Mark:
>You make a number of good points, as you always do, but you damage your
>own credibility by making unnecessary personal attacks on Loren.  You
>have already decided in your own mind that it is impossible for him to
>thrive on the diet he describes, and on that basis you call him a fake.
>I suggest that a better strategy is to simply present your reasons for
>believing that he cannot be doing what he says he is doing, or to
>question him in detail

Tom:
See the article, "The Calorie Paradox of Raw Veganism" in the "Frank
Talk" section at:
http://www.beyondveg.com

There is a very large body of scientific evidence re: calorie
requirements.
Because of this, I don't see the term "fake" as an insult.

Mark:
>You accuse Loren of having a "closed mind."  You have demonstrated in
>your post that your own mind is closed with regard to the 1000 calorie
>issue. An open minded person, upon hearing claims that contradict his
>previously held beliefs, will ask for supporting evidence before
>dismissing those contradictory claims, or calling the person making
>them a fake.

Tom:
See article cited above. I will not retype or repost long articles;
folks can read them on the website. I am happy to listen to
legitimate scientific evidence - Loren has provided none,
and simply repeats the rawist dogma that is known to be false
(and which often harms people, as well).

By the way, in the article I do mention that folks can adapt - within
limits - to lower calorie intakes (as happens in chronic anorexia
nervosa). But there are lower limits to the adaptation.

Mark:
>that evidence is found to be unconvincing, one is still bound to
>learn something, because it is very rare indeed that the person we
>are having a discussion with is 100% in the wrong.

Tom:
I agree with your sentiments. However, understand that under-reporting
of food intake is common and documented, in the case of obese
subjects (I can dig around my files and give cites for this),
and binge-eating and lying about it are known to occur among the raw
experts. There is a peculiar psychology at work: the raw expert
binges on junk or cooked food, but as it is not raw, it is not
"food" but "poison" to be neutralized by fasting or other penances.
Thus it does "not count" and they will be "pure" again after
their next fast. In my opinion, the only thing that keeps some
fruitarians going, is the nutrition they get via binges and cheating
on the diet.

Mark:
>Personally, I welcome Loren's contribution and hope he continues to
>contribute.  I would not be surprised if he goes elsewhere, though
>(i.e. the Rawlife list) if he continues to be attacked in this way.
>Nor would I be surprised if others with similar views do likewise.
>This is hugely ironic,

Tom:
Folks can come or go as they wish.

Mark:
>because in the past you have written at great length defending the
>decision to throw people off e-mail lists who engage in precisely
>the kind of behavior you are now engaging in.  And if I remember
>right, one of the reasons you gave was that others would be afraid
>to express their views for fear of being attacked, so therefore the
>attackers should be removed.  Did you take this position only because
>in that case the attackers were raw vegans?

Tom:
Your view seems quite biased, from my perspective. If someone came
here and claimed that 100% raw vegan gave them the power to fly
(without
an airplane, glider, helicopter, etc) and I challenged them, would you
come to their defense? I suspect you would.

There is such massive dishonesty and hypocrisy in the raw movement
(which is intellectually, ethically, and morally bankrupt) that
there are times when plain talk is appropriate. Rawists need to
come to grips with this, and to boycott the fakes, plagiarists,
dietary racists, that are so abundant among the raw so-called
"experts."

PS personal note. Things are pretty busy right now for me. Expect slow
responses from me in the near future. I replied to this quickly as it
arrived while I was online doing a morning mail check.

Tom Billings