Hi Doug,

I used to believe that Gandhi dude's schpiel until I met
another illustrious Indian named S.N.Goenka, who said:
(paraphrased, of course) "if you see an injustice being
done, you have to exercise whatever effort necessary
to prevent the perpetrator(s) from harming themselves and
their victim(s). However, be sure that you do this with total
equanimity, because otherwise you will add to your
won mass of samkharas that will add to your suffering."
Therefore I decided sathyagraha was great, but annica
*with* *direct* *action* was often more appropriate.
(OK, OK, I'm working on the equanimity aspect. :-)

At one time I used to be a strict vegan (OK, except those
occasional pizzas), smug in my belief that my diet was the ultimate
from a health, ethical and ecological view. I enjoyed lecturing
my spouse, my family, my colleagues and my friends about veganism.
I basked in their admiration of my superior moral and ethical
views and my "incredible will power".
My exposure to books on Anopsology as well as this list
initially raised really disturbing
questions about something I believed then was sacrosanct.
The more I stuff I read and listened, the more confused I got.
Just when I thought that the final jigsaw piece fit neatly,
another posting would throw me back into utter confusion.

Just like this list, I have also reached my own internal
boiling point. I may self-destruct :-)I may instead use the following
yardstick to help myself navigate my way through the haze:

  (1) I will Check the author's background. It is possible that
  certain radical diets may create problems that may not
  manifest for a decade. Therefore, find out if they have
  walked their own walk *sufficiently* *long*.

  (2) I will Check their scientific and academic credentials. I'm
  sure there is some reason we have kept science around so
  far.

  (3) Determine if the sample size is sufficient. Everybody
  may react differently to the identical diet. If the authors
  cannot provide extensive case studies (a'la' Pritikin),
  I'll make a not of what they have to say, but I'll remain
  a hard nosed skeptic.

  (4) I won't whine about ethics, animal rights, and ecology.
  These will continue to remain important to me, but the
  health and dietary aspect is sufficiently confusing and
  important that I'm willing to put my other whinings on
  hold for the time being.

Personally, I'm happy about the firestorm of controversy on this
mailing list. This is good. This reflects the confusion in my mind.
This is a serious issue that needs everyone's unvarnished, uncensored,
participation with substance. I welcome the NFL authors recent move
to post exerpts and facts (well, their opinions) on this list.
Unless, of course it will take another group "raw-food" to keep the ethical
vegan whining from lowering the signal to noise ratio.

I want to thank Peter and Michael (and the Gittens) for
not having exercised their censorship prerogative in a heavy-
handed way. Perhaps we can continue with some minimal self-censorship
to keep the SN ratio high (and facilitate digest mode subscriptions.)

Here is my invitation to the members of veg-raw: "if you don't
like our 'in your face' postings and if what we say offends
your ethical and aesthetic thingies, we will go and take up
jew's offer to set up an alternate mailing list.

Given my proposed yardstick for navigating the maze,
I'm still not sure how I will sort out this NFL issue, because I haven't
been able to get enough of the right information on the authors
from their e-mail questions, or from their book, which I am the
proud, temporary possessor of. As far as I can tell, they are
a group of young surfer dudes, perhaps with some high school education,
hoping to make it big via controversy and Oprah, pushing a book
that is a collage of "info-bites" on raw food.
I posed questions similar to the following on this list.
They responded, "read our book." I did, but didn't get
sufficient, satisfactory answers. In fact I found the book
to be a couple of orders of magnitude more irritating than
their e-mail postings. Therefore, here are the questions again:

(1) Give us some relevant background on yourself (more than
the sketchy stuff in the book.) How old are you, where do you
live, do you have a day job, etc.

(2) What are your academic and research credentials?
I know that in your book you establish that you don't
have any respect for these things (and that you don't
have any.)
However, you still choose to articulate certain arguments
in terms of enzymes and pancreases. My understanding is that
this is still science. Either use the Zephyr model where
you drop-kick science, go totally back to nature and provide
a totally subjective argument (I can respect that).
Otherwise do more rigorous research, use more precise
terms, cite references, the whole kabooze. Above all,
maintain a scientifically sound, detached, neutral
manner. (Be "in your face" with facts, not attacks :-)

(3) How long have you been on your current diet?
What was your previous diet before you switched.
Did you switch immediately, or was it a gradual transition.
What changes did you notice after you switched.

(4) Have you taken any steps to monitor the effects of your
diet? (For example, do you track your BP and pulse when
you wake up. Are you on the lookout for symptoms of
adrenal depletion or B12 deficiency?)

(5) Would you be willing to post your biomarkers to this
mailing list?

A more desirable format for your answers would be the following:

(1) Refrain from making statements such as "read our book",
or "as we elaborate in detail in our book".

(2) Refrain from posting verbatim exerpts from your book.
Use a direct, conversational style in answering just the
questions.

(3) I will follow your lead in refraining from aggressive
and obnoxious overtones, instead continuing our "forceful
and in-your-face, yet neutral, productive and incisive"
style of communication.

Enough rambling for today.

Thanks for your attention,

Roy