Hey Peter!

A commendable job cutting our exchange down to size. Thanks. Minor goof on
who said what is corrected as below...

Cheers,
Kirt

Aajonus said:
>>>If it is fact that instincto is
>>>superior and can be framed in scientific terms that meet your
>>>cerebral criteria, why does instincto have such a high attrition rate
>>>of, I was told by Ron Strauss, 98%?.

>Kirt said:
>>As I mentioned to you privately, Bruno Cromby confirms this sad
>>statistic.

>Aajonus said: (KIRT SAID THIS, not Aajonus)
>>I am unaware of saying that instincto is superior to your mixed
>>approach. Indeed, I think instincto "explanations" suffer in the same
>>way that some of yours do. In fact, I noted at the end of the review
>>that "A non-instincto take on RAF is always interesting to someone
>>like me who is steeped in instincto lore." I used the word "lore" to
>>imply that I am probably wearing some sort of blinders after years of
>>considering instincto explanations as Truth...

>Kirt said; (AAJONUS SAID THIS, not Kirt)
>>>My predominantly
>>>raw-food(80-100%)/instinctive/intuitive/rational omnivorous approach
>>>loses only 23% of those who actually try it for at least 30 days.

>Aajonus said; (KIRT SAID THIS, not Aajonus)
>>This is indeed stunning news, and with such a success rate the medicos
>>will have a very hard time ignoring your work.

AAJONUS SAID THIS:
>>>I am 99.999% raw. I average eating one cooked starch a month, when I
>>>feel I need it for reasons stated in my book.

Kirt Nieft / Melisa Secola
[log in to unmask]