Thomas E. Billings <[log in to unmask]>:
>You miss the point - those obsessed with 100% raw, after achieving it,
>then switch their obsession, say, to the quality of the food: how it was
>raised, processed, shipped, how old it is, etc. I do like your point re:
>excellence, rather than perfection.  If one defines 100% raw as perfection,
>then achieves it, it can unbalance the ego for some folks. Of course, one
>can go 100% raw and not be obsessed or unbalanced by it.

Tom:
I'm following up my own post to mention that the wording, "You miss the point"
is probably not appropriate. I probably didn't make my original point
clearly enough. Thanks to Bob and all those who posted comments on my
"myths" article (and other posts...)

(I was originally nervous about the "myths" article: I expected a more
negative response.  I'm pleased that the feedback was so positive. In Spring
1996, I posted an article on the old veg-raw, that criticized some common
beliefs of rawism, and I was attacked on the list, and by private e-mail for it!
The raw world is indeed starting to grow up, to open up, and to re-examine
the old beliefs.  I'm also gratified that many people in SF are supportive
of my efforts to inject sanity and honesty ito rawism. The times, they
are-a-changing, as the saying goes...)

On a separate point: some folks on this list are 100% raw. No one should take
offense when I question the mental health of 100% raw folks; I am not
trying to criticize you. I am merely stating my evaluation of the status
of some people I have met.

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]