Hi Rick!

>>Yeah, NFL will soon be a household word, eh? I suspect we all hear what we
>>want to, you know? Today, I heard Mr. Weissbach level quite similar charges
>>to those presented here--they (NFL) are more interested in marketing than
>>accuracy; that many of their "arguments" are rude, condescending, and
>>pretenscious; that they absurdly consider cooked food as the cause of all
>>of humanity's problems, etc etc etc etc.
>>First of all, I listened to and recorded David's entire airing with
>>Weissbach...somehow my tape and memory don't have that particular remark by
>>Peter about the NFL crew.  When did he make it?

I have a tape of it as well. Want to match quotes? You listen to it and you
will see what I'm refering to. I wouldn't bother except that your "spin" is
so slanted that it doesn't seem proper to let it stand alone...

>And, Kirt, have you read their entire book?  I haven't finished it yet .

Cover to cover. The thing is: I could rarely finish a particular paragraph.
But I always gave the next paragraph a go.

>>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... 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).

>I don't know what this
>tempest in a tea pot is all about.

Have you read _any_ of the book? Perhaps you should finish it before you
sing its praises.

>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.

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.
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.

>>And hearing
>>them use your "30 years raw" (I assume it is you they are refering to--they
>>never detail anything--are you a "salesman"?) as their support for their
>>high-fruit diet borders on simple fraud--especially as you are aware of the
>>frequent problems encountered on the diet they prostelytise, consumed great
>>anounts of RAF for many years, consider that you used to be addicted to
>>avos (NFL bragged about 8 or 9 avos/day), etc.
>
>Sorry, Kirt, you missed a mile.

I'm glad to hear that! (though I admit that, given NFL's lack of credulity,
I gotta wonder if they just rounded your 21 years to 30 ;))

>Although I've been a salesman (proud of
>it) in my checkered past (way past), I'm no longer one...and I had to pay
>full price for their book from a friend who does sell it.  So, it's not me
>they referred to.

I meant no disrespect to the profession of sales. It was all I understood
of their example, that the 30-year raw person was "one of the most
successful salesmen" bla bla bla...

>Especially since my tenure with the raw law groupies has
>only been for 21 years.  Believe the fellow, who they've described by name,

On the radio? I sure don't remember such. I guess the tape will tell, eh?

>lives in east San Diego.  Maybe in Jamul?  Ask Stephen, and am sure you'll
>get a name.

I get names from Stephen. But for some reason they are nasty names.

>>IMHO, NFL has more or less "Oprah-ised" the "raw foods message"--thus
>>assuring that it appears as a fad/gimmick instead of anything less than the
>>lunatic fringe.
>
>All this holier than thouism I'm getting on this list about the authors
>makes me wonder about where some of the critics are coming from.  (Of
>course, Kirt, I don't have you in mind) Reminds me almost exactly of the
>furor in the ranks of the ANHS when Harvey and Marilyn Diamond first came
>out with "Fit for Life."  "Compromise," was the battle cry.  They've
>bastardized our purist philosophy!  They've even included animal products
>and cooking!  These two were thoroughly castigated and denigrated by the
>NHS mainliners.  Much later they were given, thank God, official
>recognition for their popularization of the concepts of NH.  I remember
>some of the same early critics wanting to press forward to the podium to
>get their autographs!  Life is interesting, isn't it?

Fame has it's folly and little else it seems. Your example is striking in
its reversal. For the situation to be analogous to the Diamonds "vs" ANHS,
NFL would have to be a popularisation of some supposedly "purer" form of
rawism. NFL would also have to be popular. I know of no review in any
popular press, and have never seen a favorable review elsewhere. NFL is
hardly as source of merit regarding the popularity of their books
(According to them the have converted hundreds and hundreds of people, why
_they_ hold raw potlucks and rally all their growing legion of supporters
in the Crusade! Rah rah rah!!!) The critics of NFL find it arrogant,
condescending, and dogmatic to the point of absurdity. Indeed, NFL the book
is even more crackpot writing than Erhet or TC Fry on a bad hair day. What
exactly is NFL a "popularization" of? The principles of bigotry and
fundamentalism? Or perhaps the holier than thouism (which, of course, Ric,
I don't mean you)?

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. ;)

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...

>I stood up for the Diamonds in those early days, too...for the same
>reasons.  Unlike Stephen, Faud and David, who I didn't even know before the
>book was released, Harvey and Marilyn were good personal friends. Even
>though their advocacy didn't match my own (or theirs, for that matter!), it
>did seem logical to me that it had a very broad potential  _market_ appeal.
> Strangely enough, my hunch was right.  The ranks of the ANHS literally
>burgeoned within months of the book's release.  Just about nobody in John
>Q. Public had ever heard of this odd ball group (Natural Hygienists) before
>Fit for Life hit the stands.

And NFL is like FFL? I don't get the connection. I still consider both of
the Diamond's FFL books the best available on NH, and "A New Way of Eating"
(Marilyn's transition recipe book) the best of it's kind. Granted FFL has
some of the arrogance and combativeness (certainly in it's vegan posturing)
which so irks me about NFL, but compared to the rest of the NH stuff it is
a breath of fresh air.

>Notwithstanding their compromising of NH principles for their own financial
>and ego aggrandizement, they did one heck of an important job.

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

>They helped
>wake the sleeping public sector up to some of the reality we've been
>privileged to witness.  Anything that serves to do this, is, in my book
>(providing it is done from a sincere motivation), something worthy of
>constructive support.  Those two authors did, in fact, compromise many of
>their own principles and beliefs in caving to Warner Publishing's editorial
>demands, but Warner was right...if they hadn't swallowed their exacting
>beliefs, if they'd refused to tone down their severer message about
>foodstuff, then the book just wouldn't have done what it did.

>>Perhaps they will make a buck at it. But if they say one
>>more time about how it is their _instinct_ which tells them to eat sweet
>>fruit to the exclusion of "anything with eyes", I may be inspired to buy
>>them a Red Rider BB Gun for April Fool's Day. ;)
>
>Hey, good buddy, your wink notwithstanding, I hope they do make some bucks
>on it.  If they make some dinero, then it will mean the book's selling
>well.

That is the whole point isn't it? Get the message out there, even if it is
abusive.

>And, again, as for their instinct to gorge certain fruit foods, I
>believe them.  I had the same "instincts" myself...I became a sweet fruit
>and avo junkie because I followed those "instincts."  I think the avos did
>me some damage, and not sure the overly sweet hybrid organic fruit didn't
>do some, as well.  But that's just my own personal experience.  They're all
>younger than I was when I cleaned up my eating act.  I definitely also
>suspect that I was in much worse physical condition than they were when
>they first found and heeded Nature's first law.  At their ages I would
>guess that they're possibly far more resilient than I wasn't, too.

So what's the implication here? That if you start young enough, you can be
a fruitarian. That you could have been a contender yourself, but for your
checkered past? You must really want to believe this badly. Perhaps this
accounts for your willingness to believe that Roe Gallo has eaten only
fruit for 22 years.

>You're not really in that much pain over all this, are ya?

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

>You know my
>position on the "instinct" issue:  It's my personal opinion that following
>our occluded and distortedly toxic "instincts" is not being as rational as
>would at least make me comfortable.

You are welcome to your position (and, ironically, mine is not far from
yours) but don't think that overeating fruit and avos is all there is to
know about instincto...

>Granted, wild animals seem to have
>quite operative instincts...but, even today, after 21+ years of eating more
>sensibly than many folks, I wouldn't begin to again rely on my own
>"instinct."  I've tried it many a time, only to end up finding out I was
>making one whopping mistake.

You've never tried instincto Ric--you know not what you speak of, and
neither does NFL. Read up on it and then trash it, but don't post stuff
that shows more ignorance of instincto than your wisdom in "overcoming" it.

>That is MY opinion, and I believe in it right now.  I know yours, and I
>respect it...and will defend your right to advocate it.  I also will do the
>same for the NFLers...and hope you might change your thinking about them by
>opening up a tad, and by even trying to help them by sharing some of your
>own experiences with them.  They are really very likeable and interesting
>guys.

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.

Cheers,
Kirt