>Tom (to Ric):
>Actually, you seem to have missed the point: I experienced harm and damage
>because I got into fruitarianism with a negative motivation. I am convinced
>that it is better to eat cooked food than be a mentally deranged raw-food
>zealot. Negative motivation yields negative results.

The way you put this, there's no way I can disagree, at least on principle.
 Not admitting that NFL are "mentally deranged raw-food zealots," but
that's simply because I haven't had the evidence to convince me, as you
claim you have from previous activity on this list's posting.  I wouldn't
necessarily advise anyone to go on cooked foods, but I would sure recommend
parking one's zealotmobile in the nearest long term parking
garage...period.  As for "negative motivation yields negative results," I
obviously can't buy into that one (a plethora of examples pop into mind of
exceptions to that dictum...), so won't argue.  I've been moved by negative
motivation on several occasions, with the result that I responded by
putting my gears into flight mode...thereby saving my skin; literally.  But
I think I see your point.


Tom:
>No fear, as the NFL nonsense does not fool me.  I don't fear or hate
>fruitarians; I know, from hard experience, that it is a difficult and risky
>diet, one that often leads people down the primrose path to harm: dental
damage,  zealotry, eating disorders. I criticize fruitarianism, in an honest way, to
>alert people of the risks involved. If someone chooses that diet, it is
their  decision and their responsibility. By the way, in my original posting, I
>neglected to add that it is my opinion that the NFL approach is
intellectually dishonest. Also, outside of this list and a few NH critics what one hears
about fruitarianism is the "party line" (which is mostly nonsense), an unrealistic
>positive view of a risky diet.

Well, if you're not moving from a place of fear, then all's well.  As for
the experience many describe of seeing fruitarianism lead to ruin, I have
cited plenty of examples of this from my own observations, anyway, although
 I must mention that in the last 21 years of 100% rawism, my diet has been
preponderantly fruit...roughly 2/3.  My teeth were already a mess (not the
front ones, just the molars) from early childhood candy warfing, but the
2/3 diet of fruit seems to have been tolerable with my metabolic
configuration, since no really NEW damage could honestly be attributed to
the fruitarian intake.

>I have learned the hard way, that one should have a positive motivation for
>their diet, and one should be honest as well. The raw foods community is not
>being served by dishonest, negative approaches.
Amen.

>I avoid zealotry as the poison it is. I have seen far too many zealots in
>the raw foods movement. In criticizing fruitariansim, I am trying to honestly
>present a view that is contrary to the "party line".

Don't know where the fruitarian regime is, or has been the "party line",
excepting with folks like T.C. Fry, etc.  The mainline about which I'm
aware has been more balanced, more the standard ANHS advocacy.  That to me
is "party line."

Tom:
>And if it leads these people to dental damage, eating disorders, hostile
>zealotry (the direction that NFL appears to be going in)- it is a lose-lose
>situation. I neglected to mention that after leaving fruitarianism, I went
back to cooked (veg) foods for 2-3 years, before returning to raw (NH style
instead  of fruitarianism). I returned to raw; many others might not.

I hear ya.

Ric:
>>Maybe all these years have seen me mellow a bit...I hope so.  I'm far less
>>inclined to point my fingers at others than was the case in my younger
>>years;

>Tom:
>It is easy to stay mellow if you are not the object of incredibly nasty
>attacks by zealots. I suggest you look at the actual behavior of NFL on
>this list (in the archives) before supporting them. You might change your
>mind. A fruitarian friend used to defend NFL, until he read their book
>and was literally disgusted by the hostility in it.

Again, Tom, not having been privy to the "nasty attacks" by the NFLers,
just have to take your word for it, since have no way to readily access the
archives...and surely no time, either.

So, Tom, thanks for all the input.  Not too sure we have any hard core
disagreement, since you're reacting to something that happened in your own
experience, whereas my thoughts were simply based on my very partial and
hearsay sort of familiarity with the list's past experience between
opposing parties.  In other words, I've not been in the loop.

Consequently, that's why my arguments were simply directed at cautioning
folks against attacking the NFL group for any reasons other than honest
differences of opinion about how to present the raw story, and of what sort
of material should be efficaciously included.  That's all.  I just remember
similar sounding events over these food philosophies over years gone by,
and how some of the hottest arguments were seen between people who really
weren't even all that far apart.  I also recall well how some of these old
adversaries later on buried the hatchets, and made their peace with one
another.

Whatever, it's been interesting and informative hearing your thoughts and
ideas about all of this, and rest assured I have listened closely to your
offerings.

Cheers,

Ric