Thanks, JL, for your typing and translation. I had only heard of (never met
or read) Andre Paillet and it is instructive to see what he believes...

>(Kirt) Oh come on, if we could chuck away our cerebrum and rely on pure
>"instinct" in food selection on a continuing basis, you wouldn't have to
>make all these
>excuses-- excuses which, to me, simply say that instincto is probably not
>the best, the only, or the most practical paleo-diet around.
>
>(A.P.) Instinct does exist, animals use it and it works great for them.
>For instinctos, it also seems to work. Instinct has been ruling animals
>for billions of years. Eat as
>you wish Kirt but explain to us how wild animals, who are not aware of the
>benefits of any other method, should eat.

Except that we are not wild animals. We are the most domesticated animal on
earth methinks. "Instinct" may exist and may have ruled animal food
selection for billions of years. But none of that means that instincto is
the perfect alimentation for humans after varying generations of
horticulture, agriculture, and food processing in all its forms. Or after
decades of individual "mis-nutrition". Or after thousands of years of
artificial selection of plants and animals. All the intellectual
modifications of instincto are "proof" that we can not rely on instinct to
be our best guide in what's for lunch.

>2a] the effects of eating "too much" fruit
>
>(A.P.) Experience shows that we should eat fruits at noon and not more
>then 3 varieties.

Is this the method wild animals use? ;)

>2b] the effects of eating "too much" meat
>
>(A.P.) Since Mrs. Burger's cancer, we are more careful. We only eat meat
>when it smells and tastes very good.

Is this the method wild animals use? ;)

>2d] the effects of eating "too few" vegetables
>
>(A.P.) Buger has been saying for many years that we have to force
>ourselves to eat vegetables to the point of bad taste. Since a vegetable
>looses its taste in the
>cooking process, most varieties of vegetables we now find have been
>selected for their strong taste, so they still taste something after being
>processed by cooking.
>In reverse, they taste too strong for raw eating. So we have to force
>ourselves a bit in order to eat the necessary amount. (Complex
>explanation, but experience
>shows good results in so doing.)

Is this the method that wild animals use? ;) (In my experience wild plants
are usually _much_ stronger and "harder to eat" than our garden veggies.
How does this fit into your theory?)

That these modifications of "instinct" are needed shows me more than that
our food supply has changed since our pre-fire days. It shows me that
humans have changed as well. Instinctos can't have it both ways IMO. They
can't say instinct will lead us to perfect health and then make up a bunch
of rules on how to "follow your pleasure".

>4] What practical effect the pursuance of "perfectly pure" foods has on
>the psyche
>of an instincto.
>
>(J.L.) It certainly depends on the individual himself but I'm not sure
>about the
>real meaning of your question, could you rephrase it?
>
>(A.P.) People are more calm, serene. Instincto also shows that nature is
>well made
>which opens the door to all sorts of philosophical considerations.
>Instincto would
>also favor a better, more sensible perception, to the point of perceiving some
>paranormal phenomenons (transmission of thoughts, visions,...)

Ha! I was referring to the anal-compulsive tendency of most instinctos (me
and every instincto I came across) to perseverate on food quality to a more
or less un-useful degree. I did not make this meaning clear and will try to
transmit my thoughts more paranormally next time, perhaps as a vision or a
visionary ;)

Nevertheless, many non-instinctos claim they are calm, serene, have all
sorts of philosophical considerations, have a more sensable perception, and
perceive paranormal phenomenons. Regardless of nature being well made as
proven by instincto. =:O ;)

>Moreover, he gave Metasexuality courses that lasted 5 weeks (8 hours /day) (1
>or 2 weeks a year since no one can ingurgitate that much information at
>once). So
>it is impossible to summarize this new conception in three phrases.

Yes, I know. It is so very tricky and intellectual that mere non-instinctos
couldn't begin to fathom it at all. ;) It would indeed hold my attention
for more than three phrases to hear the defense of Burger's psycho-sexual
problems in the form of over-baked philosophical mumbo jumbo which lasts 5
weeks for 8 hours/day.

><Burger> writes that the children who frequented him are not
>disturbed like children that were abused but on the contrary, the
>psychiatrists,
>who examined the children, say they are mentally well structured, better then
>normal.

Of course they are. Why else would Burger "administer them" if they were
structured like normal cooked food eaters ;) Is there anything Burger says
or writes that isn't taken as biblical scripture! Children deserve
childhoods without Burger's genitals and the meta course can last ten years
and still not change that simple fact.

>Burger is actually in prison under the charges of suspicion of relations
>with minors. It seems that there are very few testimonies against him.

And I'm sure his prison time will make him the True Martyr in many eyes,
no? Oh the horrible society that crushed Burger's forward thinking
"nurturing" of children who "frequented him" and put the genius behind
bars. Yeah, I'm humming the score in my mind right now. ;)

>Metasexuality theory is currently being scrutinized by an expert.

An expert in what? Cults?

>Following this,
>there will be a trial. Lets wait for the outcome...

OK. The results will tell us what the court thinks. I tell you what I think.

>The Oedipus complex would be the period
>where children put in place the mechanisms of energy transmission, it
>would then
>be necessary and fundamental to ANSWER there request. This can only be
>done by an
>adult that is not subjected to endogenous excitation caused by a bad way
>of life
>(specially denatured food stuff).

LOL! and CIMC (Crying In My Coconut) It seems very probable that Burger has
had an abusive childhood himself, but as long as he eats undenatured food
then he is fit to have sex with children and show them the mechanisms of
energy transmission!!! What do you possibly think the "expert" is going to
say? Yikes!!

>The point being to answer the child's need for
>love, not the satisfaction of the adult's own desires, hard to explain.

Oh, I think most people get the drift right off. ;) Trouble is that it sure
looks like it is Burger's symbolic desires, NOT any child's needs that are
being served. It's all very complicated pyschology kind of stuff, hard to
explain.

>(A.P.) It seems that compared to cooked birth, the average raw women gives
>birth
>more easily.

Many women eating a variety of ways give easy births. Burger has claimed
that instincto births are painless. That is a great overstatement and that
was my point.

>(A.P.) Instincto children catch the same illnesses as their friends at
>school but
>develop a rough form of the sickness, meaning, without almost any
>symptoms. This
>has been verified over hundreds of cases.

Verified? Great, finally, some verification. Perhaps you can refer us to a
peer-reviewed scientific reference for the statistical details? I thought
not. ;)

More instincto hearsay. What about the non-examples? Pity the instincto
child who actually shows a symptom or two. I suspect that would be
explained away, excused on one or another of the half dozen standard
instincto throw away cards.

I can show you hundreds, thousands--probably even millions if I spent
enough money--of children who develop only rough forms of sickness who eat
all sorts of crap. That doesn't mean anything until one considers the
non-examples, the children who have terrible health problems. I have no
doubt that instincto children are "healthier" (physically) than the averge,
but so probably are all children (on average) who avoid cooked dairy,
grains, and junk food.

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]