>Alan:
>> >The theory behind fruitariansm as
>> >laid down by the NH founders still remains sound
>
>Kirt:
>> Prove it or retract it, Alan.

Carol:
>While I respect your motives here, Kirt, I have to say that such an
>approach is unrealistic.

Perhaps what is unrealistic is stating as fact that NH is sound.

>While there is support aplenty for all
>sorts of things, there is proof for precious few.  Isn't it enough
>to realize that anytime someone states something as fact, it is some-
>thing that they believe and that there is therefore an invisible "In
>my opinion" in front of it?

There is no reason I can fathom to state opinions as facts. In absence of
"proof" one can support one's opinions/claims with more than endlessly
repeated dogma.

>If people on this list could only make statements for which they had
>proof, the list would quickly cease to exist.

I disagree. There is plenty of peer-reviewed research and plenty of
anecdotal evidence to have plenty of discussion that isn't simply repeating
out of date dogma. There is also plenty of experiencial info to share that
requires no "proof".

>Even if everyone on this list were to support every single statement
>with all sorts of references to books and scientific papers, would
>we really be much better off?  Especially with all the sloppy and/or
>unethical science being done out there, a published opinion isn't
>necessarily better than an unpublished one.

The scientific method is still the yardstick by which to measure so-called
facts. The "proof" I am asking of Alan is more to invite him to realize and
admit that his "facts" are not facts. Hopefully asking for proof helps him
realize this so that he can either stop pushing NH dogma as fact or at
least admit he has no scientific support for his claims. I doubt he will do
either, given his track record, but nevertheless he will continue to be
called up when he makes his overboard generalizations as above.

>Perhaps it would help if we could put together, along with the FAQ,
>an FRD (Frequently Referenced Documents) containing a recommended
>reading list from each list member who cares to submit one.

Many of these books are simply unedited unscrutinized ego-trips by
alternative health "gurus". I can just imagine Alan's book if he were to
write one ;) =:O

A reading list is fine as far as it goes but it doesn't address the central
issue, at least to me, of mistaking dogma for fact. Indeed, I'd venture to
say that most books on such a list could be studied as examples of such.

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]