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

Hi Kirt,

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. But it's not as easy as
confronting the performances of two types of cars. Even when done with cars,
the results aren't totaly accurate. If we wanna know about reliabilty and
durability, very long and extensive testing has to be done with several
vehicles. Of course, one can shift easily from a nutrition type to the
another and compare how one feels. This is a kind of  perf. test. It doesn't
provide any data concerning durability. Drugs, cocaine, alcohol, coffee are
great for feeling fine on the moment, but are likely to decrease reliability
and durability. So, how to compare?
  The best would be that several persons go on for their whole lifetime with
these different nutrition types, under strict supervision. You and me may
swap our nutrition systems, but even if we do so, we won't
demonstrate anything, except personnal temporary feelings.
 Your experiments with a  mixed cooked/raw paleodiet will be beneficial to
our knowledge if enough persons do it for long enough durations.
  In the meantime, we instinctos shall have provided more other experimental
datas.
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:

JL : "Whatever, even if fully modern humans (120,000 years) are more recent
than
the widespread use of cooking (100,000-400,000 years?), it does not prove
that cooking is OK... and it does not mean it is not either. This is an
endless debate."

So what?
Cook at your own risks!
It may be OK, maybe not.



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.



> > F : Yes, all questions are open. Just check the rate of genome changes
per
> > millions of years.
>
K : OK. I checked. They are averages. Nothing that speaks to such a radical
> change as cooking wild foodstuffs. Or a tripling of brain size in such a
> short time.

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".


> > K : Hope is the ultimate pain killer, no? ;)
> >
> > F : It is, but it also what makes us move ahead and try to find
solutions to
> > our problems.
>
K :> Naaaawww. There is simple curiousity for starters. An "unfortunate"
offshoot
> of the dreaded big brain, I suspect.

 F : No, it's from myself, just found on the spot. (Sometimes I  also get
ideas from my own, but they are most of the times stupid and invalid)



> > F : Yes, you and I as well doubt. Doubt was the main reason for me to
beginn
> > the experiment, as it might have been yours.
>
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. 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."


> <snip your belief that disease is likely the result of human ignorance--we
> can agree to disagree> F : Did you write that?

>
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.


F > >(...) die of paludism.
>
K : I am not familiar with "paludism" but it sounds like a very useful word.
> Enlighten me?(...)

F : Very sorry, I meant malaria. I was mixed up with French.


> > F : They may be right. In this case all questions and inquiring about
(metasexuality)
are irrelevant and everything goes well in the best of the worlds.
>
K : How are they irrelevant? And what do you mean by "everything goes well
in the best of the worlds"?

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.
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.


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! 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.


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.


> > 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...


> > 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.


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

Very seriously,
Francois