Rex:
>Peter Brandt (lightheartedly I think) wrote to downplay a recent viscous ad
>hominem attack on me:

Passionate and a little over the line, yes, but ad hominem, no.  Liza was
very clear in stating why she was upset.

Peter:
>> When she threatens to break your bones, maybe. ;-)

>OK, but my ego says a few bones *were* broken.

I think that if you re-read her post and look at what drove her to respond
as she did that you will find that she was not aiming at you personally but
speaking up about an issue that was very close to her heart.

Peter:
>> Naturally, but they [my questions] were not addressing the real issues.

>Peter, I ask questions that make sense to me.  If they are ill-phrased, I
expect a
>call for clarification,

I agree that would have been a better and more constructive approach.

> not a Pearl Harbor-style sneak attack.

"Sneaky" she was not but was responding very directly to what I think she
perceived as your lack of sensitivity on a subject very close to home to
many of us.

Peter:
>> What exactly is it you do not understand?

>Right now, this incessant demand that *everyone* equally damn the old-time
gurus.

Nobody is making such a demand.

>Christopher summed it up very nicely: those that like the lectures of such
as Ehret >should stay to the end; those that don't should get up and leave.

Surely, after the lecture we can get together and discuss what we liked and
disliked about the man and his message.  To reiterate, this list is not a
support group for any specific (raw) diet philosophy but a forum where the
merits of all raw food schools of thought can be debated and rather than
complain about what you perceive as unfair negativity, I suggest that you
defend your beliefs with more content and solid arguments.

>I can't figure why the smaller group feels compelled to disrupt those of
us who wish to
>stay.

If done with content why not?  Especially, as only a small minority of
people has been able to sustain itself on the fruit-based diet that Ehret
recommended.

>And, yes, those that paid for personal counseling, and got less than they
expected, >should sue for malpractice.

This is a little late as many of them are no longer with us.  And
regardless, it should not prevent us from speaking up.

Peter:
>> Sharing our hard-earned experiences with different health systems and
diet advocates >>is a vital part of the support this list provides and I
would not want it any >>differently.

>100% agreed.  What does that have to do with viciousness?

I was not commenting on Liza but responding to you what you said previously :
<Actually, I'd like to see a truce and a refocus on *Raw Food Diet SUPPORT
List*.>

Peter:
>> When you speak of abuse it is obviously because you feel that some of these
>> leaders have been unfairly and unjustly targeted.  Could you be more
specific?

>For one thing I think much of the criticism directed their way is based on
knowledge >that has come to light in the many, many, years since their
passing.

That does not make the criticism any less valid.

>For instance, this heart-is-a-valve theory was possibly widespread at the
turn of the >century.  Then, for 50 or 60 years the heart-is-a-mighty-pump
people took over.  Now, >as I understand it, lymphology is proving the
heart can't possibly *force* the blood >through the body---that indeed the
heart has much of a regulating effect.  It's time to >quit laughing and
start studying.

Indeed, new discoveries should always be recognized.

>Further, I feel it unfair to Ehret, Shelton, Tilden, Trall, and others to not
>acknowledge the audience they spoke to.  For instance, the institutions of
this
>country have staunchly poo-pooed the idea that we should eat abundant
fruits and
>vegetables---and those less thoroughly cooked.  Now, they are starting
(that's
>*starting*) to suggest the wisdom of that route to everyday folks.  I
suspect the
>vast majority of the guru's audiences ate mostly out of cans and Pillsbury
flour
>sacks.

Excellent point.  But if they are claiming that their health systems are
cure-alls, they had better be able to deliver.

>Finally, I would like to say that attacking such as Shelton by implying
his message was >unsound because he had Parkinson's disease is horseshit.

Surely, his illness did not strengthen his credibility. ;-)

>I know a bit about the etiology and progression of PD and clearly
understand that >neither improved diet nor fasting can reverse the brain
damage once done.

Especially, not a low protein, low fat diet such as Shelton recommended.

>However, both seem entirely reasonable as means to retard further harm to
the nervous >system. Some say Shelton suffered for 10 years and some say 30
years, but whatever---he
>deserves credit for the good he did, not damnation for personal suffering.

Nobody is damning him.

>What can be the possible point of disparaging someone who did much good by
helping
>so many people become aware to the diet-health link?

I really question that he helped that many people.  Getting off refined
foods and fasting will relieve most people's symptoms short-term but
providing long-term results is a different matter.  Judging by how many
natural hygienists have ended up with poor health and chronic illness, the
natural hygienic protocol clearly does not provide a viable alternative to
mainstream nutrition/medicine for a great number of people.

>Perhaps you saw the comment on here about how Barleygreen caused a list
member >distress.  I accept that single instance as true, but Barleygreen
has been an absolute >lifesaver for thousands of people.  I hope the
distressed person avoids it, but I >equally hope the multitude that gain
increased health from it continue.

How do you know this to be true?

>I'll end here as this is getting too long.  For any that wondered if I'd
lop off
>the smart-ass head of the woman that attacked me, the answer is no.  I did
>consider returning the assault and then burying her in my compost heap,
but it
>dawned on me that the toxicity would be too hard for the pile to digest.

Instead of going on about how she has "assaulted" you, why not respond to
the content of her post?  That would be a lot more constructive than being
stuck in a role of a righteous indignation and show her that she indeed was
wrong when she indicated that you were being less than forthright.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]