Peter
>>Only in the sick minds of a pedophiles do children initiate sexual
>contacts or seek sexual intimacy with adults.

Bo7b:
>>Really?  Where'd you come by that "fact"?  Readers' Digest?

If you can find any non-pedophile source that questions the validity of
my statement that children never make sexual advances at adults, I
would be very interested in reading it. Mankind has always taken great
steps to avoid the possibility of incest that from the point of view of
evolution never was a very viable option.

>I object to us trying, judging, convicting & sentencing ANYONE without
>evidence, based only on "facts" such as you've posted here.

That is your privilege as it is mine to draw the conclusions I do.

>And on a RawFood list supposedly discussing raw food?

Sacrilege, I know. :-) As you have noticed and taken advantage of
yourself, off-topic discussions are welcome as long as they do not
dominate too much and just have some relevance to the rest of the
list. Anyhow, the demise of a prominent raw food teacher definitely is
not off-topic.

Peter:
>> The future credibility of instincto is at stake if these questions
>>are not answered in full.

Bo7B:
>I dispute that "fact" as well.  GCB's sexual behavior will not affect
>my nutritional choices.

If Burger can make up fake sexual theories about the sexual needs of
children in order to justify his own perversions, it makes me wonder
what other parts of instincto theory might have been contaminated as
well?  The question is especially relevant to a dedicated instincto
like yourself: how much of your diet are you actually choosing by pure
instinct and how much has already been pre-chosen by an unconscious
selective mechanism inside of you that dares not question basic tenets
of instincto? If this is the case you can naturally not answer the
question but it is IMO a direct consequence of your extreme loyalist
defense of Burger. Does it not make you wonder how come seemingly no
instinctos from or near the scene at Montrame are even close to being
as loyal as yourself?  I refuse to believe that they are all spineless
cowards ducking just because they are getting a lot of heat...

Peter:
> For how can you argue against "instincts"? Nowhere
>clearer is this than in the case of G.C.Burger when he argues that the
>natural sexual instinct of the child if not repressed will naturally
>focus itself on the adult.

Bob:
>DOES GCB say that?

In the interview to L'Express and in his book on the sexual nature of
children.

>If yes, where is your proof that he's wrong?

The burden of proof is on him, not me. After all he has said and done,
it would take quite some effort to convince me of his innocence.

>Do we just take a vote amongst establishment psychologists?  Guess the
>result of such a vote amongst establishment "nutritionists" regarding
>YOUR diet or mine.

I do not believe that everything "establishment" is bad and the field
of psychology is IMO far more progressed than the much younger field of
nutrition. So, yes, I am for the vote which makes me curious if there
is any (alternative) psychology school of thought that you do subscribe
to and if so which one.  If you do not have any, the word
"establishment psychology" in your statement above looses much of its
meaning. Question: How does your own personal psychological make-up in
your opinion affect the ideas and views you are attracted to and have
chosen to promote? (example: somebody who was treated very unfairly as
a child might choose to try to rectify this as an adult by picking a
liberal philosophy - BTW in US "liberal" means somebody advocating the
eradication of social and economic injustice through public reform and
in Europe it means somebody who is for low taxes and as little public
restriction on private enterprise as possible - the economist Milton
Friedman comes to mind.)

Peter:
> Now the only kind of instinctive therapy he might get is a
>bit of his own medicine: being sexually violated by people stronger
>and more powerful than himself. This is usually the fate of sex >
>offenders in prison as they are very despised by the rest of the
>prison population

Bo7b:
>Gee, Peter, gloating over the possible prison gang-rape of a
>scientific genius might lead some to question YOUR motives,
>psychological balance, emotional poise, etc.

If I came across as gloating I apologize. I was trying to express my
contempt for somebody who not only abuses children sexually but who
also adds insult upon their injury by having the audacity to claim that
not only is he satisfying their needs but also that they are initiating
the sexual contacts themselves. That is IMO utterly despicable. I
really doubt that anyone deserves to be called a genius and GC.Burger
is no exception to this but if he were a genius, it would just make his
actions seem even more reprehensible to me.

>Peter, what's your definition of a "sex offender"?  Someone who broke
>a "law"?  Someone who harmed someone?

The way I used the expression it was supposed to mean both.

Peter:
>>Children often use play-acting as a way to explore the world around
>them but they have absolutely no need for sexual encounters with
>adults.

Bob:
>Again, where are all these "facts" coming from, "The World According
>to Peter", or just "The Law According to Peter"? ;-)

If you have some information or arguments that indicate I might be
wrong please share them.

Stefan:
>>Until Mr. Burger is judged to be guilty as accused I won't speak of
>>him as a criminal child abuser.

Peter:
>>I am sure that in your heart you know he is.

Bob:
>Proclamation of fact followed by intimate knowledge of the contents of
>another's heart without the owner's permission?!?  This is sure
>un-Brandt-like behavior!  Excessive advanced salmon?  Excessive cooked
>grains? ;-)\

Whether you want to admit to it or not, I am convinced that in your
heart of hearts you know very well that he is guilty as hell. So why
all the posturing? - unless of course you want to tell me that you
believe that O.J.Simpson is innocent as well because he was found
not-guilty in a court of law. ;-) Not even O.J. would get off if he was
charged with murder once again and it will be no different in the case
of G.C. who admitted to his previous sexual crimes against children
when he was sentenced to four years in jail 20 + years ago.

Bo7b:
>I believe Bruno & I believe he personally observed FACTS, so your
>conclusions re GCB are probably correct.  And I still consider folks,
>including Burger, innocent til proven guilty.

It is my hope and impression that Bruno's conclusions are NOT based on
facts but on second hand information - if not that would make him
criminally negligent. Besides, I doubt that all your conclusions about
instincto are based on personally observed facts. Have you ever had
inflammatory conditions flare up consuming raw goat milk and is it your
personal observation that steamed vegetables and raw dairy give no
stops or have you as I suspect taken G.C's word for it? You have
probably chosen not to test these foods as you have taken for face
value G.C.Burger's arguments about only (his definition of) original
foods being able to give taste stops. Even if you did perform some of
these tests, I am sure you will admit to the possibility of your
pro-Burger bias influencing the outcome if only unconsciously - after
all he is in your opinion a genius which could quite likely open the
door to some serious projection on your side.
And last what makes you believe that Burger in your opinion can/will
get a fair trial in the courts of the "establishment" that you distrust
so much?

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]

PS. IMO = in my opinion  &  BTW = by the way