"Thomas E. Billings" wrote:

> And so, it appears that you are actively employing denial and unsupported
> rationalizations, to continue to cling to the idea that fruitarianism
> can work long-term, IF one can get fruit of impossibly high quality.

No, no, no---I have NOT said fruitaria-whatever can work under any particular
conditions.  I have said that *you* cannot claim it won't work until you factor in
all variables, including quality.  Any burden of proof is on you, not me.

And I have not, to my knowledge, claimed that any particular toxicity was present in
your long-ago food.  Instead, I wondered about the possibility and I was trying to
illustrate with a few toxic cases that I have heard of.

I have, over the years, read many a story about inadvertant poisons showing up in
remarkable places.  One that comes to mind concerned a family that developed a long
term low-grade sickness.  Investigation revealed that a roach exterminator had poured
out left-over poison under their apple tree *years* before.  As an ex-Florida
resident you are surely aware the exterminators work the houses much more frequently
than they do up north.  Back-yard dumping was (maybe still is) common.  Another case
concerned a can of DDT (I believe) that had been buried in a backyard by a previous
owner "getting rid of trash."  A new owner had no trouble for many years, but the can
ultimately rusted through and caused considerable harm when he gardened there.

There's really no end to these type stories: the modern versions are peppered with
bizarre cases of homeowners pouring *whatever* down fire ant holes.  As you're in
California, I assume you're familar with the boot-leg boom in banned pesticides.  A
double-damn here is that a partially-used container must be dumped out somewhere (a
backyard I assume) because, being illegal, there is no way to put it back into the
system or even present it for safe disposal.

This is why organic farms must have their soil and produce checked even though they
have never used poisons.  The stuff shows up in incredible places.  You saying you're
sure there was none means little unless you've got a test saying so.  Produce some
results and settle this because there's no profit to me to carry it further.

As I said, I suggested the possibility only.  Did you have this checked?  If not and
your health was rapidly failing, why?

You seem so utterly adamant that you were getting high-quality food and I've hinted
mightily that a bit of proof might be in order.  I have shared my experiences about
certain organic know-nothings before and, having interviewed enough of them, have
adopted a position whereby they need to *prove* the worth of their efforts.  I.e.,
many more than one have bragged to me how wondrous, how marvelous, their produce was
and I, on testing, found it to be pure J-U-N-K.

My points on this forum are attacked sometimes as repetitive and boring but, from my
viewpoint it is quite boring to be everlastingly advised that fruit-eating is a no-no
because *you* had a personal failure.  I am sorry for your trouble and would have
gladly helped check for trouble spots, but obviously can't do so now.

Tom, I am rational enough to realize your possible heavy investment in a
'fruitarianism (sp?) must fail' agenda, but you---me---nobody can keep a ship afloat
unless the hull is watertight.  A lack of certified quality is a *big* hole in this
ship.  Apologies, but your sure claims that you were eating wondrous fruit simply
don't cut it with me.  A simple test would prove a lot---assuming you would rather
prove than claim.

I'm coming from experience.  I have patiently explained that there are many, many,
"organic" growers out there who work by method only.  Quite simply, they fool
themselves as to quality.  As I have stated in another place, "They become
immediately hostile when they realize their prized 'baby' is a sour monster."  Your
hostility may be showing through in a few of your recent posts and I would appreciate
it being directed toward your enemies---which I surely ain't.  I have zilch stake in
this game and, quite honestly, had hoped to be helpful.  From day one I realized no
one here spoke quality and I'm proud that it now at least gets lip service.

I know not you---nor your adversaries---but I highly suspect that the confused muddle
that passes for thinking here would bode ill for any livestock if the posters were in
charge of their nutrition.

All in all, Tom, I guess I really don't understand anyone who so boldly told me that
they actually prefer the taste of bitter to the truly good taste of top quality
produce.  To paraphrase, methinks you speak with a perverted tongue.

There is an anti-fruit agenda present and I must accept that, although I honestly
don't care whether one does, or doesn't, eat fruit.  I'm signing off of this thread
(not the list, silly) and heading for Florida for a few weeks.   Perhaps you would
care to wish me a safe trip so I can hurry back and pick this up.

I trust you'll notice after a day or so that I don't intend to respond to your post
that attempts to justify how calling people names is not really calling people
names.  Seems to me that name-calling, no matter how eloquent the rationalizations,
is a down-hill trip.

Of course, I may find some decent oranges and come back all mellowed out.  I might
let this thread die a decent death if no one starts in again with the
"denial/rationalization" charges.  I'd much rather move on to the next stage: how
people can be starving for minerals (if their digestive system is out of whack) no
matter how much they eat.

Regards,
Rex Harrill