Ric:
>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.

The jury is _in_ about NFL and TC Fry. They have been thoroughly debunked
on this list and elsewhere. The long time editors of the best NH
publications (the former NH M2M and Health & Beyond) both consider
fruitarian diets to be shams from the years of feedback they have received.
Most of the mainstream NHers are on record against "too much fruit".
And...For you to support NFL by arguing that TC was a charleton!? Wow,
respectfully, you seem to be having some difficulties in elementary logic
yourself.

>But his work, while damaging
>many a pocketbook, did a whole lot of good by simply spreading the rawist
>message far and wide.

Are you deaf, Ric? His "work" did a whole lot of DAMAGE--the same kind that
NFL is doing.

>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).

No comment...

>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, too, thought they were better in person than their book would indicate,
and this served to lower my opinion of their "work" (Nature's First Law)
even further. Then they spewed forth on this list stuff similar to that
found in their book until I stopped wasting my time trying to "share" with
them. Clearly they have learned nothing from the responses from us here.
They continue with their stunted reasoning, silly sound bites, and
prostelytisng manner (is that better than saying condescending,
pretenscious, and rude?).

>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.

Again: that's some heavy duty logic. The book has inaccuracies, so because
it is their book we should support them regardless. Man, I hope someone
down the line sues them big time for their "nutritional advice". I can
easily imagine some toothless, mineral and fat and protien deficient
fruitarian holding them a serious grudge for advising/browbeating them into
such trouble--a situation all too common among those who fell for TC's line
of garbage.

>We've got the same
>cause; to get out the truth about the power in rawism.

There is no Truth in the Power of rawism. There is no Crusade. There is no
Cause. You seem to be aligning yourself with NFL much more than you are
sitting on a "shaky fence". So be it, but you are hardly doing anything
more than proving the points that are often made about zealotry and
rightousness which are often made by many on this list...

>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.

We're debating a whole lot more than efficacy.

>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?

That's been answered several times already in responses to you. Perhaps if
you ask it a few more times everybody will give up, or you will.

>>>>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!

Huh?!? You just said, "Our three musketeers are sure far closer to being on
track than most anything I've read anywhere...in my book, anyway." And it
was that that I was refering to, though you've said very similar things
before many times. Trying to have a reasonable discussion about the issue
with you becomes difficult, to say the least.

>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.

Yes, it needs to get beyond such a shallow vision as you hold. The world is
not a better place because of NFL's marketing efforts: it is far worse.
"Helping these guys to do the best they can" is a bit like...I'll hold my
tongue.

>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?

When someone browbeats folks into behavior which is harmful
(fruitarianism), even if it is the best they know, why should anyone do
anything other than point out the harmfulness of the browbeating and the
behavior promoted? Because they are tittilated by catchphrases such as Raw
is Law, and Cooked Food is Poison, etc? Because they see things in terms of
paranoid battles between the raw and the cooked, or between the RAF eater
and the banana-eater? Because...well, you tell me, Ric.

>>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.

Put it however you want. It is interesting to try to follow your
rationalizations. Trenches? Microcosmic? Stinking difference? Perhaps you
think no one notices that in your "clarification" you don't respond to the
content of the issues brought forth.

>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.

The book is their basic acheivement/effort. It is what they refer to in
their other prostelysations.

>>>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.

Righto, Ric. And I'm not the only one. And responses like yours feigning
confusion no matter how many ways I share my views, no matter how many
others share their views, such responses are very limited. I have admitted
my bafflement at how more people are not up in arms over the NFL book.
Actually, I have found that very few people have read it (which is good
news since then fewer books are sold), but once they do, yikes, they see
what all the fuss is about. Still, folks here can see NFL's posting
behavior--including forwards of chapters verbatim from their book which
were debunked on this list--and see for themselves that NFL is absurd.
Others, like yourself, think NFL is neato and think its cool that they
ruffle feathers, and, horror of horrors, call a spade a spade! You might be
mentoring NFL, but instead you're giving them new sound bites!

How does it go in your mind? Oh, he is just sour grapes, suffering from
jealousy fueled by unnatural RAF? Perhaps there is something to learn from
the notion that several long-time rawists (RAFers and not) find NFL
dangerous and ugly. Do you think Tom and axel and others should be thankful
about their dental problems, about the myriad ways their health has been
squandered, after being sucked in to the obtuse arguments of TC, Ehret,
and, now, worst of all, NFL?

>Guess I was throwing glowing cig butts into a pool of petrol here.

Perhaps, on the other hand, you are throwing butts into the overflowing NFL
ashtray.

>>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.

How so, mein fruend? Perhaps you are speaking of our writing project, eh?
Our ms, which is still being "peer reviewed" has already been rejected by a
half dozen publishers (and an earlier version was rejected by a couple
dozen). It seems increasingly likely that it will not be published.
Self-publishing seems a bit much at this point, but if, down the line, we
do so, I can't imagine how you could think I post here to increase sales of
a book aimed at a general audience. Indeed, I suspect I have alienated
raw-vegans, which probably comprise the vast majority of rawists in the USA.

FWIW, Melisa and I have been so thoroughly disgusted by NFL's "marketing
efforts" that we are re-considering _any_ efforts of our own. At one time,
we fancifully imagined about making a buck two eighty with the project (and
say so in the first few pages!) but are coming to realize that that was
pretty unrealistic. The irony is thick: NFL claims to be writing to save
humanity, and ends up doing infomercials to line their coffers, and we,
claiming we write on the possibility of making a profit, will end up
avoiding talk shows, "learning annex workshops", expos, etc. Hell, we are
considering doing some free videos on "RAFfing in the suburbs" as a spoof
of the assinine contentless videos pumped out by all the
get-rich-in-seveteen-zealotrous-steps folks of which NFL seems to be a
prime example of.

>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.

Yeah, yeah, the integrity-filled David Wolfe et al fighting the Goliath of
modern cooked Western civilization. Wow. Groovy.

I don't have see any evil in making money either, but I do draw the line
when it is at the expense of folk's health. I would put NFL in the same
league as the pharmacuetical companies: their message/product is more or
less injurious to human health. Except NFL is even noisier about it.

>>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 so much appreciate your concern for my stress levels.

>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.

You keep saying that. I'm starting to believe you. :(

>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.

Jeez, you really call em the way you see em too, just like NFL! Cool. Way cool.

>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.

Big wow, Ric. I met them at an expo. I gave em some exotic fruit. I
listened to them badger walkers-by about the evils of meat. I had many
exchanges with them on the list. I mailed them some of the "problems with
fruitarianism" info. I got called names by them. I called them ignorant and
other adjectives. I typed in hundreds of their words from their horrible
radio "performance" today. I "know" them better than you do (esp. if you
refuse to look at their track record on this list and haven't finished
their book).

I have talked to other folks who did attend the NFL birthday party and had
very different impressions than you had. Don't get all puffy and dismiss us
because we didn't go to NFL birthday party. I don't go to the party's of
some of my friends, why would I want to support NFL by showing up at
theirs? To meet more rightious vegans? Sorry, Ric, I've met enough
rightious vegans to last a lifetime or two.

If there were 100 rawists in one room and 100 "normal" people in another,
it seems clear that I would find more intelligence and kindness in the
normal room. I don't say this vengefully: it has been an obvious, but sad
and long-time-in-coming lesson for me since returning to the states. IMHO,
the raw food community is in a sorry state.

>>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?

It's hypocritical. Out of one side of their mouth they say they don't
believe in transition diets, eating anything with eyes, etc and out of the
other side beg for call-in support during their Weisbach show (via a post
on the other list) saying that they want all rawists to come together,
including the "instinktos", because they are trying to get the world off
cooked foods, and that they don't care if they offend to do it, that TV is
bad, and then brag about being on Oprah and make infomercials. I have never
heard the words, "I used to mistakenly believe..." come from their lips.
Instead I hear the same junk in their Weissbach performance that is in the
book. They seem incapable of learning anything--a situation which will
likely get worse as they become more malnourished.

>>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.

Oh, come off it, Ric: do you really consider yourself Daddy to all the
squabbling young and less fortunate rawists in your midst? If so, you can
stop wasting your time trying to show me that NFL are the good guys. Does
not the warfare and bigotry promted in NFL the book bother you? You seem to
get a real hoot out of war with the "bad guys" (every institution besides
the "raw foods community"), but remain oblivious too it from NFL. You seem
to have a "boys with be boys" and "love that it ruffles feathers" attitude
about the whole bit!

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

>Kirt, what's "IMO" mean?

In My Opinion. (see also IMHO: In My Humble Opinion)

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

>Don't envy that roller coaster sensation. :)

Grow up, Ric.

>>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.

I look forward to it.

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

Preach somewhere else, Ric. RAFers are sick of it, and I am tending to bite
back these days from the pew.

>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).

Well, there's proof, eh? Ric ate some non-dairy RAF once and immediately
became as imbued with rollar-coaster metality as that RAF fellow who finds
NFL so offensive. I am really getting sick of the proclaimations of vegan
experts on RAF and it's effects. Most vegans haven't eaten much, if any,
RAF and simply do not know what they are talking about. But, I forget,
vegans are so much better than everyone else that it shouldn't make any
difference whether they know what they are talking about or not.

>:)))

:)))), care to go for :)))))?

>Hope this winds up this topic...am worn out.

Definitely winds it up (though I will let your future "rebuttal" stand
without comment so that you can get in the last word and have a chuckle
around the table with NFL about that nasty RAFfer on the Raw-foods list).
You successfully put every nail in the coffin of anyone's dismay about NFL.
Thanks so much for swooping down from your busy schedule to set us
straight. You have been setting up your "exit" from this list for weeks now
(all the while ignoring the Raw is Law exchange by unkept promises to
respond...hmmm). I will be sorry to see you go. You served as the only
vegan prostelytiser left posting on this list, and the most reasonable I've
ever encountered, but, I suspect, those veganism seams are getting strained
and you must back off before they burst.

Does it ever occur to you during this soap opera that NFL (along with your
own vegan pretensciousness) specialises in devisiveness, not the majority
of posters on this list? Probably not.

Cheers,
Kirt