Kirt:
>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?).

Tom:
My experience is that it is impossible to have a real dialogue with zealot(s),
as they are ultimately immune to the truth. One can burn out from arguing
with zealots, as zealots are so negative/depressing.

Kirt:
>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.

Tom:
The potential consequences you mention - people being harmed by bogus,
dicredited nutritional advice (i.e., fruitarianism) is exactly the sort of
thing than could happen. That is precisely why so many of us strongly object
to the NFL approach. I was damaged by fruitarianism, and I don't want to
see others led down that phony path.

Kirt:
>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...

Tom:
The term "lunch righteousness", used by Zephyr, comes to mind here.

Kirt:
>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.

Tom:
Agreed. Promoting dangerous diets in a hostile manner does not make the
world a better place.

Kirt:
>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,

Tom:
Seeing a bogus, terrible book like the NFL one has two effects on me. In
one way, it stimulates me to work on my planned books, one of which will
debunk fruitarianism and many other raw food practices. On the other hand,
it discourages me because I see that some (not many, but some) raw fooders
are on the same negative wavelength as the NFL book, and it makes me think
that some raw fooders are completely hopeless/beyond reason.

Kirt:
>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.

Tom:
An apt comparison. Personal profit before people's long term health.

Kirt:
>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.

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.

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!

I hope this winds up the discussion of a negative topic.

Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]