In a message dated 3/12/99 1:33:13 PM Central Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

...
 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?

--Rules about posting more than 2 or 3 messages. To me, that defeats the
purpose of having a list.

 ...and how  does that relate to this list?

--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. 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.


 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.

--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. And we all have
the option to read and/or delete. However, learning proper "netiquette" is
helpful;-)

 > --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.

--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.

-- However, as Alan pointed out, few practicing Natural Hygienists, even the
"professionals" are all raw or even very strict, for various reasons. 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. However, it should be noted that although
they don't call it by that, most of their education is based on the N.H.
philosophy. Dr. Malkmus says he "broke" with them because they cater to an
international populace therefore don't "preach" any particular religious
belief, whereas Dr. Malkmus premises his teachings on the "true Christian
foundation as put forth in the Bible."

--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.

--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.

 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.

--I'll vote for that;-)

 > --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.

--Yes, I do. But my sensitivity to such might well be because I have had the
opportunity to travel and live in foreign countries and make my own mistakes
in misinterpreting and judging out of inexperience and immaturity.

--As I alluded to above, we travel a lot and just returned (Jan/February) from
participating in the WORLD VEGETARIAN CONFERENCE in Thailand followed by
stopovers in Taiwan, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and Hawaii. At the
Conference we were appalled to see reputedly well educated and travelled
people "stomp" all over the cultures and customs of others.

-- And it was not by the so called "Ugly American." 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.

 > 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.

--Would if I had more time.

 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.

--That's true, but I don't recall any.

 > 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.

--I think you took offense where none was meant, and your response to that
offense calused another to take offense and respond in kind.

 > --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!!).

--I don't always agree with Alan, either, but re: the above, I understand and
agree completely.

 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.

--Yes. Agree on the things that are important: ie., that clean air, pure
water, uncontaminated food are in everyone's best interest, and discussing
things openly and fairly and respecting those views different from our own are
also valid concerns.
I didn't mean we couldn't disagree on anything. Just that we have more things
on which we can agree than the opposite, and build on those. And if we respect
each other, we can at least consider the other person's point might have
merit. 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.

 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

  >>
--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.

--Alan. Where are you? Can't you see this beautiful person is hurt? She needs
to know, as I think I do, that you were also hurt and that's why you retorted,
in, again, I think, an attempt at humor (which went "bad"). What makes me
think I know what you two are feeling? Cuz, as I said, I've "been there, too."

--Hope I haven't messed up!;-(

Gerry