Rex:
>
> Also, can you first address my indignant message that directly responded to your

I addressed this issue already in my last post. Mis-communication can happen
at times with a written forum such as this, that perhaps would not come
up in spoken conversation in person. However, I have seen numerous
communication problems in posts involving yourself, Rex. But to be
more specific on this issue, so hopefully you will not think that I
am not being straight-forward, let's look one more time.

> David Mayne wrote:
>
> > As to whether or not the book "Raw Eating" is a classic or a dud,
> > well, one man's trash/treasure cliche fits the bill. I found it to
> > be full of emotional rhetoric proclamations and little substantive
> > content...
Rex:
>
> Your words, and the 'Next in Topic' message by Peter, at the archive link you
> referenced, answered my questions fairly well...
>
[From the archives]
> David Mayne:
> >Good question! Peter, Kirt ?
>
> Peter:
> Since the two books are almost identical is this a trick question? ;-) The
> original is not quite as bad as the newer NFL version, not as aggressive
> and obnoxious in its tone and does generate some strength and credibility
> from the fact is that it is based on the author's years of experimenting on
> himself, his family and his clients with a raw, vegan diet - not plagiarism.

I read your post many times, and certainly did not need any more sleep
as you insinuated in your emotive filled outburst - I came back with
the same impression each time, namely that you hinted that I was just
repeating information from an old post passed on to me by Peter and
others, and that I had not read the book that I was making comments on,
and hence, the ensuing quotes from the book were presented. Then,
you object and sling some emotionally charged terms my way...


>
> I *sincerely* need to know if we're here to struggle toward higher quality dietary
> truth or if this is some forum for smartly-worded quips and sarcastic messages
> intended to put disbelievers of in-house dogma in their 'place'.

Look in a mirror sometime, Rex. A pattern has certainly manifested here
in your interactions with others. You have been very quick to take your
own pokes and display apparent sarcasm, but when someone presents
any hint of criticism to your points of view, you take it as a personal
affront and start behaving rather childishly. You accuse others of not
taking your 'quality' issues into account, but apparently refuse to
be held accountable for your remarks when others raise issues with
your stance. This lack of accountability is another pattern that has
been prevalent in your conversations with others, while at the same
demand that we "struggle toward higher quality".


Rex:
> However, I'd like to delay a response to your questions until I see whether you are
> going to admonish the writer who made the comments about you, Kirt, Tom, and
> whoever being "against" me.  Ganging up on someone is poor form in both sports and
> newsgroups.  In other words, as silly as it sounds, if this is a fight, and it's
> all of you against little old me, I'd like to know so I can choose the right size
> stick to defend myself.

There you go looking for another fight again, Rex. Liza's intent was
quite obvious as I saw it - to illustrate the whining that you often
exhibit when other list participants do not whole-hearting-ly adopt your
broken record of quality as being the source of all raw woes. There
is no conspiracy to get into a fight with you that I am aware of.
However, the fact that many have tried to engage in straight-forward,
rational, reasonable conversations with yourself and have thrown their
hands up in dismay due to your single-minded obsession and lack of
accountability when issues are raised does indicate that there is
a fundamental problem here.

Rex, on many occasions here, you make posts which, as I stated before
tempt others to read between the lines - when they attempt to do so,
you then cry about not being taken literally. When one tries to take
your posts at face/literal value, you will apparently change your
position to a "I did not say that". You have taken emotionally
charged words such as "censorship" and completely redefined terms
to match your agenda. I have tried hard not to see you as a troll
but you appear to have a knack for digging up old topics and trying
to re-start the mud slinging. Your often obfuscating approach to
posting makes it difficult if not impossible to view what you honestly
believe in your statements, and certainly an easy way for you to switch
your position when the responses that ensue don't fit your agenda.
Additionally, when asked for an explanation of your cryptic, confusing,
and cloudy statements such as "dialog with possible plagiarists" and what
relevance the helping feed a nasty sow,  you respond with a demand that
I admonish someone else (who apparently is not impressed with your M.O.)
for perceived transgressions as a condition of you "explaining" what has
already been stated. As such, we have to be hostage to your agenda before
you will bother to explain yourself, which could have been avoided in
the first place with straight-forwardness and accountability. I am not
sure if you are doing this purposely or consciencely, but I do see that
this behavior does not result in responsible and reasonable exchanges.


I believe I have been quite tolerant of various transgressions on this
list in the past (perhaps to a fault), but I have thought long and
hard on this issue, and find that I can no longer let the list be dragged
through the mudhole that you apparently try to keep discussion mired in.
As such, Rex, I would like you to take a vacation from the list for a
while, an opportunity to ponder how communication and accountability
can be improved - you can access the archives if you want to keep up.
NFL, Rene, and Bob Avery were asked to leave the list for
somewhat different transgressions, but one feature that has been
pointed out to me is that you and the above mentioned share the
common behavior of not being straight-forward and accountable for
your statements. This is the hardest decision I have had to face as
moderator of raw-food to this point, and I wish there were another
reasonable solution here, but I am charged with insuring the integrity
of the list, and, sadly at this point, feel that there are no remaining
alternatives - simply ignoring such issues certainly hasn't worked.

So, once you settle down, get out of your fighting stance, please
get back and assure us that your participation will be more straight-
forward, comprehendible, accountable, and honest. You have certainly
made some valuable contributions in the past, and I sincerely look
forward to seeing positive contributions from you in the future,
Rex.

Regards,

David
[log in to unmask]