Rex:
>However, you do give me hope with your admonition to all to avoid name calling.  Perhaps
>if "crank", "wacko", "asshole", "fakes", "gurus", and other derogatory terms dropped out
>of the conversation we would all be better off.  At any rate I promise to avoid the "C"
>word.  I'd appreciate the return of any post with a slip.

Tom:

Let's look at the words Rex dislikes.

Fakes:

We have a major book on fruitarianism that is a plagiarism. Are those who
claim to be the authors, anything other than fake "authors?"

A prominent fruitarian advocate has claimed to live, thrive, and vigorously
exercise (and to maintain a body weight that is "normal" by SAD diet
levels), all on a diet of 4-6 pieces of sweet fruit per day. As such a diet
is far below starvation levels, one wonders: has eating fruit made her
immune to the laws of physics, or is she dishonest about her real diet,
hence a "fake?"

Gurus:

The word means teacher, and is a synonym for expert. Not derogatory in
and of itself.

A**hole:

I'm pretty sure I never used this, so won't comment on it.

Crank:

Crank science, science subverted to dietary ideology, is quite common in
raw (especially, but not limited to, fruitarianism and NH). Crank science
differs from junk science in that crank science is driven by some underlying
ideology. Those who promote crank science can reasonably be considered cranks.

Additionally, several fruitarians/NHers were removed from this list for
hostile behavior, i.e., "cranky" behavior. The term crank seems reasonable
there, as well.

Wacko:

Inasmuch as a portion of the raw party line is openly anti-common sense,
anti-logic, anti-reason, anti-science, the use of wacko seems appropriate.

Note that the issues underlying the application of some of the words above,
all speak to the critical point: "is the raw diet 'expert' honest, credible,
reliable? can I trust him/her?". Such issues might mean little to you
personally, but remember: people rely on these "experts" for information
that may have a significant impact (positive and/or negative) on
their health and well-being. That is why honesty, credibility, and
legitimate science can and do matter. And that too, is why the fanaticism
and hostility of many so-called raw "experts" is an issue of relevance.

Rex, you can attack the words, but you cannot attack the concepts they
reflect, and eliminating such words won't work either. The raw movement,
at some point, must openly face the bizarre, negative behavior of
many of the so-called "experts". If we don't, then raw will continue to
be a "fringe" diet.

Tom Billings