Francios,

> GARANTEED JOKES FREE :
> The sender guarantee this mail contains only serious stuff..

The replier makes no such claim. ;) And reserves the right to sue sender if
s/he is making a joke.

> K : Hmmm. You continue to avoid the real issue: Instincto vs a mixed
> cooked/raw
>> paleodiet.
>
> F : I'd like to have a direct pratical comparing.

We agree.

> But, as I said (Jan29) in answer to Jean-Louis, experiments with cooked food
> are dangerous. You can't escape this fact, Jean-Louis admitted the lack of
> prove that cooking is OK, even if it doesn't mean it's not OK:

Ditto reverse. Experiments with raw foods have proven dangerous for some.

> Cook at your own risks!
> It may be OK, maybe not.

We are, again, in agreement.

> K :> Not so sure, as I don't know the level of your optimism. I think, as I
> have
>> said many times, that there is something very valuable to instincto
> theory.
>> It just gets caught up in all too much optimism and the
>> otherwise-there-is-no-hope stuff.
>
> F : We were talking about Burger's optimism.

Yes.

And your level of optimism.

> F : Since evolution seems to work sometimes by taking sudden steps, we may
> receive one day the proper "gift package of mutations"providing us
> adaptation to paleo-cooked food. And another day the one for
> Coke, cow milk, chocolate and whisky. Some mutants fellows may allready have
> received such precious gifts. I hope you got the one labelled "paleo-mixed".

Fairly good odds. And you have fairly good odds as well.

> K : Now, we're talking. Doubt is the basis of science (whereas faith is the
>> basis of religion). Have you _doubt_ of Burger's theory, or _faith_? No
>> flippant answers now, this is somewhat serious stuff.
>
> F : I doubted and I still have some doubts, as I doubt of allmost
> everything. I even have some doubts that you and my PC realy exist.

Joke-free zone? ;) I hope you have an instincto lawyer.

(Joke: An engineer dies and reports to the pearly gates. St. Peter checks
his dossier and says, "Ah, you're an engineer -- you're in the wrong place."
So, the engineer reports to the gates of hell and is let in. Pretty soon,
the engineer gets dissatisfied with the level of comfort in hell, and starts
designing and building improvements. After awhile, they've got air
conditioning and flush toilets and escalators, and the engineer is a pretty
popular guy. One day, God calls Satan up on the telephone and says with a
sneer, "So, how's it going down there in hell?" Satan replies, "Hey, things
are going great. We've got air conditioning and flush toilets and
escalators, and there's no telling what this engineer is going to come up
with next." God replies, "What??? You've got an engineer? That's a mistake
-- he should never have gotten down there; send him up here." Satan says,
"No way." I like having an engineer on the staff, and I'm keeping him." God
says, "Send him back up here or I'll sue." Satan laughs uproariously and
answers, "Yeah, right. And just where are YOU going to get a lawyer?")--from
some junkmail I recieved recently

> I
> thougth what I allready wrote made it clear:
> "Most people need solid
>>> ground to believe, not a theory to be put into questioning every day
> and
>>> every hour as Burger strongly recommended. He took long diatribes to
>>> explain us that what he says is only a theoretical model, that a theory
>>> is never the ultimate truth but a temporary explanation to be modified
>>> or abandoned in the future, once we have more facts and understanding
> of  these facts."

I am hoping, probably beyond hope, to instill some further doubt into the
questioning. After all, without hope it is all so very depressing, no?

The situation may demand it. ;)

> K :> Yet, all "modern" hunter-gatherers, even those in the tropics, cook
> much of
>> their foods (especially veggies and animal foods). Such strange goings on.
>
> F : Yeah, we allready talked about that. If cooking is akin to an addiction,
> it can only spread with no possibility of reversal till we understand this.

Addiction? Maybe, maybe not. This is the phrase which allows instinctos (and
most other "naturalistic" regimes) to dismiss such queries.

> F : If "metasexuality" is just an escape lane or an excuse for Burger's
> behavior, there's no point in investigating more about it. If  "the meta" is
> definitively explaned this way, it is irrelevant to inquire about it. But
> maybe "irrelevant" isn't the proper word.

Probably. If his mind is capable of "meta" then the same mind capable of
"instincto" may need to be questioned about the underlying aspects of his
personality.

> I mean: if love/sexual needs of human beeings in our society are
> fullfilled in a way that provides them a total satisfaction and a normaly
> balanced
> behavior, allowing them to interact in harmonious ways between'em as well as
> with other species and their whole environment,  then everything is fine and
> there's no need to launch any thinking and reserch in this field.

You never fail me, Francios. Some 50 words that excuse Burger from any
social scrutiny because, I guess, basically, the world is fucked up (because
of cooked foods, no doubt).

> K : And if Rudy was a pedophile (howeverthefuckitsspelled) asshole, would
> you (...)
> Are you grateful to me? Or are
> you
>> only toying with me, you rascalrama you?
>>
>> I'm sooooo sorry, I got off track, lets get back to the ideals!
>
> F : Cool down, cool down!

Your sense of humor is straining.  Below you don't respond to my question
that I can see.

> It's good to express our anger sometimes and I
> appreciate when it comes out in such a frank way followed by excuses...
> I.C. engines emissions are a problem. But their impact and damage to the
> planet is low relatively to damage subsequent to the widspread use of
> cooking. Cooking led to agriculture and cattle, which in turns has led to
> civilisation, wars and deforestration. 3300 years ago, the whole Europe was
> covered with forests. Only small fragments of  forest remain today, and they
> are mostly logs factories. The aeras where agriculture first began  (Asyria,
> Mesopotamia) are deserts today.
> For me, we all are humans; there's no instinctos ( I use this word for
> practical purposes only, writing every time "person experimenting the
> instinctive-nutrition" being to much work), no Americans, no Germans, no
> French, no Jews, no christians, no capitalists, no communists, no witches,
> no pedophils, no good and no bad ones. A person is a dynamic thing, I mean
> she/he changes over the time and happenings in her/his live. Labelling a
> person by another name than woman or man makes no sense, since this label
> maybe invalid later on, after the person has changed his or hers religious,
> political or whatever views. Nationality and behaviour of a person may also
> change during a lifetime.
> I don't know whether I answered to your point. You express ideas, but for me
> they are not a part of you, as my ideas aren't a part of me. Ideas may be
> changed, but not our skin and soul.
> Yes, I'm gratefull to you for this discussion. If I were not enjoying it, I
> would stop spending so much time on it.

Me too. ;) And pedophilia?

> K :> If you think this case is dismissed, you have been doing too much
>> windsurfing. ;) Truth be told, it bothers me that that all you need to do
> to
>> dismiss an idea is to say that the mother wasn't "pure" instincto. It may
> be
>> that the offspring may have been even worse of if the mother hadn't made
>> whatever "exceptions" she felt needed before birth. Who knows, but from a
>> "scientific" point of view one has to consider all the possibilities, no?
>
> F :  It's not that she wasn't "pure" instincto. She wasn't instincto at all
> anymore since 2 months before giving birth and during breast feeding.

Well, scratch the whole deal then, eh? And, to your knowledge, every _pure_
instincto-from-birth is pristine? How many do you have first-hand knowledge
of?

>>> K : Why don't the mongooses die from trich?
>>>>> F : Do we know that not a single mongoose died from trich?
>> K : Not the one that Ano ate. ;)
>> Perhaps the most instincto of all mongeese died from trich--no, wait,
>> correct that, _almost_  died from trich because he got modern medical
>> treatment at the last moment. ;)
>
> F : I looks like a joke and this is a joke free mail...

The question is why wild animals don't have the trouble certain instinctos
do with trich.

>>> F : "Sure" just slipped out of my fingers. In fact I'm sure of very few
>>> things... "Probably" would have been the proper word.
>>
> K :> I hear you. I do that all the time, too. It shows what I really think,
> and
>> then I go back and temper the verbiage with "probably's" and "perhaps's"
> so I don't turn folks off.  ;)
>
> F : You're right. Here we don't eat foxes 'cause they eat garbage. If not,
> we wouldn't  refrain from eating fox meat.

I am puzzled.

> K : Quit hedging and it will be more interesting. I am borderline between
>> instincto and paleo, but you keep spouting instincto lore (albeit
> moderated
>> by politically-correct talk) and somewhat idiotic/dismissive talk about
>> boiled potatoes. Drop the shroud and speak plainly, eh?
>
> F : I remember to have read in Jean-Louis's article the talk about boiled
> patatoes.

Thanks. I didn't remember such a reference.

> I don't involve myself in politics. Don't I speak plainly?

Sometimes plainly, sometimes very obtuse.

Are we winding down?

Cheers,
Kirt