>>Martha, it is good to have you back.

Martha:
>Thank you. To be honest, I don't know what to make of this.  You say
>it's good to have me back, but later in the post you reply with what
>appears to be outrage at my analogy among other things. I feel as if
>you are extending one hand for a handshake while drawing back the
>other to form a fist. My poor insignificant brain is very confused

Because I express strong dislike for some of your views does not mean I
do not like you. Howard Stern or Ronald Reagan - not to compare you to
any of them -  I like them both as persons but disapprove of most of
their opinions and actions.

Peter:
>>If it had been only a vocal few, I might have agreed but
>>unfortunately we are talking about the majority of the vegan posters
>>on this list.

Martha:
>Posters being the key word here. My guess is that the more
>peaceful,kind vegans and other vegetarians joining the list
>soon back off when they see how much of the discussion centers around
>meat, and how okay it is to use language like:

>>most vegans stick their head in the sand when it comes to taking a
>>serious look at questions like this...

It would take very little effort for peaceful vegans to understand why
I make such statements. I am after all critizicing those in their ranks
who are giving their cause such a bad name.

Martha:
>instead of taking people on.  For example, what happend to Kate (was
>that the name?), who recently introduced herself as a vegan for moral
>reasons?  I was interested to see how her involvement on the list
>would develop, but we have seen no more from her. Personally, I dont
>mind some vegans or even many vegans but most vegans is when I start
>to get tweaked. This is not meant as an attack, Peter, Im just trying
>to explain where Im coming from.

Which is why I am glad you are back so you can speak up for some of
these people and hopefully make it a safer environment for them to
post. When I started on the list the only person posting about raw meat
was Kirt and he often took a lot of heat for it. Many members of the
list were closet CAF or RAF eaters and did not feel safe speaking
openly about it, and I took it on as my mission for the list to become
a safe place for people of all raw food denominations including RAF
eaters, and it seems I have been overly successful in this regard. :-/
I have for a while been trying to get more veggie folks back on the
list but so far without much luck, and I no longer have the time to
tend to the list in this manner. However, anybody is very welcome to
make efforts in this direction.

Back to my comments about "most vegans"; those words cover exactly how
I perceive the facts though I will concede that "so many vegans" would
have been a better choice of words. What concerns me is that you or
anybody else who might feel that it was an unfair or inaccurate
description might feel uncomfortable to confront me on it. Hopefully,
this dialogue between us will help ease some of this apprehension but
you must understand that I can only stretch myself so far in this
matter. In my time as a moderator I have bent myself out of shape to
accommodate the vegans on the list who time after time have chosen to
disregard list guidelines seemingly unable to treat people with whom
they disagree with civility and respect giving me the hardest time as a
moderator. This might be unfair to new people like Kate - she might
still be on the list I do not know - but to ask me who feels like a
victim of vegan bigotry and no longer believes in the validity of the
basic tenets of veganism to continue to make special efforts for vegans
is asking a little much. To be active on a list like raw-food requires
a minimum of assertiveness anyhow and the question is if mainstream
vegans, instinctos, natural hygienists, whatever the school of thought,
will ever feel comfortable on a list where dogma of every kind is so
continuously scrutinized. Having said this I will naturally do my best
to make new vegans to the list feel comfortable.

Peter:
>>It hurts and angers me that whenever they are defended rarely is any
>>recognition expressed for the principles I have been trying to uphold
>>for the list or for the difficulty involved in taking on such a task,

Martha:
>Im sorry to have caused some of this hurt and anger, but I must say
>that you really hurt and angered me too (since we have decided to
>publicly air our emotions  :-(   ).

Fair enough.

Peter:
>>...and instead this image is created of the vegans on the list as
>>poor, innocently persecuted lambs while I am cast in the role as the
>>bad big brother moderator wolf...

Martha:
>The simple truth is that I see you as too intolerant of human
>failings. On this you and I may unfortunately always disagree.

If you by human failings mean hypocrisy and intolerance, we agree, I am
intolerant.

>  However, I don't think youre a big bad wolf, if thats any comfort.
>:-)

You mean I am just a sheep in wolves clothes.;-)

Peter:
>>...who tolerates no contradiction and whose only motive is full
>>control of the list

Martha:
>OK, I exaggerated because I was pissed off.  :-(   It only happened
>because I had asked to be let out of the discussion, but you kept
>coming back at me.

It is easy to be let out of a discussion - just do not respond.  But
you can hardly blame somebody else for having more to say on an issue.

Peter:
>>...like was I trying to run some kind of communist dictatorship.

Martha:
>Maybe more like an intellectual aristrocracy?

For an un-educated bum like myself the thought flatters. :-)

Peter:
>>...along with the fact that I have been vegan/ veggie for most of
>>my life & probably always will be at heart.

Martha:
>This is probably why it hurts that you so vocally try to distance
>yourself.

It is not clear if you mean "hurt" in the sense betrayed or threatened.

Peter:
>>All this occurred too many times - sometimes off the list as well -
>>and when you of all people, Martha, made a turn down that road, I
>>threw in the towel. However, looking back I regret you had to bear
>>the brunt of my frustration.

Martha:
>I'm not sure what you mean, me of all people.  Surely I never hid that
>I'm a vegan sympathizer?

No, but you have stood out as a very tolerant and open person.

Peter:
>>...not getting a hell of lot of credit for it or my efforts to keep
>>the standards of the list from deteriorating.

Martha:
>On the contrary, it seems you have a steady stream of people telling
>you what a wonderful job youre doing.

And though I would not call it a steady stream, I appreciate it very
much. I was expressing my frustration over the fact that those who
stand up for the vegans on raw-food never express support for the
principles that are the basis for the list.

Peter:
>>I felt you were trying to gloss over the whole issue negating all the
>>vegan insult, deceit & hypocrisy I saw going on

Martha:
>On this I will no longer argue.  I am obviously not as skilled as you
>at recognizing deceit and hypocrisy, and I bow to your greater
>perception.

Do not underestimate yourself - or are you humoring me?

Peter:
>>...I can see how the lines can get blurred and be misunderstood,

Martha:
>Yes, I often have a hard time distinguishing between Peter the
>powerful moderator and Peter the private citizen, so I'm never sure if
>your anger towards me is a threat or not.

God forbid. That would be an abuse of my position as moderator.

Peter:
>> and I apologize for any discomfort I might have caused you. With the
>>clarity of 20/20 hindsight, if I were to do it over today, I would
>>have expressed myself with a little more tact.

Martha:
>Thank you, and I apologize for the childish way I lashed back.  I had
>tried so hard up to that last post to keep my comments from getting
>personal

I appreciate your honesty & efforts.

Peter:
>>I prefer to be criticized in public and have things out in the
>>open...

Martha:
>Not me. Public criticism makes me feel humiliated and demoralized.
>And then, if nobody comes to my defense, I feel like the whole group
>dislikes me as much as the critic..

I know the feeling and have made great efforts for people not to feel
humiliated but must admit that I have at times underestimated the
problem.

>But as you see I have bent to your wishes here, and only hope I won't
>regret it.

As long as you do not contradict me we will get on just fine.:-)
Seriously though, have no fear - as the wolf said to little Red
Ridinghood.;-)

Martha:
>>>If I may come back under these considerations I would love to do so.

Peter:
>>OK, but only if you promise to behave and give a public apology for
>>your deviant, vegan sympathies. ;-)

Martha:
>I only wish I believed you were 100% kidding.  However, I note the
>smiley and will assume a friendly spirit.

Rest assured it was. :-) The "public apology" was a pun on my own
remark about running the list like were it a communist dictatorship.
The communist regimes - especially the Chinese - were infamous for
forcing their political adversaries to perform public expressions of
apology and remorse for their previous, dissident views.

Peter:
>> I can only regret that I did not make my decision to start
>>moderating lighter a little earlier....

Martha:
>I look forward with optimism to the new moderator-lite :-)

I am afraid the word might get out and the list soon crawling with
vegans. :-)

>Actually, I was asking if the taste of Celtic salt is as briny as
>un-washed dulse, because if it is, it would be a waste of my money to
>buy some.

No, it tastes just like regular salt.

Peter:
>>Comparing eating meat - not the cruelty with which many animals are
>>raised - to beating a defenseless baby is plain outrageous to me.
>This kind of righteous shaming and laying on guilt I consider a form
>of verbal violence & personal bashing that has no place in a
>respectful dialogue among equals.

Martha:
>Yes, I would agree if this were an attack as opposed to a hypothetical
>ethical question.  Luckily Tom seems to have taken it in the spirit
>intended.

Your words were clearly not an attack but the comparison to beating a
baby was nevertheless so strong I could not let it pass.

Peter:
>>Unless of course it is made clear that this is how they personally
>>have come to *feel* and/or is not the way it necessarily *is*,

Martha:
>I guess I thought this went without saying.  There is no *is* as far
>as I can tell, it's all about how one sees things.

Many vegans feel too threatened to entertain the thought that how they
feel about the killing of animals for food may not be reflecting the
true reality of the issue.

Peter:
>>It was not defending NFL as such that got them into trouble as
>>behavior- not opinions - is what is moderated on this list.

Martha:
>From where I sat it seemed like this was the beginning of the end for
>them. They were marked for deletion, so to speak.

It looked that way because NFL was the issue that brought it all to a
head. However, both Rene and Bob already had quite a record.

Peter:
>>It was their consistent pattern of evasiveness and lack of
>>willingness to back up the often most basic of their
>>statements/opinions and to avoid answering specific questions on
>>certain core issues of which NFL & veganism certainly were the most
>>common that were the reasons for them getting as much heat as they
>>did.

Martha:
>Again, I defer to your better judgment on this.

Here you go again.:-)

Peter:
>>Bob's style of refusing to back up or retract his often outrageous
>>statements - like his infamous advise to a pregnant woman on the list
>>to go on a long water fast as a remedy for her morning sickness - is
>>an example of this

Martha:
>I thought this was Doug Schwartz?  Maybe Bob did also, I dont
>remember.

No, it was Bob.

>Anyway, I sort of enjoyed the outrageous statements made by various
>former members.  They sort of added richness, showed a wide swath of
>human thought.

I agree, though it quickly can grow old and with the atmosphere of
conflict it generates make it a too threatening for some to express
themselves.

>Surely Susie is an adult woman who can think and make decisions for
>herself?

And like so many mothers she is able to make a lot of unfortunate
decisions for her baby. She seemed ready to sacrifice the health of her
baby on the alter of her diet beliefs.

>(BTW, is Susie still on the list?  She must be about ready
>to have her baby if she hasnt already.)

No, she left shortly after the controversy over Bob's statements.

>Anyway, please consider my status as neo-cortically-challenged and be
>gentle when/if responding to this opinion;-)

I hope I have succeeded.

Peter:
>>Why you would want to defend Bob Avery & Ric Lambart who with
>>their slick and slippery styles forever sidestepped the issues shying
>>accountability like a cat water I do not understand.

Martha:
>Once more, I will defer to your greater ability to spot these things.
>Whats a cat water?

Cats are known to avoid water.

Peter:
>>NFL I had more regard for in this respect as they were more likely
>>to call a spade a spade.

Martha:
>Or a retard a retard.  The cooked retard comment was quite a coup
>for you, eh?   ;-)

Guilty as charged. :-) But NFL keeps them coming. See the NFL response
below which is part of a message that just got them in trouble on
another list. I will admit to having overreacted a bit to NFL in the
past, but with statements like the one below it is difficult not to get
fired up.

Poster:
>>You three guys are rather boring. I wish the Colonel would start
>>posting again. Hey JD: come out, come out, wherever you are!!!!!!!!!

NFL:
>It's not too wise to mess with The Colonel.

This was the last line in the exchange and might be another example of
just boys being boys but to use what looks like a threat to drive home
ones points in a debate seems terribly wrong.

Peter:
>>I see the colonel as an uncensored version of Bob A. Ric L. & Rene B.

Martha:
>I am glad you said I see here instead of it is so.  And what
>*I* see is that while you have grouped these three together, they are
>three unique individuals who have shortcomings, yes, but are not evil
>monsters.

I do not believe in evil. As for their individual uniqueness you are
seeing something that has escaped me. ;-)

Martha:
>>> If the early hostility of the vegans had been handled in this way
>>>(with silence), it probably never would have escalated as it did.

Peter:
>>Silence? I moderated on Kirt several times in defense of NFL and
>>recently Denis Peyrat was as close to being suspended as anybody
>>could get.

Martha:
>OK, I concede.  I thought I saw some more cases in the archives over
>the last couple months, but my memory is fading, and I'm not
>sufficiently motivated go back looking for them.

I did not mention suspending Ward Nicholson for the Bob A. prank - not
exactly an easy decision on my part.

>In fact, I dont want to argue with
>you any more at all, Peter.  I'd like to move past this whole thing,
>but we seem to get into this thing where we both want the last word
>and this could go on forever (good thing were not married, eh?). If I
>don't reply to your next reply, will you accuse me of evasion?

Very smart. So if you are indeed being evasive you can just deny it by
referring to this statement. Just kidding ;-)

>Speaking of Denis, where has he gone?  He is one who also seemed very
>human to me and I miss his presence.

Yeah, I miss him too. He was inadvertently bumped off the list about a
six weeks ago due to problems with his server and has not gotten back
on yet. I believe he is busy working on instincto projects in France.

Martha:
>>> for many vegans this would be a valid analogy.

Peter:
>>I am sure every theory seems valid to its supporters. The question is
>>how far can they defend & justify their theories before they have
>>gone too far? If the existance of such limits is not recognized - I
>>doubt that NFL feel that the colonel went too far with his recent
>>post - then what we have is a philosophy that justifies its means by
>>its own ends only.

Martha:
>I'm trying to understand the last sentence but am unable to. Could
>you rephrase?

It is like when extremist in the pro-life movement harass or even kill
doctors working at clinics that perform abortions. Their cause
justifies their means.

Peter:
>>So the question is if NFL-type vegans have not gone too far who
>>has? Only people openly loony like the colonel?  Because most vegans
>>stick their head in the sand when it comes to taking a serious look
>>at questions like this, it does not make them magically go away or
>>make them less relevant. On the contrary when ignored they take on a
>>life of t
heir own, ...

>Martha I'm still lost.    :-(

Everybody agrees that the colonel is mad as a hatter. My question is
whether there are any displays of bigotry less severe than his that are
unacceptable as well and if so what are they?

>Lets say that:
>a)  Killing humans is morally wrong except in self- or other-defense,
>and
>b)  Human life is not more sacred than animal life.
>Now, you may disagree with a and/or b, and then fine.  But IF you
accept a
>and b then you also have to accept:
>c)  Killing animals  is morally wrong except for self- or
other-defense.
>?Nest-ce pas?
>If my logic is flawed, I'm open to hearing why.

Nothing wrong with your logic. But if eating animals is part of our
natural diet that would constitute self-preservation = survival =
self-defense. Even if our species could survive without eating meat,
which I doubt, if avoiding it means disease and/or a less than an
optimal level of health, then eating it would constitute self-defense
in my book.

>So, Im not offended if they think I'm doing wrong, because I can
>understand where they're coming from.  Now, my own tendency toward
>vegetarian living has more to do with that fact that I FEEL SORRY FOR
>the animals, not some abstract idea of morality.

I think I covered this in my response to Bo7b.

>I also feel that veganism can never really be complete, because of
>the dependence on agriculture. This not only deprives wild animals of
>their habitat, causing death, but one way or another insects and other
>crop-destroyers must be eliminated.  Even if you do it naturally by
>bringing in predators, you are still causing the death of these
>animals.  Neverthess, I do admire those who strive to keep the killing
>to a minimum.

On this we agree. The challenge is finding out where that is. I for one
would be thrilled if it turned out that the high, animal food Paleo
diet is a therapeutic diet that after a while in most cases could be
modified to a more plant-based maintenance diet.

Peter:
>>Were the American Indians cruel for killing & eating the buffalo or
>>the Eskimos for catching & eating fish? I think not.

>OK, you think not and thats fine.  Cruel is a relative term and
>cruelty (IMHO) is very much in the eyes of the beholder.

Not to the animal who could care less about the beliefs or ethics of
its human predator.

Peter:
>>Besides this line of argumentation is not very constructive as it
>>puts the meat-eater on the defensive from the get-go.

Martha:
>I agree, and I would never say anything of the kind to a meat-eater.
>What good would it do?  I know very well that vegans are not the only
>ones who can become hostile if their values are challenged.

True, but on this list they have sure taken the prize.;-)

Peter:
>>If going vegan is supposed to make one a more compassonate &
>>peaceful human being bringing up metaphors of babies being beating is
>>sure an odd way of showing it.

Martha:
>I don't think I ever said going vegan makes one more compassionate or
>peaceful, though I have heard this theory.

I stand corrected.

>I'd say if anything it the other way around.

If this is true - which I suspect - it is a strong argument against
veganism.

>Why is posing a hypothetical ethical question a sign of non-compassion
>or non-peacefulness?

No argument here. I was trying to point out the irony that a message of
supposed compassion like the vegan is so often promoted with so much
intolerance & prejudice.

>I appreciate the sensitivity with which this was written.  It
>would seem to contradict mainstream psychology which claims that the
>abused is more likely to become the abuser.  Any thoughts on that?

Most children who are victims of sexual abuse will as adults either act
out the trauma and become promiscuous or act it in and become asexual.
How we cope with trauma depends on many factors but I think the most
important ones are the nature and severity of traumas previous to the
abuse such as those in the womb and at birth. Among Vietnam vets who
were exposed to the same level of combat those with severe childhood
trauma were eight times more likely to develop PTSD - Post Traumatic
Stress Syndrome - than those with more harmonious backgrounds. This
clearly shows how trauma is interpreted by the expectations & memories
from previous traumatic experiences. A friend of mine was nervous wreck
during the LA riots whereas I was cool as a cucumber because the riots
did not resonate with anything inside of me. A few weeks later this
friend and I were held up at gun point in a restaurant. Now, I was
sweating bullits while it was water off a ducks back to him - in fact
he was so unfazed by the whole incident that he lied to the robber
about not having any money on him.

>BTW, I *assume* you're not saying that anyone who believes that
>'animals suffer when killed' are poor creatures to be pitied but not
>taken seriously.  ;-)

No, of course not.

Martha, I appreciate haven gotten this opportunity to express myself
more clearly on these matters.  I am glad we are no longer at each
others throats as I truly enjoy these dialogues with you even though
they can be a little exhausting. And again, welcome back to the list.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]