Thomas E. Billings wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for at least a tenuous welcome from a dynamic duo-ship.  And thanks,
specifically to you, for providing the background I was looking for on the coined
"toxic-fruitarian" term.  I've learned much in just a few back and forth messages
and hope to learn much more.  And yes, I'm quite aware that many of my dumb
questions could be answered with a review of the archives.

May we talk about an overtone in your message?  You have openly scoffed at
unsupported theories, as you define non-supported.  Sadly, if you will only
consider university sponsored research to back up points I wish to make, my battle
is lost beforehand.  I'm not into that degree of rigidity as I've found much,
perhaps most, of grant driven research to be ill-conceived, ill-executed, and
ill-reported.

As a simple thought-experiment of my position, I offer the obvious point that much
scientific knowledge becomes dated and invalidated by the next report out.  Physics
and astronomy strike me as glaring examples.  No two scientists seem able to agree
about anything unless they are ganging up on a third.  Perhaps there is too much
jostling for grants and fame.  As another thought-experiment, I would offer up that
ALL food research is driven by either adulterers (my term---their term is
"processors") or manufacturers of toxic substances.  A little reflection can help
one understand the direction such research always goes.

Instead, for those who might like to go for a wild ride, I offer logic and, gasp,
*on-farm experiments*.  For instance, I have proven to myself, many, many, times
that insects and disease *only* attack sickly plants.  I have, in turn, proven it
to everyone able to come and walk my gardens.  To many people this concept first
seems the raving of a madman, but there have so far been none who kept that opinion
once they examined my gardens, listened to my logic, and reviewed my bookshelves.

Perhaps it is easy for you to understand that particular thought brings howls of
rage from the agricultural toxic technology crowd.  More howls come from the makers
of drugs because of their fear that if people understood real truth about
agriculture, they would soon enough make the connection that toxic drug technology
for humans is similarly bogus.

Are any on this list aware that the best quality fruits and vegetables will *not*
rot or decompose in any way---except when scheduled?  Again, this strikes many
people like a bolt from the blue.

I have read the instinctive eating reports on the web and find them to be most
interesting.  Is my guess that you, Tom, find offense with "Instincto" theories,
close to the mark?  Sadly, from my point of view, there is no mention of the effect
of *quality* in what they do.  How can any of their thoughts make sense without
factoring quality into the equation?

Tom, I'm going to close this for now with a third sure-to-be-controversial comment:
weeds are an index to the character of a soil.  As a soil becomes deficient in
certain minerals, it starts to grow particular groups of weeds.  As the fertility
is gradually restored, that soil will be more and more capable of growing those
crops that humans find most appetizing.  Bitter, to my way of thinking, is a signal
from the body to avoid something.  Your claim to prefer bitter is worrisome to me.
Is this a learned, or even forced, preference?  Discounting dandelion for now,
which is nothing but Mother Nature's (MN) attempt to heal soil calcium deficiency,
I would like to skip to endive, which you described as bitter.  Yes, typical store
bought 4 Brix junk endive is bitter (possibly from excessive nitrates due to over
fertilizing with nitrogen, as well as low quality).  However, AFAIK, 12+ Brix
endive, grown to proper standards, is sweet, delicious, and should be gobbled up by
any child, sans dressing.

Am I to be dismissed and sent, raving, into the wilderness, for being deficient in
scientific citations?

Regards,
Rex Harrill
--------------------------------------------
The Brix scale was named in honor of its developer, Professor A.F.W. Brix of
Germany.  He won a significant prize for helping the European wine industry
understand why sour grapes made sour wine and sweet grapes made superb wine.