Hello, I posted the following to JR's Raw List in response to
Nazariah's comments on NFL's plagiarism. You may have to wade thru
the spiritual / metaphysical overtones but I thought it might be of
interest to list members.

Nazariah wrote:
[ Though I am too busy to participate on this board on a regular
basis, I
[ was told by a friend who does participate that I was recently
criticized
[ having written a positive book review of David Wolf's new book
"Sunfood
[ for Diet". The argument was that the Natures First Law guys
plagiarized
[ some material in one of their earlier books. Well, in regard to the
[ alleged plagiarism, I have heard so many completely different
versions
[ of that story as to make one thing very clear: a lot of people must
have
[ the facts wrong. The version that my closest friends have told me is
[ this: One of the Natures First Law guys, not David Wolf, had a
[ grandfather who years before had written a book on raw foods. He
supplied
[ David with some material from that book without telling him the
source.
[ Thus, if that version is accurate, it was no plagiarism by David.

Jo offers:
If we disregard the storied history (which is irrelevant to the
issue) and examine what is in print (and continues to be sold for
profit), then I believe a more accurate assessment is possible. If
time is too pressing, or if it's too inconvenient to secure copies of
Arshavir Ter Hovanessian's "Raw Food Eating" and NFL's "Nature's
First Law" for a side by side comparison, then it might be worthwhile
to peruse the Raw Food Support List's archives and plug "plagiarism"
into the subject field of the search engine:

http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=raw-food

The most pertinent hit will be entitled "More Plagiarism From NFL"
(98/02/05). I believe it was cross-posted to this list as well. It
compares several example paragraphs from both books. A follow up
message "Re: More Plagiarism From NFL (colorless)" (98/02/27)
continues the blow by blow comparison.

Anyone concerned about integrity and ethical business practices
related to the raw community can investigate the documentation and
then follow his or her conscience.

Nazariah:
[ 5) If instead of criticize him (or anyone else),  the gossip mongers
[ were to implement the profound wisdom in "The Sunfood Diet" in their
[ own life, they would experience an elevation in their consciousness
[ and no longer be hanging out in the cosmic sewer system which is the
[ gossip mill.

Jo asks:
Is higher consciousness only within the realm of raw veganism /
fruitarianism / Christianity? Or are these schools of thought just a
few of the many pathways of the Human Spirit?

Closer to the heart, does an intimate relationship with my Higher
Self hinge upon adopting a diet as promulgated by Shelton, Szekeley,
Ehret, Fry, Burger, Honnibal, etc? If not, what are the possible
pitfalls of creating an identity based on one of these systems ("I am
a natural hygienist  / raw foodist / fruitarian / instincto / etc")?

Is it possible to embrace, up front and foremost, the inherent
elements such as self-love and compassion; express my potential with
integrity; and oh, by the way, choose to eat raw foods or explore my
spirituality through religion / parenting / art / athletics /
corporate endeavors / etc?

Nazariah comments:
[ Since I was told that on this list not only myself but also my
[ fellow Essene ministers  Gabriel Cousens and Viktoras Kulvinskas
[ were also  blasted for endorsing David's new book, I can only say:
[ I am sure happy  to be included in the company of Viktoras, Gabriel,
[ and David Wolf! Those three brothers are right at the top of the
[ list of spreading raw food vegetarianism all over this planet. More
[ than that, they are all three great people, deeply spiritual, and
[ my dear friends. And guess what? If any of them ever do make
mistakes,
[ I will talk to them in private about it and forgive them. I have
made
[ plenty of mistakes in my own life and I bet the gossip mongers have
[ as well. The main difference between Gabriel, Viktoras, David Wolf,
[ and the gossip mongers is this: the gossip mongers have as many --
[ or more -- sins but far less actual record of good works.

Jo smiles and sez:
This simplistic scorecard of sins versus good deeds seems to
obliquely parallel the fear-mongering underlying the political
concept of heaven and hell. Your Humble Narrator will have none of it.

I mean, holy cow, is there ANY value (or clarity) in attributing, to
these "gossip mongers," an equal or greater number of sins
perpetrated by members of the raw vegan leadership? Could we not do
better without these types of vacuous generalizations? Are there more
creative ways to draw people together? Additionally, who in the heck
determines what belongs in the category of "good works?"

These luminaries have chosen to disseminate the virtues of a raw
diet; attained relative standing in their fields; published articles
and books; succeeded financially. This is groovy. They're doing their
thing and I applaud their efforts (IF they don't deceive or hurt
others, obviously).

But can I say that a person who lives with joy; relates to this world
from the heart; makes truth her utmost priority; is less of a child
of God because she's chosen to embrace something other than the raw
vegan gospel? I mean, on what basis do I suppose that these gurus
lead more exemplary lives than the guys and gals who are simply
making every moment count in their own individual ways?

In "spreading raw food vegetarianism all over this planet," should
the participants at any time dismiss integrity? credibility?
humility? Does this "holy crusade" justify hostility, arrogance and
deceit? Aren't we better served by openness and brotherhood, rather
than a fear-based need to control others?

Jah, I think I'm due for a cruise over to the Asian supermarket for a
couple of young coconuts. WooHoo!