Tom:
>I confess it made me wonder if you were another "toxic fruitarian"

Tom:
I "invented" the term toxic fruitarian (in 1996) to describe any fruitarian who
is mentally unbalanced, in one or more of the following ways:
+  motivated by fear/hatred - specifically of cooked food, mucus, protein,
starch, etc. (i.e., when fruitarianism becomes an eating disorder).
+  a hostile extremist/fanatic who attacks any/all who disagree with their
dogma. We have seen a number of examples of toxic fruitarians on this list (and
they dominate on two other raw lists).

You were not hostile in any way, but I have run into (too) many fruitarian
wackos, and when someone appears to be strident, I get suspicious.  You seemed
to be pushing the "sweet=best=natural" philosophy, and I got the impression
you were not looking at the reality of wild fruit. The game for wild fruit
is survival - nothing more. Sometimes that means sweet fruit, usually not.
Some fruit is best spread by birds, so that fruit should be edible to
birds but inedible to humans. Fruit may contain toxins to deter insects,
and seed-eating animals, and to regulate how much is eaten by animals. So,
the nature of fruit is a trade-off for survival; it is not so simple as
sweet=best, sweet=natural. That is the critical point I am trying to get
across.

Rex Harrill <[log in to unmask]>:
>I had hoped that I was very clear about greens...
>If you have never tasted sweet
>greens, I perhaps have a lot of work ahead to help you
>understand that part.

Tom:
Actually, I prefer BITTER greens like wild greens, dandelion, endive, etc.
I eat them plain - no dressing - and the more bitter, the better. Each
taste has a different character, and I like bitter, sweet, and other tastes.
So, "sweeter=better" does not apply to greens. This reflects a concern
mentioned previously: individual (and cultural) preferences tend to
mitigate your claim.

On a separate point; re: your reply to Jean-Louis Tu. The brix scale is
apparently a taste scale. Taste relates primarily to sugar, and is not
an accurate indicator of mineral content. The two - taste and mineral
content may be CORRELATED, but where is the proof of CAUSATION? Until
you can provide good proof (scientific documents) of causal linkage, your
claims re: high brix=high mineral content, are dubious, and may be seen
as exaggeration.

Like Jean-Louis, I welcome your contributions to this list. Jean-Louis
explained the background we have had on this list with wacko (often
hostile/toxic) fruitarians, promoting their diets via crank science.
That is why your ideas are subject to such challenge here.

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]