Alan:
>I agree with just about everything up there Kirt and am thus at a loss
>to understand why you chose to write it. Maybe I didn't make myself
>clear enough (although I thought I did).

You wrote:
>It makes no difference as nuts are essentially seeds..and are
>not meant to be eaten really (unless they use the "host" as
>a means of propagating..and are thus indigestible if not chewed).

And add in this last post:
>As to seeds, it is obvious to anyone that many seeds "send out a
>meassage" that they should be eaten by providing delicious and
>nutritious flesh (strawberries, raspberries, cranberries,
>etc. etc...the list goes on and on). But these seeds want to be eaten
>in order to propagate and the seeds themselves thus contain
>enzyme inhibitors to make sure they are not digested. Thus chewing
>and hence crushing such seeds will give you a digestion problem
>with no other nutritional benefit.

You are clearly attributing intent where none exists and that what the bulk
of my response.

>Grains such as wheat, oats and
>barley etc. are also seeds and should thus also not be eaten raw.
>If people choose to eat them cooked and make bread or flour out of
>them and ignore the possible gluten problem as well, then it is
>up to them. All I and anybody else can do is to point out that
>these problems exist.

I agree. But can't remember talking about grains...

>Hope I have cleared this one up.

Not really. Fundamentalist NH has been explored for years on this list, as
has fundamentalist-most-anything. Edification or pontification--its a
matter of one's point of view methinks.

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]