Copyright 1998 by Thomas E. Billings, all rights reserved. great post, Jean-Louis! On a related note I would add: 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". A cooked food consumer who engages in plagiarism or threatens others with physical harm, would be considered to be a criminal. A fruitarian/raw foods advocate who does the same, is "passionate" and "the ends justify the means". 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". If a cooked fooder suggested that the brains of raw fooders had degenerated, raw fooders would angrily demand proof. If a raw fooder suggests that the brains of cooked food scientists are damaged, it is considered "self-evident" or "fair game" (especially when conventional science contradicts raw dogma). Perhaps others have additional analogies? If so, you might consider posting them. Tom Billings