John H. Gohde: his hatred and racism cataloged

(New here ? John H. Gohde’s cv is a great starting place to find out what this site’s about)

Ah, the old is-the-tomato-a-fruit-or-a-vegetable debate, much beloved of magazine brainteasers and TV quiz shows.

And do you know what we like best about the debate ? Whatever side you choose, you’re a winner. Say it’s a fruit - well, it’s got the seeds on the inside, so you must be right. Say it’s a vegetable - well, when you’re dicing it up with cucumber and lettuce, it’s hard to argue with that either. Or there’s the third option - it’s a berry. So you can argue your own pet theory, no-one can decisively prove you wrong, and everyone can laugh about it and get on with their lives.

Unless, of course, you’re John H. Gohde - the racist, sexist, abusive internet troll whose sense of self-worth is entirely dependent on never, ever, admitting that you are ever wrong, because to do so would unravel 14 years worth of attempting to prove that you’re an expert of something, anything - it doesn’t matter what.

So we had a good chuckle when we can across this recent thread in alt.support-diabetes which ended up being hijacked by John H. Gohde - and it reminded us of an almost identical thread from 2002 - which resulted in the hateful and idiotic Gohde getting his trolling ass well and truly kicked.

But more on that later - back to the humble tomato. The thing is, it’s exact classification is an interesting conundrum. While the tomato has a botanical classification as a fruit due to having seeds on the inside, like apples and oranges, it’s lack of sweetness generally means it it classified as a vegetable under the culinary definition.

So, a rare opportunity for Gohde to be right whichever side he takes. And the only way he could possibly be wrong is that if he suddenly started to make up his own classifications off the top of his toothless head.

But that’s exactly what he does. Oh dear.

“[Tomatoes are fruit] when eaten raw. They are vegetables when cooked. Just my opinion, but I am right!”

(Recognise that catchphrase ? It’s almost always wrong, but rarely has it been more wrong that this. Three statements, but only one of them = “just my opinion” - is correct….)

Not unreasonably, other posters challenge Gohde to back up his argument:

“How about bananas? Do they become vegetables when cooked? Apples?”

Now note that there is still wiggle-room for John to check his references, realise that he’s makin a fool of himself and reclarify his position. But that goes entirely against John Gohde’s fragile and manufactured ego: so he climbs in his hole and gets on with digging:

“What is the problem mate?…In the irrational world of human nutrition, Fruits are eaten raw while vegetables are cooked. I got a reference on it. Do you really need a reference?”

O….kay. I think we might need that reference, John….

Other posters continue to debate the curious logic behind this:

“Does that mean that raw carrots are fruit? Or celery, zucchini, spinach, lettuce, broccoli or cauliflower? All of which are very often eaten raw. “

Can John H. Gohde take this on board ? He has two ways out: to admit his mistake (little shame in that) or to try to bluster and insult his way out of it. Which approach do you think he will take ?

Yup, you’re right.

First, he repeats his incorrect initial assertion:

“Botanists say that Tomatoes are fruits, but when I eat them cooked (which is the *only* way I eat them) they are vegetables.”

Then the bluster:

“Many food items are often placed in food groups, which differer (sic) from their scientific names. One other example would be buckwheat which is classified as a Grain, even though scientifically it is not. Likewise, Flaxseed is classified as a Grain, even though it is not. Why? Because they are ground up, just like other grains are, to make flour which in turn is used to make bake goods like bread and pasta. “

So instead of trying to produce proof, again he’s trying to bamboozle and confuse those who he knows have found out his ignorance back up his argument that either the culinary or botanic definitions are affected by whether the plant, fruit or vegetable is cooked.

And where bluster begins, insults aren’t far behind:

“This THREAD once again painfully points out just how pathetic the participants of this ng really are when it comes to common knowledge about nutrition. “

and

“Maybe your real problem is that you are just another nobody?”

(In case you didn’t recognise the proof of his argument, you’re ignoring that he used BLOCK CAPITALS. That means he must be RIGHT)

But what of these mythical references which backs up his argument ?

“See ~ Advanced Healthy Diet Guidelines ~ http://food.naturalhealthperspective.com/dietguidelines.html “Vegetables and fruits in nutrition are loosely distinguished by the need for cooking Vegetables, while fruits may be eaten raw. But the distinction is imprecise and often fails to be totally consistent.[3]”

Ah. The reference - which hardly proves the point anyway - is on Gohde’s website, written by Gohde himself. So John Gohde must be right, because….John Gohde agrees with him. Persuasive, no ?

But wait - Gohde’s frantic Googling also managed to dig up a a solitary other reference which he hopes may still save his pride:

” Tomatoes if cooked are vegetables, if eaten raw are fruits”

And where’s it from ? I’m sorry, I didn’t catch that ? All I could hear was the sound of a barrel being scraped. A dictionary from 89 years ago, you say ? Not exactly cutting-edge. The definition certainly doesn’t appear in any modern version of the dictionary (see http://www.m-w.com/) Why could that be, we wonder ?

And buried amongst all the bluster is a small admission he’s hoping will be overlooked:

“I certainly have my own diet guidelines and my own food group definitions.”

before ending on a characteristically flamboyant bout of arrogance:

“Here, endth your nutrition lesson for the day. …Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons! “

Which is where John Gohde was praying that it would end.

Except it didn’t.

Quite rightly, the other posters start to take exception to a long-standing troll making nonsensical posts on a scientific newsgroup. And they have clearly got the measure of Gohde:

“Uh-huh. Did you ride a short bus to school as a young lad? Did they make you wear a hockey helmet? “

and

“He does come-across like some sort of certifiable idiot, doesn’t he? You don’t really think he is, medically, a few fries short of a happy meal, do you? “

and

“Probably just a severe personality disorder, although the intensity of his delusions hints of some level of psychosis. Of course, it would be easy to write off John ‘the Wanker’ Gohde as just a troll, except that the amount of work which he devotes to his silly website indicates a full-blown Usenet kook. I’ve also noticed that, despite the size of his website, there’s not a single photograph of ‘the Wanker’ on any page. That would probably screw the whole deal, eh?

Other posters are quick to point out the huge, gaping holes in John Gohde’s argument:

“Oh, *now* I see…. you’ve reclassified the food groups. How good of you to do that for us. “

to which Gohde responds, in typical hate-filled character:

“Anybody who believes in taking control of their own life would do the same….You have my condolences. “

…which means….what, precisely ? If you are serious about health, science and nutrition, you should start to make up your own scientific classifications ? But there are more insults still to come from Gohde, who is cornered,on the ropes, and with what little reputation he once had now in tatters:

“The dolts on [sci.med.nutrition] are too stupid to realize just how stupid their comments about nutrition truly are. “

But even at this stage in the argument, Gohde could still salvage some credibility. Remember, there are strong arguments to be made that a tomato is only a fruit, only a vegetable, or both simultaneously. What there is no credible evidence for is that tomatoes are in one state when raw, and another when cooked. Another poster appears to throw Gohde a lifeline:

“I think it is important to keep in mind that food products need to be kept in their nutritional context, rather than their botanical, for purposes of health. For this reason, tomatoes, with seeds, have a nutritional make-up that is much more akin to that of most vegetables.”

Does John Gohde take this proffered lifeline ? Or does he start to spew bile ? Guess.

“I will repeat it one more time for the benefit of the truly stupid on this
THREAD. That includes our Twit bicker. A true Fruit, which in this case is the tomato, WHEN it is eaten raw like a fruit; It is really a Fruit nutritionally speaking. A true Fruit, which in this case is the tomato, WHEN it is eaten cooked like a vegetable; It is really a Vegetable nutritionally speaking. Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!”

and to another poster:

“You are the dumbest Twit who has ever visited smn in a long time. And, I do mean visited. “

(No, us neither.) The poster patiently responds:

“Does this mean you’re going to stop cussing at me for highlighting the failures in your logic?”

As is typical, Gohde ignores a question he has just no answer for, but uses a tried and tested technique of using insults and bluster to distract from the flaws in his argument.

“Perhaps, if you were to focus? I see no reason to have an emotional breakdown in public over the proper classification of the tomato. …This THREAD is clearly a marker for how little the participants in smn actually know about nutrition… Anybody who thas (sic) trouble comprehending something so simple as how food is classified into food groups, and resorts to calling me names is clearly immature. “

The fallacy of which is quickly pointed out by another poster:

“Why? Because they don’t agree with your self-deluded reclassification of the world’s plant life? “

More bluster from Gohde:

“Yeah, just imagine me having the nerve to say that a Fruit eaten as a Fruit is a Fruit.”

Which was never part of his original argument, of course. At which point, Gohde withdraws from the argument, shamed, and humiliated.

And as rewarding as it is to see a longstanding internet troll be humiliated, and receive his comeuppance for all the hatred he has heaped onto complete strangers over his years of abusing the internet, there is an important point to be made.

Gohde’s veneer of confidence and self-belief is only paper thin, and regular newsgroup users that tackle John Gohde head on, and reveal him for the ignorant and hateful racist that he really is have always eventually received their reward. Despite his bile-filled bravado, Gohde will always - always! - move on to another newsgroup that stay and be revealed for the failure that he really is.

You can look at John H. Gohde’s internet legacy from two different aspects. One is the glass half-empty approach: after 14 years of on- and off-internet abuse, hatred and racism, and at 57 years of age, Gohde is not going to change, or have a road-to-Damascus-like revelation.

But there is also the glass-half-full approach. Gohde’s bile is now restricted to an extremely narrow audience (almost entirely composed of himself and fellow troll Igor “The Troll” Berger). So while he continues to write vindictive and vicious posts in his own blogs, hardly anyone is reading them (and those that do are able to see the truth of what we have been blogging about for the last few years - his blogs are arguable more damning to Gohde’s reputation than even this one).

And let’s look at his history: Gohde was thrown off Wikipedia, not just once, but on four different occasions. The skinny and unhealthy John Gohde was then laughed off alt.sport.bodybuilding and alt.fitness.weights when it was revealed that he didn’t have a clue what he was talking about. Google Webmaster Groups ? Banned. And what happened to Trollback mountain ? He left when he realised he was ignored, unmissed, and no-one else was around to abuse. Misery loves company.

So don’t give up. Expose him for what he is. Make sure other internet users know of his shameful history - and that his swaggering bravado is simply a sham. Because this is one usenet poster we can all live without.