"Thomas E. Billings" wrote:

> By the way, Rex: I was not wound up - merely stating the truth (in my opinion
> and experience) about the fruitarian diet gurus, many of whom are fakes, cranks,
> and/or display other unsavory behavior. If you choose to believe the writings
> and claims of fruitarian diet gurus - some of whom are plagiarists...

I'm beginning to think that if I clipped "fake, cranks, gurus, wacko" and such out
of your dictionary, your post word-counts would drop dramatically.  Of course, you
may get after me in turn because I'm always bitching about the bogus 'scientific
studies' that so frequently disgrace this forum.

So let's talk about plagiarism, another of your frequent dammits.  I've checked
what I could of the archives and decided that your plagiarism carp is against NFL
for claiming some Iranian's book as their own.  I also read an old copy of M2M
where Ward Nicholson was laboriously attacking NFL for stealing something from
Philip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial."  Is there more I should know about?  If it's
all true, did NFL ever fess up and try to get right with the world?  Did the
Iranian give the book rights to them?  Did they buy the book?  What really did
happen?  Are they talking?

Anyway, if plagiarism is so no-no, why is something like stealing Lewis Grizzard's
dietary funnies and posting them here without credit OK?  Heck, it even got kudos
from Tobacco Moony.  I say you can't have it both ways.


> make threats of violence...

A big no-no in my book, your book and, hopefully, the book of everyone else.  BTW,
I'm 59, weigh 170, and *can* whip any unruly fruitarian that comes after you.  Let
me know if you need help.  :)


> are so fanatical they get thrown off e-mail lists and must start their own...

Fanatical is often in the eye of the beholder.  I could say that you are
fanatically against fruit, couldn't I?  And what is wrong with starting one's own
list.  I'm trying to start a Brix list about food quality because I get so wearied
by people spouting the bogus USDA line that all food is the same.


> promote wacko crank science...

As I said, "wacko" is a judgment call and you're merely disagreeing, not judging
(I hope).  Why not reserve "wacko" for inhuman systems that go awry.  You
apparently are positioned in a university setting with abundant resources.
Instead of calling 'em names, can't you make your points against adversaries by
simply submitting better evidence when engaged in an academic dispute?

For instance, I label wacko those mindless reductionist 'studies' that don't take
the wholistic nature of humans into account.  Further, I consider them flawed
before they are started.  I even consider the disgraceful grubby scratching for
tainted corporate grant money as suspect (whew!).  Far too many of those bought
'studies' are simply the cost of doing business to fat-cat corporations.  Now
"Pottenger's Cats," where he had no idea that the cats would suffer so horribly on
cooked food, is a *real* study.  I guess that's why no one cares to repeat it.

Anybody who flops those bogus 'studies' on the table to prove a point with me
always gets the stock question: screw what the mis-bred rats did---were the
*humans* thriving or suffering after 3 generations?

>
> then that is your decision (and a bad one, in my view)...
>

Thanks for your warning, but it's my decision, and my right, to listen to what
everybody has to say before making up my mind.  I'm often amazed that someone as
busy as you can almost instantly come online to rebut anything said that might,
just might, allow someone, somewhere in the universe, to quietly whisper, in a
dark cave, on a black night, that they are thriving on an all-raw diet.  Further,
I think the great internet clock in the sky will verify that the lag times from my
high-quality-fruit-is-OK messages, to your rebuttals, are generally in shaved
minutes, not hours.

So, no, your judgment that I'm making a bad decision is not a factor.  If I ever
learn the details of who hurt you so severely that you must be forever stationed
outside raw-dom's gate with a compulsion to turn back all seekers, well *that*
will help me make a decision.

Two points here: 1) the people over at Forum proved not so bad after all and, 2)
I've had more than one private message from someone doing well on all-raw who
won't share here because of hostility.  Shouldn't you, and perhaps other members
of the list, think about that?  It's censorship, plain and simple, intended or
unintended.

Tom, we're had vigorous debate here.  I expect the lurkers have noticed that my
message is rather simplistic: stay with quality and other things seem to work OK.
I hope they also have noticed that you've come a long way from your initial words
to me about bitter low-quality fare being good for people.

Yep, congrats---I think you are finally becoming a quality-man.  I hope you one
day peer through a refractometer so I can decide if I trust your descriptions
about those wondrous fruits (that mysteriously damn near killed you).  We really
do need to sit down one day and talk about extreme poison overdoses backyard
fruitgrowers often misapply.  Yeah, they claim "organic," but they are often
talking through their hat.  There may be a link to your problems.  Once you
undestand systemic, a lot falls into place.  Once you understand the selective
intake powers of plants, a lot more clicks in.

And to think we haven't even started discussing digestion.  Did you know that
anyone who understands the rules can take a pH meter, have a bunch of people spit
in it, in turn (saliva only, no tobacco juice), and *unerringly* tell you who is
having trouble, no matter whether they eat raw, cooked, fruit, Wheateena, jerky,
dog-doo, or whatever?  But I guess human digestive balance and proper mineral
assimilation is another subject for another place.

But do lighten up!  From my chair you appear to be perpetually wound up and on
guard as though you picture me as Ehret rising from the dead.  Relax---nobody is
going to sneak a piece of fruit in here.  Well, if they do and it's only average
quality, then I'll help you stomp it.   :)

Regards,
Rex Harrill