Kirt:
> Maybe this is true in an idealistic way, but all that's seems to
>be happening is that folks like me, who try (and fail after a time) to play
>by the rules, will simply burn out "debating" with Rene and NFL type
>rhetoric. That burn-out shows first as blasts (witness my re: Bravado post
>--which I still stand by 100%, or Peter's recent rant) and eventually I'll
>bail out--it's just too much of a waste of time! The difference is that

Tom:
Eventually, those trying to make a positive contribution will burn out from
the onslaught of hostility that comes from those who are so uncivil as to
regard civility as UNnatural. Then we bail out, as we all have other "irons
in the fire", other things to do, other places where our efforts can make a
positive contribution. That's why I left some months ago, after enduring an
onslaught of negativity from a fruitarian (who is no longer on this list),
and who seemed to be impervious to truth and reason.

Kirt:
>Peter has another option open besides just bailing out: a last ditch effort
>at moderating the list to the point that some of the heavy-duty raw
>theorists would sign on and enter the fray. Why should they if raw-food is
>just a refuge for self-appointed know-it-alls who need not support their
>"proposals" with anything more than "cooked retard" quips on one hand to
>"live in peace" on the other, to "Shelton said so" on the third hand
>(presumably sprouting from the navel)?

Tom:
The "cooked retard" rhetoric is counter-productive. I can see zealots using
such rhetoric against a knowledgeable opponent, and them being branded as
"wacko raw-fooder zealots", in response. Given the polarization such rhetoric
causes, how many people (who are consumers of cooked food), are likely to
become raw fooders after being called "retards"?  Very few, if any.  Other
opponents might stop and analyze such rhetoric, and use it as evidence of
mental problems.

I don't think that a person must have an exclusively scientific basis for their
diet - personal experience, philosophy/spirituality/religion/ethics, and other
factors are relevant. However, whatever the basis for a diet, one should be
intellectually honest about it - don't claim to be scientific about it if
you're not, and if you worship Shelton (as some appear to do), be honest about
it. Intellectual honesty also means you will be honest to yourself, and change
the diet if it does not work for you, rather than clinging to a false self-
image (like: "You should eat 100% fruit even though I don't/can't - never mind
that such a diet could be harmful - fruit is the highest food.")

Kirt:
>There are at least two levels of dialogue on this list. One concerns the
>details questioning/recipe/"how does every one deal with this or
>that"/support exchanges. These to me are pleasant and important practical
>exchanges and very much part of the function and purpose of this list, and
>would likely continue under heavy moderation (I am assuming). Almost always
>they are pleasant. The other level deals with identifying and solving some

Tom:
True, but the amount of hostility pumped into this list by a few posters,
discourages people from even making inquiries. They may think all raw fooders
are as zealous as the noisy ones. It might even make them lose interest in raw
foods - a shame.

Kirt:
>Should aspiring rawists have to repeat every damn mistake that has been
>made in the last hundred years of raw diets simply because there is always
>some self-appointed poobah around to tell them they aren't doing it right?
>Or should newbies see a debate on the pros and cons of various raw diets
>and be able to learn what is well-known to most serious rawists. The
>rhetoric is already in the fringe books available (a good sampling in
>Ombodhi's recent post)--reality should be one of the main topic on
>raw-food, IMO.

Tom:
Your point is right on target. There is much to learn from a discussion on
the pro's and con's of specific raw food diets and practices.  A great
saint from India once said, "an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory".
That applies in raw/living foods, as well. If we limit ourselves to the
established teachings of Shelton, Fry, Wigmore, etc., then what function
does raw-food serve? Why not study the "great teachers" instead?  Answer -
real world experience is a great teacher and humbler. We have much to learn
from the successes and failures of others. But we cannot learn in a negative
environment filled with hostile rhetoric and meaningless slogans. We need
civil, rational discourse - a quality that certain posters here appear to lack.

Kirt:
>In all, without moderation (or at least some more maturity on everyone's
>part, which would obviate the need for moderation) what is going to happen
>is that folks like me and Peter (and Ward, who has done so--though it is
>hard to see through the Avery Hoax to believe it) will jump ship. My
>understanding is that Tom Billings bailed out earlier on as well (but I am
>guessing on this). Do folks want an all-encompassing
>philosphy/religion/sprituality to hang their hat on or do they want to hang
>their hat on their head (or better yet donate the damn hats to goodwill
>industries!). Do you want the reality or the textbook? Or differences
>between the two?

Tom:
I briefly mentioned above why I left - the list became too negative, too
hostile.  There is no point in trying to have a discussion with someone whose
language is limited to negativity. Reason and kindness cannot penetrate a
heart or mind hardened by the intolerance of zealotry. Unfortunately, there
are far too many zealots in the raw-foods movement, and some of them are here.

Kirt:
> Truth told, NFL/etc can
>whistle/bark on their merry way as far as I'm concerned...but if they're
>screaming loudest and intellegent folks like Bob Avery (where is Ric L!!!)
>do not feel any responsibility to counter any of their absurdist stuff,
>what will happen to _discourse_? An aspiring rawist signs onto this list
>and sees the same crap that is in all the books (Severen's included)
>instead of reality--ie. people trying to make sense of it.

Tom:
I too, am puzzled as to why any rational raw fooder can support the NFL style.
A fruitarian friend used to be a big supporter of NFL, until he read their
book, which he found disgusting and full of hostility. Needless to say, he is
now an ex-supporter of NFL!  Hostile rhetoric might sell books and put money
in their pockets, but in the long run it hurts everyone.

Tom Billings