Gerrry,
> --Liza, as one who's "been there, done that," I'd like to submit that when a
> newcomer comes on board, in most cases it has nothing to do with an "agenda."
> When I was new to the list I was so excited to see so many well informed
> health seekers I wanted to respond to almost every post that came across and
> "talk," ie., contribute wherever I thought I might.

You're probably right about being excited to find other like-minded people,
and posting a lot, and so on. The excitement and enthusiasm is great  --
it's the attitude that some have, which is the problem. By attitude I
mean:  1) Proseletyzing, 2)Posing as an "expert" and claiming to have
conclusive answers on nutrition questions, and 3) Making proclamations
about any one single diet being good for any more than one single person.

Gerry,
> When JR knocked me off the list a few times,
> as he did you, I had to swallow my pride and not take it personally. Rules are
> rules.

I was not aware that JR knocked you off his list. What rules are you
referring to? In my case, I do not believe I was kicked off JR's list for
anything that had anything remotely to do with rules. (Of course, I never
will know for sure, since jr never told me anything, and wouldn't answer my
emails asking why, one day I just found myself off the list), but I believe
the reason I was kicked off was precisely for the reasons I've mentioned
above  --  that I am not an adherent of ANY one single diet as being THE
diet for ALL people, and on jr's list you have to collude with the
assumption that all-raw-vegan is the only way. So in my case it didn't have
anything to do with "rules." What "rules" did you break over there, and how
does that relate to this list?

> What's this about limiting to so many posts a day?  I still don't quite
> understand that.

I always assumed it had something to do with the technology of available
band-width, and an attempt to accomodate as many listmembers as possible
(kind of like making sure that no one person "hogs" the whole conversation,
and helping the quieter people to have an opportunity to speak up, too).
I've never found it to be a problem in any way, and I post as much as
anyone. I'm not sure why this would present a problem.

> --But I had no "agenda," nor do I think Alan or Lance or Wes or Bob or Rex or
> even you have.

In all respect for your beliefs, Gerry, I do think you do in fact sometimes
have an
agenda, or at least you sound that way. You have often written posts that
read as though you think Natural Hygiene is THE way. Whether or not
you *intend* to sound this way, you have in fact tended to sound as though
you believe that People Should Be Raw Vegans.

In my view, there aren't ANY "shoulds" when it comes to diet.

UNLESS we are speaking of religious, or ethical, issues. (As in, "People
shouldn't eat animals" (Vegetarians) or "People shouldn't eat pork or
bottom-dwellers" (Jewish laws of Kashrut), or "People shouldn't eat
commercially-grown produce" (Organic-foods activists), or any of the other
myriad of non-health related reasons.

But for health, there are no "shoulds." Everybody is different, when it
comes to what is good or bad for their health, and any claims to the
contrary are bogus.

> --A few of the "established" contributors might at first take offense at the
> newcomers' seemingly overly-confident input, but if they will stop and
> remember, they were probably just as embullient when they first signed on.

I hope I was ebullient (I'm pretty much a newcomer to the internet myself),
but I hope I was not arrogant or dogmatic or posing as an expert about
which foods and diets do what.

> When the list was new, perhaps they had no "competition" so it was easy to
> gain a sort of hierarchy. But we can only grow and keep from being stagnant if
> we are open to new ideas, particularly from different cultures. A luxury the
> "net" affords us.

This all sounds very nice. I don't think this list is closed to ideas from
different cultures. Do you? On the contrary, I think this group happens to
be committed to discussion of all ideas.

> Jo overlooked the sometimes undiplomatic approach of the newcomer in order to
> glean any new message. Frankly, I think we haven't been too hospitable to
> newcomers unless they take a submissive, "grateful for your wisdom and advice"
> role.

Not sure who you're referring to here. I'd encourage you to look at the
archives, to review conversations with whichever particular newcomers
you're thinking of, and maybe you'll get a different impression.

Lance said:
>  > Even the below sexist comment.  Is
>  > this common?  I really don't think I want this type of discourse in my
>  > "language diet."

Gerry:
>  --When cornered, condemned and "shot down" for something that wasn't
> intended, one often reacts indiscriminately without thinking things through.

I guess I must be missing something here. Please explain how the person was
cornered, condemned, and shot down.  !!! I didn't see cornering or
condemning.

Furthermore, there is no excuse for bigotry or racial or sexist slurs,
under any circumstances.

> don't think it was meant to be insulting. As Eleanor Roosevelt once said, one
> can only be insulted if one agrees with what was said.

Ah! In other words, racial slurs are fine, if they're not "meant" to be
insulting? And if someone gets insulted, it's their own fault for agreeing?
Does that mean we can start telling ethnic jokes, or making sexist
comments, or expounding on theories of the superiority or inferiority of
different races?

And if anyone is offended, then they obviously must agree with such
slander?

Come on now Gerry, you can't possibly mean what you've said here.

> --Liza, you are usually so patient and understanding.

Thank you. I didn't know I appeared that way (in fact, I evidently appear
very differently to different people, since I've heard both that, and the
opposite as well).

> I suspect Alan got your
> dander up when he "dared" disagree with some of your "wisdom."

No, I don't mind disagreeing with my wisdom. I do mind the arrogance and
insistence on foolish "claims," (such as "A fast is good for whatever ails
'ya" or "Milk is never good for anyone" or "A fast will cure herpes" or
"Carbohydrate provides more energy than fat" or "There is no such thing as
a protein deficiency" --  there are many more to choose from!!).

My dander isn't up. It's hard to get my dander up by a discussion about
nutrition, through emails like this. My writing may appear as though my
dander is up, but I don't feel that way.

 I don't
> pretend to be a whizz at diplomacy and am often a "bull in a china shop"
> myself. I hope this isn't one of those times. Just know my intent is not to
> divide but bring together so we all might benefit.

Thank you, those are noble intentions.

> I've reaped much from
> Liza's many contributions

Thank you again. I'm glad they're useful.

> Again, if we all agreed on everything, there would be no growth. And
> we must learn not to take offense where none was intended. I speak from MUCH
> experience in that area;-) (Humility is now one of my FAVORITE virtues.)

Actually, although the idea that if we all agreed there'd be no growth is
often said, I don't see that as necessarily being the case. We could in
fact all agree about there not being any one diet right for everyone, and
then each offer our own thinking, resources, and experiences to try to
learn more about nutrition and health. Or, we could all agree that bigotry
and racial slurs are not welcome here.

As far as not taking offense, I think I will probably always take offense
at comments or attitudes that are oppressive to other people (either to
myself, or
to anyone else). Such comments and attitudes HURT PEOPLE. This fact is what
is
usually overlooked in discussions such as this, which can get so
"theoretical" and "on
paper" that the real *impact* and nature of the oppressive statements is
just not felt.

Racist slurs HURT Blacks. Anti-Asian slurs HURT Asians. Anti-Semitic slurs
HURT Jews. Sexist slurs HURT girls and grown-up women.

Furthermore, oppressive slurs degrade and embarass other members of the
group that made
the insulting comments.

It's just not good for people, or furthering human relations.

Your admonitions to "not take offense where none is intended" sound nice,
Gerry, but don't you think you ought maybe to admonish the reciter of the
slurs rather than the target of them?

Love Liza


--
[log in to unmask] (Liza May)