At 07:43 AM 3/1/97 -0800, Tom Billings wrote:
>Let me add a few comments to my previous post, which was written late at
night when I was tired and sleepy:

>Ric:
>>But, in both cases, after the dust settled, the authors made a lot of
>>money....AND TURNED LOTS OF PEOPLE ON TO THE IMPORTANCE OF SOUND
>>"NATURAL" NUTRITION in their lives.  To me, it was a win-win deal.

>Tom:
>And if it leads these people to dental damage, eating disorders, hostile
>zealotry (the direction that NFL appears to be going in)- it is a lose-lose
>situation. I neglected to mention that after leaving fruitarianism, I went
back to cooked (veg) foods for 2-3 years, before returning to raw (NH style
instead  of fruitarianism). I returned to raw; many others might not.

Ric:
Hey, Tom, if their advocacy realistically leads to this result, then I am
hardly in the happy camper grounds.  But, still believe in the thesis of
individual responsibility for our own lives, which is much why I'm such a
ranting Libertarian.  In other words, I'm nobody's censor, and am
vehemently opposed to the very concept that leads to advocacies such as
book banning and burning...or censorial editing.

If someone gets their interests perked up in moving towards more natural
eating as a direct consequence of what the NFL crew are putting out, then I
am happy.  Period.

As was your own experience, some of the material I read early one in my own
quest was hardly legitimate, but never treated it as gospel anyway,
continuing my own quest for all these years.  Since I am still learning new
things as time rolls quickly by, I must presume that the unwashed masses
who might encounter the NFL message also own some intelligence; enough that
they, too, can learn to discriminate and evolve in their own search for a
better way.

To me, the fat lady has yet to sing over all this, so I'm looking closely
to see that I don't fall into any hypocritical practices myself...and that
preoccupation alone is enough to keep me out of too much undue mischief.

I reiterate:  Whether I think their message is one with which I agree fully
or not is actually irrelevant, since I am not my brother and sister's
keeper...and don't think I or anyone else should be, for that matter.  What
I do recognize, is three fellows who are caught up in their very early
years (a great credit to them, in my book, not awakening to
food/nutritional/health issues till mid-life, myself) in a clearly stated
mission to help their fellow human beings get better in tune with mother
nature's law.  To me their goal could hardly be more noble.

There sort of great enthusiasm is contagious, it is far more good than not,
in my own humble opinion, and I just wouldn't want to send them any
negative energy, since they'll need all the help they can get.  Every one
of them is obviously way above average in intelligence, and. I still
believe, well intended.  While I think some of their claims include are a
bit too much hyperbole, and many of their claims are clearly not documented
as facts, this is, in my book, nevertheless so obvious, to any half way
intelligent reader, that I can't imagine any serious damage coming from
someone reading their work even if they should make some unrealistic or
improper claims or statements.

If someone reads their book, gets excited enough to start reading more,
then they'll surely encounter many other theses and approaches once they go
one from NFL, anyway.

You hold to your beliefs very strongly, Tom, and that's fine with me, since
it's apparently serving your personal interests quite well.  If you were
damaged by too much fruit, and this is a provable fact, then I would be as
much for your spreading that kind of information out in your own book, as I
am presently in support of the three musketeers' book telling it the way
they see it.

Again, since I wasn't engaged in the NFL hostilities episode (thank God!)
to which you and Doug have oft referred on this list, I am simply out of
that loop of experience.  Thank goodness.

If the NFL crew are into literally using some arm of government to force
anyone to go along with their beliefs about nutrition....even if I agree
with those beliefs myself...I will remain steadfastly opposed to their
success in any such endeavor.  I want my own freedom, cherish it dearly,
and will get rankled quickly by anyone who I perceive to be a threat to
that kind of most fundamental personal liberty.  I'm not a drug user, never
have had the inclination, think drugs and even some herbs do horrific human
damage, but am not only not a prohibitionist, I advocate "legalizing" the
garbage.  I see it, that, if people want to be stupid, then they should be
free to commit hari-kari...as long as their action doesn't damage or
impinge on another's rights nor freedoms.

This is, to me, what's wrong with our mega government today, anyway.  Too
much power, too much influence over our lives as it is...and too much
corruption all around.  Period.

So, I stand for these three honest fellows for the above reasons.  Doesn't
mean I think you're necessarily wrong in your own beliefs about the dangers
in fruitarianism, cause I'm still out to lunch on that one, but I do
strongly wish we'd drop this internecine warfare, bury the hatchets, and
approach one another from a loving place...one where we want to genuinely
help others do their best.

If the three authors somehow got offended by the arguments in this forum
earlier, if they got too defensive (it can happen, I understand, to human
types), then they may have translated some of their feelings into
anger...and snapped back in a way otherwise out of context with their more
peaceful and normal manner.  If so, then why not be the big guy in all this
and extend your hand in peace?  Haven't we all erred at one point in our
lives by speaking out when we were too ticked off about something?  I'm
only speculating, of course, but get the feeling from all these angry posts
that this may well have been an element in all this brouhaha.
>
>Tom/Supplement:
>A more complete version of the first sentence would say:
>And if it leads to dental damage, sugar addiction, nervous system damage from
>vitamin B-12 deficiency, other deficiencies (zinc, calcium, vit. D),
impaired/
>weakened digestion, physical weakness in children, eating disorders and
>related behavior, ordinary lunacy, or hostile zealotry/egoism (the direction
>NFL is going in) - then it is a lose-lose situation. [The effects listed are
>known side-effects of fruitarianism.]

They are surely well rumored "side-effects", and things I have thought I
witnessed myself,  back in the sixties and early seventies, while visiting
some S. Calif. communes in their fruit orchard habitats...but, while
"known", am not sure they're truly proven scientific facts.  There could
well enough have been other factors in the total mileau.

The SAD diet ruins teeth, too, right?  If the teeth rot and drop out it
probably means the body chemistry (thank you Dr. Melvin Page) is badly
askew, but whether the fruit did the main damage or not...I just don't know
for a FACT this is so.  The Hawaiian natives had teethless grins from
pineapple, I think we all accept, but there were many other polynesians
living on OTHER less acidic fruits in the Pacific basin that have beautiful
teeth...so, what's the full word?  Some of these exemplary choppers, you'll
recall, sans color, are shown in the classic work by Dr. Price, "Disease
and Physical Degeneration."
>
>Ric, your argument seems to be that the ends (popularizing raw foods)
justifies
>the means (hostility and total dishonesty). That is a bogus argument.

If I've somehow conveyed the idea that any end justifies the means, then I
was mistaken, because I just don't support that sick philosophy...and never
have.  But, "popularizing raw foods" IS a very legitimate goal, in my
book...and because I don't agree with every single advocacy of the NFL
group is no cause for me to turn against them.  Geez.

> Hatred,
>fear, dishonesty will not bring about long-lasting positive change.

We agree fully on this statement of yours.  So far I have no reason, aside
from your word, (which is technically and morally nothing but hearsay
evidence for me), to believe that these fellows are either haters,
dishonest, or improper fear mongers.  To fear fire may be a life saving
instinct, but to fear the unknown may or may not be.  Fear can be both
healthy as well as unhealthy...it depends, I think you'll agree, on the
particular circumstances involved.

You "fear" the success of their book, I do not.  So, to me the issue
centers on whether these fellows are hate mongers or dishonest, nothing
more.  I don't think, as I've said many times here, that they are the hate
mongering type, and surely see nothing to prove they are basically
dishonest.  On the contrary.

>see a few people brought into the raw-food fold by NFL staying with it, but
>they will almost surely *not* be fruitarians, and because they have
experienced
>the dishonesty and negativity of NFL first hand, they will be very severe
>critics of NFL. NFL is sowing the seeds of their own destruction, by
taking a
>hostile, negative, and completely dishonest approach.

Hey, Tom, if you really believe this to be true, then why worry...since
they're "sowing the seeds of their own destruction...."?

>Again, look at the
>archives and see for yourself that what the critics say about NFL is true!

I'll go back and look things up, but right now I literally have several
hundred other messages asking for my attention, so it will be a while.

Thanks again for your sincere arguments, and I just wish we could see more
peace and harmony here...if Stephen and crew aren't into making a motion
for peace, then maybe you could take the initiative with them.  I think we
are all interested in the same objective, namely:

To discover the truth, WHATEVER IT MAY BE; and to getting it circulated as
widely and rapidly as possible. It's all about a noble mission to
re-educate the populace.  While our m.o.s will vary, and even the messages
themselves, depending on our individual takes, believe me, I really think
we have way too many "enemies" out there with hard pressing motives to kill
our "movement."

So, why not band TOGETHER and do some harmonizing, since the REAL
opposition is far greater in size and power than all of us put together?

Best,

Ric