At 08:04 PM 2/26/97 -0800, you wrote to Ric:

[re my reference to our preaching among ourselves..."to the choir", so to
speak.]

Kirt,

...oh boy...

>I guess this is as close as I'll get to a response to my Raw Law post
>before you duck out so..may I say: perhaps those recent works above are
>examples of an out of tune choir preaching. ;)

Touche..

>>[Ric said]; I'll be looking forward to this afternoon's nationally
>>syndicated broadcast by the three raw enthusiasts at five pm. ....

>Yeah, NFL will soon be a household word, eh? I suspect we all hear what we
>want to, you know? Today, I heard Mr. Weissbach level quite similar charges
>to those presented here--they (NFL) are more interested in marketing than
>accuracy; that many of their "arguments" are rude, condescending, and
>pretenscious; that they absurdly consider cooked food as the cause of all
>of humanity's problems, etc etc etc etc.

First of all, I listened to and recorded David's entire airing with
Weissbach...somehow my tape and memory don't have that particular remark by
Peter about the NFL crew.  When did he make it?

And, Kirt, have you read their entire book?  I haven't finished it yet .

>I remain uncertain whether NFL
>needs a wake-up call even more so than the rest of the world.

I don't think there's any contest on that one.  The world is, and has
probably always been out to the wrong "lunch." Our three musketeers are
sure far closer to being on track than most anything I've read
anywhere...in my book, anyway.  No comparison.  I don't know what this
tempest in a tea pot is all about.  Is it some sort of jealousy issue?
These are the guys who are out there in the OPEN, while we sit in front of
our passive monitors...they're not just lurking about this elite cyberspace
we call the net.

>And hearing
>them use your "30 years raw" (I assume it is you they are refering to--they
>never detail anything--are you a "salesman"?) as their support for their
>high-fruit diet borders on simple fraud--especially as you are aware of the
>frequent problems encountered on the diet they prostelytise, consumed great
>anounts of RAF for many years, consider that you used to be addicted to
>avos (NFL bragged about 8 or 9 avos/day), etc.

Sorry, Kirt, you missed a mile.  Although I've been a salesman (proud of
it) in my checkered past (way past), I'm no longer one...and I had to pay
full price for their book from a friend who does sell it.  So, it's not me
they referred to.  Especially since my tenure with the raw law groupies has
only been for 21 years.  Believe the fellow, who they've described by name,
lives in east San Diego.  Maybe in Jamul?  Ask Stephen, and am sure you'll
get a name.

>IMHO, NFL has more or less "Oprah-ised" the "raw foods message"--thus
>assuring that it appears as a fad/gimmick instead of anything less than the
>lunatic fringe.

All this holier than thouism I'm getting on this list about the authors
makes me wonder about where some of the critics are coming from.  (Of
course, Kirt, I don't have you in mind) Reminds me almost exactly of the
furor in the ranks of the ANHS when Harvey and Marilyn Diamond first came
out with "Fit for Life."  "Compromise," was the battle cry.  They've
bastardized our purist philosophy!  They've even included animal products
and cooking!  These two were thoroughly castigated and denigrated by the
NHS mainliners.  Much later they were given, thank God, official
recognition for their popularization of the concepts of NH.  I remember
some of the same early critics wanting to press forward to the podium to
get their autographs!  Life is interesting, isn't it?

I stood up for the Diamonds in those early days, too...for the same
reasons.  Unlike Stephen, Faud and David, who I didn't even know before the
book was released, Harvey and Marilyn were good personal friends. Even
though their advocacy didn't match my own (or theirs, for that matter!), it
did seem logical to me that it had a very broad potential  _market_ appeal.
 Strangely enough, my hunch was right.  The ranks of the ANHS literally
burgeoned within months of the book's release.  Just about nobody in John
Q. Public had ever heard of this odd ball group (Natural Hygienists) before
Fit for Life hit the stands.

Notwithstanding their compromising of NH principles for their own financial
and ego aggrandizement, they did one heck of an important job.  They helped
wake the sleeping public sector up to some of the reality we've been
privileged to witness.  Anything that serves to do this, is, in my book
(providing it is done from a sincere motivation), something worthy of
constructive support.  Those two authors did, in fact, compromise many of
their own principles and beliefs in caving to Warner Publishing's editorial
demands, but Warner was right...if they hadn't swallowed their exacting
beliefs, if they'd refused to tone down their severer message about
foodstuff, then the book just wouldn't have done what it did.

>Perhaps they will make a buck at it. But if they say one
>more time about how it is their _instinct_ which tells them to eat sweet
>fruit to the exclusion of "anything with eyes", I may be inspired to buy
>them a Red Rider BB Gun for April Fool's Day. ;)

Hey, good buddy, your wink notwithstanding, I hope they do make some bucks
on it.  If they make some dinero, then it will mean the book's selling
well.  And, again, as for their instinct to gorge certain fruit foods, I
believe them.  I had the same "instincts" myself...I became a sweet fruit
and avo junkie because I followed those "instincts."  I think the avos did
me some damage, and not sure the overly sweet hybrid organic fruit didn't
do some, as well.  But that's just my own personal experience.  They're all
younger than I was when I cleaned up my eating act.  I definitely also
suspect that I was in much worse physical condition than they were when
they first found and heeded Nature's first law.  At their ages I would
guess that they're possibly far more resilient than I wasn't, too.

You're not really in that much pain over all this, are ya? You know my
position on the "instinct" issue:  It's my personal opinion that following
our occluded and distortedly toxic "instincts" is not being as rational as
would at least make me comfortable.  Granted, wild animals seem to have
quite operative instincts...but, even today, after 21+ years of eating more
sensibly than many folks, I wouldn't begin to again rely on my own
"instinct."  I've tried it many a time, only to end up finding out I was
making one whopping mistake.

That is MY opinion, and I believe in it right now.  I know yours, and I
respect it...and will defend your right to advocate it.  I also will do the
same for the NFLers...and hope you might change your thinking about them by
opening up a tad, and by even trying to help them by sharing some of your
own experiences with them.  They are really very likeable and interesting
guys.

>Cheers,
>Kirt