>Hi everybody,
>After a respectable cooling-off period of two months, I recently
>started going through the archives starting at when I signed off. I
>soon found myself being drawn in again by the interesting subjects.
>Since there is apparently no blockade to my re-entry (though I must
>admit I cheated by using my work account, where I was using my home
>account before), I have decided to join again.
Martha, it is good to have you back.
>For those who missed the drama, may I just say that I*m usually a
>reasonably nice person, but there *are* some things that set me off.
>One is seeing any group, but especially a group that I happen to
>admire, being overly-harshly criticized, or the misdeed of the vocal
>few being generalized to the group.
If it had been only a vocal few, I might have agreed but unfortunately
we are talking about the majority of the vegan posters on this list.
And their "crime" was not that they were vegan - vegans are like
everybody else very welcome on raw-food - but their lack of willingness
to respect the guidelines for the list. It hurts and angers me that
whenever they are defended rarely is any recognition expressed for the
principles I have been trying to uphold for the list or for the
difficulty involved in taking on such a task, and instead this image is
created of the vegans on the list as poor, innocently persecuted lambs
while I am cast in the role as the bad "big brother" moderator wolf
who tolerates no contradiction and whose only motive is full control of
the list like was I trying to run some kind of communist dictatorship.
The fact that I have handled many, perhaps most, of the many difficult
situations I have encountered as a moderator quite gracefully gets
ignored along with the fact that I have been vegan/ veggie for most of
my life & probably always will be at heart. All this occurred too many
times - sometimes off the list as well - and when you of all people,
Martha, made a turn down that road, I threw in the towel. However,
looking back I regret you had to bear the brunt of my frustration.
>Two is being publicly insulted. It appeared
>to me at the time that both were coming down at once. Actually, the
>second as a result of the first. When the moderator used expressions
>like *anyone with just half a brain could see...* (while refuting
>something I had just said) and *I can no longer pretend to respect
<you,* I took these as personal insults, don*t know why (maybe proof
>that I*m mentally imbalanced? ;-) ), and decided to sign off.
Confusing & frustrating as it can be with an outspoken moderator, I was
speaking as a "private" person at the time, and I am truly sorry if you
felt personally insulted by me - believe me that was the last thing on
my mind. Unfortunately, on the issue of veganism my nerves were pretty
raw at that point especially after having stuck my neck out on the
matter as far as I had and not getting a hell of lot of credit for it
or my efforts to keep the standards of the list from deteriorating. I
felt you were trying to gloss over the whole issue negating all the
vegan insult, deceit & hypocrisy I saw going on and I felt betrayed by
you, and in my outrage I called the shots as I saw them. To my defense
when I get ticked off like I did with you, I make strong efforts to
back up my feelings with arguments to show that I am shooting at the
opinions expressed and not the person behind them. Still, I can see how
the lines can get blurred and be misunderstood, and I apologize for any
discomfort I might have caused you. With the clarity of 20/20
hindsight, if I were to do it over today, I would have expressed myself
with a little more tact.
>Anyway, as I said before I could have handled it a lot better and
>apologize to the group. I will try very hard in the future to take
>any further issues I may have with the moderator off the list, so as
>not to bring down the tone.
I prefer to be criticized in public and have things out in the open so
I can get reality checks other than from the person I am having the
disagreement with. But any way is fine with me as long as the lines of
communication can remain open.
>If I may come back under these considerations I would love to do so.
OK, but only if you promise to behave and give a public apology for
your deviant, vegan sympathies. ;-)
>Pat (are you still on the list?),
Last I checked she was no longer on the list. She and I recently had a
difference of opinion regarding my style of moderation which continued
off the list. We kind of patched things up by agreeing to disagree but
unfortunately I could not talk her into returning to the list. I can
only regret that I did not make my decision to start moderating lighter
a little earlier....
>Peter,
>You said Dr. Klaper was undoubtedly a nice guy before he was a vegan.
>Sure, nobody suggested the vegan diet turned him into a nice guy. But
>would you also then say that the not-so-nice vegans were not-so-nice
>before they were vegans? As opposed to being mentally unbalanced as a
>result of dietary deficiency?
Of course. What I meant to say was that if somebody is already mentally
imbalanced, nutritional deficiencies are bound to aggravate that
condition.
Vegans I have a lot respect for are Michael Klaper, Gary Null and Lee
Hitchcox for their willingness to take veganism to its limits - in the
case of Lee even a little further by his recommending the diet to
consist of 1% of animal foods.
>Different subject: Have you yourself tried the Celtic salt?
I have some but do not eat it as often as I would like to.
>I*m wondering if it tastes sort of like unrinsed dulse?
Not really, the taste is too salty for that.
> I tried dulse out of the bag, and the briny taste put me off. But
>when I rinse the stuff, it doesn*t seem to have any taste at all. So
>I have this idea in my head that dulse -(minus) rinsed dulse 3D salt
>in the nature of Celtic salt. I would love it if this is not the
>case. There are still some things I*ve just gotta salt and I*d like
>to have a way to make this healthful.
If I understand you correctly you are asking if un-washed dulse is as
nutritious as Celtic salt. My guess is yes, but I do not really know.
>And yet another subject: I'm really bummed to have missed Bill
>Mollison's talk here in SB. I got to that place in the archives about
>a week too late. Did he ideate on how the fall of the Western World
>would come about?
He was not very specific. He did mention the loss of top soil being at
a critical stage and was pointing out how the escalating breakdown of
the ecosystems will lead to economic & political collapse. He made a
strong point about how we by systematically using up energy/resources
many times faster than we are replacing them are reaching the limits of
mother nature and that only a truly sustainable lifestyle can restore
the ecosystems of the planet.
Tom,
>> What is so interesting is that those displaying hostility were
>> supposedly defending "compassionate" veganism! (Sarcastic note: is
>> hostility a form of vegan "compassion"?)
Martha:
>No, hostility is a form of human nature. Let me ask you this: would
>you display hostility if you saw somebody beating a defenseless baby?
>It*s just that the vegans don*t greatly differentiate between this and
>killing for meat, since they don*t believe that meat is a necessary
>food for humans (very broad generalization, granted--people have
>different reasons for being vegan).
Comparing eating meat - not the cruelty with which many animals are
raised - to beating a defenseless baby is plain outrageous to me. This
kind of righteous shaming and laying on guilt I consider a form of
verbal violence & personal bashing that has no place in a respectful
dialogue among equals. Unless of course it is made clear that this is
how they personally have come to *feel* and/or is not the way it
necessarily *is*, but with the seemingly inability of many vegans to
have any kind of objective perspective on themselves and their own
opinions, they have with this kind of behavior IMO pretty much defined
themselves as zealots.
> All that aside, I don*t agree with you because, with the exception of
>Rene Beresford, all the ruckus *sprouted* from NFL, who were more
>often arguing about health issues (or more specifically non-health of
>cooked food issues).
No, NFL just sped up the process by bringing up conflicts to the
surface that were already there and for that I think they have served a
good purpose.
> Bob Avery & Ric Lambert were defending NFL*s right to have their own
>abrasive style.
It was not defending NFL as such that got them into trouble as behavior
- not opinions - is what is moderated on this list. It was their
consistent pattern of evasiveness and lack of willingness to back up
the often most basic of their statements/opinions and to avoid
answering specific questions on certain core issues of which NFL &
veganism certainly were the most common that were the reasons for them
getting as much heat as they did. Bob's style of refusing to back up or
retract his often outrageous statements - like his infamous advise to a
pregnant woman on the list to go on a long water fast as a remedy for
her morning sickness - is an example of this, and as you will recall he
and Doug S. were kicked off the calorie restriction list for similar
reasons. For the record of the two only Bob was suspended - Ric left on
his own accord, and as for Ric nobody captured my sentiments about him
as well as Michael Clingman did so brilliantly just after Ric left.
>Did I forget anybody? I mostly objected to the treatment Bob & Ric
>got,
Why you would want to defend Bob Avery & Ric Lambart who with their
slick and slippery styles forever sidestepped the issues shying
accountability like a cat water I do not understand. NFL I had more
regard for in this respect as they were were more likely to call a
spade a spade.
>so I was sort of 3rd generation. Oh yeah, the Colonel. Well now, that
>was just embarrassing. That guy is wigged out.
I was not surprised to read the colonel's post as I had for a while
been expecting some kind reaction from his camp on Zephyr's bout with
trichinosis and however painful, it was a rare opportunity to observe
the inner workings of a true bigot. I see the colonel as an uncensored
version of Bob A. Ric L. & Rene B. - and of NFL of course who for the
sake of publicity have become a little more polished than their mentor.
>BTW Tom, I wasn*t sure if you were including me in your
>characterization or not. Also BTW I*ve
>sometimes seen what appears to be early stages of hostility going on
>among the omnis which is going uncommented-upon.
True. Hostility will always occur on a list from time to time. But more
importantly the lack of intellectual honesty & integrity that
unfortunately so often was the hallmark of many of the vegans who have
posted on this list has not been even close to being matched. On the
contrary the overall quality of postings went up noticeably after the
worst offenders left or were suspended from the list.
> If the early hostility of the vegans had been handled in this way
>(with silence), it probably never would have escalated as it did.
Silence? I "moderated" on Kirt several times in defense of NFL and
recently Denis Peyrat was as close to being suspended as anybody could
get. Rather than beating around the bush I pretty much from the
beginning choose to take on the issues head on, and I am convinced that
had I not done this, the list would have died a spiritual death with
people like myself abandoning ship a long time ago.
>you that*s true in my case. But then again, I*m not a vegan, so who
>can say for sure? :-)
I sincerely doubt it is a coincidence or a flaw in your character that
you have not turned vegan. :-)
>Well, I will soon find out if I will be allowed to stay on the list.
>Until we*re sure, if anyone will respond to the above, will you please
>CC me also so I*ll make sure to see?
No need for that. Again, welcome back!
>I had never considered in my analogy that the beating was for fun.
>More like frustration-gone-haywire or some idea that it's the right
>thing to do (to discipline a child). Since, IMHO, there is no
>legitimate reason to hit an infant, I stand by the analogy because,
>according to veg.-theory, meat is neither necessary nor even
>beneficial for humans; therefore 'for food' is not a legitimate reason
>to kill an innocent animal. Whether or not you agree with this
>veg.-theory, I still say that for many vegans this would be
>a valid analogy.
I am sure every theory seems valid to its supporters. The question is
how far can they defend & justify their theories before they have gone
too far? If the existance of such limits is not recognized - I doubt
that NFL feel that the colonel went too far with his recent post - then
what we have is a philosophy that justifies its means by its own ends
only. So the question is if NFL-type vegans have not gone too far who
has? Only people openly loony like the colonel? Because most vegans
stick their head in the sand when it comes to taking a serious look at
questions like this, it does not make them magically go away or make
them less relevant. On the contrary when ignored they take on a life of
their own, and if the vegans in question want to be taken seriously by
others than just their closest supporters, it is time for them to stop
pretending these issues do not exist and quit shooting the messenger
just because they feel threatened by the message especially if their
agenda is as true and pure as they claim.
Regarding those who compare eating meat to beating a baby, I do not see
how can they compare the senseless and brutal act of inflicting a
defenseless infant being physical harm and emotional trauma that could
cause it a life time of pain & suffering with eating foods most peoples
throughout the planet since the dawn of mankind have cherished highly
and that in the opinion of most scholars through the millions of years
of evolutionary adaptation of our ancestors have become essential for
the fullfillment of our nutritional needs that deeply imprinted into
our genetic make-up as biological instincts do not change because some
people in seeking for an identity in their life or out of concern for
the future of the planet find vegan ideas attractive and decide or feel
that killing animals for food is nutritionally unnecessary and/or just
plain cruel and a waste of resources. There is no comparison between
taking out ones frustrations on a defenseless baby (= torturing it) and
killing for survival (food, no matter what kind is for survival and
even though most people would be able to survive on a vegan diet, the
question remains at what price? Even Michael Klaper has recently
admitted that some people do not do well without some animal foods in
their diet.) which is usually a swift and painless process. Is an owl
cruel for catching and eating a mouse? Were the American Indians cruel
for killing & eating the buffalo or the Eskimos for catching & eating
fish? I think not. Besides this line of argumentation is not very
constructive as it puts the meat-eater on the defensive from the
get-go. If going vegan is supposed to make one a more compassonate &
peaceful human being bringing up metaphors of babies being beating is
sure an odd way of showing it.
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|
