Thanks to Kirt for his interesting and thoughtful post. It brought
a few points to mind that I thought I would share with the list.

Nieft / Secola <[log in to unmask]>
>Looking back, it was surely the online experience which had the
>greatest effect on my thinking. This effect was basically twofold: 1]
>watching and interacting with extremists whose own sense of absurdity makes
>me try to avoid their pitfalls at all costs, and 2] watching and
>interacting with folks like Ward, Tom, Peter, JL, and others whose own
>sense of integrity makes me try to live up to that standard.

Thanks for the mention. I think your effort in helping debunk the extremists
has been very important. It was the combination of the scientific evidence
documented by Ward, and your reason and integrity in the great debate
with NFL (a debate that NFL lost in every way imaginable) that helped open
my eyes to the reality that humans are natural omnivores. I'm still a
veggie, but I no longer cling to the "false naturalism" promoted by raw/vegan
extremists, and I have lost (or hope I have lost) the false self-righteous
attitude so common among the vegan "elite".

Internet, and this list in particular,  have helped me grow in many ways.
I now see that raw vegan dogma is just that - narrow, idealistic, and a bit
dogmatic at times. Common sense tells one that health is more important than
dogmatism amd idealism, yet this simple lesson is lost on the extremists
and their supporters.

Many years ago, when I was a fruitarian, I was almost as bad as today's
extremists (but I had much better manners and was much less hostile).
The extremists probably won't change - they will be frauds right up to
the end like TC Fry. But their supporters can and will change. Growth is
inevitable, and the extremists refuse to grow. That, and their total
dishonesty and hostility, means that they are, and will continue to be,
nothing more than the lunatic fringe of the raw movement. They will make
noise and pretend to be important, but they can't fool very many people.

Kirt:
>Ward's H&B interview, especially Part III, had a great impact on me. He had
>crystalized what until that point had been a lot of free-floating confusion
>about the weird psychology of rawists (including myself). Indeed, I went

Tom:
There is a lot of weirdness in the raw movement, that is for sure.
The weirdness limits the growth of the movement, as others see the movement
(with some justification) as food faddism or a "raw fetish".

Kirt:
>I suppose that is true, yet I am mostly struck by how certain folks will
>cling to the extremists, defend them, etc. in the face of _any_
>information. Blatent plagerism, pedophilia, lying, bullying--sometimes it
>seems the only thing left unreported is raw skinheads and/or raw mass
>murderers.

Tom:
I agree that there are a lot of rawists who ignore the abuses, hostility,
plagiarism, and intellectual dishonesty of the extremists. But the SF-LiFE
Expo last year gave me reason for hope. The overwhelming majority of people
interested in raw are moderate, sensible people who are somewhat turned off
by the extremists. The extremists make noise, they make converts, but they
lose converts as fast as they make them. This is natural, as the extremists
don't change, and their followers quickly outgrow them (or discover their
"diet gurus" are lying frauds - something that is common in the raw
movement).

Kirt:
>I have learned that a raw diet is no surity of mental health,
>that if some 100% raw folks can do the Tony Robbins infomercial bit, if
>some rawists can be so completely emaciated, if some can be so belittling
>of their fellow humans (whether cooked, omnivorous, whatever), some so
>gawdamn spacey--well...what's left of such an ideology (rawism) if it can
>enable such behavior.
>
>In a sense, the extremists stole my ideology from me. I truly thought at
>one time that a raw diet would mellow folks out! I was guilty of the

Tom:
I have brought up the mental health issue a number of times, and been
criticized and attacked (on an e-mail forum whose moderator promotes crank
science, and other lists). The reality is there, and it is plain to see:
the extremists are very mentally UNhealthy - obsessions with dietary
purity, cooked food, protein, mucus, fat, etc. Their behavior confirms
their sad state of mental UNbalance.

I too, see that the extremists have stolen my former ideology. However,
the result is that I now accept the world as it is, and don't think that
the world MUST conform to my views. Where do the extremists get the ego to
think that they understand nature perfectly, and the world simply MUST
conform to their narrow, foolish dogma? It's just delusion on their part.

As for 100% raw, certain extremists are working hard to make that the
basis of a cult. But 100% raw diets don't work in the long run for most
people, and so 100% raw is a poor choice of basis for a cult. The extremists
don't have sense enough to see this (or perhaps their brains are clouded
with all the fruit sugar they eat every day).

Again, thanks to Kirt for an excellent post! Additional thoughts on this
topic are welcome.

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]