.....
>>>First of all, I listened to and recorded David's entire airing with
>>>Weissbach...somehow my tape and memory don't have that particular remark by
>>>Peter about the NFL crew.  When did he make it?
>
>I have a tape of it as well. Want to match quotes? You listen to it and you
>will see what I'm refering to. I wouldn't bother except that your "spin" is
>so slanted that it doesn't seem proper to let it stand alone...

Kirt, my good friend, you didn't answer my question about "when did he
(Peter) make it?"

If you'd tell me, then it will surely be on my tape, right?  I'll be able
to find it.  I recorded all but the ads, and was on the phone a few times,
too, so may have missed it.  Your allegation about Peter's derogatory
remarks wouldn't at all surprise me, of course, because I've listened to
him on the air countless times, have me and chatted with him off the
air...and he's a real butt kicker and harasser of any guests that trigger
these sorts of killer instincts in his psyche.  He's out to get attention,
stir things up, so why not?  It's just that I don't recall hearing what you
do, and, with your help, can easily locate the statement on my own tape.

Geez...my slant is just one of not being as alarmed as most on this list
(don't know about the lurkers, of course) seem to be.  My "spin" is only
that of a suggestion that maybe the jury isn't yet in...T.C. Fry was to
many a charlatan...I never argued he wasn't.  But his work, while damaging
many a pocketbook, did a whole lot of good by simply spreading the rawist
message far and wide.  I believe his ethics and mine were cosmic distances
apart, yet I am compelled to credit him for much good, too.  I detested
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!).

I've never alleged that the three musketeers were angels, but having met
them, I get far more good vibes than otherwise...so they just don't alarm
me at all the way they do you.  I don't even agree with some of the things
they promote or allege in the book (half way through right now), and I
would tell the story quite differently.  But, that's irrelevant to this
discourse as I see it, since it's their book, not mine.  We've got the same
cause; to get out the truth about the power in rawism.  I just think they
will be able to do a lot of that whilst we sit here at the keyboards
debating their efficacy of method.  I wish they documented some of their
radical positions and beliefs (which I believe they actually are...beliefs,
that is), but, heck...if they get people excited enough to begin
questioning their health realities a bit more, then this opening of the
door...even but a crack, is to be applauded.  Why not?

>>And, Kirt, have you read their entire book?  I haven't finished it yet .

>Cover to cover. The thing is: I could rarely finish a particular paragraph.
>But I always gave the next paragraph a go.

Good for you.  Sounds pretty fair, I must admit.

>>>I remain uncertain whether NFL
>>>needs a wake-up call even more so than the rest of the world.

>>I don't think there's any contest on that one.  The world is, and has
>>probably always been out to the wrong "lunch." Our three musketeers are
>>sure far closer to being on track than most anything I've read
>>anywhere...in my book, anyway.  No comparison.

>Supporting NFL is one thing, Ric, but if you really believe it is the best
>raw book out there, then I am incredulous...

No recording in your hands, I am sure on that remark...and I challenge you
to find my statement to support this on your hard drive
somewhere...anywhere, and I'll eat my raw hat!

Jeepers, Kirt...this is getting way beyond what I thought I was trying to
point out:  That we help these guys do the best they can.  I really remain
convinced that their motives are sound and ethical...and, notwithstanding
some valid criticisms about the way they argue and present their issues, I
simply think we're making a tempest in that proverbial teapot over all
this.  Why get on their case over trying to do something worthwhile in the
best way they know how?

>Vegan or not, it may no longer
>be credible for someone to consider themselves knowledgable of the raw
>scene without reading a couple of the RAF books (from Schmid or
>Vonderplanitz to V. Stefansson or the instincto books).

>Have you read _any_ of the book? Perhaps you should finish it before you
>sing its praises.

Mostly, again...I am praising the fact that they are out there in the
trenches of the real world, trying to make a stinking difference.  We're
not putting that kind of energy out, and our audience herein is very, very
microcosmic, to put it mildly.

Again...I am PRAISING  their achievements and efforts, and the book
(especially since I have not admittedly even read it thru, yet) has yet to
be digested, so I can't, nor have I yet "praised" its structure or quality.
 I think you'll find this true.

>>These are the guys who are out there in the OPEN, while we sit in front of
>>our passive monitors...they're not just lurking about this elite cyberspace
>>we call the net.

>They're out in the "open" plugging their wares (especially online as well)
>making infomercials(!) and marketing their books and videos and everything
>else. Hardly the noblest of troubadours. You make it sound like they are
>leading some crusade against injustice: the fruit cure vs western civ or
>something. NFL is prostelytising people who are potential "conversions" to
>them, largely by tactics of concealment and issue-avoidance. And, they are
>leading them astray. They are so far out of line they think they are ahead.

Kirt, methinks you are riled up as the Mad Hatter over these fellows.
Guess I was throwing glowing cig butts into a pool of petrol here.

>In contrast, the people that sub to raw-foods are self-selected from the
>general public.  They are looking for info and they find some here, not in
>NFL's book which is largely rhetoric of the saddest sort. I have been far
>more open and honest about my experience than NFL ever has. The hours I've
>spent contributing to this list's archives have no potential for profit.

Hold it.  I beg to differ, mein fruend.  As an ol' buzz type, I can see
ways of capitalizing on your contributions of information.  So we sure
disagree on that one.

And, btw, admit to not seeing any necessary evil in witnessing people
making money at what they're doing, especially if it's well motivated.  I
was glad that the Diamonds were so immensely successful with their first
book, and will be just as happy to see these guys make big bucks, too,
although I'll be surprised (and very pleased) if they can match the
financial success that Fit For Life generated for its authors; if for no
other reason but that Warner books MADE the book a best seller...by
spending millions of bucks just promoting it and its authors. Our three NFL
creators are on a comparative shoestring.  It's a totally different league,
here.

>They are at best a generous contribution to the info available to raw
>newbies, and at worst a form of ego-shine. But denagrating cyberspace by
>putting NFL on a pedistal for their marketing efforts...yikes!

>You know, to be honest, I have learned a lot from NFL. (and if they ever
>quote that out of context I will redouble my efforts to making them
>accountable for the inaccuracies of their prostelytizations!) I've learned
>what is wrong with rawists. NFL is a distillation of the arrogance and
>self-rightousness which pollutes an arena which has real human potential. I
>see NFL hustling suckers, faking laughs, slip-sliding away from questions
>with the raw "message" and I know exactly what I never want to happen to
>me. I see them Richard Simmons-ing the fruitarian BS and I know that
>nothing is sacred, never will be. And I've learned that many people simply
>_can_not_see_ what is so disparaging of, and antithetical to, human decency
>in their presentation! I assume there will always be fruitarian zealots
>going overboard with their version of the Truth Which Saved The World From
>Destruction. TC bites the dust and NFL rises out of the mud, slinging. But
>when it becomes just another sound bite, and deliberately so!...I get the
>creepy crawlies _and_ the heebie jeebies.

Wow...pretty slick verbiage, Kirt.  Very persuasive and highly emoted, for
that matter.  I just wish you wouldn't find their effort so stressful.
I've only been at this league for 21 strict years, but have found there's
always more to learn around the next turn.  Zealotry unnerves me as much as
it does you, especially if ill intended.  I just don't perceive such
mal-intent with these fellows.  While I admire their unwillingness to pull
any punches or beat around the bushes the way I tend to do, I do recognize
that there can be some counterproductive results from calling things just
exactly the way you see it.  For instance...I wouldn't end each chapter
with the statement, "Cooked food is poison," but, frankly, I was absolutely
delighted that they thought of doing it...and then put it in there!  I love
it.  And I believe it.  Period.

>>>And hearing
>>>them use your "30 years raw" (I assume it is you they are refering to--they
>>>never detail anything--are you a "salesman"?) as their support for their
>>>high-fruit diet borders on simple fraud--especially as you are aware of the
>>>frequent problems encountered on the diet they prostelytise, consumed great
>>>anounts of RAF for many years, consider that you used to be addicted to
>>>avos (NFL bragged about 8 or 9 avos/day), etc.

>>Sorry, Kirt, you missed a mile.

>I'm glad to hear that! (though I admit that, given NFL's lack of credulity,
>I gotta wonder if they just rounded your 21 years to 30 ;))

>>Although I've been a salesman (proud of
>>it) in my checkered past (way past), I'm no longer one...and I had to pay
>>full price for their book from a friend who does sell it.  So, it's not me
>>they referred to.

>I meant no disrespect to the profession of sales. It was all I understood
>of their example, that the 30-year raw person was "one of the most
>successful salesmen" bla bla bla...

>>Especially since my tenure with the raw law groupies has
>>only been for 21 years.  Believe the fellow, who they've described by name,

>On the radio? I sure don't remember such. I guess the tape will tell, eh?

>>lives in east San Diego.  Maybe in Jamul?  Ask Stephen, and am sure you'll
>>get a name.

>I get names from Stephen. But for some reason they are nasty names.

>>>IMHO, NFL has more or less "Oprah-ised" the "raw foods message"--thus
>>>assuring that it appears as a fad/gimmick instead of anything less than the
>>>lunatic fringe.

>>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.  (Of
>>course, Kirt, I don't have you in mind) Reminds me almost exactly of the
>>furor in the ranks of the ANHS when Harvey and Marilyn Diamond first came
>>out with "Fit for Life."  "Compromise," was the battle cry.  They've
>>bastardized our purist philosophy!  They've even included animal products
>>and cooking!  These two were thoroughly castigated and denigrated by the
>>NHS mainliners.  Much later they were given, thank God, official
>>recognition for their popularization of the concepts of NH.  I remember
>>some of the same early critics wanting to press forward to the podium to
>>get their autographs!  Life is interesting, isn't it?

>Fame has it's folly and little else it seems. Your example is striking in
>its reversal. For the situation to be analogous to the Diamonds "vs" ANHS,
>NFL would have to be a popularisation of some supposedly "purer" form of
>rawism. NFL would also have to be popular. I know of no review in any
>popular press, and have never seen a favorable review elsewhere. NFL is
>hardly as source of merit regarding the popularity of their books
>(According to them the have converted hundreds and hundreds of people, why
>_they_ hold raw potlucks and rally all their growing legion of supporters
>in the Crusade! Rah rah rah!!!) The critics of NFL find it arrogant,
>condescending, and dogmatic to the point of absurdity. Indeed, NFL the book
>is even more crackpot writing than Erhet or TC Fry on a bad hair day. What
>exactly is NFL a "popularization" of? The principles of bigotry and
>fundamentalism? Or perhaps the holier than thouism (which, of course, Ric,
>I don't mean you)?

Watch out, Kirt, you might get under my vegan skin!  :))

And, don't forget, I went to their big potluck...met some fabulous folks,
and am forever grateful that they promoted the event.  Wish you'd joined in
on the fun.

>Perhaps the only thing still amusing about the whole thing is watching NFL
>hypocritically advocate juicing or raw recipes or even (gag me with a
>fleshy polyp) RAF for some people kinda maybe sorta in order to broaden
>their marketing base (and, at least in the case of RAF, apparently thinking
>that folks such as myself will back off if they appear more "open" on the
>issue). Or how about the overall whatdya callit to do infomercials while
>trashing the media as an evil influence!!! But I gotta say they are proving
>themselves right on that count. ;)

Not too clear on all of that one, but, if they're really opening up their
"base," then I recall that's something you'd like to see them do.  It's
sure less provincial than the narrowness for which you've criticized them
before, right?

>No, Ric, you seem to have a great skill in spin doctoring. You are most
>welcome to go on record with your support of NFL, their medium, their
>message, but if you think your arguments of support make right any given
>paragraph in NFL the book you are mistaken...

Again, my dear adversarial RAF enthusiast;  Don't recall any spin work on
any specific positions they have presented in their book, except for the
first time up above on the "Cooked food is poison" closer.  All I've tried
to do is keep more peace and tranquility among our underpopulated ranks of
rawists.  Internecine warfare has always been a big turn off for this cajoler.

>>I stood up for the Diamonds in those early days, too...for the same
>>reasons.  Unlike Stephen, Faud and David, who I didn't even know before the
>>book was released, Harvey and Marilyn were good personal friends. Even
>>though their advocacy didn't match my own (or theirs, for that matter!), it
>>did seem logical to me that it had a very broad potential  _market_ appeal.
>> Strangely enough, my hunch was right.  The ranks of the ANHS literally
>>burgeoned within months of the book's release.  Just about nobody in John
>>Q. Public had ever heard of this odd ball group (Natural Hygienists) before
>>Fit for Life hit the stands.

>And NFL is like FFL? I don't get the connection. I still consider both of
>the Diamond's FFL books the best available on NH, and "A New Way of Eating"
>(Marilyn's transition recipe book) the best of it's kind. Granted FFL has
>some of the arrogance and combativeness (certainly in it's vegan posturing)
>which so irks me about NFL, but compared to the rest of the NH stuff it is
>a breath of fresh air.

>>Notwithstanding their compromising of NH principles for their own financial
>>and ego aggrandizement, they did one heck of an important job.

>IMO, NH could use some more compromising--lots more.

Kirt, what's "IMO" mean?

>>They helped
>>wake the sleeping public sector up to some of the reality we've been
>>privileged to witness.  Anything that serves to do this, is, in my book
>>(providing it is done from a sincere motivation), something worthy of
>>constructive support.  Those two authors did, in fact, compromise many of
>>their own principles and beliefs in caving to Warner Publishing's editorial
>>demands, but Warner was right...if they hadn't swallowed their exacting
>>beliefs, if they'd refused to tone down their severer message about
>>foodstuff, then the book just wouldn't have done what it did.

>>>Perhaps they will make a buck at it. But if they say one
>>>more time about how it is their _instinct_ which tells them to eat sweet
>>>fruit to the exclusion of "anything with eyes", I may be inspired to buy
>>>them a Red Rider BB Gun for April Fool's Day. ;)
>>Hey, good buddy, your wink notwithstanding, I hope they do make some bucks
>>on it.  If they make some dinero, then it will mean the book's selling
>>well.

>That is the whole point isn't it? Get the message out there, even if it is
>abusive.

>>And, again, as for their instinct to gorge certain fruit foods, I
>>believe them.  I had the same "instincts" myself...I became a sweet fruit
>>and avo junkie because I followed those "instincts."  I think the avos did
>>me some damage, and not sure the overly sweet hybrid organic fruit didn't
>>do some, as well.  But that's just my own personal experience.  They're all
>>younger than I was when I cleaned up my eating act.  I definitely also
>>suspect that I was in much worse physical condition than they were when
>>they first found and heeded Nature's first law.  At their ages I would
>>guess that they're possibly far more resilient than I wasn't, too.

>So what's the implication here? That if you start young enough, you can be
>a fruitarian. That you could have been a contender yourself, but for your
>checkered past? You must really want to believe this badly. Perhaps this
>accounts for your willingness to believe that Roe Gallo has eaten only
>fruit for 22 years.

>>You're not really in that much pain over all this, are ya?

>Yes I am. It makes me sad and then mad and then sad...

Don't envy that roller coaster sensation. :)

>>You know my
>>position on the "instinct" issue:  It's my personal opinion that following
>>our occluded and distortedly toxic "instincts" is not being as rational as
>>would at least make me comfortable.

>You are welcome to your position (and, ironically, mine is not far from
>yours) but don't think that overeating fruit and avos is all there is to
>know about instincto...

>>Granted, wild animals seem to have
>>quite operative instincts...but, even today, after 21+ years of eating more
>>sensibly than many folks, I wouldn't begin to again rely on my own
>>"instinct."  I've tried it many a time, only to end up finding out I was
>>making one whopping mistake.

>You've never tried instincto Ric--you know not what you speak of, and
>neither does NFL. Read up on it and then trash it, but don't post stuff
>that shows more ignorance of instincto than your wisdom in "overcoming" it.

>>That is MY opinion, and I believe in it right now.  I know yours, and I
>>respect it...and will defend your right to advocate it.  I also will do the
>>same for the NFLers...and hope you might change your thinking about them by
>>opening up a tad, and by even trying to help them by sharing some of your
>>own experiences with them.  They are really very likeable and interesting
>>guys.

>Jesus, Ric: read the archives someday. You'll see that I have tried to
>"share" with them, and also that they are often _un_likeable.

If so, then I must apologize.

Cheers, but please think of those hapless little critters you believe you
need to consume...

BTW...the last sea critter I ate was a tasty raw conch I'd retrieved from
about forty feet depth, off the pristine east coast of Belize in the early
70s...when I was almost completely vegetarian.  It really gave me my own
mental roller-coaster sensations ...later on (and I don't even remember
seeing any eyes on it).
Hope this winds up this topic...am worn out.

Ric