snip (crocodile tears & National Enquirer)

Peter:
> >>If you refuse to censor yourselves, I will have to do it for you.

JR:
> >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.

   Sorry, Peter, I have to agree.

> 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.

 Why bother to respond to posts you see as personal attacks void of
any content?? Although, I have to agree with you here. I haven't seen
much "content" on either side but lots of "personal attacks".

JR:
> >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 don't understand why NFL would have been kicked out long ago. The only
stance I've seen is a defensive one. Granted, they are young, arrogant &
brash & I haven't learned one thing from them & suspect that will
continue. But I have to wonder what their posts might consist of if they
weren't trading insults. Yes, they're young & over-zealous & have
"discovered" a way of life, that for many on this list, is old-hat. Did
you not feel some of that when you first became vegetarian or vegan or
raw-foodist? Didn't you feel you had found the "truth" & wonder why the
rest of the world couldn't see it?
With age comes wisdom (hopefully) ;-) and with wisdom comes tolerance.

NFL:
> >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.

Peter:
> 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.

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

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

I see the whole discourse on whether or not to allow NFL to post as an
entity or require individual posts as pointless. No matter what name is
used it's still coming from the same source. A rose by any other
name....

Peter:
> >>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 haven't seen anything here to make me want to buy their book, which I
assume you mean by their own cause. But I don't think we need to worry
about raw foods being banned by legislation. :)

JR:
> >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?

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

As for anonymous posts, I suppose we could all be using aliases. So,
again, it's really a moot point.

JR:
> >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.

Peter:
> 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 want everyone in this group to feel free to relate & discuss all
ideas, thoughts & beliefs on raw foods (fruit, vegetable, animal,
mineral). I even enjoy the personal exchanges  when they're pleasant &
uplifting but tire quickly of name-calling etc.

JR:
> >I reserve the right to change my opinions

Peter:
> That can always come in handy.:-/

JR:
> >pardon my detox,

Peter:
> 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.

It was that line "if anybody else wants to join in the time is now" that
got me started. I'm just a newcomer trying to learn but have lurked long
enough to develop a great respect for Ward, Doug, Bob, Sandy, Kirt,
 Ombodhi (have almost printed a book myself from your postings- thanx),
 Chet, Roy,Martha, Peter, et.al. & Rene & Ric.

What would happen if no one responded to personal attacks? Would it be
like giving a war & no one coming? As I said, I'm just learning - ya'll
don't desert me now. Please.

With an olive branch,
Sharon