>I see no integrity in our White House, haven't seen it in most of my
>lifetime, long before the country had even heard of the Clintons...and
>I sure never suspected there was the slightest  bit of integrity in
>Hitler's Germany, either. Remember, I was a teen when he was at his
>pinnacle of power

I have no problem with this.

>Remember, it was Clinton who, upon the Oklahoma City disaster,
>immediately castigated talk radio shows and the internet for stirring
>up the terrorist kooks and militias to such deeds...never minding that
>his own BATF agents knew the bombing was coming down at least the day
>before...and making sure that their men were not in the building for
>that very reason. Did you notice how they quickly destroyed the
>building's remaining structure...to relieve the poor victim's
>families from having to be reminded of the terrible event.  Yet, it
>was this very knocking down of that damaged building that once and for
>all destroyed all the evidence necessary to forensically determine
>what...exactly...happened.  Where was the public outcry to stop that
>demolition...where was the American Bar Association and the ACLU over
>that heinous move?  Finally, years later, we see the families of the
>victims trying to get a grand jury to investigate what REALLY
>happened...and they're being stonewalled by...guess who?  No photo ops
>in that latest Oklahoma City scenario, are there?

You are IMO going off the deep end by allying yourself with these
conspiracy theories. Please do not elaborate any further as full-blown
political debates of this nature do not belong on this list.

>The Chinese are no respecters of human rights, but anyone who thinks
>that this country is any better off is out to lunch in my book. I
>don't know, Peter, how many folks you know who have been imprisoned
>for their mere beliefs in this nation, but I have all too many friends
>among these victims. This upsets me more than the Raw Food's List, to
>be honest.

I am sure these people somehow broke the law. Again please do not
respond.

>I know Dr. Burzynski well (as well as other incarcerated-by-the-feds
>maverick free-thinking MDs), and the corrupt power elitists of this
>very same government and the state of Texas have been trying to put
>this genuine hero into prison for the rest of his life.

On this we see eye to eye.

>This is a "free" country?  Geez.

Then try going to China for a while. That might shift your perspective
a bit. ;-)

>Where do you sit about the religious freedom espoused by this country,
>when government rogues burned those small innocent children to death
>in Waco, Texas...or that point blank shot the brains out of Vickie
>Weaver's head as she stood in the open, holding her little baby girl
>in her arms?

Even Dennis Weaver has made amends and admitted that he had a
responsibility in provoking the incident. Maybe you should make your
peace too.

>Have any of these pre-meditated murderers been brought to justice?
>Why not? Could it be because they are all uniformed members of the
>"Justice" Department of this nation?
>Peter, for gosh sakes, man.  Please wake up...I strongly suggest that
>there's a heck of a lot going on out there besides these fascinating
>issues over what and how we should eat for optimal health. Why the
>heck should we be divided among our own ranks of rawists?

I do not want to see this list turn into a political battlefield. Fact
is that we are very divided on these issues. I could easily make you
feel very uncomfortable if I were to give you a full blast of my
political views, but it would serve no purpose. So much social,
cultural, psychological, racial, spiritual, economical/financial and
existential conditioning tie into the political stands we each have
chosen along our way, and as long as a fairly simple & clear-cut issue
as NFL can cause so much conflict, let us admit our limitations and
keep a low profile on such volatile matters. After all most people are
on this list to discuss matters of health & die
t - not fight out political agendas.

>If we continue this sort of in-fighting, we'll never get the message
>out there, let alone in a cogent and proper way. We need teamwork,
>man. We have to see the light and pull together...not against one
>another.

I am not on a "raw" crusade, and I think I speak for most Raw-food
subscribers on this one. "Raw " plays a fairly small part in my world
as I spread my priorities over many different realms, many I consider
equally or more significant than my raw food commitments.

>If NFLers have made errors...and you can't get through to them, then
>at least pray or meditate for their >salvation...for their conversion
>to instinctoism!

Consider it done! - though I am not holding my breath.

>Again, to me this is all so much internecine warfare...it serves
>absolutely no good purpose as I see it, notwithstanding all of the
>articulate agruments and postings to the contrary. The only people
>that should enjoy our infighting are the purveyors of processed
>"foods" and the government, its minions,  and all the diverse
>allopathic industry interests.

What is the alternative to all the infighting? The shameless embracing
of NFL's almost neofascist message? When I see how many raw vegans have
run from their responsibility and refused to educate NFL about the
fallacy of their ways, I and many others others shake our heads and
feel compelled to turn our backs to the raw, vegan scene and leave it
for good.


>I just don't react too well whenever I smell censorship in the air.  I
>disagree with a whole lot of stuff on this list, but enthusiastically
>welcome the differences.

Why speak of censorship? All listgroups have guidelines for netiquette
that need to be abided by. As for differences I welcome them too.

>If you recall, I wasn't active and reading the list during this
>particular war's bloodiest battles. You have clearly stated your
>opinion on what took place, so I will now ask Stephen, David and Faud
>what their take is on this, and then give you my opinion, if you'd
>really like to hear it.

Read their book and the archives (the exchange between Stephen and I
that I re-posted yesterday should be more than enough)and make up your
own mind. Why ask them ? They will play with your heart strings about
how misunderstood they have been, how they have been forced to fend of
vicious attacks from members of this forum etc... The big question is
how gullible you are and how much of your own agenda you will let cloud
your judgment.


>>Do you mean that this list is now exclusively for the party line of
>>the RAF advocacy:

That vegans are the people that have been having the greatest
difficulty in complying with list etiquette is not of my doing - what
it does is make me view veganism more as an emotional/spiritual
disorder than as a viable nutritional option. However, an interest in
raw foods along with complying with the list charter is all it takes to
be part of this list. Do not let anybody tell you any differently.

>at this list is officially now dead set against any advocacy
>of a "fruit-based vegan diet," because the latter would not be the
>"right thing?"

Believing and advocating are two very different things. Believe in what
you want but if you start advocating without willing to back up your
claims with some minimum of factual or logical content presented in a
civil manner then yes you will be in trouble with the guidelines of
this list.

>You claim that this is not a matter of being or acting "holier than
>thou,"but then you go on to state that it is all about doing the
>"right thing,"which you go right on to explain is to "speak up against
>fruit-based vegan diets...."

You or anyone else are more than welcome to challenge the arguments
that are stacking up against such a diet.

>What you think is "right" is your opinion of what is right...not
>necessarily mine, and apparently not that of the NFL group, either.
>Veganism and fruit based diets are apparently already verboten and
>inherently evil, as I understand you to argue above.  Since your
>opinion and judgement appear to be quite final on this, that doesn't
>really leave you honestly open to any realistic discussion...does it?

As I said any challenge is always welcome. What NFL has dished up is
contentless zealotry. There is a big difference.

>I mean, how can I discuss this sort of thing with you if your mind is
>already so made up that it's virtually set in concrete...to the point
>that it is now a matter of what you have now decided is the one and
>only "right" belief?

Do not shoot the messenger. I beg you to find somebody who will post
some challenging arguments/evidence for veganism on the list that are
not primarily based on emotion and prejudice.

>It is your list...and you surely have the right to lay down such
>parameters...no argument from me. I'd just like to make sure I'm not
>reading something into what you're saying that shouldn't be there.

No you are reading me right. I am not trying to be objective but to
implement the list guidelines as reasonably & fairly as I can.

>I think I may be getting mixed signals here. Straighten out
>my"naivete,"O.K?

The signals are mixed. I have become so disenchanted with vegans that I
am beginning to doubt that any fruitful dialogue with them is possible.
However, because I as a person have stopped pretending that I believe
in the possibility of dialogue does not mean that vegans will be
ostracized or harassed for their beliefs only that they will not get
away with crying foul play hoping that because I happen to be a very
opinionated moderator that they can get away with not following the
guidelines for the list.

>religious zealot or fanatic you so energetically curse?

I am not a zealot which makes me right. The NFL authors are zealots
which makes them wrong. IMO it is much more important to say no to
zealotry than it is to say no to cooked foods.

> His or her belief is the  _one_  truth, the only reality, the only
>"right" construct.

Zealotry is a perversion of belief and only zealots do not see the
difference..

>What's the difference between this zealous religious scene and what
>you yourself are advocating take place on your list;castigating and
>denigrating in such strong terms the NFL crew for their own "zealotry"
>and "fanat
icism?"


I try to treat anybody with whom I disagree politely and respectfully.
(only my soul brothers do I have the freedom to trash :-)). NFL does
not. Pointing out this obvious difference does not make me a zealot.

>Is this possibly an oversight into hypocrisy?

Only if I am guilty of zealotry myself.

>I invite you to enlighten me.

I hope I have succeeded.

>My very best wishes, May peace prevail,
>Your battered and tattered vegan subscriber,

Sending me this mother of response makes me the battered one.:-)

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]