"Thomas E. Billings" wrote:
> A cooked food consumer who teaches that other groups of people are
> "mutants" or "inferior", is a bigot. A fruitarian/raw foods advocate who
> teaches that cooked food consumers are mutants or inferior, is "passionate".
I love humor, but sometimes have to admit I 'don't get it.' The second sentence
of this paragraph I got as a spoof. The first is puzzling because it's so
obviously true---the cooked consumer would quality as a bigot in anyone's book.
Help me out, here.
> A cooked food scientist who claims that "fruit is just like Mother's
> milk", "humans evolved as strict fruitarians" would be considered
> a lunatic or a crackpot. A raw fooder who promotes the same, will
> likely consider himself/herself a "scientific genius".
Why would a fringe group dispute *anybody* who said "fruit is just like..." or
"humans evolved as..."? Isn't that their so-called party line?
I hate to be dense, but I really can't figure these two instances out. OTOH, if
this post, and the one before, are private humor, because of a private agenda,
why not send them privately? Obviously, the preceding post is so blatantly
pro-cook propaganda that it might cause an unwary new reader to think that such
as Pottenger's Cats thrived on cooked food, rather than dying out.