Internetiquette II: Big Fat Head, etc.

Warning:  This post contains absolutely no science.  If you are looking for science, please look at 99% of the other content on the blog.  If you are offended by non-science posts on a predominantly science-based blog do not read this.

Yes ... that means you, insert name here , if after reading this anyway, you're compelled to comment on how and what I should write about here. 

It came to my attention recently that it didn't seem to be enough that Taubes paints this picture of me as some sort of crazed stalker, apparently his buddy Tom Naughton's in on the spin as well, ratcheting the rhetoric up a notch.    So, I thought I would set the record straight on his accusations as well.

You see, I wrote an "Insulin Wars" installment on Tom and someone posted a link to it at the Fat Head blog asking if he planned to respond.  I found it a bit peculiar that this particular installment of the IW series seemed so popular as to make my Top 5 list, where it remains at the time of this post.  Nothing so earth shattering about that post IMO.  So, anyway, I went to see what all the traffic was about.

Tom responded on his blog essentially that my blog was turning into an I hate GT blog and he'd rather not give me the publicity.  Fair enough, but I did respond to that charge (politely)  in his comment, he published the comment, and he even responded to me.  Then a funny thing happened.  Gasp!  I tried to post a follow-up comment to something he said and it got kicked.  Tom then described me as an "internet stalker" in a response to another comment.  Sheez.  That was no real biggie, but c'mon.  I hadn't realized that he was already blocking me  when I tried to post a second comment linking directly to a Frayn article.

Now, I read lowcarbdaily.com and his Fat Mice & Thermo post caught my eye.  I tried to contribute one comment there.  So 4 comments, maybe?  But who's counting....

Then the fat head traffic to my blog stopped cold. I went to see why.  Well it looks like Tom is A Fear Head of me because he has now deleted all  comments linking to my blog and had this to say:

Dozens of comments?  Every site?  All day?  Pardon me, but it sounds like Tom is stalking me if he's aware of what he claims to be the case.  Or maybe his bromantic interest is spending time keeping track of my every move on the internet.  Who is stalking whom if that's the case.   I've posted at GT's blog, yes.  So?  That is not stalking, and most of my comments are exchanges with others there as GT hasn't responded much if at all to anyone since the first or second day.

I posted at yours Tom because of the traffic and your comments and thought to clarify that this blog is so much more than GT.  Anyone with an open mind can see that, whether they like the content, writing style or have an issue with me not wanting to use my real name is irrelevant.    I also thought it might add to people's understanding of that mouse study to note that they weren't fat mice and all that.  No biggie.  I stopped trying to comment once I realized I was being blocked.  Oooh, scary stalker chick!   I wasn't trying to pick a fight with anyone.

Oh wait!  Tom must be talking about the couple of comments I made on the CBC news site on Gary's interview on Q.  I don't suppose there's an explanation other than "stalking" or questionable mental health as to why I listened to that interview, right?  Well, it just so happens that I knew Dr. Yoni Freedhoff  (who had linked to one of my blog posts in his review of WWGF)  would be on that broadcast.  Oooh.   I've got Yoni's blog on my Google reader now and I've even commented there!  Does that make me a stalker?  Should I have admitted that??  I'm in trouble now!

No need to lie awake nights worrying Gary.  I presume it's OK with Tom and Gary that I post over at Jimmy's blog on my interview and his since he addressed me?   Is it OK with you guys that I post on the LLVLC forum, as I have been doing quite regularly for almost two years now?  I suppose the troll that goes by bohigh over there must be reporting back to the mother ship that I'm commenting on Taubes threads.   How dare I!  It's not a sign of mental instability for others there to fawn over every last word Gary writes, but criticize it and ....  If I'm not mistaken most of the time when a stalker does harm it is those with the crushes that you have to worry over.  Just a thought.

Remember Tom, I'm not the one who posted links to this blog at your site initially.  I'm pretty sure the person who did is not a big fan of my work even.  It was YOU that posted a commentary on the content of my blog on yours to which I responded.  Feel free to comment here if you want.  I won't censor you as long as you don't flame me.   I won't consider it stalking either.   I don't bite.  Really.  The train of not wanting to boost my traffic left the station long ago, and if I'm such a loon folks would just pass right on through here and ignore anything I have to say anyway .... right?

What is Tom so afraid of his readers reading on here that he scrubbed his site clean of all links?  One wonders what he thinks of his own readers and their intellect and judgment.  If he considers this blog nothing but an anti-GT hatefest, does he not think his readers are capable of seeing so for themselves?    If Taubes' "case" was so solid, the science so convincing, what is the worry over someone reading criticisms and debunking of it?  Or does Fat Head think his readers are too stupid to know the difference.  What should I think of the mental stability of a writer and a comedian who are so afraid of what ANYONE is writing about them?  Is it some dastardly mix of insulin deficiency and ketosis that causes the skins of these jerks (yes, I said it!) to thin so badly?  Doesn't GT have confidence in himself and his writings?  If he did, he wouldn't respond to critics in the manner he does which is to ignore the substance and try to discredit the messenger all the while crying "ad hominem".  Waah!

I also note that these two seem to have a special problem with female critics of Gary.  They act like petulant school boys mocking Jillian Michaels in Tom's interview with Gary.  There was no reason for GT to mention my gender in his interview with Jimmy other than to try to discredit me by pointing out that I'm female.  (Heck, I'll take getting lumped in with Jillian, now can I have her abs?!)  I've been a (rather attractive at almost any weight) women in male dominated professions/fields/classes long enough in my life to recognize this when I see it.   And no, I've never been one to play the sexist/gender card at every little whiff of perceiving it.   Indeed probably the opposite.  But he threw in the word "female" where, were I male, the gender would not have been mentioned.   It may not have been intentional.  Indeed I think it was more of a Freudian slip, and those tend to tell us more about how a person really feels.

Real professional, class acts, these two.  Not.