>>I would also like to add to this list an incredible book called
>>"Nature's First Law: The Raw-Food diet."
>>It REALLY helped me get over the hump to an all raw foods diet!  :)

Tom:
>This I must strongly disagree with. The book you mention, in my
>opinion, is highly negative (though it does have some real enthusiasm
>for rawism in it), and is one of the worst books I have ever read.

Vicki:
>>Well, I have to strongly disagree with you.  It is _by far_ the best
>>raw foods diet book I've read.  I guess it's one of those things, you
>>either love it or you hate it.  I, as well as many, many friends,
>>love it!

I and most of the people I know who have read it consider it not only
the worst book on raw foods but also one of the worst books they have
ever read.

Vicki:
>>I had the pleasure of meeting the three NFL boys at the San Francisco
>>Living Foods Expo last June and they were extremely positive and
>>downright delightful, as well as very good-looking!

They are indeed good-looking, positive and friendly in person. And by
trying to promote a diet (the fruitarian) that has wrecked the health
of so many people, they are in need of every bit of it. :-/

Vicki:
>>In contrast Tom, I found your lecture to be extremely negative and
>>detrimental to poeple struggling with a 100% raw foods diet.  Sorry!
>>:)

I found Tom's lecture to be the best and most informative talk on raw
foods I have ever heard and by the reponse of the audience, I was not
the only one in the packed room who shared this opinion. What I enjoyed
the most was his wit and dry sense of humor that had me cracking up
time after time.

Vicki:
>>What you believe to be "an open and honest discussion of raw foods,"
>>I see as mere hypochrondria and superstition.

I see no sign of this. On the contrary I see Tom as the Ralph Nader of
raw foods who deserves a lot of appreciation for his tireless work to
get the raw foods movement out of the dark ages it has been in for so
long.

Tom:
>I advise all to read the debate mentioned in my post (in the raw-food
>archive). After that, you might not want to support NFL in any way.

Vicki:
>>I have read the debate (if you insist on calling it that) and I see
>>NFL being attacked by hostile animal eater zealots.  I thought their
>>arguments were excellent in those "debates."

For the record not only meat-eaters disagreed with NFL. As for their
"arguments" I think "slogans" would cover it better but I guess that is
a matter of opinion.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this very
thorny issue!

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]