> This is not the forum for speculation and
> conjecture.
> This is a Paleolithic Eating *Support* List.

Funny, unless my "find" function is screwed up I count
27 occurances of "bean" in digest #284. Oh my, did I
cause all this off-topic discussion? Must be a bean
support group, eh?

> Oh, now that's a real tome of scientific exactitude!
> Even its *name* is non-Paleo.

The "challenge" was not to quote paleo-diet
references, but to quote references supporting my
"wishy-washy" statement. Otherwise, I would never had
reason to post that information.

> Irrelevant - why should I accustom my body to
> legumes'
> toxins & indigestibles when they aren't Paleo
> anyway?

See previous.

> Yeah, yeah, yeah... all the preceding does is to
> reaffirm the
> Golden Rule of Paleodiet: don't eat anything that
> needs
> to be cooked to become edible, even if the result
> would be
> *arguably* edible after cooking.

Which I wholeheartedly agree with. In fact, I try to
keep most most of my diet raw.

>
> I submit that Ol' Wally here seems to be looking
> for a way to convince everybody that beans are okay
> --
> thereby subverting the purpose and intent of this
> forum,
> which is based on principles what have already
> rejected
> that idea. Why the perverse need to challenge Paleo?

On the contrary, I *hate* beans. I have not touched a
bean in months (unless you count a possible sprout or
two in salads). It is not *I* who has kept this
discussion going, but those who seem to want to attack
a position I do not occupy. My conjecture (question)
was answered to my satisfaction a few digests ago.

> Wrong. Wally's denial is irrelevant. When he says,
> "further my understanding..."  he really means,
> "agressively promote my own contrarian viewpoints."

I would advise *not* reading into my statements that
which is not there.

> This is a SUPPORT list, not a forum for creating
> fear, uncertainty and doubt about Paleo's viability.

Apparently you have not noticed the other posts I have
made which are directly "pro" and supportive of paleo.


> I too enjoy a devil's-advocate argument now and
> then,

A valid tool for learning.

> but in its proper place -- which PALEOFOOD is *not*.
> Try sci.nutrition instead.
>
> The one ounce of validity in Wally's argument is
> that
> the radically different intestinal flora needed to
> handle legumes (in addition to necessary cooking)
> probably *are* incompatible with the meat/fat-eating
> integral to Paleo. Interesting... but so what?

What about for the "bean eating" vegetarian who has
decided to "convert" to paleo? Maybe that person would
have an interest in such information, ya think?

> Paleos already know from hard experience that
> eating that ice cream cone or a bowl o' beans brings
> its own punishment. Attempts to mix Paleo with
> elements like those only recreate the problem
> we're trying to avoid in the first place:
> getting fat & sick on the SAD-WOE

Again, not my position.

> Anecdotes about Paleo failures & misadventures are
> far more relevant than pseudo-academic speculations.
> Might as well discuss the precedents for shit-eating
> in the Animal Kingdom: interesting (kind of) but
> again not relevant to Paleo.

So, I suggest we end this thread. Your move......
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com