>I am growing very weary of seeing these same old, vegan arguments being
>repeated ad nauseum without any nuance. No matter how many on this list
>have bent themselves backwards to try to explain their position in
>favor of some RAF consumption, counter arguments have more often than
>not been met with a roaring silence.

The silence, in and of itself, is telling, but "weary" is a word I can
relate to, and so is "very".

>This list is for dialogue not one-sided manifestos, and if this
>style of opportunistic posting continues I will start moderating on it.

You are the moderater--you do the work--you should call them the way you
see them. Many lists have become more heavily moderated after a time of
floundering and it is often a positive feature. I can almost hear the cry
of "but freedom is best--freedom is the only environment for the exchabge
of ideas". Maybe this is true in an idealistic way, but all that's seems to
be happening is that folks like me, who try (and fail after a time) to play
by the rules, will simply burn out "debating" with Rene and NFL type
rhetoric. That burn-out shows first as blasts (witness my re: Bravado post
--which I still stand by 100%, or Peter's recent rant) and eventually I'll
bail out--it's just too much of a waste of time! The difference is that
Peter has another option open besides just bailing out: a last ditch effort
at moderating the list to the point that some of the heavy-duty raw
theorists would sign on and enter the fray. Why should they if raw-food is
just a refuge for self-appointed know-it-alls who need not support their
"proposals" with anything more than "cooked retard" quips on one hand to
"live in peace" on the other, to "Shelton said so" on the third hand
(presumably sprouting from the navel)?

There are at least two levels of dialogue on this list. One concerns the
details questioning/recipe/"how does every one deal with this or
that"/support exchanges. These to me are pleasant and important practical
exchanges and very much part of the function and purpose of this list, and
would likely continue under heavy moderation (I am assuming). Almost always
they are pleasant. The other level deals with identifying and solving some
of the bigger problems in the raw foods arena (efficacy of 100% raw diet;
problems associated with various limitations of a 100% diet; new inclusions
in what can be eaten raw; etc). One expects these to be more contentious
areas but unless there is some sort of protocol...well, witness this list
lately!

The thing that keeps me in the fold is not debating on this "upper" level
in order to change the minds of NFL, etc (how many reformed zealots have
you seen in your life, eh, Peter ;) but where the two levels crossover. We
have Roberto Wajsman Crespo and others (the severe morning sickness women,
etc.) who have very real troubles aspiring to various diets (instincto is
not essentially different--just a new set of problems) and asking for
feedback. Regardless of the level of difficulty, the responses are true to
rhetoric not reality (fast!!! =:O, give it more time, eat a wider variety
of fruit, etc.).

Should aspiring rawists have to repeat every damn mistake that has been
made in the last hundred years of raw diets simply because there is always
some self-appointed poobah around to tell them they aren't doing it right?
Or should newbies see a debate on the pros and cons of various raw diets
and be able to learn what is well-known to most serious rawists. The
rhetoric is already in the fringe books available (a good sampling in
Ombodhi's recent post)--reality should be one of the main topic on
raw-food, IMO.

In all, without moderation (or at least some more maturity on everyone's
part, which would obviate the need for moderation) what is going to happen
is that folks like me and Peter (and Ward, who has done so--though it is
hard to see through the Avery Hoax to believe it) will jump ship. My
understanding is that Tom Billings bailed out earlier on as well (but I am
guessing on this). Do folks want an all-encompassing
philosphy/religion/sprituality to hang their hat on or do they want to hang
their hat on their head (or better yet donate the damn hats to goodwill
industries!). Do you want the reality or the textbook? Or differences
between the two?

I personally would like to hear some lurkers' views on this (and not
privately!!!), because, as I have said, it is you that keep me paying some
dues here in the hope that we can stand on each other's shoulders instead
of going round and round in circles as rawists. Truth told, NFL/etc can
whistle/bark on their merry way as far as I'm concerned...but if they're
screaming loudest and intellegent folks like Bob Avery (where is Ric L!!!)
do not feel any responsibility to counter any of their absurdist stuff,
what will happen to _discourse_? An aspiring rawist signs onto this list
and sees the same crap that is in all the books (Severen's included)
instead of reality--ie. people trying to make sense of it.

Perhaps I'm just going through the online-burnout I hear so much about :/
and it's time to move on, but I like to think that there is some raw place
in cyberspace that has more real folks trying to make sense of things than
rhetoric-spouting folks...

If that takes heavy moderation, then so be it.

Cheers,
Kirt