>Were you RAFers at all participants yourselves in any of these same
>emotive feelings and expressions of disgust and anger?

None of us have been perfect though coming close the belligerence of
NFL never. I have on several occasions moderated in defense of NFL and
censored postings that I judged too harsh on them.

>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.

Again, I commend you for your efforts. But the wounds created by
zealotry & verbal abuse are a hell of a lot more difficult to heal than
those created by "irritation."

>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.

Flatter will not help. :-/ I have done everything I could to make peace
with NFL as have many others on the list. Not all battles can be won.

>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.

You could not be more wrong. Looking back I regret not suspending NFL
earlier than I did, and I consider them the worst thing to happen to
raw foods scene since the invention of cooking - and maybe modern food
processing methods as well. ;-)

>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 .... ;-)

I am glad we finally see I to eye on something. :-)

>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 no probably the way into their hearts.

Stimulating dialogue is what this list is about. But people who cannot
meet a challenge with civility & respect have no business in this
forum.

>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?

NOBODY in this forum treated NFL in such a manner. But after a while
they were getting responses that more and more resembled their own
style which is exactly why the likes of NFL will quickly kill the
spirit of a list like Raw-food by constantly playing to the lowest
common denominator. Many good people left the list as a result of this
and many more if I had not intervened..

>If they're comfortable with their beliefs, then more power to them.

No! No! No! Zealotry and bigotry should NEVER be encouraged.

>After all, at one time in my own life I ascribed to many of their
>present beliefs, myself!

So did I but the BIG difference is that I never acted it out with such
disregard for the sensitivities of my fellow man, and I am sure neither
did you.

>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.

With their tactics that is exactly what they have been doing.

>I pick up some of this same sort of vibe on the list's pages. Don't
>you?

Nothing to speak of.

>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.

If you wait that long to speak up you might find it a little too
late.:-)

>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.

Ditto.

>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?

Do birds fly? :-) Yes, in excruciating detail. They refused to respond
and were informed that they would be suspended until they responded in
full to questions addressed to them by the moderator and until they
agreed to comply with the guidelines for the list.

>Now that there are new and different forums on the net,
>maybe they no longer care about your list...I don't know.

The other forums can keep them. On this list they have contributed
nothing constructive.

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.

I found your comments flippant, pretentious and way too ambiguous for
comfort on a very sensitive subject.

> 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?

Not being an American I am not as preoccupied with the concept of
freedom as many Americans.

>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."


That might be so but having just mentioned some of the accomplishments
of the Nazis, I found your comments very disturbing.

>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?

Sorry but you asked for it. Your intention in no way shined through.

>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?

No I do not. This kind of political mudslinging belongs on talk radio -
not on this list.

>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.

This can easily turn into a political debate. Even though I am not
especially fond of Clinton, yes I could list several positive
contributions from his administration.

>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.

Likewise -  only I wish you had expressed your political views with
more tact and less ambiguity.

>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 your right but the Raw-food list is NOT the forum to flaunt such
political extremism.

>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.

True.

>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.

Compared to most other Presidents on this issue he is a dove.

>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.

I share your outrage and admire you for your courage and dedication in
paying the Zapatistas a visit.

>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.

All other Western countries have National Health Care without
manifesting your "1984 "nightmare scenarios.

>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.

Unrestricted capitalism is IMO by its nature criminal, and I regard
"Whitewater" a storm in a cup of tea compared to many of the on-goings
in this country. I cannot relate to all the Clinton bashing going on.

>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.

If you are referring to the patriot, constitutional & militia
movements, I am not sure you are in companied by the the "truth" but
rather with rampant paranoia as expressed in the popular video the
"Clinton Chronicles."