Tom:
>Re: the baby. Interesting question; I suspect I would try to defend the
>baby.  Whether that would involve hostility (towards the villain) or not
>is hard to say...
>Given that, I find the baby beating analogy to be an inappropriate
>analogy.  I am a veggie; I don't eat meat (or eggs or fish or poultry).
>However, I cannot compare someone eating animals for food, with
>some low-life (a zealot, perhaps?) beating a baby for fun.
Martha:
I had never considered in my analogy that the beating was for fun.  More
like frustration-gone-haywire or some idea that it's the right thing to do (to
discipline a child).  Since, IMHO, there is no legitimate reason to hit an
infant, I stand by the analogy because, according to veg.-theory, meat is
neither necessary nor even beneficial for humans; therefore 'for food' is
not a legitimate reason to kill an innocent animal.  Whether or not you
agree with this veg.-theory, I still say that for many vegans this would be
a valid analogy.

Tom:
>I was not including you in my characterization of the zealot vegans ...

Martha:
Whew!!!    :-)

Tom:
> As a vegan, you ...

Martha:
But I am not a vegan.  This is a point that seems to keep getting lost.  In
the world according to Martha, this is a pertinent point in that it shows
defense coming from outside rather than inside the group.

Tom:
>This list is a private entity, and we are here at the grace of the list
>owners. They can remove people who use the list as a forum for
>hostility, and that is what happened when certain zealots were
>excluded. It's not censorship - it is removing people who violated
>the rules of the list ...

Martha:
Good point.  And I too am not in favor of allowing ad hominem attacks to
escalate.

Tom:
>I have been the target of zealots before the incidents you refer to. Let
>me assure you that zealots are immune to the truth, and will lie freely if
>it serves their cause; their true cause, by the way, is promoting
>themselves and making money, not converting others to the joys of the
>"religion" of rawism.

Here you have me at a disadvantage, because you have encountered
some of the people in question outside the Email lists, whereas I have
not.

Tom:
> ... when rawism is dominated by zealots, it will become/remain a cult of
>food faddists.
Also, just by using a term like raw'ism' makes it seem cultish.  Not sure
what a better alternative would be:  rawness, rawability, rawophilia?  :-)

Tom:
>(snip)
>Anyway, welcome back to the list!

Martha:
Thanx!!!!
and thank you for your coherent comments.  In light of what transpired
before, I don't wish to proliferate this discussion, and probably will not
reply to any more posts on the subject.  I have no remaining hard feelings
on this and would like to just shake virtual hands with anyone who
disagrees with me on aspects of this subject, agree to disagree and
move on!  I certainly don't expect to change anybody's mind!!!

Cheers,
Martha