Tom Billings:
>What I am talking about is
>emphasizing individual health over diet/dietary dogma; that is - promoting
>a diet, while admitting that no diet is perfect, so it might be great
>for you, but maybe not. .....; it might work for
>you - try and see, if you think appropriate. It it's not for you, there
>are other tools around to try. This may sound wishy-washy to some, but
>it does something important - puts the individual in charge, emphasizes
>personal health and choice, and respects other approaches. In contrast,
>the fanatics make 100% raw, and what is on their lunch plate, into a
>dictatorial god that they worship.

Individual choice is critical and yet how many of us have sufficient
self-trust to stick by our decisions, especially on major issues such as
our diet? Instead we flit about with the mass consciousness (even the
health food mass thinking) like weather vanes when the next charismatic
orator / writer / fad comes along the scene. Personal choice requires
awareness, not just about human nutrition (albeit it helps tremendously to
be relatively informed), but about self. Maybe we can promote that and let
the chips fall where they may from that foundation.

>Tom:
>Yes - I emphasize short-term as it works that way, while the long-term
>is quite problematic. I'm simply trying to acknowledge reality. It can be
>made to work long-term for some, but the on/off the diet pattern is more
>common than strict adherence in the long-term. Basically, everyone cheats
>(on the diet) in the long run - might as well admit it. Better to be honest
>than to be a slogan quoting, binge-eating hypocrite like some raw "role
>models" I know of.

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
acknowledge a certain level of commonality but beyond that, it's my ball
game. If there are others who can't seem to stick to raw for the long-term,
it has no bearing on my potential. I can only be truly honest to myself and
hope success for everyone else.

Tom:
>100% raw can be, when used correctly, a powerful healing tool. It is too
>good a tool to abandon it to the fanatics. I would like to see it promoted
>in an honest way - then more mainstream folks will try it, as a short
>term healing tool. Instead, 100% raw is used as the basis of a fanatical cult
>by dishonest plagiarists and crank science promoters. Some rawists are
>actually ashamed to admit they are 100% raw, because of the antics of the
>fantics/crank science promoters.

Yep, I'd like to see more mainstream people have a whack at raw as well.
Patience, persistence and compassion will go far further than dishonesty
and brash superficiality. Being raw doesn't bring me any shame just because
there are promoters / plagarists in the community who have been judged as
dishonest. I mean, if I had to live my life internalizing blame for every
brutal event in Japan's long colonial history, I'd be a walking puss ball
(actually I did exactly that for two years in Korea - not a lot of fun, let
me tell ya!). Better I inform myself so that I can understand how others
may perceive and respond to my racial background and let it go at that.

Tom:
>Also, some hygienists (a very small
>minority) fall into the trap of worshipping Herbert Shelton, which is
>almost as bad as the"cult of 100% raw" of the fanatics.

Croak...guilty as charged, with the conditional that I do really admire Dr.
Shelton's brilliance, writing style and unrepetent voice. He took a stand
and let his readers know where he stood moment to moment.

Have a nice weekend everyone,
Jo