(Rex asked for clarification)
But let's keep this simple and go back to my original question: do
you,
Jo, consider Wolfe & Co. as out-and-out plagiarists?

(Jo clarifies)
YES. I've read Raw Food Eating several years ago and, no, I don't have
a
copy of Nature's First Law. So I base my assessment on the comparisons
available in the Raw Food Support List archives. To Your Humble
Narrator,
the plagiarism is very blatant. Personally, I'm baffled as to how
anyone
cannot see it (I guess it's a choice). And intrigued when people
decline
to look at the documentation.

(Rex's 2nd question)
If so, do you feel it is unfair for Brother Nazariah to attempt to
redeem him?

(Jo's guts sez)
Rex, what I do NOT find appealing, is the assumption by Nazariah and
NFL that anything goes as long as the raw vegan ideals are trumpeted
far and wide. That is, if we have to sell plagiarized books; support
those who sell them; substitute knowledge for experience; threaten or
foment hatred towards those opposing our doctrine; if we have to
stratify people by assuming raw vegans as "spiritual" and those who
subsist on barbequed steak and roast corn as "cooked food morons;"
create an atmosphere of us and them; and all this solidifies our
position as a viable movement; so be it.

I strongly believe that none of this crap helps anything.

If I look at the world and all I can see is the fear and violence and
negativity, and then pull that mess into my inner world, yeah, I can
see
how someone could say, this is the only way I'm going to get what I
want.
Seems to me all of the above are symptoms of operating out of lack.

But what if I make a choice to flip things and base my existence on
abundance (ie. lotsa good things for everyone)?

(Rex's 3rd question)
If so, and if you find Nazariah's forgiveness bothersome, would you
accept
Wolfe back if he made a public confession?

(Jo's checklist)
1) An apology to the raw community, especially to those who bought the
   book (with an option for a refund), would be a marvelous start.
2) Pulling remaining copies off the market, mandatory.
3) In future editions, the byline must read:

Raw Food Eating (or whatever the original title was)
by Arshavir Ter Hovanessian
English translation
by I.M. Hippe
nth edition, revised and edited
by Stephen Arlin, R.C. Dini, David Wolfe

or,

Nature's First Law,
based on
Raw Food Eating, nth edition,
by Arshavir Ter Hovanessian
English translation
by I.M. Hippe
revised and edited
by Stephen Arlin, R.C. Dini, David Wolfe

I'm just beginning to immerse myself into copyright laws with my
writing
and photography so I'm not sure of the exact format for proper
attribution
(publication years, etc). But I think you can get my gist here: no
fudgy-wudgy about who wrote the original book and who did what with it
on
subsequent reprints.

(Rex added the new book into the equation)
These are important questions because on the one hand Wolfe is getting
kudos here for his latest raw book while on the other he is catching
hell for the earlier.
Surely I am not the only reader on this list who is confused.

(Jo's only reply)
Rex, as far as the confusion of support for the first book and the new
one,
let's put it this way: if a friend asked me to endorse a new book of
his
(because my name somehow carries weight in the field of 60s
hallucinogens)
and I KNEW that his first one was plagiarized, I'd have to say, look
Kipchoge, this new book is swell, but I don't feel comfortable
plugging it
publically until you set things right with the first one.

How hard is that?????

Good to hear from you, Rex, and I'm enjoying your Brix article in a
recent
M2M.

PS: this post is being submitted to the Raw List and the Raw Food
Support
List. Apologies to double subscribers for the redundancy.