NFL:
>To: Peter, the "anonymous" book reviewer,

You flatter me, but I am sorry to say I am not the author.  For you
even to think such a thought makes me wonder who might be writing
yours?

>and all who wish to censor Nature's First Law:

Spare me your crocodile tears about censorship. That is like hearing a
thief complain about how rare honest people are to come by these days.
Both you and your book are so without content "The National Inquirer"
should get the "Pulitzer Price" in comparison.:-/ What I do want to
censor is your attitude, which has no place on this list.  If you
refuse to censor yourselves, I will have to do it for you.

>So, we're Raw-Nazis now?  You're beginning to sound like Rush
>Limbaugh.

You & Rush have a lot in common.  He has made a career out of
humiliating and ridiculing people, who hold different views than
himself, and you seem quite content in emulating him.

>Peter wrote:

>>Taa's identify has been revealed to me, but taa wishes to remain
>>anonymous which I will respect.

>First, posting private e-mails and now this.

No reason to get paranoid. I made an honest mistake which I have
apologized for both in private and in public.

>What a hypocrite you are Peter.  Some people are allowed to post
>anonymously and some are not?

There are exceptions to all rules. I had the choice of posting the
comment anonymously or not posting it at all.  I felt the content was
too important not to post and made my decision based on that. Now, if
you would surprise me with the same, I might just make an exception
with you too....

>..only one name will be accepted for each post.
>Good thing you weren't around for the signing of the Declaration of
>Independence.

Funny to hear that coming from you guys who are so intent on
disregarding all rules of common decency and just ruthlessly trying to
further your own cause. (which you are doing such a terrible job at
that it makes me wonder whether maybe you guys are hired by TCFL (The
Cooked Food Lobby) to create such a public outrage over raw foods that
the door will be opened for legislation to ban them completely. :-/)

>Here is a question for you. What is worse?
>1) Three people writing a response to a post and signing all three
>names, making each fully accountable for the statement.
>(All three of us write each and every e-mail before we post it.
>Wouldn't you rather have all three of us be known as jerks instead of
>one jerk and two unknowns?

There is much less chance of you being jerks, if you are each held
responsible for your own posts. Having said that, jerks in any shape or
form have no doing on this list.

>We have never tried to hide anything.

That is all you are doing.  You are three very insecure young men who
are hiding behind one another and your simplistic crusade against the
"evil" of cooked foods.

>We have a saying in our book that goes, "When true geniuses emerge, it
>is easy to spot them. All the idiots form an alliance against them."
>WOW! How fitting in this case!)

What is so genius about regurgitating the writings of another man?
(T.C.Fry)  Besides, you are mistaken. I am the genius and you are the
fools who are conspiring against me :-/


>2) Writing an anonymous book review (because you're too much of a
>coward to give your real name, as if we didn't know who you are
>anyway) laced with ridiculously false and slanderous accusations
>(Nazi-crap, "raw-foods hate-group," etc.).

As I said, I had no choice if I wanted to post it. And seeing your
reactions I cannot blame the author for wanting to remain anonymous.
I do not see how you can find the review slanderous & full of
accusations, as it very much stuck to commenting on direct quotes from
your book. Why not for a change try responding to some of the content
of the criticism that is coming your way instead of whining of how
unfairly you are being treated - if you cannot take it do not dish it
out! Besides, you know very well that your style provokes a lot of
people.  More than that, I think it is a calculated marketing ploy on
your side to get a lot of attention, so you can sell more books and
spread your message faster. Well, you have the full attention of this
group, and yet you claim the right to ignore most of the questions
addressed to you and to reply to those few you do respond to with
insult and spite? - I would not want to know how you interact with
people who eat your dreaded, cooked foods, and I am beginning to wonder
whether not your intent is just to outrage for the shock effect only,
and that maybe you are sitting back home just now with a burger & coke
in your hand cracking up over all the stir you have created. :-/

>Ask any of the people we listed on an earlier post when we were
>"name-dropping" if they think we are Nazis.

Instead of name dropping why not get some of these alleged supporters
to speak up for you?  Their silence is speaking louder than words.
Ask Charles Manson to contact me, and I will print word for word what
he has to say. :-/ For the anonymous author I cannot speak.  As for
myself, I do not know you well enough to know if you are nazis, but the
way you so consistently play to the lowest common denominator and so
arrogantly demonstrate that the goal justifies the means, you are
playing ever so close to the fire.

>Take one group of kids living in any of your polluted cities and feed
>them McDonalds, Burger King, etc. - The kids will inevitably become
>less and less of their true essence and some generations later, birth
>defects, mental retardation, inability to reproduce, and deformities
>are commonplace.  Just look at what is happening in Russia.  That is
>dysgenics or de-evolution.

Eating junk foods is only one of many problems facing these kids.

>Take another group of kids and feed them exclusively raw plants foods
>and allow them to live naturally. - That is eugenics.  Raw-foodism is
>the bridge to higher humanity.  We were quite clear on this in the
>book.

I think that a raw, plant food diet would surely improve the quality of
their lives. But eating cooked foods is NOT the only reason for all the
problems we are having in our world today, and to think so is not only
stupid but very dangerous as it opens the door to bigotry; and bigotry
is bigotry no matter if the target is people who eat cooked foods,
gays, gypsies, Jews etc. Page 94 in your book: "It is cooked-food
addiction that breeds all the dysgenic wars and massacres in the world.
It is cooked-food addiction that brings into existence monsters like
Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt, who, filled with the fury of greed
and ambition, dare to destroy whole nations by carpet-bombing beautiful
cities filled with innocent wo/men and children." I could not help but
notice that Hitler was left out. Is there a reason for this?

>You say this is a "discredited science?"  Sounds more like common
>sense.

So, I take this to mean that you do not distance yourselves from the
nazis eugenics program?  For those who do not know what eugenics means
here is a little help from my dictionary:" eugenics, science dealing
with improvement of hereditary factors through social control of
reproduction."

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]