Pet:
>> 1. Since NFL plagiarized Hovanessian's book (was ATH a transplanted
>> Armenian, and how long did he live?),  was the 40-year-old work as
>> bad as the newer one?

David Mayne:
>Good question! Peter, Kirt ?

Since the two books are almost identical is this a trick question? ;-) The
original is not quite as bad as the newer NFL version, not as aggressive
and obnoxious in its tone and does generate some strength and credibility
from the fact is that it is based on the author's years of experimenting on
himself, his family and his clients with a raw, vegan diet - not plagiarism.

David:
>Did it have any substance?

Another trick question? ;-)  Like the plagiarized version it is a very
dogmatic and speculative work blaming all the evils of mankind on cooked
foods.  I have not read the whole book but have so far not found any hidden
pockets of substance in it. ;-) I know there are several copies of the book
circulating so maybe somebody else will want to at some point answer this
question in more depth.

David:
>Speaking of NFL, they finally did respond to the charges of plagiarism
>on the raw list. I hope Peter does not mind me posting their response
>here; jr is certainly getting testy about raw-food posts appearing in
>raw.

On the contrary I thank you for providing this testimony. If in the future
anybody should have any doubts about what NFL truly stand for, we now have
this passionate mission statement from them that certainly does not leave
much doubt about their opinions & attitudes regarding the issues. In fact,
their message is coming through so loud and clear that if the raw militia
ever were to raid my house at three in the morning and interrogate me at
gun point about my eating habits, I have now programmed my unconscious so
well that I can honestly say that to my knowledge not the slightest morsel
of cooked food has ever passed my lips. ;-)

Raw is Law. :-)

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask] :-)