This will be the last post in this thread, and I request that everybody
refrain from responding to Ric's latest NFL post. I find that everybody
has made the points they need to make, and I fear that any further
debate on this issue will poison the atmosphere of the list. This
happened earlier when we lost a number of good people due to the
negativity that the NFL debates generated, and I am not about to let
this happen again. If anybody disagrees with my decision and needs to
express their thoughts email them to me privately - NOT to the list.

Here are my closing words on this issue:

Ric, you leave me shocked & outraged over your on-going support of NFL
without stopping up to reflect over what they really stand for or being
concerned about the actual or potental hurt & harm they inflict on
other people. This list is about defending the rights of the people who
cannot stomach the likes of NFL and is not for the rights of NFL and
their sympathizers to abuse their freedom of speech - the smooth
maneuvering of your evasive & contentless NFL postings fall under this
category due in great part but not only to your refusal to finish
reading the NFL book, check out the NFL postings in the archives and
respond to the mountains of evidence that point to the dangers of a
high fruit, raw vegan diet.
Below is an exchange from Jan. 15, - the last - that I had on the list
with Stephen of NFL but despite my non-hostile, somewhat friendly and
to the point demeanor, no response from NFL was received to the list
and on Jan. 24, they were suspended.
The exchange below should give you a taste of the kind of unfortunate
rhetoric that the list was exposed to from your "three honest fellows"
on a regular basis. If you are able to sweet-talk yourself out of this
one, I do not want to even guess what you have to say - my tolerance
for vegan zealotry is at a sub-zero level these days - but if you do
concede and begin to reconsider your position, e-mail me and I will
forward your comments to the list.

Best, Peter
Moderator Raw-food
[log in to unmask]


Stephen Arlin (of NFL) said:
>You write slanderous, misleading crap like this, then when you meet
>us, you ask us why our posts are so uncivil?

Peter said:
What exactly have I written that deserves to be called "slanderous,
misleading crap"?

Peter said:
>>...defend Adolph Hitler if even indirectly and use mass killer
>>Charles Manson as a reference...

Stephen said:
>One of the first things I learned about being in the public eye:
>Never let a slanderous accusation get by without properly countering
>it.

Peter said:
When I pointed out your unfortunate associations with Hitler and Manson
the first time 6-7 weeks ago you never responded to it.

Stephen said:
>We never "even indirectly defended Hitler."  That's a low-blow.  I
>think it's pretty universally well known that Hitler was a monster.
>But, in our opinion, Roosevelt, Churchill, & Stalin were too.

Peter said:
How can you mention Stalin, who was responsible for over 20 mill deaths
(before the War!) and Churchill & Roosevelt, who saved the world from
the tyranny of Hitler in the same breath - and omit Hitler to top it
off? Who indeed is slanderous here?

Stephen said:
>A few people were offended by that passage in the book, so we took
>that whole part out of the second edition.

Peter said:
What exactly were these few people offended by? It must have pretty bad
for you to take out a whole passage of your book. Would you please
point to the exact passage that has been edited out?

Stephen said:
>We have nothing to do with politics anyways. Politics is the excrement
>of human thought and the puppet show of human beings.

Peter said:
All politics? Even that of the likes of Tom Hayden, Ralph Nader & the
Green Party? How about Green Peace? Sea Shepherd? Mahatma Gandhi? The
rebels in Southern Mexico?

Stephen said:
>as far as the Charles Manson reference --
>One of his associates read our book and sent us money to send a book
>to Manson in prison.  A lot of people ask us,"So, what famous people
>have bought the book?"  We just thought it might be interesting to
>others by including his name.

Peter said:
If the truth is, as I suspect, that you guys get off sometimes on
provoking & shocking people you need to learn to handle the blows you
inevitably will get with a little more grace & dignity. Having said
that, the American obsession with fame never ceases to amaze me. Who
cares what famous people have read your book? The question is rather
has anybody with any nutritional credentials endorsed it? And if nobody
has I still do not care. If your book speaks the truth it will stand by
itself.

Peter said:
>I find it more interesting that somebody would mention a convicted
>mass killer as a reference for a book on diet. When you mentioned
>Manson in a long row of other people it looked like to me it was
>because your credentials were being questioned on the list and you
>wanted to show that you were getting some recognition.

Stephen said:
I heard that Manson once fasted for 48 days.

Peter said:
And Hitler was so supposed to have been a vegetarian and be very kind
to his dog. What is your point?

Stephen said:
>By the way, "the mass killer" never killed anybody, he told people to
>do it for him.

Peter said:
So that is supposed to make me feel better about him?

Stephen said:
>But then again, so did Schwartzkopf.  Oops!

Peter said:
At least he had some legitimate excuses such as Hussein being a crooked
dictator who attacked first (Kuwaiit). Manson on the other hand had no
reasons or excuses for ordering the executions of his innocent victims
but his own perverted & twisted mind.

Stephen said:
>I just indirectly defended Manson!

Peter said:
Nothing to be proud of.

Peter said:
>>You mean it was not me anyhow?

Stephen said:
>The same as: Apples, melons, and oranges.  Not: Apples, the red ones,
>and oranges.  Got it?

Peter said:
I was not the only one who misunderstood the above; in fact nobody not
even you yourselves corrected me back then when I denied being
"anonymous." But anyhow, thanks for clearing it up - albeit 1 1/2
months late.

Peter said:
>>...are you not in your book advocating some form of eugenics
>>program?

Stephen said:
>Only in the sense that generations upon generations of cooked-food
>eating transforms humanity into a race of mutants.  When I have
>children, I want them to be beautiful and healthy, not cooked retards.

Peter said:
And I assume that these children in your opinion will be an expression
of the survival of the fittest?

Stephen said:
>My cousin is very young and has a severe learning disability.  He also
>hates and refuses to eat fruit and vegetables. To me, that's no
>coincidence.

Peter said:
Many children refuse to eat fruits & vegetables and yet do not suffer
from learning disabilities or other debilitating diseases. I think it
is more probable that natal & pre-natal traumas are the cause of
learning disabilities, compounded by poor diet I concede.

Peter said:
>>http://W.W.II-online.com/~nature

Stephen said:
>What the hell is this?  Looks like name-calling.

Peter said:
Why do these things only happen with you guys? You must be attracting
the energy.;-) Your URL is of course: http://www-online.com/~nature
I am sorry for the mishap if I was the cause of it.
For some reason it reminds me of John Cleese in the Fawlty Towers
episode "the Germans" constantly reminding everybody in front of some
German guests dining there "not to mention the War". :-)

Peter said:
>>It is nice for a change to be responding to a person.

Stephen said:
>My partners want to "move on to greener pastures."  I think there's
>still some green here.

Peter said:
You bet there is and I invite you to stay and hang with us. I know you
guys have felt persecuted on this list but I hope that the fact that
you, Stephen, are still with us indicates that you realize that this is
not true.

>Stephen Arlin
>Nature's First Law

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]