Any advice is helpful

[Brom]

This is a discussion board. Discussion is not merely posting one's own opinion, but engaging others in talking about the topic at hand.

I disagree with an statement posted here that was agreed with by several others. I stated my case as to why the statement was wrong. I want people to respond to me. When my post was responded to, I addressed the statements of those who responded. This back and forth between people is discussion. Honestly, that is what and all it is.

In order to facilitate discussion, that is to say, in order to have people know what I am saying I tend to say what I mean and mean what I say. To further help people understand what I mean in written correspondence, I give words their plain meaning. Yes, I am literal - that's why the ability to read is called literacy.

I am upbraided as being confrontational, and too "literal" (alhough my literal comments are exagerated; I never once indicated that there was a suggestion that everyone be compelled to drink wine, which is what someone now asserts was such a "silly" mistake on my part that I "force" them to have to clarify for my ignorant benefit). But I am the confrontational one.

Do you not recall the statement that started my input on this message? Here it is "I SUGGEST YOU LOOK INTO YOUR ATTITUDE about alcohol before attempting to work with wine, which is not drink, it is food"

Now, at the risk of being confrontational, I will not say that anyone should change their attitude, but I will say that opinions can be wrong. People may be entitled to maintain incorrect opinons, but that doesn't mean that they are correct nor that one cannot point the error out and attempt to correct it.

You may note I give reasons behind the statements I make in support of my opinions. I do not merely gainsay. The two "opinions" here are opposed, therefore both opinions cannot be right.

I think my original point has been illustrated by the original poster of "wine, which is not drink, it is food" who has now posted that [wine has] "minerals (trace minerals) and some vitamin (minuscule as they are). That is food to me." How are minerals and vitamins, especially in light of your belief of why wine is food?

As to "not living long on one food", "long" is not defined, but I will address this anyway. In my first post I posited a week, but certainly one can live on fruit for a very long time, much longer than a week. In fact, I know a fellow who has been a vegan for at least 10 years. I think 10 years qualifies as a long time (even seems longer if you eat like him I reckon). (I can see it coming - all the different kinds of wine are one food, but not all the different kinds of vegetables)

But, this is an example of the exageration of my plain and simple statements - my original statement which brought the first counter was "If you "eat" nothing but wine for merely one day, you will likely get ill. try it for a week and state again that it is food." My follow-up was "Certainly we can live on single foods and not just the potato. We cannot however live on wine"

What have I said in the two quoted staements above? You cannot live on wine and if all you take in is wine you quickly will get sick. Why in the world would anyone argue with such statements? 'Oh no, if you eat just one of any kind of food you will get sick.'

Yet, somehow I am the nit-picker. People can tell me not only am I wrong, but I don't even know how to read English and that I have a bad attitude (confrontational).

Let me see if I understand this - if I disagree with what someone says, I am confrontational and too literal. When someone disagrees with me, hyperbole and mischaracterization, not being literal interpretations of what has actually been said, are examples of proper discourse, and their disagreement with me, as pointed out replete with personal attacks, is not confrontational. As I said above, piffle.

Yes, when people tell me I am wrong and I have reason to disagree, I do so, as you should.