David Mayne wrote:

> As to whether or not the book "Raw Eating" is a classic or a dud,
> well, one man's trash/treasure cliche fits the bill. I found it to
> be full of emotional rhetoric proclamations and little substantive
> content...

Your words, and the 'Next in Topic' message by Peter, at the archive link you
referenced, answered my questions fairly well...

David Mayne:
>Good question! Peter, Kirt ?

Peter:
Since the two books are almost identical is this a trick question? ;-) The
original is not quite as bad as the newer NFL version, not as aggressive
and obnoxious in its tone and does generate some strength and credibility
from the fact is that it is based on the author's years of experimenting on
himself, his family and his clients with a raw, vegan diet - not plagiarism.

David:
>Did it have any substance?

Peter:
Another trick question? ;-)  Like the plagiarized version it is a very
dogmatic and speculative work blaming all the evils of mankind on cooked
foods.  I have not read the whole book but have so far not found any hidden
pockets of substance in it. ;-)

Thanks,
Rex Harrill