Hi Kirt,

>Seem like apples and oranges to me, Jo. NFL, etc is not national ancestry,
>but present ideology--folks who claim to speak for rawists. While there is
>no need to feel personal shame for being raw, NFL, etc bring shame to the
>label rawist, and that may or may not be of concern to you.

Yeah, I got kinda carried away there and yet I don't have concerns about
NFL doing their thing either. If a fellow Hendrix fan figures any guitarist
after Jimi just doesn't cut it, then that's his trip. I'll still tell
people I'm a Hendrix groupie and I couldn't care less about the guy who
can't get beyond 1970.

Hi Liza,

><< Role models tell me that they have gained enough awareness to get THEIR
> shit together. The responsibility still falls on me to get mine in order. >>

>I think that that is precisely the problem. They may not be being entirely
>honest with you. ... But the effect of their claims about having their act
>together is to
>put the onus and inadequacy back on you, make you feel like its your problem
>that you can't stick to the diet.

Naw, I'm doing well on the raw diet and also I'm monitoring myself ever so
carefully! If I feel I need to have animal products (or cooked starches,
etc), I'll respect that and there's not going to be a guilt trip about
inadequacy unless I accept that thought poison and bring it into my realm.

>I think maybe what Tom meant is that
>reasonable people do not want to be associated with idiots, and lying
>plagarizing idiots at that!!

Idiots do offer comic relief but plagarism is TOTALLY uncool, I agree. I
mean, it takes me such a bloody long time to write anything!

>Jo, ...... "judged'" as dishonest? It sounds like you maybe haven't looked at
>the various transcripts which they actually copied word for word; ....
>Have you seen
>these that I am referring to? Or maybe I am misinterpreting the tone of your
>sentence above? (I hope ;-))

Could it be that I've lost my aggressiveness due in part to nixing animal
products? ;)  Seriously, NFL's response to the plagarisms lacks integrity,
and for me, that's where it all begins. Karma. Let it go; or maybe someone
can whip an anti-NFL website.

Hi Tom,

>>Role models tell me that they have gained enough awareness to get THEIR
>>shit together. The responsibility still falls on me to get mine in order.
>
>But how do you know that they have their act together? Maybe they are fakes?
>I can tell you that I know many who claim to be strict vegan fruitarian
>role models. However, none are credible! I do know a few who are NON-strict
>and/or NON-vegan, who appear to be (may be) credible.

These role models can tell me whatever they want and for me that only
represents descriptions of their experience. Whether they be fakes or not
doesn't enter the picture because I'm not willing to lie to myself. This is
my only protection and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that I won't be
yielding my free will to anyone waving a book (though I would've enjoyed
watching Dr. Shelton hammer the podium with his fist).

>Viktoras was bulimic for years before he made the information public.
>Johnny Lovewisdom failed at vegan fruitarianism, and had to eat yogurt
>(nothing wrong with that - it illustrates that vegan fruitarianism does
>not work long-term, even for the experts. T.C. Fry died of heart
>disease - hard to explain if fruit is the ideal food, easy to explain
>if you know that sugar, in excess, deranges your lipid balance and
>increases cholesterol. Herbert Shelton, the "health science" promoter,
>died after having Parkinson's disease for 10 years or so.

The luminaries cited may represent the tip of the iceberg. On the other
hand, is there a possibility that there exists a population of successful
adherents who live in isolation (they don't attend health expos and
conferences and nor communicate through mainstream media, etc) and we don't
know about them so we focus attention on spectacular failures for the most
part? Curious, though, with Bob Avery's M2M, it seems more submissions
relate to problems with Natural Hygiene rather than successes. Can other
list members confirm this? (I don't subscribe)

>Besides the above, we are treated to the public spectacle of plagiarists -
>known liars, and also other fanatics promoting crank science like "protein
>is poison", "fruit is like Mother's milk", and so on. Hard to take raw
>seriously when the fanatics are so dishonest/bizarre.

It's best to parry banal assertions like the above.

Love and Light,
Jo