Peter:
>You can stick your head in the sand for only so long.
>The archives are easily accessible at
><http://www.bolis.com/list-archives/raw-food> or
><http://www.bolis.com/list-archives/raw-food-digest>

Thanks, that makes it pretty easy (This old 486 clunker can do the WWW thing).
>
Peter:
>It takes no time at all to get to them. If you do not have WWW access
>then surely you have a friend who does. Like it or not with your 20+
>years as a raw food eater you are somewhat of a leader and mentor to
>many of us and as such it is your moral obligation to look up these
>archives

Ric:
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.

Peter continues:
>... + finish reading the NFL book (which should take you no more
>than 45 minutes to do) before you continue lending the NFL team more of
>your support.

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.  One problem may be that I have a very active life off this
 computer (which I am sure is the case withyou and most the other
subscribers, as well), and often don't even manage to check otherthan my top
 priority business and personal e-mail for days at a time.
Plus, am also given to traveling a bit...sans computer...And, as for the
reading of the book, I have other non-nutritional reading demanding my
attention, too.

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:
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.

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...but that
 was back in the late 70s and earlier to
mid 80s...and all we had was a X-T computer, Compuserve...and everything
was MS DOS, and my son was on the machine most of the time,
designing some of the first electronic BBSs, while I only used the
computer for writing and spread  sheet work.

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

Ric:

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. 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.

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'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 judgemental 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.  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am a pacifist, believe it or not, yet I do also recognize that life isn't
always that simple; that we can't just "put our heads in the sand" and
ignore our environment's reality...it can be outright irresponsible
behavior to live in such denial...I agree.

For example: I don't own, nor want to own, any guns.  I went through and
think I graduated from that phase (in the service and as a juvenile). But I
could be provoked to fight to defend other's rights (just not REAL
[violent] criminals...as distinct from the politically [defined]
"criminals" presently swelling our prisons in the USA) to own their own
weapons.  I very strongly contend that the authors of our Bill of Rights
knew EXACTLY what they were doing, when they wrote that 2nd most important
amendment.  I have a very dear friend who spoke against street violence and
guns at the national Democratic Party Convention last year...he contends
that he is a dedicated pacifist.  I believe him. But, recently, when three
people around him were assassinated and his own life was threatened...he
took out a gun permit.

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.  Some of
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 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 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...?

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.

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:

If these guys were belligerent, what made them that way?  Were they
behaving, as you charge, as do mindless zealots and religious fanatics?
Were they genuinely intolerant of your contrary philosophy, or were they
just threatened by its directly opposing thesis?  Did they not argue and
debate in a civil way?  Were you RAFers at all participants yourselves in
any of these same emotive feelings and expressions of disgust and anger?

If one can somehow unlock these sorts of initial mysteries of the
individual psyches involved, I have found that it is often possible to also
reach into the minds of the "offensive" parties, and obtain some reasoned
resolutions from them.   Please believe me, from much personal experience,
I have found that the effort may be more than worth the extra trouble. I
once had two employees that irritated each other so much, were always
bugging me about how "bad" the other was for the company, that I finally
had to do something, or lose them both.  Objectively, they were both very
competent, but just couldn't stand each other.  I am happy to report that
my efforts to get them to appreciate each other, to stop their wasteful
fighting, finally paid off:  They invited me to celebrate their wedding.

This means that I think peace can be achieved in such warring situations,
but it simply takes lots of cool... and patience.  And I bet you've got
what it takes.

This was one heck of a long dialog, but hope it helps you relax about where
Ric is coming from in all of this brouhaha...which is, in all honesty, much
what I still believe it to be.

Peter:
>As you
>point out, not having read the book all the way, how could I address it's
specific points?
>Like you I have found the NFL folks to be very friendly in person
>especially when their opinions are not seriously challenged. I
>understand that Atilla the Hun threw great parties too .... ;-)

Ric:
Again, in this respect; the fact that you found their charm and
friendliness evident, on a person to person basis, might itself offer a
clue about the REAL problem (forgetting the baited remark about our mutual
non-friend, Attila) here.  Challenging their "opinions" (beliefs) is not
probably the way into their hearts.  I have some Christian fundamentalist
friends...and I am careful to not insult their integrity of belief by
"challenging" their beliefs too aggressively as being "ridiculous, absurd,
stupid," etc. Why would I want to do that, unless angry at them?  If
they're comfortable with their beliefs, then more power to them.  After
all, at one time in my own life I ascribed to many of their present
beliefs, myself!  But I survived, and think I even evolved to better
understandings.  My only trouble with them would be if they should decide
that their beliefs MUST be imposed on me and others.

I pick up some of this same sort of vibe on the list's pages.  Don't you?
If, as also charged, the NFLers are into making their perception of the
Natural Law something that should be imposed on society en-mass, then I
would be very much active in opposition.  I'm against drug use, drugs of
virtually any kind, legal or otherwise...but I am also strongly opposed to
the mentality that gives us things like the "drug war"  or any other
similar governmental prohibition on our desire to lead our own lives..as
long as that pursuit doesn't harm anyone else.

What the heck does this have to do with this topic of NFL?  Just that it's
meant to let you know where I'm coming from.  I am for your being able to
use this wondrous electronic forum of yours...in a gentlemanly way; and
would expect that the NFLers would be held to the very same civil standards
as yourselves.  If they violated these sorts of rules of decency and
civility...then they were most likely egregiously wrong and you had every
right to take umbrage.  But that was then, and this is now...or at least it
seems thata way, right?  Have the NFLers been forgiven...and told the new
rules of debate?  Now that there are new and different forums on the net,
maybe they no longer care about your list...I don't know.
>
Ric:
>>Adolf Hitler, too, but admit, from the necessity of reality, that he
>>also did much good in the early thirties...and even later, when he
>>gave us the autobahns and the "People's Car" (VW).  My gosh, even
>>Billary has done a few good things, I am sure (although be darned if I
>>can think of any at the spur of the moment!).
>
Peter:
>Comparing Hitler and President Clinton I find quite tasteless and
>implying, even jokingly, that Hitler did more good than Clinton down
>right scary.

Ric:
I wasn't at all "joking" in those remarks...just illustrating from FACTS,
what I believe is true.
Peter, to even suggest, as it seems you have done, that I am in any manner
whatsoever supportive of Adolf, is very emotive, and surely doesn't seem
the sort of statement that would be made by someone sincerely interested in
what I am trying to communicate. Look at my remarks again.  And, as for my
remarks about the Clintons, this is SUPPOSED TO BE a free country, and,
never being known as a devotee of the PC mentality anyway, I am strong in
my support for the FIRST amendment.  It's the FIRST for good reason..it's
surely the most important.  Don't you agree?

Get this clear...I am dead serious: I didn't wish the Clintons any harm,
which would and could be "scary."  I only implied that I wasn't aware of
any "good things" that they'd done for us..."at the spur of the moment."
Let's be completely frank and honest here.  I think your implication that I
had anything but a benign opinion here about their political merit...or
lack of it, is simply improper and disingenuous...to say the least.  If you
claim to be for fairness, then please apply the same noble standard to your
own remarks.  O.K?

Here's my take: I may have been somewhat facetious, if not simply sarcastic
about "Billary," but for you to so seriously misconstrue and label my
remark as "down right" scary, is, in of itself scary to me. Do you see what
I mean?

If my honest aside about the Clinton's lack of positive contributions to
society caused you to retort as you did...then I think I see the problem
here, and I'm not too sure it's in MY head.  I invite you to
think...objectively... about it.

So, Peter, I refuse to take your bait; your challenge to my own integrity
in that charge.  I surely hope that I am above that sort of what I'd call
demagoguery or groveling.  I have no interest in fighting with you...or
anyone else.  Maybe it's my maturity that helps me feel that way.  I hope so.

What I said about the Clintons was said because I honestly believe that
they are corrupt to the core, are insensitive to the extreme, and a great
danger to this country and the whole world.  I have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to
believe this; every bit as much as you have the right to believe the opposite.

It is the government that they lead that continues to maintain the status
quo:  Big governmental bureaucracies, the FDA, USDA, Dept. of
(Mis)Education, CIA, FBI, INS, Justice Department...and continues to
sanction and permit vast ILLEGAL monopolies (in restraint of trade...vis a
vis Sherman Anti-Trust Act) and open competition for the betterment of
science, like the AMA, The BAR and  the ADA.

This is the very same government the Clintons promised they were going to
streamline, simplify and clean up, yet we continue to get even more deeply
into corruption, while busily supporting other corrupt regimes around the
world, and pump out armament sales to foreign governments to use for
killing their enemies and own citizens, etc, etc.

I went to Mexico last April to live with the EZLN guerillas...to see for
myself.  Clinton publicly declared that he was sending heavy and hi-tech
military equipment down there for use in fighting the alleged "Drug War."
Well, the reality is quite different from what he proclaimed:  The military
equipment is really being used for containing the indigenous rebels
(Zapatistas), who have no drug activity at all in their jungles...and they
have un-uniformed U.S. Army advisors with them.  This means we can't
legitimately claim the corrupt Mexican PRI administration pulled a fast one
on us. My disenchantment holds equally true for the other major U.S.
political party, the one now in a shaky sort of legistlative control
position, too.

You really pulled my finger out of a dike on this seemingly unrelated issue
over Clinton, but, as I see it from here, all this stuff is just too
interrelated.  They effect darned near everything we do...and don't do.
George Orwell didn't miss by all that much, in my book.  Who handles and
controls our euphemistically entitled "Health Care" industry?  Wasn't it
proven that it was Ms. Clinton who was holding secret meetings (she
initially denied holding) to expand this industry during her husband's
first term?  Holy crow.

I personally know several people who have had personal dealings with the
once Governor of Arkansas.  These individuals are good honest people.
Their experiences with the Clintons were terrible, hair raising and
worse...and, to me, very revealing.  I'm not a Republican, nor a Democrat.
I'm independent as hell, and most attracted to Libertarianism...the same
philosophy espoused by some of our imperfect founding fathers.  I've taken
the time to study documented evidence, first hand, of the Clinton's
previous dealings and some since ascending to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  I
am convinced that they were criminally active, and still are... in the very
worst way. If you sincerely think this sort of belief is "scary," Peter,
then I am really at a loss about what sort of reality you're experiencing.
I suspect that you were just making a figure of speech statement, because
you're obviously a very intelligent character.

I agree that such statements as I've made above are pretty strong, but I
believe them to be absolutely true...and I am hardly alone in that minority
opinion, as you know.

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.

Our interest in this issue of how people might best eat food in order to be
as healthy as mother nature intended is a common one that should bind us
together.  But, on the other hand, I suggest you do some thorough and
independent research outside this common venue, looking deeply into what's
going on in Washington, DC right now...today.  If we don't all do that,
then we'll ALL fall victim to your own warning shot about being caught with
our "heads in the sand."  We won't be able to talk this freely anymore on
the internet, or anywhere else, for that matter, because, as Clinton would
like, our discourse will be controlled by the government...albeit, of
course, "for our own good."  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?

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 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.

This is a "free" country?  Geez.

And, by tying Dr. B up (trying to keep himself out of jail), many, many of
his patients have suffered terribly, and some have died, simply because the
Texas AG, Governor Bush (and his Democratic predecessor), the Texas Medical
Society, big insurance conglomerates like Aetna, and the pharmaceutical
giants, have all worked in heavy handed concert to deprive this man of his
freedom: freedom to merely continue to pursue the science that might help
save more people from cancer..long enough, we hope, that they might find
out about the health giving power of our raw food.

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?  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?  How about Mr. Scott up near you in Malibu a few years ago?
The facts have now all come in...he was murdered... _assassinated_  by
Ventura Sheriffs, L.A. Swat teamers, Park Police and LA cops.  Yet, has
even one of these governmental murderers trying to get him off of his land
for "proper environmental purposes" been bought to justice?  No.  Nor were
most of Hitler's Brown and Black shirted thugs, as I recall.  Very few of
them saw their crimes punished at the Nuremberg trials.  Isn't this true?

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?

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.  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!

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.

Peter:
>I hope it is a coincidence and not a trend among raw
>vegans :-/ for in the NFL book there are several references to Hitler -
>indirect but unavoidable non the less.

No more comment.

Ric:
>>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.  When I become threatened or fearful of such
>>opposing viewpoints and positions, then it's time for me look inside
>>my own head...or hang up my jacket.

Peter:
>How dare you speak of censorship? NFL spent several months on this list
>refusing to engage in any civil discourse and when their ideas were
>questioned they would resort to tactics of bullying and ridicule rather
>than reason & content. By ignoring numerous warnings they got
>themselves suspended but are like everybody else welcome back to
>Raw-food if they agree to abide by the basic rules of conduct laid out
>for the protection of the participants of this forum.

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.

Ric:
>>>>All this holier than thouism I'm getting on this list about the
>>>>authors makes me wonder about where some of the critics are coming
>>>>from.

Peter:
>It is not a matter of being "holier than thou" but a matter of doing
>the right thing. The right thing is to speak up against fruit-based,
>vegan diets which have created so much havoc with the health of so many
>people and to expose the diet zealotry & demagogy of NFL.

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

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...."

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?

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?  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.

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

Peter, isn't this "right" issue the same position as is that of the
religious zealot or fanatic you so energetically curse?  His or her belief
is the  _one_  truth, the only reality, the only "right" construct.

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
"fanaticism?"  Is this possibly an oversight into hypocrisy?  I invite you
to enlighten me.

My very best wishes,  May peace prevail,

Your battered and tattered vegan subscriber,

Ric ;-)