> David Mayne wrote:
>
> >
> > Who has censored who?
>
Rex:
>
>
> 1) Any time I (me) try to add the quality concept to a discussion, two individuals
> fight each other (figuratively) to see who can first rush in and stop the 'heresy'.
> Check the names of the posters who almost always immediately respond to my posts and
> this pattern should be quite obvious.

David:
Please explain to me how the idividuals that you refer to are keeping you
from communicating your point - how could they, since you have constantly
pushed the same message over and over again here, offering theories on
the mineralization of the earth (or lack thereof) as THE ONE AND ONLY
explanation for all of our raw woes. Your efforts in bringing up such a point
are noteworthy, but constantly shouting the same mantra takes its toll on
some.

So what if there are a couple of individuals who have apparently tired of
your crusade - do you need their stamp of approval, their submission to
your points of view, or to put it more broadly, do you need blanket support
for your cause to feel that you are not being picked on, or (I loathe to
use the word) "censored" ?

Rex:
> 2) Some weeks back a young man was literally hounded off this forum because he had
> other ideas than those posited by the high-post champs of the list.

Noone told the individual to leave, or "censored" their posts, the person
did so on their own will. Perhaps I saw things in a somewhat different
light than you Rex, but from my point of view, the children in the sandbox
did not wholeheartingly accept the play-mate's   claims, so the play-mate
took their toys and went elsewhere. Plenty of heat was put out, but when the
heat came back....

Rex:
> If this be not censorship, what is?

censor n : a person who is authorized to read publications or correspondence or
to watch theatrical performances and suppress in whole or in part anything considered
obscene or politically unacceptable.

Rex, once again, I will ask you to back up your claims of "censorship", or
start using another term. Once a participant cries foul with the C word,
the discussion almost inevitably takes a spiralling nose-dive to worthlessness,
particularly in absence of substantive proof that some entity is actively
suppressing messages deemed unacceptable, as above.

Discussion of all aspects of all raw food diets and related topics are
welcome on this list, as long as the participants substantially abide by
the list guidelines, one of which states:

8. When posting, a minimal clarification of what is personal
beliefs/experience and what is established facts is expected as well as
using a reasonable amount of discretion in responding to questions and
counter arguments.

So, by this, Rex, your posts are welcome, the individual you alluded to
before was and still is welcome - the point is, when claims are made above
and beyond personal beliefs, the person making such claims should be prepared
to back up their assertions with some substance. As such, fanatical tirades and pseudo
scienctific assertions will probably receive a good deal of scrutiny in this
community.

One more thing to keep in mind for all of us: being able to show respect
for others that one disagrees with, rather than resorting to name-calling
or crying foul on the basis of "censorship", is a quality that myself and
others on this list find to be quite admirable. One can display these
qualities and make substantive contributions without the need of approval
from all the members of the list.

Regards,

David
[log in to unmask]