts I prefer not to engage with you.” But instead you were nasty, rude, and by some strange coincidence, engaged in an “appeal to Google” when I put your position under a little scrutiny. And it was only then that you decided that you did not want to discuss substance with me.
Anyway, I am repeating my earlier request:
Please give me your definition of “refined carbohydrates” so that I can understand your view about Taubes’ position.
If that’s true, I would hate to see you trying to be unpleasant. You could have easily said—right from the beginning—“based on your previous posts I prefer not to engage with you.” But instead you were nasty, rude, and by some strange coincidence, engaged in an “appeal to Google” when I put your position under a little scrutiny. And it was only then that you decided that you did not want to discuss substance with me.
Anyway, I am repeating my earlier request:
Please give me your definition of “refined carbohydrates” so that I can understand your view about Taubes’ position.
TIA.