a bit tongue in cheek, i write...

Tom  wrote:
>Robert Wynman <[log in to unmask]>:
> >(Oh, BTW, Tom - your post has enabled me to redefine my goal:  now I would
> >be satisfied with 99.9%Raw, "perfection is unattainable" or "to be imperfect
> >is perfectly satisfactory".  With the 0.1% I feel that I need to choose my

>Tom:
>You miss the point -

that wouldn't be the first time tho...:>)

Tom:
>I'm following up my own post to mention that the wording, "You miss the
>point" is probably not appropriate. I probably didn't make my original point
>clearly enough.

That's ok Tom. (but each point has so many points of view...)

> those obsessed with 100% raw, after achieving it,
>then switch their obsession, say, to the quality of the food: how it was
>raised, processed, shipped, how old it is, etc.

well I was obsessed about the quatlity of my food long before I even knew I
could get obsessed about eating it raw ! ;>)

>.  If one defines 100% raw as perfection,

I think that would be on the right track, but raw what?  100% raw turnips
would not be even satisfactory.

>then achieves it, it can unbalance the ego for some folks.

Hey, you don't have to eat raw to have an unbalanced ego, do you?

>Of course, one
>can go 100% raw and not be obsessed or unbalanced by it.

ah, you noticed !!!

>Re: zealots.. I followed
>the writings of zealots for many years, and my health was damaged because
>of that. I discuss the issue because z-types are a threat to the health
>of people.

My sincere condolences, Tom for those years.  I too had some experiences
along z-lines.  At least you get to recognise them more easily.

 I for one am happy that you keep us on our toes Tom. ( I would hate to have
become a z-type unintentionally.)

>The raw movement needs honesty and sanity, not more z-types....

And I believe that within each z-type is someone that yearns to be honest
and sane...

regards and best wishes
Lynton