shit on any data given and purposefully or maliciously ignore the data when it doesn't meet your wants.

But there has been no data presented in this conversation to me.

You are the type of dude that blame the last person ...

Oh, you really thought I was asking why he might have run through the intersection and meant it as a dis on his diet? Wow. No, I was genuinely curious.

What concrete examples?

The original thread you responded to. All the photos of low carb authors who are overweight.

you would find it hard to claim that quitting smoking is good for you if a shit ton of folks with cancer say it's a smart decision to quit smoking. After all, they have cancer, what do they know.

Sigh. No, there is overwhelming evidence, scientific research, that shows smoking is not healthy. I would be skeptical of a person who was claiming that smoking was healthy,, though, and the burden of proof would be on them. If they also happened to have cancer, then yes I would say hey look there's this guy promoting smoking who has lung cancer when the vast majority of the scientific community says smoking is bad. The correlation here is that the vast majority of the scientific community says that low carb diets are unhealthy long-term. The burden of proof is on those making the claim they are healthy, so when I see a fat low carb book autheor, I say hey their diet isn't working for them. That's not really a big logical jump.

I won't be responding to your crap anymore.

Let's back up a second. Be honest here. If there was a post on here about someone having health problems because of a vegan diet, would you get mad, angry, vitriolic, curse, take it personally? Nah, because you're not a vegan. If you got a collection of books about high carb, low fat dieting and the photos on the front of every one of those books was of the author and every single one of them was fat, would you seriously think oh well that's ok, the genetic fallacy?