>Tom:
>Unfortunately, this is true. Raw foods diets tend to draw the crazies and
>the cranks. In my time in raw foods, I have met (too) many raw fooders with
>serious mental problems. A sampling: hostile zealots spreading their delusions
>as the 'one truth', people with eating disorders and eating disorder behavior
>patterns, people who have made their diet their religion, and ordinary
>loonies.
>Additionally, I have met some whose mental health seemed shaky: a vegetarian
>survivalist, people into wild political conspiracy theories, and far too much
>narrow-mindedness and self-righteousness.


I agree with your basic argument. HOwever when you say that raw foodists are
much less enjoyable or intelligent as a whole, than a sample  group  of
normal people, I suppose you are comparing rawers  with the other groups of
people you meet during working hours or leisure time. These are people that
YOU have "selected" ,or that other people have selected for YOU to take care
of them (as a teacher, or as a professional...) .Chances are that these
people will be of the same or nearly the same cultural background as yours.
As for the raw fooders you came accross, the situation is totally different
:  THEY have selected YOU because of public conferences you gave  or books
that you wrote. Whether you select your interlocutor; or Whether you are
being selected by your interlocutor, a completely different  social picture
of the world is being revealed to you  .

The main characteristics of raw fooders is their radical stance. If you were
to compare a sample of raw eaters with a sample from  other radical  groups
(earth first -don't know if they are still around...) would you still be
stating that they are more mentally disturbed than teh average  radicals ?
I did a little bit of politics in radical groups, and my own impression is
that  the proportion of crazies is lower amongst instinctos and the
proportion of cranks is higher, perhaps  because cranks tend to be
considered undesirable (much more than crazies)  organisations such as
syndicates, political parties...

>When I see hostile zealots promoting raw foods while attacking everyone in
>sight, I ponder the contrast. The zealot has a 'clean' body but a poisoned
mind.
>Then I think of an old friend (now deceased) who ate meat, was poor, and in
>poor health, yet who treated others with love, kindness, and generosity. I
>ask myself what kind of world I would want to live in - a world populated by
>angry, hostile zealots with clean bodies/good physical health, or a world
>populated by people like my friend - meat eaters in poor health, but who
>treat each other with love and kindness. To me, the choice is clear: the
>latter is far superior to the former!

Unfortunately the choice is not the one you  described, and it will never
be. HOwever the choice you do have today is between living on a secluded
Pacific island with mentally and  bodily clean people (although...)living on
a traditional diet from which you are always free to take out cooked foods,
and living in Detroit's black ghetto, where after a few years of good
neighbourship, you will most probably meet "meat eaters in poor health" but
with a heart that BIG.

Cheers
Denis