Hello again fellow Raw-foodists,

WOW!  We've never had anyone ask for our stool samples after an introduction!
Seriously, there have been many reactions to our book.  Good!  This is what
we had in mind when we wrote it.

Yes, we do believe our book is the most "different" book on the subject of
raw-foods and we have thousands of letters to prove it.

What your criticisms all have in common, without exception, is the fact
that the reader "skimmed through the book," or "read parts of it."  Kirt
Nieft even acknowledged that he "looked through it" when we met him.  We
ourselves can see how easy it is to look through it and read a couple
quotes and think the book is too hard-core.  One wouldn't be expected to
understand a calculus book if one merely "skimmed through it" either.  It's
nice to see that we are stirring up some emotions.

To answer your statements:

Zephyr wrote:

>My fear is that your book will turn more people off to raw food than it
>will ever turn on.

This is just not the case.  Sure, we have gotten a few bad reviews.  But
the vast majority of responses (99%) that we have received have been in
support of us and our powerful approach.  Our rhetoric is very
powerful...sometimes we think we overdid it.  But, just how "compassionate"
are we supposed to be when we see 90 million animals being tortured every
year and millions of parents undermining the health of their innocent
children.  We recently saw a picture of a monkey being tortured.  All we
could see in the eyes of this monkey was its cry for our help.  That monkey
doesn't think our book is "hostile" enough!  An infant that is being
force-fed cooked cow's milk through a rubber nipple doesn't think our book
is "hostile" enough!  As long as millions of trees are being cut down,
Nature doesn't think our book is "hostile" enough!  We went all the way
with this book because half-measures have never and will never achieve the
desired results.  Knowing of the complacency of most people, we presented a
very clear warning on the first page of the book:

"It is very difficult to explain something of this majesty and glory to
indoctrinated and closed minds." & "The truth always has enemies."

This book is not for everyone.  We presented disclaimer after disclaimer
explaining why we wrote the book in this "hostile" fashion.  This book was
not written to people that believe it is "instinctive" for a human being to
eat a fish or weeds.  We are not seeking to convert anyone.  We simply
present the information in a powerful way so those with strong natural
instincts can use raw-foodism to improve their lives.

In early September, we received a letter written by T.C. Fry concerning our
book (He read the entire book).  The letter was postmarked the day before
he died stating, "Your book has tremendous merit.  Your approach is
terrific.  It could persuade millions!" & "Everything that is against you
is error."

The author of "Blatant Raw-Foodist Propaganda," Joe Alexander, wrote to us
and said about our book, "I've never quit being a raw-foodist, but your
book has really got me re-dedicated to raw-foodism."  Again, Joe actually
read the entire book!  Joe recently sent us 40 copies of his finest artwork
(amazing stuff!!).

Roy wrote:

>your book, which incidentally has gotten really bad reviews...

Bad reviews go with the territory.  You may well remember that many critics
gave the movie "Dumb and Dumber" more stars than "Braveheart."  Go figure.

The bottom line is this: If you favor a powerful approach to the world's
problems -- you'll like our book.  If you want your ears tickled with
milquetoast rhetoric or pseudo-science, go buy John Robbins' new cook-book.
How Nature would rejoice to see such books destroyed in the same fashion
in which they suggest our food be treated!

Kirt wrote:

>What do you feel you _haven't_ figured out yet?

Shame on you, Kirt.  What makes you think that we would even answer a
question like that?  Perhaps you're looking to humble the "new kids on the
block" and get a self-defeating, christian-like response or some "new-age"
pagan equivalent?  Nice try, though.

>The attachment of "save the world/truth/self-righteousness/I'm God's (nature's)
>chosen one" ideation to as simple a subject as eating raw foods really gets
>in the way, and spirals the whole "movement" into an even more fringe
>status.

We are not trying to save the world.  The world can't be saved.  The end of
the world already happened.  What we can do is help people save themselves
and their families.  What we can do is save animals from being tortured.
Anyone who has gazed into the eyes of a chimp trapped in a laboratory cage,
anyone who has seen *that* can never remain indifferent.

T.C. Fry once told us, "You have to know how to respond to and make idiots
of those wrong.  I'm the kind of guy who returns it in kind with interest."

Best wishes to all objective truth-seekers,

Stephen, David, & R.C.
Nature's First Law

"False knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance."

"Cooked food is poison.  No exception, no compromise."