Amadeus writes:

[I think the most unpaleo property of modern meat is
>the EFA-deficit of it's fat. This is described on page
>225 of your book "Fats that kill...".]

Peter Brant writes:

[EFA needs are easily covered from other foods or through
supplementation.  So that is a poor reason not
to eat meat.]

Geez, how about the reason being personal choice
and awareness of one's own body?  Does that count?

[Granted, most of us do not eat enough organ meats.
But regardless, the highest quality plant food can never
make up for the poorest quality animal food.  So,
deprive yourself no longer - eat your meats.]

I'd say that a few people here could benefit from less pitta foods.
The rude aggression exhibited by just a few is uncalled for.
I think the majority here would not agree with you when you say that
Amadeus obfuscates.  As Todd pointed out, misunderstandings,
misinterpretations, and misquotes seem to abound when it comes to
this discussion.  Why should Amadeus speak?  Those who challenge
do so with such aggression one would think their manhood was at stake.
No one here argues about the merits of carnivorous vs. omnivorous anymore.
Instead, they share thoughts, research, ideas, dilemmas.  By reacting so
strongly to
someone whose beliefs are different, one can miss the good a person has to
offer.

If you think you've found the answer to everyone's food needs and it looks
just like
your diet, you've yet to discover the true nature of nutrition.

Siobhan