Rex:
>Two points here: 1) the people over at Forum proved not so bad after all
>and, 2)
>I've had more than one private message from someone doing well on all-raw who
>won't share here because of hostility.

Poor fellows. They sound mighty confident in private.

I did great on all-raw. Liza, if I understand properly, is doing great
all-raw. Others on this list are presumably all-raw. What these Forum
folks, and perhaps you, don't like about some posts on this list is that
they aren't blind to reality in order to do a cheerleader,
aren't-we-the-chosen-few-perfect-rawists, routine over and over. A "raw
list" that doesn't face up to the actual problems rawists encounter--or
that doesn't consider the question of whether all-raw is even optimal--is
hardly worth the electrons IMO. The difference between this list and the
others is that reality checks are not forbidden here. They are considered
an important part of the game. Hostility? Yeah, well, I can be
cantancerous, even rude, but the worst part, I suspect, is that I think
withholding orgasms and syllabicating about a particular toxin in a
particular food is a waste of time, and will say so. So what? It's like
you, Rex, can have your pet topics, but when other folks have theirs,
sometimes in contrast to yours, it must be hostility.

>Shouldn't you, and perhaps other members
>of the list, think about that?  It's censorship, plain and simple, intended or
>unintended.

People's supposed fear is hardly censorship, plain, simple or otherwise.

>Tom, we're had vigorous debate here.

You have? All you keep saying, Rex, is that brix is all-important, and
science is a farce. Where is the vigorous debate in that?

>I expect the lurkers have noticed that my
>message is rather simplistic: stay with quality and other things seem to
>work OK.

Rather simplistic, yes. And this is the very first time I have seen you
understate it.

>I hope they also have noticed that you've come a long way from your
>initial words
>to me about bitter low-quality fare being good for people.

Huh? I haven't seen him come over to your "camp". Yeah, he has shared a lot
with you--most of which you reject and or throw off flippantly.

>Yep, congrats---I think you are finally becoming a quality-man.

Q: Who isn't a quality-man?
A: A quality-woman.

Rex, everyone loves great tasting produce--there is hardly any revelation
there. Holding low brix up as the standard excuse for everything that is
problematic in rawdom is a bit far-fetched. But, hey, go for it...

>I hope you one
>day peer through a refractometer so I can decide if I trust your descriptions
>about those wondrous fruits (that mysteriously damn near killed you).

Rex, I do think you are incapable of listening. Fruitarianism is held to be
untenable by many regardless of fruit quality. Even folks who would give
their left testical to be a successful fruitarian (say, forest) can't do
it. Everyone has their favorite no-way-to-test-it excuse--from low brix to
lack of friends and childhood gaps. There is no mystery as to the damage
fruitarianism has done to many people. The only mystery is the lengths you
will go to not-hear an example which crosses your pet theory: Tom tried and
failed to be a fruitarian--EVEN WITH HIGH QUALITY FRUIT. Get it?

You seem to be saying his descriptions/experience doesn't count until it
has a brix level to support it! Now that, truly, is obsessing on brix. You
know, Rex, IME brix does correlate well to good taste, so why isn't Tom's
description of great taste enough for you?

>We really
>do need to sit down one day and talk about extreme poison overdoses backyard
>fruitgrowers often misapply.  Yeah, they claim "organic," but they are often
>talking through their hat.  There may be a link to your problems.  Once you
>undestand systemic, a lot falls into place.  Once you understand the selective
>intake powers of plants, a lot more clicks in.

Ah, yes, it was the poison chemicals that musta done it. :/

>And to think we haven't even started discussing digestion.  Did you know that
>anyone who understands the rules can take a pH meter, have a bunch of
>people spit
>in it, in turn (saliva only, no tobacco juice), and *unerringly* tell you
>who is
>having trouble, no matter whether they eat raw, cooked, fruit, Wheateena,
>jerky,
>dog-doo, or whatever?  But I guess human digestive balance and proper mineral
>assimilation is another subject for another place.

If you believe such a statistic is _unerring_ you would do well to study up
on some science or at least statistics. Ah, but I forgot, every idea, with
or without scientific merit is crud--unless of course it happens to your
pet theory, copped from ACRES probably. And then there can be no debate
because you understand something the rest of us mortals just can't focus
on...

>But do lighten up!
>From my chair you appear to be perpetually wound up and on
>guard as though you picture me as Ehret rising from the dead.
>Relax---nobody is
>going to sneak a piece of fruit in here.

When Tom tells you to lighten up on the brix stuff, I would say that you
react poorly and appear to be perpetually wound up yourself.

Walking around the country trashing produce must get a little old, no? When
are you gonna start producing all this quality, the lack of which you use
as an excuse for any rawist problem? Much better to shmooze with Forum
folks, no?

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]