I am reposting Part I as it does not seem to have gone through to the
list:

I will override my own "NFL decree" and post the following dialogue
between Ric & I as I find the content to be of important principal
nature. I see that Ric has just left the Raw-food list so
this message will go off to him privately as well :

Ric said:
>Thanks, that makes it pretty easy (This old 486 clunker can do the WWW
>thing).

Peter said:
Ric, sometimes I feel you are playing games with us. The URL for the
archives has been posted so many times - a couple of times for you
specifically - and I do not see how you could have avoided them.
I find it to be the easiest going accessing the digest at
<http://www.bolis.com/list-archives/raw-food-digest>

Ric said:
>Peter, thanks for the compliment, but please don't, just because of my
>steady tenure as a consistent stuck-in-a-rut raw foodist, put me into
>any sort of leadership role, since I'm still learning as time rolls
>by.  As for the "moral obligation;"  that seems to be a somewhat heavy
>guilt type trip to throw my direction, as though I should maybe
>respond with some sort of shame driven energy.  If I really thought I
>was in some sort of true leadership role here, I might have that sense
>of responsibility, but, sadly or otherwise,  since I honestly can't
>visualize myself in such a role, I'm left with my curiosity and belief
>in fair play as my main incentives to take a look-see and do what
>you've assigned as my homework.

Guilt and shame are lousy motivational factors I agree, it is just I
believe that with knowledge and experience follows responsibility.

>On this score, Peter, I don't have that level of reading skill, but am
>still plowing thru the book...and marking it up as I go along. Over
>half way done today.

Come on - it is hardly War and Peace. It has less than 200 written
pages all in very large font with less than 40 lines on each page. If
you had spent less time on-line defending the infamous trio, you would
have had time to read the book many times over - not doing so borders
on intellectual dishonesty.

>And, as for the reading of the book, I have other non-nutritional
>reading demanding my attention, too.

With the same urgency? Not only has your credibility taking a beating
with your blind & senseless defense of something you have not properly
investigated, but "Natures First Law" is the most provocative book to
date to come out on raw foods causing quite stir in the raw foods
community - a stir which you seem to be loving. It just does not add
up.

>I should probably mention, as your partner, David, possibly knows,
>that I am very busily engaged in all sorts of non-diet or nutritional
>related activities and enterprises, leaving me often no or very little
>time to indulge myself, as I once gladly did, when living up in the
>hills  nearer to you two.  In short, while my life was once highly
>involved in these sorts of nutritional issues, especially when raising
>my children and getting into writing my first book on the topic, it is
>now a reversed scenario:

With long posts like this you could have fooled me. :-)  A little more
humility would have been in place not to speak of a little more trust
and respect shown the likes of Kirt, Tom & myself. We are not trying to
lynch these three young authors but we have been so deeply offended by
both their message & behavior that we deserve a little respect for
having spilled our guts to the extent we have on this issue.

>I'm active in many things outside this fascinating food arena, and
>don't even think very much about chow except when hungry.  I somehow
>managed to stumble my way into a pretty satisfactory eating routine
>over all these years, and, as long as it seems to work well, don't
>tinker too much with it anymore.  While this could admittedly be an
>error on my part, my attention is just more drawn to other quarters.

Of course why fix it when it is not broke. But you cannot be blind to
fact that most people fail miserably on the vegan diet that you
advocate and it is IMO only a matter of time before your own health
will start to suffer as well. It reminds of the joke:" If I had known
that I would live this long, I would have taken better care of
yourself".

>Admittedly, it wasn't always this way.  Back in my Malibu days, when
>food was such a major component of my daily life (raising it, and
>also studying it as we ate), I would have gone bananas with such a
>list as yours..

I can imagine.

Peter said:
>> - How you are able to speak up on this issue in the first (place)
>>without first checking the facts is beyond me.

Ric said:
>Peter, I speak to this "issue," more than to your "facts," and in a
>different way;  my concern is simply for supporting ALL of you in this
>raw movement... in general, whether or not we agree on specificities.
>I'm not really given to commenting on NFL's multiple arguments, but
>rather to their mission at large.

By separating the issue from the facts you have become a diet
fanatic yourself and in doing so you are providing the raw community a
very poor service.

>Please believe me, if their form of proselytizing, in my opinion, is
>doing damage to the movement, then I would feel bound to make some
>constructive suggestions that they alter it. A admit that I do not yet
>know the whole story...I have heard most of it from you, Doug and
>Kirt, but little if any from Stephen, David or Faud.  You have filled
>my eyes and ears most thoroughly, now I will try and hear their side.

This is not a matter of hearing both sides but looking at the facts
which are not open to much interpretation. A good starter would be for
you to decide whether or not you can accept the language that Stephen
(NFL) uses in the repost I posted yesterday, and if you think it
belongs in a forum like this.

>I don't intend to be unmindful about the realities of your "history"
>with them on this list, because I would agree that is an important
>consideration in judging people and events, but, at the same time, I
>also don't feel pulled to dwell in the past, either. I've had the
>distinct feeling that this thing has been very largely a matter of
>living in the past pages of this internecine warfare, which is a
>pursuit honestly not too attractive to this observer.

It is not the past as it is still going on. Anybody who dares to
question their ideas or methods are subjected to serious verbal abuse.

>It's just like, in analogy, wading into a heated argument (I've done
>it many, many a time) between two adversaries in fierce combat...and
>trying to make some sort of peace, while purposely resisting the
>temptation to get into the exact judgmental details, in order to
>decide who is right or wrong. I just don't like the warfare, and
>have, possibly surprisingly, often managed to defuse these sorts of
>noisy events.

Your efforts have so far had the opposite effect. When it comes to
warfare I have rarely met anybody who seems to thrive on it so much as
our fruitarian trio.

>Later on I've oft discovered that the two combatants weren't even that
>far apart on specific issues, just laboring with great
>misunderstanding from bad communication and/or heavy personal mental
>stress factors and other relevant and agitating dynamics.

Believe me this is not the case here.

>As I have mentioned before, I also see much of this anger venting as a
>strong indicator of fear, possibly on both "sides" of the other's
>challenge:  that the other party might have something that could
>undermine one's most current belief. This sort of basic personal
>insecurity is no joking matter, for, as I am sure you know, it very
>often leads to just this sort of trouble among friends and
>partners...and even spouses.

This is all speculation. Nobody on this list no matter how triggered or
enraged have ever come close to these guys' total disregard for common
decency.

>When my daughter, as a journalist, first met and talked with Fidel
>Castro,she was impressed with his very gentlemanly manner, but she
>also had well in her reality his historically proven ability to order
>people to be executed, simply because they didn't share his
>philosophy. As you said,Attila the Hun may have thrown great parties.

That was quite an accomplishment for a journalist. However, having
different philosophies has nothing to do with the issue at hand. People
can eat whatever (raw) foods they choose and express that they believe
it gives them direct access to the divine for all I care - as a
moderator of this list it is none of my business. It is only when
bullying & ridicule threaten the welfare of the list that I must step
in or when positions are defended with a degree of misinformaton and
evasiveness that reveals that proselytizing not dialogue has become the
aim. I repeat everybody is entitled to believe what they want and as
long these beliefs are expressed in a manner within the general
guidelines, I will be a very happy moderator.


>You want to convert me to your position of disliking the NFL authors
>and have supplied me with an abundance of your arguments as to why I
>should agree with your views...even confidently assuring me that,
>>when I finish their book and look at what took place on this list
>when I wasn't here, I will have to join you in your vehement
>condemnation of them, and of all they stand for.  That's your obvious
>intent...and you have the right to pursue it.

Not quite. I just want you to stop up and listen and not defend these
guys so non-reflectively. I am very concerned of what it is doing to
the level of debate on this list.

>I just can't make any guarantees without being guilty of
>prejudgemental bias...and I am sure you can appreciate my need to be
>fair and as objective as possible.

This need has come through very poorly.

>Peter, I suggest that life isn't always as simple as we might prefer
>it to be; that what seems "right" today, may not seem at all that way
>tomorrow. How's it go: "...the only constant in life is change?"
>My point in this is to merely illustrate that I have no interest in
>being pugilistic; I am not an angry person (anymore), but do like to
>see young people infused with idealism and enthusiasm to spread
>whatever truth they feel they've discovered, whether it's you...or the
>NFL writers.

I wonder how far your pacifism would stretch if you ever personally
were to experience the wrath & contempt of these "enthusiastic" young
men.? Surely there must be limits for even your tolerance.

>these younger minds have helped me to learn a great deal. It was the
>youth of America that united to stop the mayhem and madness of
>Vietnam, remember?

I fail to see the connection between NFLs message of intolerance &
bigotry and the peace movement.

>I feel that the power in raw foods, especially in foods not requisite
>of harvest via violence to other sentient creatures, is most assuredly
>an extremely major natural law discovery...and I believe it ought to
>be broadcast as widely and enthusiastically as possible to our fellow
>humans That's my stated bias.

Your idealism borders on zealotry. I find there to be little or no
connection between diet and violent behavior except maybe for extreme
junk food diets. Having said that it is my experience that the less
animal foods people have in their diet the more aggressive they tend to
be, and the NFL trio is a prime example of this phenomenon. They are
doing the raw foods movement such a great disservice with their
arrogant nonsense that I sometimes wonder whether not they have been
hired by the cooked food industry to spread disinformation and
conflict. ;-)

>Your efforts here, and of the NFL writers, to accomplish this, is
>something that gets me excited...Both of your efforts, not just one
>or the other.  I may not be one to dig the instincto trip, and have
>made this clear, but nevertheless think it's useful, if not even
>essential, that it be promoted by those who believe (honestly, as I am
>sure you and Kirt do) in its merits.
>While a pacifist, I still heartily believe in the spirit of genuine
>free-enterprise...the free exchange of and competition of ideas.
>It's, to me, the very heart of science itself, and surely something
>that will serve to benefit society in the most effective way.
>Remember Shelton's famous quote about seeking the Truth...though the
>heavens may fall...?

The heavens have already fallen upon NFL and for some reason you are
having a hard time accepting it. ;-)

>I am most troubled on these pages by the intense sort of animosity
>clear to any objective observer. I would like you to know that I just
>don't want to be a part of it. Debate, discussion, sure, just not all
>the angst.

The trio have shown themselves completely unable to discuss or debate
in a civil manner. That is not angst but reality.

>Maybe the NFL group was the instigator (as you assert) of the combat
>on these postings.  If, in fact, they were abusive and intolerant of
>others, as you allege, then they surely deserved to be exiled, and you
>were certainly within your rights to expel them. After all, this is
>YOUR list, and we all are only beneficiaries of your generosity in
>supplying this forum. My somewhat more aged response, however, to this
>sort of dilemma, is to approach it from a possibly more loving or
>detached sort of perspective:

I commend that and if you or anybody else in the raw food community can
turn these angry young bucks into loving & accepting creatures, I will
be the first to congratulate you and welcome them back to the fold.
However, as a moderator of this raw-food list, it is way beyond my
ability to take on such a grand therapeutic endeavor.

>If these guys were belligerent, what made them that way?

Being force-fed with cooked foods as infants? ;-)

> Were they behaving, as you charge, as do mindless zealots and
>religious fanatics?

Ric, I am not "charging" it. The evidence is there for everybody to see
starting with their book.

>Were they genuinely intolerant of your contrary philosophy, or were
>they just threatened by its directly opposing thesis?

Both.

> Did they not argue and debate in a civil way?

Never.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]