I am somewhat unsatisfied with my last reply :/
>Jo's $0.02:
>This urge to intimidate / manipulate is not restricted to fruitarians
>(although I appreciate Peter's creative Latin moniker). It usually emerges
>when there is perceived danger to a person's belief system or physical
>well-being. We can rule out the latter in this case
Hmmm. Why can we rule out the later? NFL's belief system may well be the
ruin of their physical well-being.
Lashing out at people may not be limited to fruitarians, but you must admit
that it is ESPECIALLY hypocritical and ironic (at best) in NFL's
case--precisely because of the moral/ethical high road that these folks
claim, and repeatedly fail to follow. Perhaps a bully is a bully but an
obnoxious fruitarian bully is especially pathetic because of the hypocrisy.
>(although when you feel
>that your livelihood is being threatened, this type of fear-based behavior
>becomes more understandable).
If NFL can't understand that they are their own worst enemy then they are
quite talentless indeed. Reselling books at high mark-ups, turning raw
foods into infomercials, blatant plagiarism, ruthless and immature personal
attacks, etc etc etc. And then to blame others for their pathetic
failure!!! Jo, you've been around long enough to know the score, and yet
here you are cutting NFL slack for repeated threats of violence. What gives?
>More tellingly, could it be a reflection of a
>lack of acceptance by the individual involved rather than something as
>compartmental as "fruitarians are rabid extremists?"
I agree that NFL doesn't speak for every aspiring fruitarian out there, but
man o man I see VERY few fruitarians making it known that NFL doesn't speak
for them. And then there are seemingly reasonable folks such as yourself
who make posts like this, giving them all sorts of room to manipulate from!
I don't get it, Jo.
And I just plain don't get the "lack of acceptance" bit. Do you mean that
NFL doesn't accept Tom Billings? Reality? Sound criticism? Their business
failure? If repeated threats of physical violence is an acceptable "lack of
acceptance" for you
>Approaching Mr. Wolfe at the Expo for a clarification was helpful toward
>understanding the issues (thx Rowland). We would also benefit from hearing
>Mr. Wolfe's side of the story on this forum. Although any earnest threat
>should be taken seriously, and expecting an apology may seem to be the
>social norm here, howz about pre-empting raw "terrorism" by lending
>Mr.Wolfe an attentive ear; assuring him that our focus is NOT to destroy
>his enterprise; inviting him to debate the issues we all share in an open
>forum; and letting him work things out over time?
What?!? Are you saying you'd like NFL's rabid "enterprise" to succeed? Sir
Wolfe has ripped off attentive ears and "debated" with stolen words and
when that fails he just starts calling names. Oh, yeah, let's all kiss
NFL's forehead (or should it be _feet_) and give him again the "open
forum"--which he disallows with repeated threats of violence!!! Are we, you
and I, living in the same slice of the 20th century, Jo?
>OK, "we've tried doing that," some of you may contend. And for sure, these
>threats (Mr. Jeff Ross being another example from recent memory) are
>unfortunate.
Unfortunate? How about completely outta line.
>That they come from people who actively promote the raw food
>lifestyle makes it more so.
Yes. How can this be OK to you?
>These behaviors reinforce an unflattering
>stereotype: that we are flaky, self-righteous health nazis. This not a
>groovy state of affairs, admittedly.
Well, it will continue to be a pretty accurate stereotype as long as you,
Jo, and others like you keep cutting the NFL bullies an infinite amount of
slack. Don't you get it? You are letting NFL create and perpetuate the
image of you as a "flaky, self-righteous health nazi". Posts like yours
will be read by NFL as tacit acceptance. YOU are perpetuating the
stereotype.
>But I've also had the experience of
>being threatened with blackmail by an Expo attendee (again supporting my
>observation that fruitarians are not alone in exhibiting this type of
>behavior) and it was mighty tempting to REACT emotionally, thrash about and
>add fuel to the fire. What kept me out of that mess was a shift in focus.
>I'd like to apply a similar attitude to the incident described by Mr. Morin.
Yet somehow Mr. Marin makes it clear that he is unallied with such
attitudes and tactics. You, on the other hand, come across as an NFL
apologist.
>The talented individuals directly or indirectly affiliated with Nature's
>First Law have contributions to offer and everyone in the alternative
>health community (NFL included) will probably realize that this adversarial
>approach is none too inefficient for the long-term (please no flames, I am
>NOT an NFL spokesperson).
You sure sound like one. Does that bother you in the least?
>We can simply agree to disagree, respect each
>other's positions and let it go. But the sooner we choose to collaborate,
>the sooner we can expend our energies on largely productive pursuits.
It's hard to have a gentleman's (ah, forgive me, gentleperson's)
disagreement with someone who threatens you with violence, doncha think?
Instead of, apparently, pleading with Tom and this list to go easy on NFL,
why don't you let NFL know in no uncertain terms that you find their
bullying absolutely unacceptable, that you are, as a person and fruitarian,
utterly embarrassed to be associated with them, etc. Why is that so hard?!?
>I think the various schools of thought can be likened to a humongus salad
>bar and it's up to each person to pick and choose what he wants on his
>plate.
Sounds like Tom's choice was a bit limited, eh? It also sounds like NFL is
on your plate still. I am embarrassed for you.
>Now, about that durian tree falling down in an uninhabited forest.... :)
Ah, the saving grace of a sense of humor. Yet another human trait seemingly
absent from your salad bar NFL. ;)
Cheers,
Kirt
Secola /\ Nieft
[log in to unmask]
|
