Gerry Coffey wrote:
> --I noted the other day we were told to limit our posts to 3 or be cast out
> for a day or until we requested to be put back on.
Gerry I think you may be confusing lists. I don't think that message
appeared here.
> I just returned from
> another trip and had 492 emails. I attempt to respond where I think it of
> consequence, and don't take time to count. If that's the case I'm going to be
> knocked off, and I'll still have so many others that would like responses, I
> might not get around to "getting back on" this one. And that will be
> unfortunate because I do enjoy the intelligent repartee.
Not quite following you here, except to say that 492 messages sounds
horrible, and I think you've got your list "rules" confused.
> --I don't know about the band witdh or technical limitations. I do know I am
> on several other lists and this obstacle has a) never come up, and b) never
> been a problem with too many or too much from one individual.
Is the 5-post limitation really a problem for you? I haven't noticed that
you've _ever_ posted five messages here, Gerry. Again, are you sure you're
not confusing lists?
Gerry wrote:
> > --But I had no "agenda," nor do I think Alan or Lance or Wes or Bob or Rex
> or
> > even you have.
Liza wrote:
> 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.
Gerry wrote:
> --That is not an "agenda." It is a way of sharing, as do we all, what is my
> opinion, and what I think is, so far, the ideal. I know it is not the total
> answere, but like "democracy," it's lots better than any other program I've
> come across.
That's my point. It may be a better program for YOU. But being a raw vegan
is NOT a better program for anyone and everyone. Natural Hygiene is NOT
"the ideal." There IS no "ideal" that suits everybody. You think being a
raw vegan is the "ideal," others think fruitarianism is, others think
macrobiotics is.
But trying to promote ANY diet, including Natural Hygiene, as "the ideal,"
is an agenda.
> -- However, as Alan pointed out, few practicing Natural Hygienists, even the
> "professionals" are all raw or even very strict, for various reasons.
Either because:
1) the diet is impossible to adhere to, (in which case it is dishonest to
promote it as "THE ideal diet,"), or because
2) these people you are referring to (_who_, precisely, are they, anyway?)
don't believe, or espouse, ANY one diet as "the ideal" diet.
I don't know which "professionals" or "practicing hygienists" you're
referring to, when you make such a statement. But I would hope that if
they're cheating on their diets like you say they are, that they're doing
it for the second reason I've mentioned above, in full view of the public,
and with integrity.
> The
> Hallelujah Diet, as practiced by Dr. (Honorary PhD) George Malkmus, comes
> closer than most hygienists, and Dr. Joel Robbins, M.D., who, I don't believe
> is officially associated with the Natural Hygiene Society, also practices it
> far better than many of its leaders.
I'm not sure of your point. Are you trying to lend credibility to NH? If
so, you haven't picked people who are particularly impressive (!!!), in my
view.
> --The ANHS is attracting more and more M.D.'s, and gradually, since we have
> been associated with the society, we have seen their conventional medical
> leanings influence and in some cases override the precepts taught by Dr.
> Herbert Shelton, ie., Food Combining, cooked food, etc.
Again, I'm not sure of your point. In my opinion, it is a sign of a healthy
organization and philosophy, that can continually refine its thinking and
ideas as time goes on, people get smarter, and new research provides more
information and insights.
You mention food combining and cooked food. Food combining has absolutely
zero basis in human physiology. People have claimed that it helps them, but
I think this is because they're eating less, or eating better foods, or
making other concomitant dietary or psychological changes which are
helpful. ANHS has come out with a statement that there is no evidence to
support any theories of food combining.
As far as cooked food, a few good articles and editorials have appeared in
"Health Science" (the Natural Hygiene magazine) in which it was expressed
that an "all raw foods" diet is not the "ideal" diet for everybody, and
that there are many benefits to cooked foods.
> --We attend many health conferences and vegetarian affairs the world over,
> however, and, although N.H., as I said, isn't the total answer, if appears to
> be head and shoulders above the rest we have sampled. We continue to keep an
> open mind.
You are lucky to be able to travel. But why are you looking for "the total
answer?" there IS no "total answer" Gerry. This is hard for people in the
alternative-diets-world to accept, because the reason they are in the
alternative-diet-world in the first place is because they would like to
find some easy answer to the complicated question of what to eat. The fact
is, that there IS no limited dietary regime which is going to be good for
any two people, or even for the same person at different stages of their
life.
What do you mean that NH is "head and shoulders above the rest you've
sampled?" What else have you sampled? And for whom, and for what purpose,
and for how long?
Maybe Natural Hygiene is serving a sort of religious function for you,
since you're involved with George Malkamus. And maybe you want this from a
dietary regime. Is that what you mean?
> An international disaster
> which would, and still might (behind the scenes efforts are still trying to
> mend fences) cause an international "scandal" and repercussions, is the result
> of ignorance, disrespect and poor manners.
????? Not following you here at all. An international disaster?
> --That's true, but I don't recall any.
I think you missed a few posts.
> --I think you took offense where none was meant, and your response to that
> offense calused another to take offense and respond in kind.
Huh??
Yes, you do seem to have missed a few posts.
I posted an abstract of a recent study regarding the effects of cooking on
meats. I sent it with a brief "hello" sentence, to the list as a whole.
Alan responded with this weird and offensive post:
> I don't quite know what you are getting at..as I have never yet
> addressed cooked meat as a cause of cancer at all in this list.
> A holiday in the Bahamas to anybody in here who can proove that
> I did. Be fair Liza. If I stated that women tend to get more
> overemotional and distort facts (which you have proven here) you
> would probably call me sexist (I'd bet my bottom dollar that
> Kirt is also a woman BTW). ;-)
Those are the sexist comments that have been referred to by a few others.
Liza wrote:
> 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!!).
Gerry wrote:
> --I don't always agree with Alan, either, but re: the above, I understand and
> agree completely.
YOU DO????!! Ooookaaaay then, evidently you two think alike.
> I NEVER dreamed I'd ever be a vegetarian, and vegan was a foreign word.
> Now I wouldn't be anything but. It has enriched, enhanced and elongated my
> life.
Elongated? Are you taller?
So, now you wouldn't be "anything but?" Well, I hope the diet continues to
serve you well. But don't try to claim it's got to be good for others, it
may be the worst thing in the world for somebody else.
> --YES, YES, YES, LIZA, if I believed malice was intended. But I don't. And I
> can feel your hurt. But I think it comes from somewhere deep inside and long
> ago and not from what Alan said which you chose to, I think, take wrongly.
LOL LOL LOL!!! I think you've missed the point entirely. :) But don't worry
about it, Gerry, you seem to have good intentions. lol lol lol
Love Liza
-----------------------
[log in to unmask] (Liza May)
|
