> jean-claude,
>
> I have as much trouble understanding you as you do me. Not much point in
> confusing each other more...

are you feeling confused by my reply ?
are you feeling disapointed because you needed some understanding from me
that you think you din't get ?

i feel disapointed and discouraged that i did 'nt get understood myself
because i
spent some time trying to feed back to you what i was understanding  from
you , was asking you to tell me if this understanding was right and  was
asking you  to add what did n't get across to me .( like for ex here :

<, what i am
receiving now is that you are upset because you had a need for being talked
to directly ,  rather than speaking about you ..

is it right ?>

or here

<all what i got now is that it helped you to eat what you could not eat raw
 some organs for ex ) and eat more vegetables .
is it correct ?
what else ?>

by nor getting answer to what seems to me  concrete question  , i am puzzled

i thought also this post  of mine was giving you quite lot of informations
about me that could allow myself to be received somehow ..

i have still a concrete request about what  you are   experimenting with ?

 by saying borderllne instincto paleo do you mean you eat still one food at
a time without seasonning and you add  simple cooked form of meats and
vegetables that  could be edible  raw but  that you could not eat raw.?

Are you  just questionning,  in the instincto frame work presented by
Burger,  the
need for a food to be undenatured ( not cooked in particular  ) to be able
to exerce instinctive regulation of eating ?

is there more in that frame work,  that you question ?

or Are you saying that humans for not having eaten instinctivelly (  because
they cooked ) since they are homosapiens , have no need anymore for this
regulation of what is eaten and how much as every species on earth need to
keep healthy .

what could i say or ask  that will be more understandable ?

what did i  not ask that you would like me to understand ?


jean-claude