>What, specifically, do you want to know? Go ahead -- ask me -- point
>blank.
See below.
>But if you think that for one second I'm going to respond to an
>e-mail with "NFL Bravado" in the subject line, you are mistaken. Or,
>if you expect me to read every e-mail (ones about Salmon, Death
>Hoaxes, RAF, etc.) and try to determine when you, Nieft, or Billings
>are referring to NFL, it's not going to happen. I don't read every
>post. Who does? I pick and choose what I respond to -- we all do.
You could start off by responding (respectfully please, no contentless
mudslinging and unnecessary swearing or cursing like seen below.
Examples: "slanderous misleading crap" "politics is the excrement" and
"cooked retards") to posts with the words "NFL" in the header like the
one below (Re: Clarifications from NFL) which is a direct response from
me to your post - a response that I posted on the 15th of this month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:27:42 -0800
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Clarifications from NFL
Stephen:
>You write slanderous, misleading crap like this, then when you meet
>us, you ask us why our posts are so uncivil?
What exactly have I written that deserves to be called "slanderous,
misleading crap"?
Peter said:
>>...defend Adolph Hitler if even indirectly and use mass killer
>>Charles Manson as a reference...
Stephen said:
>One of the first things I learned about being in the public eye:
>Never let a slanderous accusation get by without properly countering
>it.
When I pointed out your unfortunate associations with Hitler and Manson
the first time 6-7 weeks ago you never responded to it.
>We never "even indirectly defended Hitler." That's a low-blow. I
>think it's pretty universally well known that Hitler was a monster.
>But, in our opinion, Roosevelt, Churchill, & Stalin were too.
How can you mention Stalin, who was responsible for over 20 mill deaths
(before the War!) and Churchill & Roosevelt, who saved the world from
the tyranny of Hitler in the same breath - and omit Hitler to top it
off? Who indeed is slanderous here?
>A few people were offended by that passage in the book, so we took
>that whole part out of the second edition.
What exactly were these few people offended by? It must have been
pretty bad for you to take out a whole passage of your book. Would you
please point to the exact passage that has been edited out?
>We have nothing to do with politics anyways. Politics is the excrement
>of human thought and the puppet show of human beings.
All politics? Even that of the likes of Tom Hayden, Ralph Nader & the
Green Party? How about Green Peace? Sea Shepherd? Mahatma Gandhi? The
rebels in Southern Mexico?
>as far as the Charles Manson reference --
>One of his associates read our book and sent us money to send a book
>to Manson in prison. A lot of people ask us,"So, what famous people
>have bought the book?" We just thought it might be interesting to
>others by including his name.
If the truth is, as I suspect, that you guys get off sometimes on
provoking & shocking people you need to learn to handle the blows you
inevitably will get with a little more grace & dignity. Having said
that, the American obsession with fame never ceases to amaze me. Who
cares what famous people have read your book? The question is rather
has anybody with any nutritional credentials endorsed it? And if nobody
has I still do not care. If your book speaks the truth it will stand by
itself.
Peter:
>>I find it more interesting that somebody would mention a convicted
>>mass killer as a reference for a book on diet. When you mentioned
>>Manson in a long row of other people it looked like to me it your
>>credentials were being questioned on the list and you wanted to show
>>that you were getting some recognition.
Stephen:
>I heard that Manson once fasted for 48 days.
And Hitler was so supposed to have been a vegetarian and be very kind
to his dog. What is your point?
>By the way, "the mass killer" never killed anybody, he told people to
>do it for him.
So that is supposed to make me feel better about him?
>But then again, so did Schwartzkopf. Oops!
At least he had some legitimate excuses such as Hussein being a crooked
dictator who attacked first (Kuwaiit). Manson on the other hand had no
reasons or excuses for ordering the executions of his innocent victims
but his own perverted & twisted mind.
>I just indirectly defended Manson!
Nothing to be proud of.
Peter said:
>>You mean it was not me anyhow?
Stephen said:
>The same as: Apples, melons, and oranges. Not: Apples, the red ones,
>and oranges. Got it?
I was not the only one who misunderstood the above; in fact nobody not
even you yourselves corrected me back then when I denied being
"anonymous." But anyhow, thanks for clearing it up - albeit 1 1/2
months late.
Peter said:
>>...are you not in your book advocating some form of eugenics
>>program?
Stephen said:
>Only in the sense that generations upon generations of cooked-food
>eating transforms humanity into a race of mutants. When I have
>children, I want them to be beautiful and healthy, not cooked retards.
And I assume that these children in your opinion will be an expression
of the survival of the fittest? (And may I add (today 1/23):Since you
yourself were raised on cooked foods and seemed to have survived it
without any brain damage why use such strong and offense language as
"cooked retards" that 1)obviously is not true 2) will offend almost
every person on this planet and not exactly endear them to your cause?)
>My cousin is very young and has a severe learning disability. He also
>hates and refuses to eat fruit and vegetables. To me, that's no
>coincidence.
Many children refuse to eat fruits & vegetables and yet do not suffer
from learning disabilities or other debilitating diseases. I think it
is more probable that natal & pre-natal traumas are the cause of
learning disabilities, compounded by poor diet I concede.
>>http://W.W.II-online.com/~nature
>What the hell is this? Looks like name-calling.
Why do these things only happen with you guys? You must be attracting
the energy.;-) Your URL is of course: http://www-online.com/~nature
I am sorry for the mishap if I was the cause of it.
For some reason it reminds me of John Cleese in the Fawlty Towers
episode "the Germans" constantly reminding everybody in front of some
German guests dining there "not to mention the War". :-)
>>It is nice for a change to be responding to a person.
>My partners want to "move on to greener pastures." I think there's
>still some green here.
You bet there is and I invite you to stay and hang with us. I know you
guys have felt persecuted on this list but I hope that the fact that
you, Stephen, are still with us indicates that you realize that this is
not true.
>Stephen Arlin
>Nature's First Law
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>The issues at hand are your dismal debating skills and your lack of
>>civility when your ideas or behaviors are being challenged.
>>Dismal debating skills? Kirt's "I Don't Know" rhetoric was just
>>brilliant though, right?
Could you be more specific? Even if you are right how can I agree when
you are so vague. I find Kirt's posts to be very much to the point.
>The following lines are from two personal e-mails from two different
>people I received this week:
>>I'm a lurker on Raw-Food. That moderator is just about killing
>>the list! I don't think any of us will be on there much longer...
>>I have had it with Peter. The last response to Rene, as well as all
>>of his to NFL...I find him so disgusting that I can't take it
>>anymore. If we can't get rid of him as moderator, I want a new list.
I encourage these two people (or anybody else) to speak up on the list
and specify how they feel I have been unfair or out of line with
regards to NFL or Rene. As for another list forming I have been very
much against it until now, but as our visions for the list seem to have
reached a crossroads, indeed maybe NFL and their sympathizers should go
ahead and start their own list.
>Maybe you should look in the mirror before you decide to pass judgment
>so quickly on those who are "killing the spirit of the group."
Again Stephen, how can I agree or disagree with you when you are so
non-specific? Which judgements did I pass that IYO were unfair? (please
respond with specific examples and point specifically to how come & why
you think I was wrong or unfair. If you never do this, you will never
know if your preconceived notions are on target or not) From where I am
standing I have not been quick - these issues have been debated on and
off ever since your book "Nature's First Law" came out early last
Summer - and it is now time to bring them to a close. If they are
allowed to continue there is no doubt in my mind that the list will
begin to seriously disintegrate.
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|
