we3kings write:

>Nature is constantly selecting and culling out those individuals that are
>unfit for reproduction.  Our book is specifically designed to get people to
>go 100% raw-vegetarian immediately.  It's just the natural process to
>gravitate towards more and more fruit.  It truly amazes us when people
>can't immediately see the truth of our information.

Sounds like you guys have been reading up on your Hitler, eh?

Below is a repost of my response to Peter B's short review of Nature's
First Law which appeared on this list a couple months ago.

Given the authors' recent post (above), I was reminded of this post and
inspired to repost it.

>Submitted to veg-raw by: [log in to unmask] (Kirt Nieft)

>Peter, you're too kind to Nature's First Law. I just got my copy a couple
>days ago and it's already something of a joke in our household. (Melisa
>will come to me and shake her finger harshly saying, "No No No! You're not
>supposed to read _any_ newspapers. Remember? You're being brainwashed!" I
>quickly hide the comics and say, "I wasn't reading, honest. I found it on
>the park bench and, remember, we need some paper to shred for the worm
>composter. Remember?" "OK this time, but don't ever let me see it again."
>"I promise.") I agree with you that it is writing and attitudes like those
>presented that give raw foods a bad name. If we went thru the book and
>replaced the words "raw foods" with "superior race" or something like that
>we'd end up with a pretty disgusting manuscript. That kind of arrogance is
>dripping off every page. As it is I can hardly finish any particular
>chapter, or "train of thought".

>What a turn off. And no references to any Hygenists! As if these guys
>single handedly discovered fruitarianism. You'd think with three authors
>that they'd catch some of each other's condesation, but I guess not. We'll
>see what they're up to in a few years, eh?

>It really does amaze me that supposedly 100% rawists can be so rightous. I
>remember feeling the same way when I re-read Fit For Life again after a few
>months raw, thinking, "Come on, Harv, what are you so PO-ed about
>_really_?"

>Yes, some of the "references" were new to me also, but not very useful.
>Several are brief anecdotes about research. Kinda hard to check them out
>for myself.

>Well, I'd better shut up before I'm guilty of the attitude I'm whining
>about, eh? :)

>PS. Remember,folks, they have a "club" but it has
>_extremely_strict_membership_criteria; sounds like "double secret
>probation" from Animal House to me...

>(Moderators please forgive me :^)

Kirt Nieft / Melisa Secola
[log in to unmask]