jean-claude,

Kirt:
>> Burger needs agressing. Indeed, the instinctos like yourself and your
>> friends are doing honesty and integrity a great disservice in your hands
> off
>> attitude about criticizing him. It makes you all look like you sympathize
>> with him and his behaviors.

jc:
> Too bad that you don't understand french because there is a lot of agressing
> toward Burger going on there on the instincto list and i don't talk about
> agression from deceived ex instincto  nor about  the recuperation by the
> french press

That's good news!

Perhaps you could learn something from it? ;) It may be useful for you to
consider me a "decieved ex-instincto" but it is likely that Burger deserves
the trash talk get receives. Why can't you consider that that may be
"Truth"? Just for a moment? Kinda an experiment? ;)

> I don't think anybody needs agressing anyway , maybe kirt have a need to
> agress , in that case it is an other story and i am curious to hear what
> need of him have not been met to want to meet them thru agression of others.

You continue to consider yourself privvy to my inner pyscho workings.  Fair
enough: tit for tat. Let me put it this way: have you a need to agress
relatively nameless cooperations in your conspiracy theories, the ones that
certainly won't bother with you? I agress you for your secrecy and
neo-neurotic avoidance of issues, and I agress Burger for being a pedophile
and a liar. I also agress you for using your last two offspring as your
personal buddies in your loneliness.

> Agression doesn't serve  honesty or integrity.

You may not be familiar with what is worth agressing.

> Real honesty require that
> observations stay observations , that feelings triggered by those
> observations are expressed while being related ,  linked , connected to the
> unmeet needs that caused them .
> from that place of honesty one can request from others concrete help to meet
> those needs, and this lead to integrity of behaviors ,thinking and feelings

Pretend I typed the words back at you. Just for fun. ;)

>>> K : Further, it may be that cooking helped pre-humans avoid other
>>>> diseases associated with fecal and other contamination of decomposing
>>> animal
>>>> foods. Who knows?
>>> F : You are wildly conjuncturing.
>>
>> Wildly conjecturing? Not really. There must be an overall positive
> trade-off
>> toward cooking or it wouldn't be so prevelant.
>
> what other trade off ,did you find out after experimenting with cooked meats
> and vegetables again ? what advantages can you foresee in cooked meats
> versus raw .?

I think I have mentioned that several times.

Do you have a problem with fruits? Perhaps you moved to BC to avoid your
problem with fruits and overeating? In any case, you have specialized health
problems and generalizing to all of humanity may not be proper--like many of
the health gurus.

>> But still you defend Burger.
>
> FRancois like many other peoples practicing instinctive nutrition might
> defend his theoretical model concerning nutrition , not the person.

Cop out. Including you. (Freudian slip on the double CAPS? ;))

>> Why don't the mongooses die from trich?
>
> May be because the species mongoose never tried to repress symptons of
> viral,  bacterial or parasites enconters and mutual balancing ,  with
> antibiotics  vaccinations and denatured foods on a daily basis,

Showing your true colors here? Ano hardly typifies what you are
pontificating.

> may be
> because the mongoose species still play the game of evolution while humans
> removed themselves from the confrontation with the natural regulations.

Maybe. Maybe you are grasping at straws? Ano should have never survived
infancy? How about you?

> put somebody who sat in his armchair for years  in a marathon race , he
> might died from it abruptly , leave him in his armchair he might died later
> on from a degenerative disease.

LOL. Have you been in an armchair? I'm at a loss for words.

> we might have been gaining some life expectancy from antibiotics and
> vaccinations and exagerated manipulation of foods but at the price of
> getting degenerative diseases ( kind of diseases that wild species don't
> know that much )

Going for broke, no?

> i ,my self,  who suffer from a degenerative  autoimmune disease , will
> prefer to get some acutes symptoms sometimes  from the confrontation with
> germs or parasites than adding to the family record ( 8 of my direct family
> have hypothyroidy). Anyway if not for myself i might  prefer to not
> perpetuate the degeneration of human species .I choose to eat instinctivelly
> not to miraculousely heal and be exempt of the outcomes of past
> istakes,( so can't be disapointed )  but to try something else that what i
> know is a no-exit.

So there _is_ hope? ;)

>> How can you be so sure? Because the theory says so? I thought it was all
> one
>> big experiment. But you can't dismiss information if it runs counter to
> the
>> predictions of the theory. That's just cheating.
>
> the theory from my understanding of it  doesn't predict immunity The title
> of bruno is "Maximise immunity"for ex .

Perfectly put. ;) And what about my point?

>>> K : Then you are saying that large scale cooking is only 10,000 years
> old,
>>> no?
>>> F : Yes, doesn'it sound logical, since before there was no pottery? Some
>>> food could be grilled but it remains a mystery whether it was a current
>>> practice or not. It could have been in some locations and not in some
>>> others.
>>
>> The logic fails. There are many cooking methids that don't require
> pottery.
>
> 10000 years ago because of the switch to grain diet required cooking when
> before meats din't have to be cooked for being edible .

So why don't modern h-g on the whole eat raw animal foods. You, and other
instinctos, really fall flat when you associate cooking with grains. Let's
pretend, just for a moment, that paleo folks cooked paleo foods.

> Many Native tribes
> of the americas wre still eating raw meats when the first white peoples came
> over .

LOL. And New World paleos define modern genetics? ;)

Or put it this way: Many natives tribes of the Americas were eating plenty
of smoked/cooked animal foods when the first white people came over.

> One tribe in the argentina aera ( i think i remember ) have been even
> noticed as eating only raw meats .when they have been asked why ,they
> answered e <we kill the meat once no need to kill it twice .>

Sounds great. How about a comparison of health indicators between them and
raw/cooked paleo eaters? Nevertheless, I think you have your memory wrong...

> .. Maybe I should go back to instincto and you can start
>> some cooking and then we'll have further notes to compare, eh? ;)
>
> i will be interested to see a counter experiment from Kirt after so many
> years of mixed cooked raw paleo . what does you have to loose.? you know
> better now and will not go head first in the fresh coconut ,  fruit craze.

Have you still a problem with fruits? Perhaps we could ask Ingrid? But I am
toying with such an experiment. What I think would be fun is a
died-in-the-wool instincto like yourself to match me. But, of course, you
will say that your first cooked "exception" gave you
gas/nervousness/whateverbullshityoucaretosay and you will end it. Nevermind
the "detox symptoms" you lived through on faith for so many years on
instincto, eh?

What have you got to lose? (I know, I know, you have special medical
conditions.) Think me a prick, but it is time you stopped speaking for homo
sapiens,,,,,,,and for whatisrightforpchumans. ;)

Cheers,
Kirt