Wes:
>Yay for cooked fats eh? This "conversation" just gets more pathetic with
>each passing day.
<snip>
>And what's your point in statements such as the above? Are you a cooked
>food/SAD proponent or a raw food proponent? Is this a Jekyll/Hyde type
>of deal? Do you only talk in favor of raw foods when it will be of
>benefit to you, such as say...in an argument with a SAD-eater? And
>likewise, you talk in favor of cooked foods when convenient...such as
>say, with a 100% raw food eater, such as myself? In other words, you
>choose either "Jekyll" or "Hyde" based on what's most convenient to pump
>up the ego?
Nowhere is your rigid thinking more transparent than above. Why should JL
be a cooked/SAD proponent _or_ a raw proponent? To you it is apparently all
or nothing at all. Calling the conversation pathetic suggests you are
getting frustrated by JL's continuing examples showing that your simplistic
thinking isn't reflected in reality.
>I guess the only way to make statements on this list is to provide
>"PROOF" for everything. I figured people on here would be bright enough
>to realize that cooked fats are harmful.
It simply may not be that simple. Can you grasp that possibility for a
moment and consider it? Or does your certainty of Raw Truth prevent that?
>I guess people on this list might even want "proof" that the SAD is
>bad!!! Heck, if people aren't convinced that cooked meat, cooked fats,
>etc. are unhealthy and toxic, then why not go all the way and question
>the fact that the SAD is toxic and unhealthy?
Here you are again. JL provides specific examples which frustrate your
rigid thinking and you go way overboard and say he's championing SAD.
Doesn't that seem a little bit silly to you if you think about it?
>Again, am I on the right email list?
Sounds like it. You are probably learning a lot these last few weeks but
you don't realize it yet.
>I have found I can also tolerate some cooked food. This isn't to say I
>felt my best eating it!
And if others have a different experience are they "wrong"? You get
immediately snippy when someone doesn't take your experience seriously. Can
you imagine how it seems when you dismiss other's hard won experience with
your dogma?
>Many people find they can tolerate cigarettes, alcohol, McDonald's,
>etc.. Does this mean that these things are the best things to put into
>the human organism?
Many people find they can tolerate raw food item [fill in the blank], does
that mean it is the best thing to put in your body, Wes? To you, that
question is silly because you presuppose the superiority of raw food in
every circumstance. But it isn't that simple. My question is as fair as
yours.
>Didn't you know that all meat begins to putrefy within 24 hours after
>the animal is killed? This is why the bacteria multiplies, the carcass
>attracts flies, and so on.
Again, here you are the RAF expert, eh? What you say is simply false to
facts. I have eaten many different kinds of aged RAF (beef, several kinds
of poultry, lamb, venison, buffulo, elk, dozens of varieties of fish, even
aged oysters and clams) which had no off-flavors associated with bacterial
putrification. Rex can probably explain why excellent quality raw food,
whether tomato or salmon fillet, prefers to age/dry instead of rot.
>What's the theory behind this practice? What benefit does one supposedly
>derive from this?
Well, how seriously are we supposed to take these questions to someone who
dismisses Ward's interviews on beyondveg as spurious. The info is out
there, most of it overstated with the same blind idealism (not Ward though)
that you seem to have, but I'm sure that won't hurt you at all. ;)
JL:
>> Like you, I was at first put off by the idea of eating raw meat, but once
>> you are hooked...
Wes:
>Must be pretty toxic and addictive, huh? ;)
Let's take a head count. How many listers just _knew_ that was what Wes was
gonna say? ;) Let's put it this way, Wes. List your three favorite raw
foods. Whatever they are I get to say, "Must be pretty toxic and addictive,
huh? ;)"
Cheers,
Kirt
Secola /\ Nieft
[log in to unmask]
|
