Loren:
>I read the entire Beyond Veg site, and find nothing but opinion backed by
>partial information.

You must be a speed reader. ;)

>I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone take this site seriously, or
>recommend anything written there as being the least bit authoritative
>or conclusive.

This must be because it doesn't draw the same conclusions you do.

>In fact, this may well be the most poorly supported material I've ever
>seen.

Compared to what? Natural Hygiene books? ;) How is it poorly
supported?

>As I mentioned, there are so called experts who can be called upon to
>support >almost any position.  The "expertise" called upon by Beyond Veg
>is questionable at best, and obviously chosen to try to support a
>one-sided position.

Yes, it is questionable, like everything is. Except of course _your_
perfect beliefs. ;)

>I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe.  I won't waste
>any time trying to convince you of anything, and you might want to save
>your time as well.

I knew it was just a matter of time before you would show your true
colors.

>My beliefs are formed not just from my own opinion from one failed personal
>experiment, as yours seem to be, but from years of personal experience,
>both with my own health, and with the many people I have worked with.

You have obviously not read the site.

>I didn't come to Raw Veganism because it looked attractive, or because I
>had >some philosophical reason to do it.  I came because my research into
>human nutrition proved to me that it made perfect sense.

Ah, "perfection". ;)

>My experience has been that it works for everyone who follows my
>directions.

I thought people were supposed to find things out for themselves?
Kinda
hard if they must follow your directions, methinks. I'd guess hardly
anyone
does follow your directions for any length of time because raw
veganism is
so contrary to human biology.

>I'm sorry that you were unable to find optimal health on the perfect diet.
>Undoubtedly, there are other unresolved issues, that if taken care of,
>would allow you to experience the same energy, strength, and vigor as do
>the rest of us.

"Us"? Blame to person instead of the "perfect diet". I'd guess that's
what
you do to all your "clients" who can not follow your directions as
well.

>You could find some help from a practitioner who understands the body's
>needs and physiology, and figure out and remedy those issues.

If only he could find the proper expert, eh?

>As I mentioned recently, during and after your recent personal attacks, I
>heard from many people directly, several of whom said they have also been
>raw vegan for a while, and have also reduced their daily caloric intake to
>"impossibly low levels."

Raw vegan "for a while", eh?

>These people did not write through the network
>because they were not willing to be targets of personal attacks by you and
>others.

Perhaps the diet had some some effects on their emotional maturity if
they
are so frightened of sharing their experience in a relatively
anonymous
forum such as this.

>For those of you out there who may be a bit more open-minded than Tom, I
>simply say that there is a wealth of research to back up the points I've
>made which Tom disputes today.

Perhaps you can share the details of this wealth of research? But, of
course, you can't because it simply doesn't exist. You can trash
other's
research efforts and imply that your ideas are based on "a wealth of
research" in passing. Must be nice...

>If you haven't already looked at the Beyond Veg website that he keeps
>referring to, and you have an hour or so to kill (literally), and you'd
>like a good laugh, take a look at the "science" that "proves" his points.

Underneath your sarcasm you appear pretty threatened.

>I find your positions laughable Tom.  Much like the person who looks at a
>puzzle and declares it "impossible" simply because he can't do it, never
>imagining (or wanting to believe) that there may be others that can, and
>that he, in fact, may be approaching the whole puzzle the wrong way.

And what did he do wrong, oh great one? ;)

>You can find "scientists" all day long who are in the middle or the back of
>the bell curve, spouting the same "facts" which have long been disproved,
>but which support their own precious position.

Which "facts" have been long disproved? Details, mon, details.

>Your world is flat, Tom, and your Sun revolves around the earth.

There is no astronomy in Tom's beyondveg writing.

>How can you know that I'm not also using outdated information to support my
>position?  You can't.  Unless:
>
>1) You do your own research, which I recommend
>2) You get some help in making a transition and try for yourself
>3) You see that I have no reason to make these things up.

1] He has done the research and shared it; you haven't .
2] He has.
3] You have all sorts of reasons, and your defensiveness after an
hour's
look at beyondveg is very telling.

>That some people believe it impossible to live (and live at an incredibly
>high level of health!) on calorie levels that some believe to be
>"starvation" levels, doesn't change the fact that it's true.  Instead, it
>points out what I have been saying all along; that we do ourselves a
>disservice by claiming something is not possible simply because we can't
>do it, and some scientist(s) say it can't be done.

It must be comforting to know that you are so special.

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]