>>>and all who wish to censor Nature's First Law:

>>Spare me your crocodile tears about censorship. That is like hearing
>>thief complain about how rare honest people are to come by these
>>days. Both you and your book are so without content "The National
>>Inquirer" should get the "Pulitzer Price" in comparison.:-/ What I
>>do want to censor is your attitude, which has no place on this list.
>>If you refuse to censor yourselves, I will have to do it for you.

>that would be unfortunate if peter were to censor NFL. I would feel
>deprived. I want NFL to be a part of this forum. I have been reading
>all the posts, and find NFL to be no more insulting than peter and
>others who rank NFL.

My tone is indeed getting harsher. In a long thread like this which
involves a lot debating of core principles, it gets very difficult for
me as a moderator not to speak my mind more and more.  Though, that you
are not able to see any difference between their personal attacks void
of any content and my contributions despite my increasing personal
style I find disturbing to say the least.

>I find both sides acceptable and not out of line. I support Kirt, and
>I support NFL, and I think you peter are abusing your role of
>moderator.

Exercising my privilege to moderate is abuse? How can you can mean
that? Most moderators would have kicked NFL out long ago and despite
that they have been given numerous chances they have not grabbed the
opportunity to soften their stance one bit.  I want no part of a list
neither as a moderator nor regular subscriber that allows the kind of
abuse of a public forum that the NFL practices to take place.

>I generally try to shy away from being so blunt, however, I would not
>forgive others for abandoning me, so I will not be silent about this.

Your loyalty is admirable, but there comes a time on just about every
issue when one must take a stand. If not, that in itself becomes taking
a stand or choosing sides. That was the fate of many Jews during the
war. To me the NFL issue has become a matter of such principle, and I
hope you can at least respect that. Also, by taking the stand that NFL
should be allowed to continue as they have, you are in a sense
condoning their behavior and saying to the people who cannot accept or
stomach their style that you would rather risk loosing them than NFL.
That is definitely taking a stand.

> see truth and merit in both sides, and don't want to see any side,
>much less one side censored

Asking the members of NFL to resubscribe individually is censoring
them?  You have lost me there.

>>Funny to hear that coming from you guys who are so intent on
>>>disregarding all rules of common decency and just ruthlessly trying
>>to further your own cause. (which you are doing such a terrible job
>>at that it makes me wonder whether maybe you guys are hired by TCFL
>>(The Cooked Food Lobby) to create such a public outrage over raw
>>foods that the door will be opened for legislation to ban them
>>completely. :-/)

>I had previously said that I wanted to allow anonymous posts. and now
>peter, you have said it better than me. there is a possible public
>outrage over raw foods. and I don't want to be a target all the time.
>you can't have it both ways. if there is danger, than you can't demand
>identification... and if there is no danger, you can't blame NFL.
>which is it peter?

The above makes no sense to me.  Try reading my words again.

>You haven't responded to my last questions to you, like if you
>remember me. But that is your right. We all pick and choose what we
>want to respond to.

Don't take it personally. I have about 15 posts I have not had time to
respond to. But, no I do not remember you. However, if you give me a
little more to go by, maybe it will refresh my memory.

>So you can't blame NFL for not responding to every one of your
>challenges either.

Show me just one post where NFL has answered with any true content and
with respect to anybody who has dared question them.

>nd newsgroups but only this one on raw foods. for those that would
>like to splinter the group further, I can remember meeting a fellow in
>a Palm Springs Spa Sauna. He was vibrant and healthy, inspiring and
>impressive. He was a fruitarian. His parting words to me were, try and
>lay off those vegetables. Many times, I have felt that being a
>fruitarian would be part of an optimal scenario/lifestyle. In that
>case, we would have to split veg-raw into another group: fruit-raw, to
>get away from all those people who can't stop killing plants..

I want this group to remain open to all schools of thought. That is
what is the beauty of this list. What I do not want this list to be
open to is the behavior that NFL has exhibited.

>I reserve the right to change my opinions

That can always come in handy.:-/

>pardon my detox,

Thanks for being so straightforward. Despite the fact that I consider
this whole NFL debate to be very important and in a sense to be the
fight for the heart & soul of veg-raw - what we are really arguing is
how far the limits of free speach should be allowed to stretched; the
old classic example is whether one should be allowed to scream "fire!"
in a crowded theatre - and in part because that you, Bob A.(and NFL)
are helping in speeding up the process and for me to clarify my
position, I am impatient to withdraw from this thread and resume a
normal life.:-/ So if anybody else wants to join in the time is now,
before I let the chips fall where they may.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]