>>Look in a mirror sometime, Rex. A pattern has certainly manifested
>>here in your interactions with others. You have been very quick to
>>take your own pokes and display apparent sarcasm, but when someone
>>presents any hint of criticism to your points of view, you take it as
>>a personal affront and start behaving rather childishly. You accuse
>>others of not taking your 'quality' issues into account, but
>>apparently refuse to be held accountable for your remarks when others
>>raise issues with your stance. This lack of accountability is another
>>pattern that has been prevalent in your conversations with others,
>>while at the same demand that we "struggle toward higher quality".

Alan:
>Having followed Rex's posts myself, I do not agree with these
>accusations at all.

Maybe you would like to share with us on which points you disagree and
specifically why?

Alan:
>I have found his posts to be fairly honest and straightforward and can
>feel his frustration at some of the responses, none of which offered
>satisfactory alternative information.

I have seen no evidence of the above. If you have any, please share it.
Rex got into trouble for his arrogance of consistently dodging the
question of how high brix can compensate for imbalance in
macronutrients and for avoiding the the real question of what makes him
think that a high brix, fruitarian diet can bring optimal health to
anybody.  Maybe you would like to answer these questions on his behalf.
:) (Warning: Since no credible science supports fruitarianism and
considering its very poor track record, just claiming that a few of
your friends have been doing well on such a diet will not cut it. A
bare minimum would be providing specifics of how long they have been
eating this way and what exactly they have been consuming and in what
amounts as well as any information about them that might give them some
credibility - remember, the claims of so-called fruitarians are
legendary and since you are making the (unusual) claims, the burden on
proof is on you. :) BTW, your charts on primate diets were interesting
but were not only outdated (see upcoming article by Tom on BeyondVeg)
but did not cover how the dietary needs of our immediate primate
ancestors changed as their brains grew and they developed an extensive
use of tools.

David:
>>I believe I have been quite tolerant of various transgressions on
>>this list in the past (perhaps to a fault), but I have thought long
>>and hard on this issue, and find that I can no longer let the list be
>>dragged through the mudhole that you apparently try to keep
>>discussion mired in. As such, Rex, I would like you to take a
>>vacation from the list for a while, an opportunity to ponder how
>>communication and accountability can be improved - you can access the
>>archives if you want to keep up. NFL, Rene, and Bob Avery were asked
>>to leave the list for somewhat different transgressions, but one
>>feature that has been

Alan:
>I protest strongly here. It is the tactic of some people in here
>(certainly not Rex) to mudsling rather than provide any tangible
>counterarguments and thus draw people otherwise merely interested
>in exchanging information into unpleasant and pointless bickery.

Please point out specifically what you are referring to.  With the
basis for which you have reached the above conclusions, I will be able
to form my own opinion and not be in the dark as I am now.

Alan:
>For this reason alone I may actually consider leaving it myself if
>things don't change.

This may be the best for you to do.  You will probably fit in much
better on JR's idealistic "raw" list.  Like Rex you have contributed a
lot of valuable information to this list but unfortunately it seems
impossible - just like with Rex - to engage you in constructive
dialogue. (It is a phenomenon that has repeated itself over and over
again over the years on this list: when raw and/or vegan gets to be
over a certain % in somebody's diet, out goes common sense and
rationality and willingless to be held accountable along with ability
to deal constructively with opposing views.) Kirt has pointed to
specific claims of yours he has found to be exaggerated and Lynton has
asked you for details about your own diet.  Not responding directly to
inquires such as these is what more than anything has tarnished your
credibility and exhausted the patience of many on this list.  Why is
your own diet such a secret? - and regarding the issue of exaggerated
claims, you need either to back down and admit that you got carried
away with enthusiasm and that your stated claims were just your own
strongly held opinions/beliefs or make your case with factual and
logical arguments of why you think your claims are not exaggerated.
Here is an example:

You claim:
"But a healthy cooked diet as opposed to raw I have yet to see."

For such a broad and sweeping statement to have much meaning and for it
to be more than just your opinion or belief, you need to provide the
following minimum:  Which cooked diets have you investigated (comment:
you might have missed some), which methods and criteria were you using
in your assessment of them (comment: they might have been faulty or
inaccurate) and does your statement include every raw diet? (comment:
even those clearly lacking in quality and adequate nutrients?)  Of
course, you have the freedom not to provide the above information but
then, naturally, the conclusion follows that it is only your
belief/opinion being expressed when you state that you have never come
across a healthy cooked diet that could match a raw diet. In my
opinion, if you repeatedly fail to provide the above - for whatever
reason - you fail to meet the posting standards for this list.

Alan:
>There are people who want to know (or at least note and acknowledge
>any information passed on) and there are people who very obviously
>don't want to know no matter what the subject (moles from the food
>industry perhaps?). This latter group seems to be in the majority at
>the moment and is quite adept at tying up other people who attempt
>provide info with anything from petty, juvenile name-calling to
>downright insulting comments.

Is this a guessing game or are you speaking in code? ;-) I do not have
the faintest clue of what you are referring to here. I assume that you
would like for me to sympathize with the sentiments being expressed
above but how is that possible when you are so unclear in your writing?

Alan:
>Take the Brix method, for example, invented here in Germany, as
>well as the German work on Kirlian photography. Why do they
>seem to get up some people's noses (perhaps because they were
>not invented or followed-up properly in, say, the U.S.A.) despite
>the fact that they are still the most effective methods we have
>today of identifying the vitality and hence the quality of fruits and
>veggies?

This is clearly your opinion - do you have any evidence to back up this
claim?

Alan:
>Who has offered any info on for better methods?

Hold your horses. :) Before we go looking for something "better", we
first need to establish "good" and provide the evidence that shows that
Kirlian has some merit to it in the first place.

Alan:
>What I'm trying to say is that it is not the Rex's of this world that
>are at fault and hampering the transfer of info but the jealous and
>the envious and the often also half-hearted rest who are usually
>more interested in either picking the cherries or picking an
>argument.

Again, these are your obviously deeply felt sentiments of yours but
without any form of documentation, they have little relevance to this
list.

Best, Peter