I sent this a couple days ago and it apparently didn't go through, so
I'm trying it again...

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.

First thing I want to say to the group is that I am both regretful and
embarrassed by the abuse I made of the list in my parting remarks.  In
retrospect, I can think of much, much better ways I could have handled
the situation.  In my defense I can only say that I was going through a
lot of personal Stuff during that period and was pretty depressed in
general.

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.  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.  However, as I've
pondered the issue, I've decided it*s pretty cool to have .49-at-best
brain.  Assuming the missing .51+ is mostly neo-cortex, doesn*t that
mean I could be a most excellent instincta?    :-)

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.

If I may come back under these considerations I would love to do so.  I
expect to lurk, mostly, as I feel pretty outstripped by the expertise of
the current group.  So why rejoin instead of just continuing with the
daily archives?  Because I*m finding myself wanting to ask questions and
get clarification on some of the interesting things said.

to wit:

Pat (are you still on the list?),
I was a little confused when it appeared you were lumping phytoestrogens
in with synthetic chemicals which mimic hormones, in saying that these
are all dangerous, early in your discussion of such things.  I have
heard some folks claim that phytohormones were desirable things.  This
was a long time ago and I can=27t remember the reasons given, but I
wonder what you would say on the other side of the issue.
Different subject:  genetic manipulation.  You seem to be generally
against genetic manipulation yet in one post you said something like:
*we can live 100 years and in the future with genetic manipulation maybe
150, without any pro-or-con comments.  Are you in favor of genetic
manipulation for longevity?  I think increasing human lifespan would be
a negative in terms of overpopulation and planet-ravage (because more
generations would be alive and kicking at once), unless it were
accompanied by increasing enlightenment and decreasing commercialism?
But of course, we*d all like it for ourselves, eh?   :-)

Ellie,
Thanks for bringing up the fact that acquired characteristics being
inheritable does not square with what you learned about genetics.  It
also doesn*t square with what I learned in high school biology, unless
our understanding has changed a lot since then, which is certainly
possible.  That was a lo-o-ong time ago!  I don*t seem to remember there
being closure on that issue.  Did you get an answer that satisfied you?

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?
Different subject:  Have you yourself tried the Celtic salt?  I*m
wondering if it tastes sort of like unrinsed dulse?  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 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.
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?

Kirt,
Curious about something:  You*ve mentioned a few times about chimp kids
begging for meat from the grown-ups.  I*ve never seen this film.  Did
the parents give them some?  I was thinking that, 1) after all, chimps
have psyches too, and any parent knows that something the parents are
having but withholding from the kids becomes *very* desired by the kids;
and 2) (wild theory) it*s just possible that by withholding meat from
these developing little ones they have improved their survival in some
way.  Anyway, I don*t expect you to agree with me, but it*s fun to
think about (for me, the grasper-at-straws, anyway  :-)   ).
See how liberating it is to have <.5 brain?  You aren't burdened with
having to try to make your theories sound smar.t

Tom,
> What is so interesting is that those displaying hostility were
> supposedly defending "compassionate" veganism! (Sarcastic note: is
> hostility a form of vegan "compassion"?)
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).  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).  Bob Avery & Ric
Lambart were defending NFL*s right to have their own abrasive style.
Did I forget anybody?  I mostly objected to the treatment Bob & Ric got,
so I was sort of 3rd generation. Oh yeah, the Colonel.  Well now, that
was just embarrassing.  That guy is wigged out.  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.  If the early hostility
of the vegans had been handled in this way (with silence), it probably
never would have escalated as it did.  I can assure you that*s true in
my case.  But then again, I*m not a vegan, so who can say for sure?
:-)

Ellie again,
With respect to the above, would the suppression of hostility have the
same toxic effects on the limbic system as the repression?  Am I right
in thinking suppress and repress are two different things?

Jean-Louis,
I really like all your contributions. I especially liked your X & Y
story, and think that Karl (or was it Stefan?) missed the point when he
came down on it.  You were just owning up to the fact that some
Instinctos can be obsessive and pig-headed, just the same as some NHers
or any other, right?

Zephyr,
What do you consider the two excellent NFSs in Santa Barbara?  Lazy
Acres & Follow Your Heart?

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 it?

Thanks everybody
Ciao

Martha
[log in to unmask]