Hi Peter,

Peter Brandt wrote:

> >>Look in a mirror sometime, Rex. A pattern has certainly manifested
> >>here in your interactions with others. You have been very quick to
> >>take your own pokes and display apparent sarcasm, but when someone
> >>presents any hint of criticism to your points of view, you take it as
> >>a personal affront and start behaving rather childishly. You accuse
> >>others of not taking your 'quality' issues into account, but
> >>apparently refuse to be held accountable for your remarks when others
> >>raise issues with your stance. This lack of accountability is another
> >>pattern that has been prevalent in your conversations with others,
> >>while at the same demand that we "struggle toward higher quality".
>
> Alan:
> >Having followed Rex's posts myself, I do not agree with these
> >accusations at all.
>
> Maybe you would like to share with us on which points you disagree and
> specifically why?
>
Most of his posts were on the Brix method (at least the ones that
I saw) and he always made it clear that the method was by no means
the "bees knees" but merely the best known method (known to  him)
of testing the quality (as expressed by the simple sugar index)
and hence ripeness of two otherwise (on the outside) identical
fruits. Nobody in here has contested this with a better method
and thus I fail to understand all the criticism and whining in here
from others on the subject. Rex merely indicated that it was,
in his opinion, at least an aid and certainly better than nothing.

> Alan:
> >I have found his posts to be fairly honest and straightforward and can
> >feel his frustration at some of the responses, none of which offered
> >satisfactory alternative information.
>
> I have seen no evidence of the above. If you have any, please share it.
> Rex got into trouble for his arrogance of consistently dodging the
> question of how high brix can compensate for imbalance in
> macronutrients and for avoiding the the real question of what makes him
> think that a high brix, fruitarian diet can bring optimal health to
> anybody.

This is a good example (particularly coming from a moderator, although
I am aware that you did not post the questions yourself). Rex never
claimed that a high brix means a better balance of macronutrients,
or that a high brix, fruitarian diet can bring optimal health to
anybody. He merely implied that a high brix is certainly better
than a lower reading from the point of view of quality.

Maybe you would like to answer these questions on his behalf.

> :) (Warning: Since no credible science supports fruitarianism and
> considering its very poor track record, just claiming that a few of
> your friends have been doing well on such a diet will not cut it.

Thank all gods that the world and the humans and animals in it do
not have to rely on scientific reports to know whether they feel well.
It was my profession for 14 years in the British Foreign Office to study
scientific reports (or should I say..what is published and what is
not published and why). To put it in a nutshell, if you follow the
events in www.notmilk.com, for example, you get a pretty good idea
of how food research is handled in modern western countries "for
the good of the citizens" (or should I say the major industrial
companies).

> A
> bare minimum would be providing specifics of how long they have been
> eating this way and what exactly they have been consuming and in what
> amounts as well as any information about them that might give them some
> credibility - remember, the claims of so-called fruitarians are
> legendary and since you are making the (unusual) claims, the burden on
> proof is on you. :)

Although I was only fruitarian only for 3 years only, I have
provided the information you mention. The only info I have not
provided is the amounts..as they may and did differ from day to
day. As to any "burden of proof". I for one merely stated that
I could not keep up the diet for financial reasons only, others
(admittedly not nearly as many as the vegetarians or even the
ovos, ovo-lacto and "normal" eaters) are still keeping it up
(14 years in the case of Helmut Wandmaker) and getting good
results. Just because even only one man claimed that the world
was a globe is no reason (unless one can come up with tangible
counterarguments..which nobody seems to do in here..they
just merely spend their valuable time challenging the statements
or experiences of others)then I would assume it safe to assume
that the majority opinion that the word was a flat disc still
holds true today..or that Dr. Norman Walker was just lucky to
die at the age of 116 and must be "abnormal" in some way, etc.
etc..

> BTW, your charts on primate diets were interesting
> but were not only outdated (see upcoming article by Tom on BeyondVeg)

Perhaps you ought to challenge Jane Goodall et al on that score
(although I would be rather surprised if wild apes have suddenly
changed their diet and the year-long observations of ape researchers
were a complete waste of time). But, then again, nothing surprises
me any more nowadays.

> but did not cover how the dietary needs of our immediate primate
> ancestors changed as their brains grew and they developed an extensive
> use of tools.
>
Another claim that that the brain runs on some other energy
source other than simple sugars perhaps????

> David:
> >>I believe I have been quite tolerant of various transgressions on
> >>this list in the past (perhaps to a fault), but I have thought long
> >>and hard on this issue, and find that I can no longer let the list be
> >>dragged through the mudhole that you apparently try to keep
> >>discussion mired in. As such, Rex, I would like you to take a
> >>vacation from the list for a while, an opportunity to ponder how
> >>communication and accountability can be improved - you can access the
> >>archives if you want to keep up. NFL, Rene, and Bob Avery were asked
> >>to leave the list for somewhat different transgressions, but one
> >>feature that has been
>
> Alan:
> >I protest strongly here. It is the tactic of some people in here
> >(certainly not Rex) to mudsling rather than provide any tangible
> >counterarguments and thus draw people otherwise merely interested
> >in exchanging information into unpleasant and pointless bickery.
>
> Please point out specifically what you are referring to.

Information on better methods than Brix when it comes to
monitoring the sugar content of foods. Information on better
methods than Kirlian photography when it comes to assessing
the vitality of any live food. It is both fruitless and
time consuming to reply to criticisms which do not provide
any counterargumentation. A few men went to the moon, full
stop. If somebody has a valid argument which indicates that
they perhaps did not go to the moon, then they should say
so or hold back. Merely criticising the fact that somebody
did not provide sufficient proof that these guys went to
the moon (particularly in the age of Internet when anybody
can get as much info as they want on almost anything) is
counterproductive IMOHO.

> With the
> basis for which you have reached the above conclusions, I will be able
> to form my own opinion and not be in the dark as I am now.
>
Can you quote any posts from others (except perhaps the one
from me on Kirlian photography) suggesting a possible better
method of assessing food (fruit in this case) quality?

> Alan:
> >For this reason alone I may actually consider leaving it myself if
> >things don't change.
>
> This may be the best for you to do.  You will probably fit in much
> better on JR's idealistic "raw" list.

I am, of course, also on this list. ;-)

> Like Rex you have contributed a
> lot of valuable information to this list but unfortunately it seems
> impossible - just like with Rex - to engage you in constructive
> dialogue.

What do you mean by constructive dialogue. I find myself providing
info and personal experiences if and when I can. I see little from
others (with the exception of people like Rex or Jean-Louis). As an
outsider looking in, so to speak, this is my opinion of the
list to date.

> (It is a phenomenon that has repeated itself over and over
> again over the years on this list: when raw and/or vegan gets to be
> over a certain % in somebody's diet, out goes common sense and
> rationality and willingless to be held accountable along with ability
> to deal constructively with opposing views.)

I have yet to hear opposing views..coupled with opposing
arguments..which is the crux of the issue. If I say white is
white and somebody says "Not so" then I want to know why. I
want convincing counterarguments and not people merely claiming
I am talking out of my hat and am not providing any proof.

> Kirt has pointed to
> specific claims of yours he has found to be exaggerated

Kirt has never provided any evidence to support his claims
that anything I have said is exaggerated. It is one thing
to say "You are spouting a load of unproven bulls..t (which
he certainly didn't say in exactly those words of course)
and thus dismiss the fact that someone out there in this
world is actually succeeding on his or her diet..and it
is another (and better approach)..to say "Yes but you
may be doing this and that wrong for this or that
reason (and perhaps also proving tangible quotes). I
have never, for example, questioned the success of the
omnivore crowd (i.e. those eating raw veggie and meat),
simply because if it working for them all well and good.
My reasons for not eating (organic and raw meat) have little
or nothing to do with health and I have said so and listed
my reasons.

> Lynton has
> asked you for details about your own diet.  Not responding directly to
> inquires such as these is what more than anything has tarnished your
> credibility and exhausted the patience of many on this list.  Why is
> your own diet such a secret?

I have discussed my diet (i.e. around 50% fruit and the rest raw
veggies, with a differing proportion of wild plants when in
season) on a number of occasions. I have discussed what fruits
I eat both from my own garden and from Orkos and also which
types of veggies I eat and which I do not. If anybody wishes
more details they are perfectly welcome to ask and I will reply.
I just don't like to rush into conversations by writing a book.

 - and regarding the issue of exaggerated
> claims, you need either to back down and admit that you got carried
> away with enthusiasm and that your stated claims were just your own
> strongly held opinions/beliefs or make your case with factual and
> logical arguments of why you think your claims are not exaggerated.
> Here is an example:
>
> You claim:
> "But a healthy cooked diet as opposed to raw I have yet to see."
>
I claim that because all scientific reports I have ever read have
never shown that heating food enhances the nutritional value of
any food. Cooking does destroy many toxins in unnatural human
raw foods, as well as enzyme inhibitors in seed foods (which I
do not view as natural human foods either as the use of fire
is a fairly recent thing in the history of man). In addition,
the personal experiences of our group (many of whom are nearly
80), as well as the many readers who have written to us, tell
a completely different story. We are not doctors but promoters
of health. Nevertheless, the number of people who have been cured
from all sorts of chronic ailments by going raw (and the fact
that raw is being increasingly adopted by German conventional
nutritionists) speaks for itself. OTOH, I myself can confirm
that raw does not cure palmo-plantar pustulosis..a condition
which I have suffered from long before I went raw and still
suffer from today. It is nothing serious but I am still willing
to talk about it.

> For such a broad and sweeping statement to have much meaning and for it
> to be more than just your opinion or belief, you need to provide the
> following minimum:  Which cooked diets have you investigated (comment:
> you might have missed some),

Which cooked diets have you investigated? Shall I fill your
hard disc with every recipe I have ever eaten??

> which methods and criteria were you using
> in your assessment of them (comment: they might have been faulty or
> inaccurate)

One should perhaps examine the credibility of those advertisers
and government agencies which choose to continue to promote
cooked food (or that abomnible food pyramid, for example),
and contaminated (pesticides, hormones, antibiotics etc.)
veggies and meats. There are enough studies around pointing
out various advantages of vegetarianism and/or organic food
as against conventional food.

> and does your statement include every raw diet? (comment:
> even those clearly lacking in quality and adequate nutrients?)  Of
> course, you have the freedom not to provide the above information but
> then, naturally, the conclusion follows that it is only your
> belief/opinion being expressed when you state that you have never come
> across a healthy cooked diet that could match a raw diet. In my
> opinion, if you repeatedly fail to provide the above - for whatever
> reason - you fail to meet the posting standards for this list.

I have always stated the the prerequisite for a successful raw
diet is quality..and that experiences in Germany appear to back
this up. I can not comment personally on every raw diet..only
on that which I am practising (or have practised).

> Alan:
> >There are people who want to know (or at least note and acknowledge
> >any information passed on) and there are people who very obviously
> >don't want to know no matter what the subject (moles from the food
> >industry perhaps?). This latter group seems to be in the majority at
> >the moment and is quite adept at tying up other people who attempt
> >provide info with anything from petty, juvenile name-calling to
> >downright insulting comments.
>
> Is this a guessing game or are you speaking in code? ;-) I do not have
> the faintest clue of what you are referring to here. I assume that you
> would like for me to sympathize with the sentiments being expressed
> above but how is that possible when you are so unclear in your writing?
>
I have no wish to start a slanging match by mentioning individuals.
If you didn't understand it then just accept it as my opinion.

> Alan:
> >Take the Brix method, for example, invented here in Germany, as
> >well as the German work on Kirlian photography. Why do they
> >seem to get up some people's noses (perhaps because they were
> >not invented or followed-up properly in, say, the U.S.A.) despite
> >the fact that they are still the most effective methods we have
> >today of identifying the vitality and hence the quality of fruits and
> >veggies?
>
> This is clearly your opinion - do you have any evidence to back up this
> claim?
>
Am I not entitled to have an opinion? Am I not entitled to expect tangible
counterarguments rather than the age-old and rather helpless
counterarguments, such as  "Do you have evidence to back up your claim"?
Are we in here to only miscredit information and experiences or are
we in here to exchange information and counterarguments (and THEN comment)?

Here are a few leads on the Kirlian issue:

http://www.temple.edu/CFS/poppbib2.htm
http://www2.arnes.si/~ljbion1s/Biophotons.htm
http://www.cdc.unict.it/~wwwisfi/scientifica/musumeci.htm
http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/qb2.htm
http://www.wspc.com.sg/books/lifesci/2267.html

I would be wasting my precious time adding any more leads and
info on Brix than Rex has. I would comment, however, that, as
far as fruits are concerned, I have yet to see a better
combination than Kirlian and Brix to assess quality (other
than the human nose, tongue and felling of wellbeing of
course). Now I await the counterarguments.

> Alan:
> >Who has offered any info on for better methods?
>
> Hold your horses. :) Before we go looking for something "better", we
> first need to establish "good" and provide the evidence that shows that
> Kirlian has some merit to it in the first place.
>
I always hold my horses. I'm not talking to a bunch of "greenhorns"
in here (although there may be many lurking of course), but
I slowly gain the impression that I'm talking to a load of
sceptics who will not or can not provide counterarguments. Rex
was (is??) one of the few exceptions as it was not difficult to
recognise the honesty in his posts.

> Alan:
> >What I'm trying to say is that it is not the Rex's of this world that
> >are at fault and hampering the transfer of info but the jealous and
> >the envious and the often also half-hearted rest who are usually
> >more interested in either picking the cherries or picking an
> >argument.
>
> Again, these are your obviously deeply felt sentiments of yours but
> without any form of documentation, they have little relevance to this
> list.
>
So you get a new guy on this list who gains this impression and
expect him to start slagging individuals? Better to examine each
post for the information content I would have thought. Lists such
as this are supposed to promote international exchange rather
than international bickering. Although I must admit, on your
request, I was mostly bickering here. ;-)

Best regards,

Alan